The Effect of the French Revolution on the Nature of the State and on Relations between States - Essay Example

?Introduction Defining moments in history have provided a new outlook and a change in different nations. This has led to innovation, ideas and the ability to move forward. At times, these changes begin with revolts and wars that demand change from political and economic components within a country. When looking at the French Revolution, it can be seen as a turning point for the nation of France. Specifically, this pushed France into a sense of modernism and stopped the concepts of nationalism from isolating the region. More important, the international relations and the nature of states began to alter because of the demands in change. The significance of the French Revolution became one that was used to redefine the national relationships that were a part of France. Redefining the French Revolution The French Revolution was caused by a series of events in the political realm that led to revolts and the desire for change. Each of these caused the general public to react with the belief that change needed to occur within France and that the national politics were only offering injustice to those that were within the region. There were several turning points described throughout the revolution, including the Fall of Bastille, massacre at Champ de Mars, fall of the monarchy and the rise of Napoleon. Each of these led to different proclamations and a sense of change that was associated with the revolution. These different components led to a sense of defining one’s position in France as well as how this was associated with those that were loyal to the government as opposed to individuals who held a position that led to revolt (Hunt, 53: 2004). The outcomes and divisions created from the French Revolution began with the precursors that were associated with this time in history. The main component was the political restructuring that was used so collective action could be taken during the revolution. Political structures were able to provide more dynamic opportunities during the revolution and defined the voices that were associated with the social movement. The most important concept with the structures were based on the policies that were divided, specifically which led to a change in relationships because of the division. Policy specific concepts were combined with state variations used during the revolution. This also formed with the policies causing the divisions among groups that were involved in the revolution. As the groups formed in favor or against the policies, it changed the nature of the state and created a different relationship with the overall political dynamics of France. This led to large scale structures that eventually changed the nature of France from the nature of the state and groups involved (Mcadam, McCarthy, Zald, 42: 1996). Defining the Nature of States There were several policies that became the central component of defining the nature of states. As groups began to look through policies and form a change in the states from societal status, were also noted areas of corruption that were pointed out. The main component was the division between those loyal to the French government and those opposed to the actions taken. The policies in place were defined by the monarchs and statesmen of the 17th century who had established a specific set of legalities for actions taken. This was based on the fiscal system and economic mediums that were used. The divisions over how the economics should work were divided by the groups of clergy, nobles and commons, all which debated as estates who were interested in the fiscal policies and justice system of France. These three groups then led to creating independent from the current fiscal system through the component of justice. The group divisions led to the creation of states and a different nature of how the economic concepts should work within France (Burke, 11:2000). The driving force behind the division not only led to a change with fiscal policy. The French Revolution also led to divisions by groups who were outside of the three main estates. These were divided by different types of working class individuals and loyal politicians that were interested in the French system. The division between states further coincided with agrarian – bureaucratic states and divisions that came from the alliances formed either for loyalty to the crown or opposed to this. The struggle then became divided by specific types of groups that held economic status which was either accepted as a higher class or rejected the fiscal policies available. The nature of the states was further divided by social class. However, these determinations were based on the economic status that each held and whether this led to the belief that the system was just or not. Demographic pressures led to the division with agrarian and bureaucratic states and led the reconstruction after the crisis occurred (Goldstone, 162: 1991). The nature of the states was then not only defined through political mediums but became based on cultural and social divisions. The culture was not divided by the ethnicity which was a part of the construction of France during the revolution. Instead, it was based on the intellectual beliefs which were displayed through the fiscal policies established. This was based on the Enlightenment that followed the French Revolution and the new understanding of functionality that was a part of the main causes. Public thought then created the culture that divided France and created direct associations with the policies that were innovated during this time. Most that were divided believed that there was a cause to the fiscal policies and economics. The division occurred with the intellectual beliefs on what caused the effect as a result. When this analysis was put into a different perspective or experience, it created a culture with the groups which either portrayed or opposed the traditions of France. The Revolution then becomes a component of the origins of belief, philosophies that were created and the experiences between classes that created cultural divisions. Eventually this led to the revolution and the changing nature of the states as an outcome (Chartier, 6: 1991). Relations Between States The outcome that occurred from the French Revolution was based on the nature of the state that created the modern ideal of France. The modern state was formed with a new set of organizations and