The state is a form of organization that emerged at a certain point in history following humanity’s transition to social life, and has continued its development without interruption ever since. In order to understand the structure of the state, researchers from various disciplines have conducted studies and developed approaches aimed at explaining it. A significant portion of these approaches—mostly originating from Western Europe —can be evaluated under a state theory that examines the state within a developmental trajectory ultimately culminating in the “modern state.” Indeed, the approach about which we have the most comprehensive body of knowledge is this one. However, this approach not only excludes alternative understandings of the state but also struggles to clearly distinguish between what constitutes a state and what does not. It is precisely at this point that the concept of the “early state,” grounded in the research led by Henri J. M. Claessen and Peter Skalník, can be interpreted as an attempt to conceptualize a framework that addresses the deficiencies of the Western European-centric understanding of the state. This study, which investigates examples of state formation across different regions and concludes that there exists an intermediate phase—termed the “early state”—between pre-state societies and fully developed states, can be seen not only as an alternative to the dominant approach but also as a valuable contribution that compensates for its shortcomings and enriches it. Accordingly, this study will focus on the potential contributions of the “early state” approach to the existing framework, particularly in highlighting alternative geographical trajectories of state formation and offering perspectives beyond the Western Europe and evelopmental path. In our view, the “early state” theory—which considers the transition from pre-state societies to statehood not as a sudden and mechanical formation, but rather as a long and complex process marked by ups and downs—has the potential to enrich the content of the “General Public Law” course, which predominantly follows the Western European tradition.
Early State General Public Law Henri J. M. Claessen Peter Skalnik State Theory
This study aims to explore the concept of the “early state” as developed by Henri J. M. Claessen and Peter Skalník and to argue for its integration into the “General Public Law” curriculum commonly taught in Turkish law faculties. The central research question of the article is: Can the concept of the early state offer a more comprehensive and pluralistic understanding of state formation, thereby enriching existing state theories and public law education? The dominant narrative in general public law education tends to focus on the modern Western European state model, marginalizing non-Western trajectories and alternative conceptualizations of political organization. By investigating the early state, the study seeks to fill a significant gap in legal education and political theory by offering a more nuanced and global perspective on the evolution of state structures.
Existing literature on the state largely orbits around the Western model of the nation-state, treating it as the apex of sociopolitical development. However, such a view often excludes pre-modern and non-Western state forms and oversimplifies the complex, gradual processes of political centralization and social stratification. Claessen and Skalník’s early state theory introduces a transitional model between stateless societies and fully developed states. Their collaborative and interdisciplinary work, particularly the seminal volume The Early State, gathered numerous case studies from various regions and time periods, emphasizing that state formation is neither linear nor uniform. The early state fills a critical theoretical void by highlighting a sociopolitical formation that is distinct from both tribal chiefdoms and institutionalized modern states. By incorporating this approach, the article demonstrates how law and political science curricula can benefit from a richer conceptual framework.
The study adopts a qualitative and analytical method, positioning itself as a conceptual and theoretical inquiry. It draws upon comparative political anthropology, political theory, and legal education literature to critically evaluate the existing curriculum and suggest reforms. The article identifies three core characteristics of early states: (1) a stratified yet flexible class system with at least two emergent social layers; (2) a reciprocal ideology legitimizing a symmetric obligations between rulers and ruled; and (3) a centralized socio-political structure capable of coercive authority. These features distinguish early states from both chiefdoms and developed states.
One of the key findings is that the early state is not a momentary transformation but a process marked by incremental institutional developments, social differentiation, and administrative centralization. It is also shaped by local conditions, such as warfare, population pressure, surplus production, and ideological systems. Furthermore, archaeological sites like Arslantepe, Çatalhöyük, and Göbeklitepe in Anatolia provide tangible evidence of proto-state structures that predate classical Western models, underlining the importance of non-European state formations in legal education.
The early state concept underscores that state formation is not a singular or universally Western process. Instead, it is a multi-directional and dynamic evolution influenced by socio-economic, geographic, and cultural factors. This approach challenges the Eurocentric bias embedded in public law education and highlights the need to diversify the intellectual foundations of legal scholarship.
The study concludes that integrating the early state theory into the General Public Law curriculum would provide students with a broader, historically grounded understanding of political authority and legal development. It would also contribute to a more inclusive and global perspective in legal education by acknowledging the contributions of non-Western societies to the evolution of political organization. However, the study also acknowledges limitations such as the scarcity of structured pedagogical materials in Turkish legal academia regarding the early state. Moreover, further empirical research is needed to fully contextualize early states within regional histories and archaeological findings.
As a recommendation, law faculties should consider revising syllabi to include modules on early political formations and non-Western state theory. This can be supported by interdisciplinary collaboration with anthropology, archaeology, and history departments, fostering a more integrated academic environment. Ultimately, embracing the early state model enhances not only theoretical richness but also contributes to a more equitable and accurate understanding of the state’s diverse historical manifestations.