Globa-lazy-tion: Eroding Nation-State Sovereignty on Global Politics

Globa-lazy-tion: Eroding Nation-State’s Sovereignty on Global Politics

Chelette Danica E. Melencion
BA- Political Science 1
Misamis University
College of Arts and Sciences
February 5, 2015

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the emergence of the current form of globalization in relation to the Westphalia state system. The central objective of the paper is to investigate the challenges which the process of globalization poses to the existence of nation-states. Many states are also concerned about the effects of globalization on their own sovereign authority. If states embrace globalization, the capacity of the state leaders to heartlessly coerce with their citizens well be diminished. States exist on a basis of sovereignty and are almost by definition dedicated to its preservation. Although each citizen may wish to transcend their boundaries, states themselves would be well served to limit losses to their sovereignty due to globalization, lest they find themselves unable to carry out necessary functions of good government. Here, it is argued that globalization cannot erode state’s sovereignty for it is believed that state is the central actor of globalization and they also need the state and its attributes to function effectively.
KEYWORDS:
Sovereignty, State, Globalization, International actors, Government

INTRODUCTION

Globalization is the new buzzword that has come to dominate the world in the nineties of last century with the end of Cold War and break up of former Soviet Union and global trends towards the rolling ball. It also has been dominating the political as well as academic agenda for a couple of decades.

With the onset of international business growth, a powerful internet communications regime access to information anywhere- boundaries of the world are coming down. Geography and social boundaries are moving firm, what were primarily inhibitors of business, to new secondary circumstances calling to be overcome.1

Globalization has created a world where 'everybody wants to be the same'. Western influences has led to the creation of a global model from a Western perspective while deteritorialism has lead to territories and boundaries being "lost"

Sovereign States are potential source of opposition to globalization. After all, if a globalization continues on that path that many predict state borders will become meaningless; states will lose their power to nonstate actors and sovereignty will no longer be the dominant principle of world politics. Many have questioned whether or not the growth of international law and norms, international organizations and other transnational phenomena are lessening the sovereignty of states. Will the state persist as the principal actor in the international system or be eclipsed?

History of Global Politics The treaty of Westphalia (1648) terminated the Thirty Year War with a formal acceptance of the European state powers of sovereign independence of each state. The European state been extended when they annexed the US for her triumph over her enemies especially as it defeated the Russia from the Cold War and became the super power of the world. European scramble for colonies in Africa and Asia in late nineteenth century gave the international system a truly global dimension.2
The twentieth century thus witnessed the emergence of world politics in the sense that patterns of conflict and cooperation amongst States and international organization extended across the globe. This was most chillingly seen in the First World War (1914-18), the Second World War (1939-45), and the Cold War. As the twentieth century drew to a close, however, there was a growing recognition that the very parameters of political life had changed. The more radically called into question the conventional distinction between a domestic realm of politics. These complex and multifaceted changes have increasingly been referred to as 'globalization'3
Understanding Globalization
Globalization is in danger of becoming, if it has not already become, the cliché of our times, clichés, nevertheless, often capture elements of the lived experience of an epoch. In this respect, globalization reflects a widespread perception that the world is rapidly being molded into shared social space by economic and technological forces and that the development in one region of the world can have profound consequences for individuals or communities on the other side of the globe. Globalization is multifaceted concept that represents the increasing integration of economics, communication and culture across the national boundaries. It is a large part of the product of technological changes that have rapidly expanded the speed which merchandise, money, people, information and ideas all move over long distances. Certainly, international trade investment is not new, nor are travel, the exchange of knowledge and ideas, and the spread of culture across national borders. What is different though, is the speed at which globalization is now preceding. It could be said that, through technological, cultural economic and political processes, globalization marks a variety of changes and transformation in world politics. In technological process globalization, the World Wide Web (especially the social networks) and satellite systems pave the way for the world to become a single place where in each single person is aware of what is going on around. In economic globalization, the economic integration approaching a single world economy. It could be said that, the end of the cold war marked the triumph of capitalism and free market economy. In this context, globalization may be seen as a driving force which makes states give up state –driven economic systems in order to be able to become adapted to world economic structure. Lastly, in political and cultural globalization, where political globalization is the extension of power and political activity across the boundaries of modern nation state and the cultural globalization is the worldwide spread of similar norms, values and practices. Globalization is seen as a motivator which make states get engage in a greater density of interactions. These interactions plays a major role in undermining the importance of territorial borders while making different cultures known one another more easily. The goal of globalization is to provide organizations a superior competitive position with lower operating costs, to gain greater numbers of products, services and consumers. This approach to competition is gained via diversification of resources, the creation and development of new investment opportunities by opening up additional markets, and accessing new raw materials and resources. Diversification of resources is a business strategy that increases the variety of business products and services within various organizations. Globalization often implies abandoning national ties and embracing supranational alliances. In international finance this is more than a buzzword, it is a reality. Global financial products are accessible to national markets and national investors can operate in global markets. Investment banks use to split up their analyst team by a country to cover a national market; now they tend to do it by industrial actors across all major countries.
Indeed, it must be stated that there is a considerable degree of disagreement and conflictual views about what globalization is. Some people argue that globalization is associated with modern colonialism that has been exercised upon less developed countries. In addition to that, others see globalization as a cultural imperialism that stresses the ideological hegemony of the economically-developed countries. According to this view, through the internet or satellite systems, countries with big economies spread their culture around the world.

