globalisation and state sovereignty essay

• Get Involved
• Editorial Division
• Research Division
• Academic Division
• Marketing Division

Karina Moxon

January 10th, 2019.

• Globalisation and State Sovereignty: A Mixed Bag

0 comments | 34 shares

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

By Jacalyn Goldzweig Panitz (Bsc International Relations)

As the process of economic globalisation has unfolded since the 1960s, international trade and capital flows have grown tremendously (Hay, 2014). While perhaps not unprecedented, this growth has led some to argue that the sovereignty of the nation-state is under dire threat. At a campaign rally in April of 2016, then U.S. Presidential-nominee Donald J. Trump affirmed such a notion, stating that “the nation-state remains the true foundation of happiness and harmony,” and vowing to “no longer surrender [the U.S.] to the false song of globalism” (Hattem, 2016). This paper engages with the globalisation President Trump refers to as the expansion of social connections, wherein any person, irrespective of their spatial location (and therefore often transcendent of their territorial geography) has an expanded ability to engage with any other person in the world (Scholte, 2007).

Economic globalisation, which is the re-spatialisation of human connection as it relates to economic activity from the local or national level to the planetary arena, exists as a process of integration toward a single, shared global economy (Scholte, 2007; McGrew, 2014). Further, state sovereignty, as clarified by the Oxford English Dictionary, is the supreme, or absolute and independent authority of a state over its communities, especially in regard to the independent creation of policy. President Trump’s doubts over U.S. power are founded but misguided. While the process of economic globalisation has eroded some aspects of state sovereignty through the imposition of institutional policy constraints as a means to growth, there is no evidence that the concept of the autonomous nation-state will disappear under further pressure from market integration, due to its embedded authority within the contemporary international system.

China’s strategic growth

Countries that have sought to encourage economic globalisation have made concessions in regard to their political authority through the process of entering global governance institutions and by reducing the barriers to entry within their domestic economies. During the 1978 to early 2000s period of drastic economic reform in China, the government in Beijing made a number of strategic calculations to encourage growth. In recognising their need for direct foreign investment to create jobs, to inject capital into the economy, and for foreign exchange, Beijing offered foreign multinational corporations (MNCs) tax breaks, special access to inputs of production, and a relaxed regulatory environment as a first step to loosen direct Chinese market control and cede sovereignty (Blanchard, 2007). Through its accession into the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in 2001, Beijing further released direct control over trade policies, as it accepted standards which stipulated that governments must not regulate foreign firms in excess of those domestic firms, and must treat all foreign firms equally regardless of country of origin (Blanchard, 2007).

States are also limited in their ability to interfere within domestic markets, especially regarding potentially unfair interactions with domestic industry; moreover, they are required to recognise and protect the intellectual property rights of foreign firms (Wade, 2003). In posing serious policy constraints on the Chinese government, this institutional environment signalled to foreign investors that the country was open for business and willing to adhere to international standards. Since its period of reform in the early 2000s, the number of foreign-funded firms in China grew rapidly – over 6% between 2004 and 2006 – to reach over 500,000 entities. Foreign MNCs employ over 24 million Chinese citizens and make up almost half of China’s largest exporters (Blanchard, 2007). Beijing’s desire for foreign investment came with both strings and rewards: reducing trade barriers served as the linking mechanism between the institutions that coordinate economic globalisation and China’s departure from ultimate economic authority.

The ‘race to the bottom’

Beyond reducing the barriers to entry of local economies through the adoption of international standards and norms, states have also given up sovereignty in efforts to garner foreign investment through ‘race to the bottom’ reductions in regulations and taxation. From 1970 to 2000, the number of MNCs grew more than 850 percent. In 2000, the hundred largest of these firms accounted for over four percent of global gross domestic product, and it is in this vein that MNCs may hold bargaining power over states (Blanchard, 2008). As the mobilisation of capital is emboldened through the processes of economic globalisation and market integration, the huge revenues and vast market access of MNCs suggest the risk of labour and capital relocation from states with unfavourable tax or regulatory policy, towards the domestic environments which offer the highest potential rate of return on investment (Blanchard, 2007; Hay, 2014).

