| Part of thePolitics series | ||||||||
| Basic forms ofgovernment | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| List of forms ·List of countries | ||||||||
Source of power | ||||||||
Power ideology
| ||||||||
Asuperstate is defined as "a large and powerfulstate formed when several smaller countries unite",[1] or "A large and powerful state formed from afederation or union of nations",[2] or "a hybrid form of polity that combines features ofancient empires and modern states."[3]This is distinct from the concept ofsuperpower, although these are sometimes seen together.[4]
In the early 20th century, "superstate" had a similar definition as today'ssupranational organisations. In a 1927 article by Edward A. Harriman on theLeague of Nations, a superstate was defined as merely "an organisation, of which a state is a member, which is superior to the member themselves", in that "[a] complete superstate has legislative, executive and judicial organs to make, to execute and to interpret its laws". According to this definition, Harriman saw the League of Nations as a "rudimentary superstate", and theUnited States of America as "an example of a complete and perfect superstate".[5]
InWorld Order of Bahá'u'lláh, first published in 1938,Shoghi Effendi, theGuardian of theBaháʼí Faith, described the anticipated world government of that religion as the "world’s future super-state" with the Baháʼí Faith as the "State Religion of an independent and Sovereign Power."[6]
In the 1970s, academic literature used the term "superstate" to indicate a particularly rich and powerful state, in a similar fashion to the termsuperpower. In this context, the term was applied toJapan,[7][8] as contemporary academics suggested thatJapan could displace the U.S. as the world's sole superpower, becoming the world's foremosteconomic power in the (then) near future because ofits economic growth in recent decades.[7] The predictiondid not come true.
In contemporary political debate, especially the one centred on theEuropean Union, the term "superstate" is used to indicate a development in which the Union develops from its currentde facto status[9] as aconfederation to become a fully-fledgedfederation, known as theUnited States of Europe.For instance,Glyn Morgan contrasts the perspective of a "European superstate" to the ones of "a Europe of nation-states" and of "a post-sovereign European polity".[10]: 202 In her definition, a "European superstate is nothing more than a sovereign state - a tried and tested type of polity that predominates in the modern world - operating on a European wide scale",[10]: 204 i.e., "a unitary European state".[10]: ix Especially after the European debt crisis, economic literature started to discuss the role of European union as a European superstate. In particular,[11] they compared the emergence of a debt union to the federal structure of Germany.
The term was famously used byMargaret Thatcher in her 1988Bruges speech, when she decried the perspective of "a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels",[12] and has since entered theeurosceptic lexicon.Tony Blair argued in 2000 that he welcomed an EU as a "superpower, not a superstate".[13]
In a 2022 study,Alasdair Roberts argues that superstates should be construed as hybrid forms of political organization: "Every superstate carries the burdens of statehood, that is, the duties of intensive governance and respect for human rights that are carried by all modern states. But superstates also carry the burdens of empire, principally the burden of holding together a large and diverse population spread across a vast territory. Superstates are distinguished from ordinary states by problems of governance that are intensified by scale, diversity, and complexity".[14]: 18 In this view, a superstate need not be highly centralized, just as some empires were not highly centralized. Thus is it possible to describe the European Union as a superstate without conceding that is a "centralized, unitary leviathan".[14]: 121
{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)