On the other hand, some people regard globalization as a driving force that increases the economic inequalities by making the rich richer and the poor poorer. In line to that, the North-South divide is a good example in showing the gap between developed (North) and under-developed countries (South). Another feature of globalization is linked with interdependency. As the borders lose their function and as people become more interconnected, states also become more dependent upon each other. It must also be said that the roles of non-state units such as Greenpeace, Multi-national corporations (MNCs), and the roles of actors like the World Bank all become more influential in world politics.

Apart from that, globalization is treated by some as a threat. For example, cross-border terrorist activities, environmental problems such as climate change, pandemics such as AIDS and scarcity of natural resources all pose a major threat for states and human-beings around the world.

In short, it could be said that the defining features of globalization are not fixed or similar for everyone. Some people attach to it positive meanings whereas others attach negative ones. This different attitude is generally based on contextual disimilarities and the uneven nature of globalization (globalization is defined as an uneven process, that means that is not felt in the same degree everywhere.)
Nation-State defined The terms nation, state, country and nation-state are used to refer to political, economic, social and cultural actors in the international system. The modern nation-state refers to a single or multiple nationalities joined together in a formal political union. The nation-state determines an official language(s), a system of law, manages a currency system, uses a bureaucracy to order elements of society, and fosters loyalties to abstract entities like "Canada," "the United States," and so on.
Nation-State: Difference between Nation and State A nation-state differs from a "state" or a "nation" for a couple of important reasons:
A nation refers only to a socio-cultural entity, a union of people sharing who can identify culturally and linguistically. This concept does not necessarily consider formal political unions.
A state refers to a legal/political entity that is comprised of the following: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) a government; and d) the capacity to enter into relations with other states.
The Role and Sovereignty of the State

The states indispensable role is to maintain effective competition in the system through appropriate measures that do not kill off private initiative in the process. Sovereignty is a contested phenomenon. The initial formulation for this concept, during the enlightenment, entailed an absolute authority over a given community- the state. The borders of the state delimited the area over which no other state could intervene. This was guaranteed through the monopoly the state had over the use of force. Over centuries, the social contract theory took a more complex meaning. In the works of Jean Jacques Rousseau, the state has obligations to its citizens: the creation of equality. Modern authors have developed the notion of obligation the concept of sovereignty. Sovereignty should be understood as the autonomy of territory within international order. The sovereign states should be able to direct its political, economic and social life in accordance with its values without external influence, pressure or coercion. Alongside this, the sovereign states now has moral obligation to protect and extent the political, economic and social rights of its citizen.

Nation-State in the Crate of Globalization
State as a Global Actor
State are the principal actors on the world stage. Therefore, the current configuration is termed state-centric system. The leading role that states play in international system is determined by several factors including state sovereignty, the state's status as the primary focus of people's political loyalty and the state's command of the preponderance of economic and military power.
Threats to the Nation-State: Global Flows As a result of the heritage of Westphalia, we came to think of the nation-state as an autonomous, rather self-contained, entity but in fact that many of the global flows that slice the state indicate that the nation-state is not, and undoubtedly never been, such a 'container'. As a result, one observer concludes that the "state is today a highly contingent in a flux"4

The nation state is especially threatened by the global economy and global economic flows. As Ohmae argued that "The uncomfortable truth is that, in terms of global economy, nation-states have become little more than a bit actors". He talks about the terms of borderless global economy that nation-states are unable to control.5

Another argument is made by strange which is similar to Ohmae's, Strange debated that the decline of the nation-state is linked to technological and financial changes, as well as to "the accelerated integration of national economies into one single global economy". (Strange 1996; 345-54)