First-wave globalism thinkers such as Susan Strange predicted such a movement of corporate revenue towards low-tax jurisdictions. In effect, economic globalisation was thought to be leading toward an aggregate loss of global tax revenue. This would in turn cause cuts to public sector spending and perpetuate state retrenchment, as the continual movement of multinational corporations to low-tax bases would force states to adjust domestic policy to remain competitive, thus creating a long term ‘race to the bottom’ corporate tax scenario (Strange, 1996; Hay, 2014). There is both an observable trend of corporate tax rate reduction from the 1980s onward in Europe, as well as evidence that multinational firms have capitalised on low-tax countries and their capacity to mobilise in order to to maximise overall profits. In 2011, technology corporation Apple avoided 10 billion U.S. dollars in taxes through a cost-sharing agreement between its American headquarters and an Irish subsidiary (de Mooji and Nicodémi, 2008; Seabrooke and Wigan, 2014). In Ireland, Apple was able to avoid corporate taxes altogether as a non-resident. Without this stipulation, Ireland – which is home to only 1% of Apple’s customer base – would have had very little bidding power for the establishment of a subsidiary and the subsequent relocation of 4% of Apple’s employees, or approximately 1,000 jobs (Seabrooke and Wigan, 2014). In the ‘race to the bottom’ scenario, states become constrained in their ability to increase tax rates or impose non-business friendly policy, as they are beholden to multinational corporations for job creation and marginal tax revenues.

The continued primacy of the nation-state

Further pressure from market integration will not erode state sovereignty to such an extent that the conceptualisation of the nation-state should be called into question, as the potential for firm expansion and capitalist development exists solely within a global framework of economically integrated nation-states. The norms and institutions fostered by economic globalisation, including the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the World Trade Organisation (WTO), are beholden to nation-states for their power and their legitimacy (Blanchard, 2007). Thus, institutions perpetuate the primacy of the nation-state. As dictated by international law, states alone may be members of the international governmental organisations which distribute the public goods that enable safe (patent-protected) commercial activity, which include that of intellectual property right protection (Blanchard, 2007). Moreover, the goals of MNCs are inherently commercial. Within its engagement in China, Microsoft’s primary pursuit has been to maximise profits. Economic globalisation, through the growth of capital mobility, facilitated Microsoft’s initial access to the Chinese market, which led to contracts worth nearly 2 billion U.S. dollars in 2005 and 2006 (Blanchard, 2007). MNCs thus have a stake in maintaining the status quo. While these firms may push the boundaries of sovereignty in some instances, they ultimately depend on the concept of the nation-state as a recognised, sovereign entity.

The maintained primacy of the nation-state is additionally due to the consolidation of state power through increased social expenditure, in response to increased corporate tax-to-GDP revenue receipts. From the early 1990s until at least 2008, declining corporate tax rates corresponded to a rising share of tax-to-GDP ratios by a quarter of a point in the European Union (de Mooji and Nicodémi, 2008). States here, potentially through ‘race to the bottom’ policies, have successfully garnered enough foreign investment to more than offset the initial tax revenue losses associated with lower tax rates. During this same period, welfare investment within European states with historic EU membership grew (Hay, 2014). In line with third wave globalisation thinking, economic globalisation has thus had a transformative effect on state policy. This suggests that states have responded to the displacement of some industries – caused by economic globalisation – with social programs in an effort to alleviate the personal burden that citizens experience. Public expenditure is by definition oppositional to the theory of state retrenchment; it reaffirms the status of the state as having total reach, and is rather representative of a consolidation of state power. Increased welfare spending in reaction to globalisation serves as an example of the affirmation of states to existing concepts of sovereignty.

The global reality

State sovereignty is eroded to the extent that institutions impose policy choice constraints, and competition for investment can make states beholden on MNC commercial preferences. However, the concept of a sovereign nation-state remains, in due part to its embedded institutional status and its reassertion of power through welfare spending. While global integration may support President Trump’s idea of diminishing state authority, his portrayal of economic globalisation as negative is purely political.

Bibliography

Blanchard, J. (2007) China, Multinational Corporations and Globalisation: Beijing and Microsoft Battle over the Opening of China’s Gates. Asian Perspective, 31(3), 67-102.

