The failure to recognize the difference between nation and state has been costly for studies of contemporary world politics. 1 Nations and states have different organizational logic; they divide the global arena along different lines, and the interaction between the two structures has increasingly produced deadly conflicts. This conflictual relationship warrants an analysis linking the concepts developed by students of nationalism to the explanatory apparatus of international relations and security theory. However, the nation and the national have an astonishingly undertheorized presence among international relations theorists. 2 The most notable exception to this rule is the so-called Copenhagen School, which has made remarkable progress in attempts to reconceptualize international security as a duality of state and "societal security." Ole Waever and Barry Buzan have argued that sovereignty is the name of the game for the survival of a state, whereas survival for a society is a question of identity. They point to the replacement of military threats by concerns about the ability to survive as a viable entity as the main reason for insecurity after the end of the Cold War. 3 In their framework of analysis, the words society and nation are used almost interchangeably. 4