Abstract
AbstractGeneral questions of name of the state are rarely discussed in the literature of public law, political science or legal theory, its terminology is neglected, and in its current state, it is a source of many misunderstandings. Pointed out these terminological problems this study proposes a theoretical framework for the naming system of states which takes into accounts the public law components of names. Among these components the significance of four factors are emphasized: the form of state (form of government), the structure, or organization of state, the role of seemingly neutral terms (for example, the words “commonwealth” or “state”), and, on the contrary, the role of politically, religiously or ethnically bound terms (such as “democratic”, “people’s”, “Arab” or “Islamic”) in the names of states. After clarifying the difference between the terms country name and state name (state title), this study shows that there are cases when the state name (state title) function as country name, and when the country name fulfills the communicative function of the state title.
Highlights
General questions of name of the state are rarely discussed in the literature of public law, political science or legal theory, its terminology is neglected, and in its current state, it is a source of many misunderstandings
Pointed out these terminological problems this study proposes a theoretical framework for the naming system of states which takes into accounts the public law components of names
One of the consequences of this neglect is that there is no lively general literature developed on this theme, there are some thorough analyses on the names of particular states—peculiarly on that of the states of the United States of America—and on the name debates between states, such as concerning the names of Macedonia and Taiwan, or debates concerning names inside a single country, for example, Czechia
Summary
Like all unique beings, have specific names. As individual human beings might have more than one name—usually first and last ones which are termed, according to the ideas established in different cultures, forename, personal name, given name, Christian name, family name, and surname, not to mention the middle name, second name, maiden name, nickname, and different kinds of pseudonyms such as nom de plume, sobriquet or moniker—states can have more than one name too at the same time. At the early stage in the development of modern states, this linguistic contingency has not caused any unsolvable problems in the real processes of politics or in legal matters, because those terms were used both in internal and international communication to refer to states, most of them still monarchical, which were derived from the earlier forms of personal domination and traditional institutions. Another example shows, that linguistic uncertainty could lead to palpable problems if it obscured reality. As the designation of states is important in both international and internal communication, this Article will examine the question of whether it is regulated by any sort of law
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