De Mooij, R.A. & Gaetan Nicodème. (2008). Corporate tax policy and incorporation in the EU. G. Int Tax Public Finance,15: 478.

Evolution of the Main Components of Tax Revenue in the EU-28, % of GDP, 2002-2015. (25 Nov 2016). [Graph]. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/ index.php/ File:Evolution_of_the_main_components_of_tax_revenue_in_the_EU-28,_%25_of_GDP,_2002- 2015.png#file

Hattem, J. (2016). Trump Warns Agains ‘False Song of Globalism.’ The Hill. Retrieved from: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/277879-trump-warns-against-false-song-of-globalism

Hay, C. (2014). Globalisation’s Impact on States. In J. Ravenhill (Ed.), Global Political Economy (4th ed., pp. 287–316). Oxford.

Mcgrew, A. (2014). The Logics of Economic Globalisation. In J. Ravenhill (Ed.), Global Political Economy(4th ed., pp. 255–286). Oxford.

Scholte, J. A. (2008), Defining Globalisation. World Economy, 31: 1471–1502

Seabrooke L. and Duncan Wigan (2014) Global wealth chains in the international political economy, Review of International Political Economy, 21:1, 257-263.

(2017). In: Oxford English Dictionary. [online] Oxford: Oxford University. Retrieved from:http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/185343?redirectedFrom=sovereignty+#eid

Wade, R. (2003). What Strategies Are Viable for Developing Countries Today? The World Trade Organization and the Shrinking of ‘Development Space’. Review of International Political Economy, 10(4), 621-644.

Photo source: https://www.geo.tv/latest/126353-Critiquing-democracy-globalisation-is-fashionable-wheres-the-action

Share this:

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)

About the author

3rd year Bsc Government and History student and Editor-in-Chief of the LSE UPR.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Related Posts

Is the European Union governed by ‘unelected bureaucrats’?

February 19th, 2019.

Records from the refugee crisis: the inconvenient reality

March 8th, 2021.

The Need for Absolute Sovereignty: How Peace is Envisaged in Hobbes’ Leviathan

March 3rd, 2022.

Analysing USCIRF 2020: An assault of secularism on religion?

December 2nd, 2020, top posts & pages.

• GV100: Aristotle, the State, and the Good Citizen
• The Creeping Ascent of the Far-Right in Mainstream European Politics and How to Stop it
• Orientalism: in review

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• About International Journal of Constitutional Law
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

1. introduction, 2. the globalization of international law and governance, 3. the rise of transnational law, 4. the reformulation of sovereign state law, 5. conclusions.

• < Previous

Globalization and the future of the law of the sovereign state

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Eric C. Ip, Globalization and the future of the law of the sovereign state, International Journal of Constitutional Law , Volume 8, Issue 3, July 2010, Pages 636–655, https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moq033

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Globalization is transforming the contemporary international system. Two major developments have arisen at the expense of the law of the sovereign state. First, specialized regimes of public international law have proliferated into areas previously monopolized by the state, such as human rights, environmental law, and trade law. Second, rules enacted by intergovernmental organizations and transnational corporations have become increasingly prominent. Inevitably, intertwined with these developments is the undermining of the Westphalian constitutional concepts of state sovereignty. Combining the approaches of international political economy and sociolegal theory, this paper contributes to the jurisprudential debate by arguing that globalization is far from the simple negation of sovereignty and state law. Global processes have transformed state law in remarkable ways. At the same time, state law is highly adaptive and plays a significant role in recasting transnational developments. More importantly, the current distinction between global and state law is increasingly blurred in practice. The outcome of these interactions demands a rethinking of what “law” is.