arrangements, specifically which was defined by the enlightenment. The rules that were created, series of roles, body of resources and the interests and purpose of each organization created the main relation between the states. The French Revolution had created a philosophical basis for dividing and creating states. After the revolution, the relationships were formed by the same way of organizing and developing the intellectual commonality for a New France. Constituting a basic organization and combining this with a sense of moving into a new state of social dependency became the main associations created from the way in which the political system began to pivot and change (Poggi, 20: 1990). The outcome was not only based on a changing structure and sense of organization within the political system. The nature of states also altered with the concept of origins. The societal breakthrough was based on breaking the origins in society. The commoners and the nobles of society before this time were divided, specifically which created more divisions with policies until this time. However, the French Revolution demanded that each of the groups begin to change the nature of states from the divisions into a different intellectual philosophy. This was one which united the identity of France and left behind the altering origins of thought that divided each of the groups. The social contract of changing what the concept of true origin meant then became a defining point for the modern era and to create a different understanding of what occurred after the French Revolution (Furet, 3: 1997). International Relations and the French Revolution The different definitions that began to change France economically, socially and politically not only led to a change in the definition of origins and political thought. The outcome that was affected most by the nature of states was with the change in international relations. The state sovereignty after the Napoleonic order became the defining feature of the international system for France. Instead of staying as a nationalist state and remaining fixed in the origins, there was a movement toward becoming modern. This meant that a growth of allies and a change of sovereignty from territories to policies that were determined by society at large were a part of the growth of the nation. In turn, this allowed the state to open as a nation toward international relations and to have a sense of justice in politics both through policy and the fiscal system. The legitimate authority of France was then able to become united, specifically because of the ability to open into international relations (Barkin, Cronin, 107: 1994). The main concept which began to change during this time was based on the altered state of France. The rebellion against the government and the outcome of changing policies and an alternative fiscal system led to a forced alteration in how the states functioned. The reorganization that took place created a change in social structures, state identities, legitimacy principles and the international relations which were created. The nature of the state which was focused on justice and equality of policies as well as the alterations in the economic system were the main components that drove forward the sovereignty. In terms of the neorealist international relations theory, this became more important than material goods that could be supplied. Instead, it created an association with allowing the politics to be balanced and to offer a modernist approach to exchange while keeping the same national identity (Bukovansky, 197: 1999). Another way in which the international relations began to change with the nature of the state was through the question of marginalized identity. Before this time, France was known for creating an understanding of the origins of what it meant to be French and belong to a specific class. However, after this time frame, the society advanced into one which was based on nationalism, as opposed to division of culture. The factors that affected this included de-socialization of labor, disconnecting from regional neighborhoods, changes in macro-economic conditions and territorial fixation. The fixation of territories and the stabilization of the social status allowed those in France to become a part of a popular culture that had the capabilities of working within an international network. The marginalization that occurred was based on fragmented segments of society that became more of a minority voice and which caused for stability in policies, the fiscal system and in the reorganization of politics (Wacquant, 121: 1996). The main approach which was taken with the French Revolution and the new sense of identity which was created afterwards was known to create the framework for international relations. Public preferences as the majority voice, commitments to policy stability and valuing institutions in a different manner were some of the main outcomes of the revolution. The alliances created were no longer divided by social status, but instead provided an open door for free trade between the nations. The breakdown of divisions enhanced the commitments that could be taken. At the same time, the new policies which occurred created a liberal effort that could heighten the international relations while showing that the stability of policies and social status could open doors to create allegiances with other countries. Understanding the public preferences became the main component of driving this forward (Gaubatz, 109: 1996). Another concept which began to change the significance of international relations through France was the noticed alterations in policies that were a part of the country. When this occurred, it opened new provisions for political leaders of other countries to begin transforming the way in which they associated with the country. The most specific way was with the innovations used with international law. The ability to change fiscal policies, trade alternatives and to link this to the philosophies and political systems created more opportunity for developed nations. The changes which France made during this time led to them being one of the leaders with the new laws and policies while allowing the social status and monetary system to have stability and equality. More important, the changing organization of the political structure of France led other nations into an understanding of modern policies and laws. This created a transformation in how others not only dealt with alliances of other