Monopoly over violence - a bridge between Weber and Von Clausewitz

The concept of monopoly over violence has been defined by the German sociologist Max Weber in “Politics as a Vocation” where he defines the state as a “human community that claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” From this derived the concept in political science that the state is the only legitimate actor that has the right to use force (to defend the social order or to protect itself from threats).

The German strategist Carl Von Clausewitz has defined in his writings two other concepts: that war is a form of continuation of politics, and that the different scope and nature of violence can be represented by a trinitarian triangle: the army, the government and the people.

I aim to bridge the concepts and illustrate the relationship between the state and its legitimate use of violence, and how these institutions as instruments of state’s violence (as defined in the Clausewitz’s triangle) are mobilized to impose a political will. In other terms how these different instruments can be legitamely mobilized to wage violence as continuation of politics.

A state will use its legitimate force against other actors in various forms: against another state (warfare by mobilisations of ressources of people, government and army), against a social group (organized crime, terrorists or insurgents), or against its citizens (to maintain public order, or against a minority, a religious group or a political movement perceived as a threat).

We can see also situation where instruments of state oppose each other: the military seizes power from the government, the people rebels against the government, or factions are opposed (civil or religious wars). In this cases, the legitimacy of the actors to use violence will be supported or not by other actors according to their interests and relations with the state.

Some scholars, like Thomas Hobbes, diverge from Max Weber and Clausewitz as they argue that the monopoly of violence by a state is not absolute but relative and can see exceptions for self-defense or to defend fundamental rights of the people. This political view legitimates violence against an oppresive government. Thus we could refer as examples to the Irish insurgency or the self protect right as defined in the United States Constitution.