Since the seventeenth century, the legal framework of the sovereign state has served as the paradigmatic arena for political governance and economic exchange. 1 The institution of sovereignty has been constitutionalized on both national and international levels. 2 Domestically, it is usually chaneled through a prominent legal fiction, the national constitution, which gives “formal notice that a people had legally and legitimately self-determined their form of self-rule.” 3 State law typically claims “final authority” over matters within its territorial jurisdiction. 4 Similarly, traditional international rules have been fundamentally concerned with interstate relations and not domestic matters. Public international law's formal insistence on equal sovereign rights both constitutes and guarantees state law's independent constitutional identity and autonomy. However, a number of recent developments have rendered assertions of the absolute juridical sovereignty of state law increasingly problematic. Nonstate actors such as intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs), and transnational corporations (TNCs) have assumed greater political and economic importance in the contemporary world. Many of these nonstate actors have penetrated deeply into national legal systems and contributed “progressively” to the transnationalization of international law. 5

The intensification of human interactions and the diffusion of normative structures on a global scale are seemingly irreversible. There is a “wide consensus” that some kind of “erosion” of sovereignty has taken place. 6 Many old visions of the Westphalian arrangement are no longer viable; states are no longer the sole legislators and legal enforcers. Two major developments highlight the international legal system's partial withdrawal from its established state-centric orientation and its embrace of globally relevant concerns: the proliferation of specialized regimes of international law, which extend into major domestic policy areas, and the rising prominence of transnational regulatory regimes enacted by nonstate actors. The rise of nonstate regulation of issues previously monopolized by state legal control raises important questions about the future of state law. Will national authorities’ claims to sovereign constitutional autonomy be increasingly marginalized as globalization intensifies? Will the general relevance of state law diminish over time? Will sovereign state legal orders be ultimately replaced by other mechanisms of social control?

This paper argues that the actual impact of globalization on the state's legal apparatus is far more complex than that of simple negation. Global forces are likely to transform state law; however, state law has a remarkable capacity to adapt to different environments and to constrain the actions of transnational actors. The result of these interactions is likely to force a reworking of the concept of “law.” Sections 2 and 3 discuss how the growing prominence of nonstate actors and transnational law 7 are changing the face of international law and governance. Section 4 begins with a review of the ambiguous concepts of the sovereign state and state law. It demonstrates that the relationship between domestic, international, transnational, and global institutions is complicated and interwoven. Next, this section analyzes the impact of state legal actors on global and transnational governance and explains the implications for the future of state law. Section 5 concludes.

2.1. Globalization and sovereignty

Globalization is a rich if ambiguous concept, as well as one of the most difficult modern phenomena to define clearly. 8 It is outside the scope of this inquiry to discuss and evaluate the full implications of economic globalization and its critiques. Nonetheless, it is largely uncontroversial to suggest that globalization has exerted an immense impact on the sovereign state. The transnational spread of capital and the formation of global markets entail the replacement of previously fragmented national economies. 9 Sovereign states are experiencing increased difficulties in supplying regulatory and redistributive public goods and establishing and enforcing property rights in the face of relatively open trade, rapid information-technology advances, and considerable financial deregulation. 10 Additionally, both market relations and political discontent with economic policies have virtually become “borderless.” 11

Transnational actors in the form of IGOs, INGOs, TNCs, along with the transnational networks of state agencies, private foundations, and migrants, now play substantial roles on the global stage. 12 Apparently, assertions of Hobbesian sovereignty are now impotent. 13 The emergence of “sovereignty-free actors” in international governance implies that the currently inadequate state-centric international system is changing in light of new transnational developments. 14 International relations theorists disagree on the influence of nonstate actors on state sovereignty. 15 Realists tend to be indifferent to the potential challenge posed by nonstate actors to the power of the state. For realists, the success of IGOs, INGOs, and other transnational entities depends heavily on the support of powerful states. Conversely, constructivists hold that nonstate actors have become pivotal transmitters of social structures that condition state action. The standard neoliberal interpretation of globalization sees a decline in state territoriality. 16 According to this view, state sovereignty has been “compromised” by the competing interests of nonstate actors like NGOs. Indeed, many national rules barring the movement of labor, goods, services, and capital have been replaced by new institutions that span several territories. However, arguments that nonstate actors are nothing more than agents of power centers or arenas of interstate cooperation, subsidiary to national interests, do not account for the dynamic and often subtle changes they have brought to the belief systems of international society.

