“The Diaspora Can Become a ‘ State Without Territory ‘

(Executive Summary of a Research Concept Note 1 )

Ara L. Poghosyan

PhD Researcher at the Public Administration Academy of the Republic of Armenia (PAARA);
Senior Researcher at the "Armeniakan" Center for Strategic Studies, Yerevan, Republic of

Armenia;

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0008-1385-5346 | Email: [email protected] | Tel.:

+37477003150

The Republic of Armenia and the Diaspora (excluding recent labor/economic migrants) must
simultaneously consolidate their capacity as actors in international relations. It is appropriate to
emphasize that this is not about the Diaspora competing with the Republic of Armenia or
replacing Armenia's mission by becoming an actor in international relations, but rather about
becoming a Power Multiplier for Armenia's Comprehensive National Power (CNP) [8] through
mutual complementarity.
Until recently, an idea like this might have felt utopic. However, in today's world, the
information and tech revolutions have significantly changed traditional views on time, space,
influence, and power. While the definition of a traditional nation-state is clear, defining a
diaspora still brings out different views ranging from strict, traditional angles to broader, modern
pluralistic frameworks.
Regarding migrants and classic diasporas, Robin Cohen notes that "diaspora consciousness is
often preferred by a specific group of migrants, tolerated by many host nation-states, and actively
supported by a number of countries of origin."
Although the trend to expand the definition of diaspora continues today, one of the best
explanations of classic diasporas comes from Cohen:
"…A tragedy caused by a hostile foreign power leads to movement into several countries.
But because the displacement was forced, and the traumatic event so all encompassing, a
collective popular memory is formed, the population remains psychologically uneasy,
and the return movement receives a degree of support…" [1].
The Armenian and Jewish diasporas are classic examples of this, which Cohen studies directly.
Of course, many points in Balaji Srinivasan's The Network State [3] can be debated as
unrealistic, lacking scientific backing, or missing strong empirical proof. Still, one thing is clear:

1 Note: This text constitutes the conceptual announcement of the author's ongoing research project
titled "The Transnational Role of the Diaspora in Contemporary International Relations."

by breaking down traditional boundaries of time and space, modern technology has opened wide
opportunities for diasporas. It allows them to turn into global networks and independent
transnational actors that can pool scattered resources and become more influential than many
traditional nation-states.
Deeper research shows that despite the complex layers of community life, traditional diasporas
are the ones best suited to become major players. The roots of their creation traumatic memory
and a shared mindset of returning to the historical homeland (which over generations has turned
into an ingrained mindset) build a collective will and readiness to define, promote, and serve
shared interests in international relations. While being in a host country is "a one -way ticket" for
a diaspora as Cohen puts it, migrants can return to their birthplace at any time. This dilutes the
ability to set collective goals. Migrants move to host countries for economic, social, educational,
medical, and other reasons; this does not close the door on returning, nor do they carry a
traumatic memory toward their birth country. Therefore, it is hard to consider them a diaspora in
the traditional sense.
Modern international relations recognize that diasporas, as complex networked groups, can
significantly shape global events and advance their own agendas. Yossi Shain or William Safran
[4, 5] view the diaspora as an independent transnational actor influencing traditional territorial
states. Meanwhile, modern technological manifestos, like Srinivasan's “The Network State” [3],
argue that such non-territorial network communities (diasporas) no longer need to just influence
existing states, they can use technology to become sovereign virtual states themselves.
The future of the Armenian Diaspora can be viewed in various ways – from a potential return to
the historic homeland to assimilation in host countries. However, from the vision of national
interest and Armenian Comprehensive National Power (CNP), the future of Armenia and all
parts of the Armenian people are interconnected, together forming Armenia's CNP. Converting
diasporic potential into real influence requires rethinking the diaspora's past and present, and
defining a new future as a full player in modern international relations: a "state without
territory."
Traditional and modern definitions of a state consider territory an essential feature, as Max
Weber noted:
"…state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate
use of physical force within a given territory. Note that 'territory' is one of the
characteristics of the state" [2].
However, modern technologies and the key features of diasporas: a shared language, culture,
history, and awareness of a common homeland create the conditions to transform from physical
territory into organized and synchronized networks, they can build a virtual space where
instructions, coordination, and implementation of other functions take only minutes, and there is
no longer obstacle to overcome previous vast physical distances. Therefore, the diaspora acts as a
unified body to set and achieve long term goals, it will have the chance to transform from a
standard ethnic community into an influential actor in international relations.

References
1. Cohen, R. (1997). Global Diasporas: An Introduction. Seattle, WA: University of Washington
Press.
2. Weber, M. (1919 ). Politics as a vocation. (p. 4). New York Oxford University Press.
https://dn790009.ca.archive.org/0/items/weber_max_1864_1920_politics_as_a_vocation/weber_
max_1864_1920_politics_as_a_vocation.pdf
3. Balaji Srinivasan. The Network State: How To Start a New Country.
4. Yossi Shain and Aharon Barth. Diasporas and International Relations Theory. Diasporas and
International Relations Theory (pp. 449-479). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818303573015
5. Yossi Shain. The Frontier of Loyalty․ Political Exiles in the Age of the Nation-State․ DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.93349
6. William Safran. Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return. Diaspora A
Journal of Transnational Studies 1(1): (pp. 83-99). DOI: 10.1353/dsp.1991.0004
7. Fiona B. Adamson․ Non‐state authoritarianism and diaspora politics․ Global Networks
20(1): (pp. 150-169). DOI: 10.1111/glob.12246
8. Huang, S. (1992). Zonghe guoli lun [On comprehensive national power]. China Social
Sciences Press.