nations, but also began to create an emergence of modern policies that were adapted to other countries. The fiscal policies, social systems and changing status of politics was then able to lead the way that other countries used policies, specifically in understanding the modern political system for relations (Armitage, 39: 2002). There were several philosophers that led into the same implications for international relations, specifically which led not only to the changing of systems through France, but also other regions of the world. The philosophical movement which followed the French Revolution, as well as the other regions which coincided with the movement, created a different understanding of what it meant to build a modern society. Leading philosophers, such as Thomas Malthus and Edmund Burke challenged the rights that came from tradition and which created divisions within society and from those who were introduced to political policies. The main approach each took was based on the natives having the right to carry free will over the crown. This was followed by several in Europe, such as Jean Jacques Rosseau and Hamilton introducing the Law of the Nations. These schools of thought coincided with the French Revolution, specifically which aligned with the concept of free will and the ability to build a balanced policy system among the government, despite social status among different individuals. Emanuel Kant followed this in 1795 with the treaty for peace that is still known for establishing a specific set of ideals that are used within society today and which is associated with organization of international relations. The result was harmony, law and the promotion of peace both in France and in other nations who were already looking at the same philosophies (Olson, Groom, 22: 1991). The significance that took place philosophically was not only important to note because of the ideologies created. The French Revolution led the way into other states and international policies changing the approach to political organization. This was no longer based on structures that were a part of the economy and which marginalized social status according to the condition which one held in society. Instead, these philosophies pressured international relations to be based on equal trade and fair policies for affiliations with other countries. More specifically, there was a focus on human rights and just treatment, as opposed to the economic concepts that were associated with policies and politics. The French Revolution and the Enlightenment which took place afterwards led to new rules and concepts that can still be applied with a different framework which shows that economics and policies don’t create stability, but organization and the fair treatment of all social groups is able to provide more opportunity (Sohn, 1: 1982). The overall concept which became associated with international law was to break down the barriers that were associated with politics. In turn, there was a defining point of what it meant to have modern law in the political realm. The social status, economic approach and the main way in which those in society began to grow created a change in definitions for politics. The political motivations and status no longer were able to separate those in society economically or with social divisions. Instead, a sense of equality and fair law was established with France as the example of how this could occur. The Enlightenment was one which defined intellectual, economic, political and social change, specifically which pushed into policies which were able to form various foundations of how international relations could form (Sylvester, 1: 2006). Conclusion The significance of the French Revolution, including the points leading up to the date, policies changed during the war and the Enlightenment which followed, changed the relations to international policies and politics. Each of these moments changed the nature of state from being divided by economics and policies according to social status. These were merged with alterations that were based on changing the way in which many looked at the policies and political affiliations within different nations. The philosophers that were associated with the same justice of politics and human rights were able to use the French Revolution as an example of creating a sense of justice and peace. The re-organization that came after this era then led to a changing nature of the association with politics, relationships between political leaders and the way in which international relations were able to emerge. References Armitage, David. 2002. “The Declaration of Independence and International Law.” The William and Mary Quarterly. 59 (1). Barkin, Samuel, Bruce Cronin. 1994. “The State and the Nation: Changing Norms and the Rules of Sovereignty in International Relations.” International Organization (48). Bukovansky, Mlada. 1999. “The Altered State and the State of Nature: The French Revolution and International Politics.” Review of International Studies 25 (2). Burke, E. 2000. Reflections on the French Revolution. UK: University of Cambridge Press. Chartier, Roger. 1991. The Cultural Origins of the French Revolution. Columbia: Duke University Press. Furet, Francois. 1997. Interpreting the French Revolution. New York: University of Cambridge. Gaubatz, Kurt. 1996. “Democratic States and Commitment in International Relations.” International Organization (50). Goldstone, Jack. 1991. Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World. California: University of California Press. Hunt, Lynn. 2004. Politics, Culture, and Class in the French Revolution. California: University of California Press. Mcadam, Doug, John McCarthy, Mayer Zald. 1996. Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings. UK: Cambridge University Press. Olson, William, AJR Groom. 1991. International Relations Then and Now: Origins and Trends in Interpretation. UK: Harper Collins. Poggi, Gianfranco. 1990. The State: Its Nature, Development, and Prospects. California: Stanford University Press. Sohn, Louis. 1982. “The New International Law: Protection of the Rights of Individuals Rather Than States.” American University Law Review 32 (1). Sylvester, Douglas. 2006. “International Law as Sword or Shield? Early American Foreign Policy and the Law of Nations.” Journal of International Law and Politics 32 (1). Wacquant, Loic. 1996. “The Rise of Advanced Marginality: Notes on its Nature and Implications.” Acta Sociologica 39 (2). Read More