Major TNCs, which are largely unconstrained by the legal systems of individual states, now account for a massive proportion of global production. 17 Complex economic, humanitarian, health, and environmental problems no longer heed the artificial boundaries imposed by states. 18 As expected, the rapid growth of effective political and economic institutions beyond the national government is unprecedented. 19 Intensified exchanges in commerce, migration, technology, and culture have increased the interdependence of states. 20 Economies have become subordinate to international power more than to state regulation. 21 International problems are often too complicated to be effectively resolved by individual national governments. 22 State and nonstate actors are increasingly linked in new partnership arrangements that “compress the national interest with economic interest.” 23 Diverse entities, ranging from powerful TNCs to previously marginalized grassroots actors, are now capable of posing formidable challenges to state-control policies. 24 In short, the state is “obliged” to share power with other groups within complicated, multilayered networks of political power. 25

It is tempting to accept that the relationship between the global and the local is inherently paradoxical. 26 However, this is not entirely accurate. The two are not merely opposing forces; they may also be mutually reinforcing partners. 27 Assertions that transnational developments are wholly concerned with the modern state's loss of control over the migration of capital and people are largely mistaken. It should be recalled that the elevation of the constitutional state, to its current legally supreme position in the international system, is itself a transnational occurrence. The spread of the sovereign nation-state as a dominant form of political association from Western Europe to most of the world in the past three hundred years is an example of “global interconnectedness.” 28

2.2. The need for pluralist legal perspectives

The entrenched vision of law as a “uniform and monopolistic” set of rules that governs a given community is currently experiencing a collapse. 29 To approach legal phenomena pluralistically—from the multiplicity of “global, international, transnational, regional, inter-communal, municipal, substate and non-state local” perspectives—enhances our understanding of the globalization of international governance. 30 A “useful” legal pluralism should recognize the importance of state law but refrain from assuming that everything is inferior to it. 31 State law should be neither understood as the supreme system of social ordering nor simply seen as parallel to other legal orders. The relationship between the law of the state and other normative structures is crucial to the understanding of legal phenomena as a whole. 32

Contemporary jurisprudential scholars, such as H. L. A. Hart, John Rawls, Ronald Dworkin, Hans Kelsen, and Joseph Raz, remain too focused on scholarly approaches that concentrate excessively on formal state legal norms. 33 In particular, Hart and Kelsen are largely against the notions of legal pluralism and nonstate law. 34 Many professional lawyers rely on the primacy of the “closed systems” of state law as the “regulator of social relations.” 35 Mainstream social-science writings on globalization often neglect the role of law. However, legal academia tends to emphasize the role of legal forces to the detriment of globalization. 36 As such, legal pluralism, which recognizes the coexistence of multiple legal orders within the same social space, has become more important than ever. 37

Long before globalization was put under the spotlight, “constellations of legal pluralisms” were already in existence. 38 Independent and mutually recognizing legal orders predated the constitutional framework of the modern state. For example, the laws of the Holy Roman Empire were of a “pre-state” and “transboundary organizational form.” 39 The predecessor of the modern German state was not a “nation” but a patchwork of politically linked territories of imperial electors and princes within the overarching constitutional structure of the empire. 40 The implementation of the empire's law was left in the hands of the monarchs of small and medium-size kingdoms, 41 who were active in making their own laws. By the sixteenth century, the seven-hundred-year-old empire had issued its own legal regulations, 42 running concurrently with the legislative activities of the constituent countries and without stimulating any major legal conflict that could bring the imperial constitutional system to a breaking point. This was not an isolated phenomenon. What makes present-day transnational legal pluralism different from this older form of legal pluralism is the former's rejection of the idea that law must always be formally identifiable with the activities of the nation, the state, or the government. 43

Marc Hertogh identifies “three waves” of nonstate legal development: colonialism, domestic legal pluralism, and globalization. 44 As he argues, without reliable historical baselines for comparison, it is difficult to determine empirically whether more nonstate law exists than before. Nevertheless, it is certain that since the advent of modernity, people have become accustomed to adopting state law as the standard paradigm for legal phenomena. This may explain why the increasing visibility of nonstate law is often surprising. For instance, the regulatory system of domain names arose from the decisions of managers and engineers of internet companies, not public authorities.