The nation-state has also been weakened by the growing of global and transnational organizations (e.g. the EU) that operate largely free of the control of nation-states. Another factor is the growth of global problems (AIDS, global warming, terrorism) that cannot be handled, or handled very well by nation-state operating on its own. The nation-state has also been weakened by the growing power of global and transnational organizations (e.g. the EU) that operate largely free of the control of nation-states. Another factor is the is the growth of global problems (such as AIDS, global warming, terrorism) that cannot be handled, or handled very well, by a nation-state operating on its own.
Threats to the Nation-State: International Human Rights Another threat to the autonomy of the nation-state is the growing interest in international human rights. The issue of human rights was defined by Turner as the "entitlement of individuals to life, security and well-being" (Turner 2007) has emerged as a major global political power. It is argued that because these rights are universal, the nation-state cannot abrogate them. As a result, global human rights groups have claimed the right to be able to have a say what is done to people within (for example torture or terror suspects) and between (for example, illegal trafficking in human sovereign states
Challenges to the Authority of the Nation-State In the background of the form of Treaty of Westphalia stipulated non-interference in the domestic affairs of the state. There are many issues which challenges the state sovereignty, whether the sovereignty has remained largely intact while the autonomy of the state has diminished or whether the modern state actually faces a loss of sovereignty in the era of globalization. There are numerous ways in which the state is challenged by economic globalization. First, the rapid exchange of goods, services and capital on the global market might undermine the ability of governments to control inflation and unemployment through national policy. Second, the mobility of labor, production and capital might undermine state’s effectiveness at establishing employment, safety and environmental standards. Third, greater interdependences means that national economies, on whose fate government rest, are more vulnerable to shocks and crises from abroad, with greater consequences at home.6
Contemporary migration is another challenge to states. If they are unable to stop it, illegal immigration demonstrates inability of states to maintain their own borders, the territorial and expression of sovereignty. States are challenged by cultural globalization as well. Governments that want to control the political culture of their citizens by, for example, limiting access to liberal values and Western media, are having more difficulty doing so with new technological developments. It is not, however, cultural globalization that threatens states as much as the backlash to a global culture.
ARGUMENTATION:
There are political, economic, and social forces that are working to break down the importance and authority of states and that are creating pressures to move the world toward a much higher degree of political, economic and social integration. Whatever one may think of international organizations and their roles, the increasing number and importance of them provide evidence of the trend toward globalization.

An Argument about the question “Will State Sovereignty Survive Globalism?” was debated by two critics of globalization namely Stephen D. Krasner for the YES while Kimberly Weir for the opposing side, NO. (Rourke:2002)
The first topic is “The Sovereign State is Just About Dead”
Stephen D. Krasner says:
Very wrong. Sovereignty was never quite as vibrant as many contemporary observers suggest. The conventional norms of sovereignty have always been challenged. A few states, most notably the United Sates, have had autonomy, control, recognition for most of their existence, but most others have not the polities of many weaker states have been immune to external influence.
Even for weaker states – whose domestic structures have been influenced by outside actors, and whose leaders have every little control over transborder movements or even activities within their own country—sovereignty remains attractive.

Kimberly Weir disprove:
No, but they are dying. The state as a political units is not on its immediate deathbed, but states are outdated institutions that have difficulty meeting the needs of their citizens.
Those who argue that the states are still strong sovereign units are missing the reality of state existence. In theory, the states are equal. Any state recognized as sovereign by international community earns the same status as other states.

Many people find it difficult to debate the issue of the survival of the sovereign state. The debate over globalization involves the relationship between global forces and sovereign state. Some current trends culminating in the eventual end to the state in a borderless world. Others argue that sate are able to counter some losses to their power and are even the engines behind globalization. Many argue that globalization is in fact further marginalizing the developing world, as many opponents to globalization can be found in the South. Others oppose globalization because they see it as a threat to local and national loyalties, and the persistence and growth of nationalism in recent years is an important countertrend to cultural globalization.
CONCLUSION
Globalization is arguably the most important process affecting relationship between states and non-state actors today. It refers to the high degree of interdependence between people and other actors and the homogenization of economic, political and cultural life across the globe. Much as globalization challenges the state system in the twenty-first century, it is still correct to assert that “the state remains, at least potentially, the prime instance of democratic making and popular sovereignty” (Albala, 2005:2). Overall, despite historical technological change integration, states have not become weaker political units. The contemporary globalization is reconstructing the power of, functions and authority of national government. Rather than the globalization bringing about “end of the state”, it has encourage a range of adjustment strategies and, in certain respects, a more activist state. Accordingly, the power of national government is not necessarily diminished by globalization but on contrary is being reconstituted and restructured in response to the growing complexity of process of governance interconnected world. Thus, the state remains the central (not the only) actor in international relations. It has not disappeared nor have the activities of the states and their mutually created global and regional organizations ceded place completely to non-state actors (Duru and Ogbonnaya, 2010).

REFFERENCES

Rourke, John T. & Boyer, Mark (1999). International politics on the world stage. Mac-Graw Hill, 7th edition
Rourke, John T. (2007). Taking Side: The clashing views in World Politics. Mac-Graw Hill
Ritzel, George (2000). Globalization: The Essentials.
Kaarbo, J. & Ray, J.L. Global Politics
Heywood, Andrew. (2002). Politics. Palgrave Mcmillan
Russette, B. et.al. World politics: The menu for choices