“Geography has been pronounced dead”, this quote from Holton (1998:1), is reflective of the concept of the merging of state borders as a result of globalisation and the evolution of a global state. A state can be defined in a variety of different ways, but there are two key definitions that will be discussed in this essay; the state is an organisation with dominance of powers in addition to the state being a country. Globalisation has been conductive in the changing definitions of the state, especially regarding the role it has on global relationships and public practice. Globalisation can be defined as a process in which the world becomes more interconnected due to increasing international trade and cultural agreements. This is supported by the definition of Held and McGrew (2002, p.3), “A growing magnitude or intensity of global flows such that states and societies become increasingly enmeshed in worldwide systems and networks of interaction”. This essay will argue that the notion of a ‘state’ will radically differ from the original definitions and reasons for emergence due to a rise in globalisation. Particular attention will be given to how a state can be defined, what the functions of the state are, in addition to the emergence of the state and how the roles have, and will, change in the future as a result of globalisation.One definition of the state is it’s being equivalent to a country, when in the context of international politics, whereby it holds the characteristics of a defined territory, permanent inhabitants, sovereignty and a working government (Heywood, 2011). Alternatively, the state is a political organisation that has jurisdiction over a nation used to exert power. As a concept, the state is instrumental in the dominance of powers and creating a social order for the collective. The running of a nation varies in accordance to the state dominating groups used to the disadvantage of the ruled, in addition to the insurance of a social order which can be used for the good of the collective (Duverger, 1966). The state has a number of different functions, one of which is to be a primary relation to the law and international legal system that coerces organisations into following rules and regulations (Robinson, 2013). Such enforcement is wholly necessary to ensure the functionalism of the societies the state protects and to follow the ‘General Will’, or in other terms, the existing skeleton of society including the normative consensus (Mann, 1984). Encompassed in the state are ‘public’ institutions made for the collective and funded by the majority through taxation. Such institutions include the courts, military, social security and healthcare – the NHS, for example, in the United Kingdom. Mechanisms and institutions of the state are paramount in the following of the development of the state, and so must be deconstructed in order to explore the emergence and changing nature of the state as a result of globalisation. According to Pierson (1996), sovereignty, authority or legitimacy, territoriality and the control of violence are key features. Similar to defining the state, the emergence of it is also contested. Many individuals believe the state is an ancient institution theorised by the Ancient Greeks such as Plato. In Plato’s classical works, Republic (2008), the state is used as a metaphor for the soul, in which Plato’s ideals of a state are composed, “Wouldn’t we say that morality can be a property of whole communities as well as individuals” (Plato, 2008. pp.58-59). Plato’s ideal is one argument for how the state emerged, however, many other individuals see the emergence of the state as being a far less utopian movement, with the notion that the state stems from a history of feudalism.Feudalism involves a juridicial overlook and military protection over peasantry via a social class of nobles with authority and property, with authority and property with rights in a political framework of splintered sovereignty (Anderson, 1974 cited in Pierson, 2004, pp.32-34). Feudalism emerged following the collapse of the Roman Empire, with the core relationship embodied in the form of ‘subcontracts’ between nobles and the inferior dignitaries. The vast majority of the feudal state were the ‘objects of rule’ (Pierson, 2004). Classic feudalist states were unstable but militaristic, with the king being primus inter pares, meaning nobles had the opportunity to divide the feudal order. Later in the feudal times, in the 12th and 13th centuries) absolutism was foreshadowed as seen by the changes in relationships and needs within Medieval towns (Poggi, 1990 cited in Pierson, 2004, p.34). Following feudalism was absolutism, whereby the state was first institutionally embodied. “Absolutism signalled the emergence of a form of state based upon: the absorption of smaller and weaker political units into larger and stronger political structures; a strengthened ability to rule over a unified territorial area; a tightened system of law and order enforced throughout a territory; the application of a ‘more unitary, continuous, calculable and effective’ rule by a single, sovereign head; and the development of a relatively small number of states engaged in an open-ended, competitive, and risk-laden power struggle.” This quote from Poggi (1978 cited in Pierson, 2008, p.35), gives details of the state in it’s evolutionary stage, whereby the definitions of the modern state are beginning to be encompassed. The emergence of the modern state can truly be highlighted in Anderson (1974) with the five institutional innovations within society, including, a centralised bureaucracy, a taxation program and state policies – all of which remain in place today. On the other hand, positions could be bought within the bureaucracy. On the subject of diplomacy, states became more centralised and territoriality more defined, meaning there were many international states operating in a similar way, competing, of which is referred to today as international relations (Pierson, 2004). Alongside the formation of international relations, came “the legitimacy of other states, none of which has the right to universalize its own element of administration or law at the expense of others” (Anderson, 1985 cited in Pierson, 2002, p.36) meaning the sovereign states recognised the presence of other states with different sovereignties.