What is noted about a state’s use of violence?

A state's use of violence is fundamentally understood through the concept of monopoly on legitimate violence, a core principle in fields such as political science and international relations. This principle, associated with sociologist Max Weber, posits that a state has the exclusive right to use, threaten, or authorize physical force. This does not mean that violence is always just or that it is utilized effectively; rather, it emphasizes that the state has the authority to define what constitutes legitimate violence and to control its application, especially in contexts like law enforcement or military action.

The other options present perspectives that do not accurately reflect the complexities of state violence. While violence can indeed be viewed as unjust in many contexts, it is not universally condemned; states may justify their violent actions under specific circumstances (e.g., self-defense, maintaining order). Additionally, the concept that violence is never sanctioned ignores the legal and moral frameworks that allow for state-sanctioned violence, such as war or police actions. The notion that violence is discouraged in diplomacy lacks a nuanced understanding, as states may resort to threats of violence or military force as part of their strategic diplomacy, despite a preference for peaceful negotiations. Thus, the correct answer highlights the unique position states hold regarding the legitimate use of violence.