2.3. The global transformation of international law

Before the end of the Second World War, legally speaking, states were “sovereign in an almost absolute sense, exercising supreme authority.” 45 When the Westphalian doctrine of absolute sovereignty was prevalent in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, it was commonly assumed that the autonomous decisional powers of constitutionally independent sovereign states could not and would not be weakened by their activities in international institutions. 46 International law was essentially concerned with forestalling conflicts and confirming the independence of municipal jurisdictions. Sovereign states in the post-1945 world began to make use of mutual consent to establish institutions that, paradoxically, limited the exercise of sovereignty. Although public international law is likely to endure as a normative “horizontal form of cooperation,” there are compelling signs that it is gradually moving away from the restrictions imposed by state-centric principles. 47 In particular, its dyadic mode of organization is undergoing a process of “thickening” into a triadic architecture in which third-party, nonstate actors, such as IGOs, arbitration panels, and international courts, have a greater role. 48

Currently, the state cannot ignore issues related to the wider interests of humanity, even within its own borders. Individuals and groups enjoy greater recognition as subjects of international law, as seen in the expansion of legal regimes and enforceable mechanisms in the fields of international human rights law, international refugee law, and international criminal law. 49 Victor Peskin observes that the United Nations Security Council's ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda “continued to trump state sovereignty insofar as targeted states and all other UN members were legally bound to comply.” 50 However, the development of international criminal tribunals suggests a “changing balance of tribunal authority and state sovereignty.” He criticizes the “next generation” of war crimes tribunals as supporting the expansion of the influence of state judicial actors as well as the strengthening of the doctrine of sovereignty.

The Rome statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) upholds the principle of complementarity and recognizes that states do not have to collaborate with the court unless they have ratified the statute. However, this is only part of the picture. The establishment of special hybrid courts in Cambodia, East Timor, Lebanon, and Sierra Leone means that states no longer see sovereign state law alone as a sufficient means of punishing serious war crimes. The decisions of international judges and prosecutors now permeate and shape the domestic criminal law of these countries. William Burke-White further asserts that the ICC has become “part of a system of multilevel global governance” through its alteration of state preferences and policies and its deterrence of future crimes through judicial and prosecutorial pronouncements. 51

International law has evolved into a central framework for the “emergent system” of global governance. This system supplies the normative mechanisms for the establishment of IGOs and the facilitation of the international response to issues as diverse as nuclear proliferation, climate change, ocean use, and the functioning of the world trade system. 52 Alexandra Khrebtukova insightfully points out, “[n]ational borders no longer confine the diverse views that prioritize subjects of international law … . different perspectives are often less identifiable with specific states than with discrete branches of the law, each manifesting separate functional perceptions of what that law should take as its primary focus.” 53 The “deformalized” management of international affairs and the multiplicity of IGOs, international tribunals, and INGOs have severely undermined the classical notion of international law as the only legal regime governing the interactions of states and peoples. 54 Currently, public international law is experiencing a “fragmentation” of its branches. 55 Interstate treaties are no longer the only influential international legal instruments. Deformalization has triggered an explosion of uncoordinated, specialized legal instruments that rely heavily on experts, specialists, and groups. 56 Pragmatic nonstate actors have also contributed significantly to the reinterpretation, redefinition, and elaboration of international norms. This has substantially extended the ambit of the otherwise self-possessed regimes of international environmental law, international economic law, international humanitarian law, and international investment law, to name a few.

Transnational processes have produced a new conception of “global law.” 57 For Pierrick Le Goff, globalized legal norms, which deal mainly with the political economy, are different from public and private international law in scope and purpose, and they are conceptually broader than commercial transnational law. 58 A “malleable” set of norms, driven by professionals, may eventually succeed in constructing a stronger worldwide political order. 59 The notion of global law represents a “multicultural, multinational, and multidisciplinary” occurrence, not a formalized legal system. 60 Accordingly, converging international practices and developing regimes on a global scale, such as international environmental or trade laws, can be regarded as components of the concept of the global law, broadly defined. Globally relevant legal rules do not rest on one regime, one territory, or one branch of law but on “invisible” colleges, markets, professionals, and networks that transcend nations. Its “organizational backbone” is not a unitary world government but an “anarchical array” of fragmented transnational networks connecting bureaucracies, agencies, and organizations. 61 From this perspective, the rise of global law is largely independent of the nation-state. 62

However, the line between global and local is not always clear. Werner Menski correctly notes that law—state-made or not—is inherently a “global phenomenon” because the “basic constituents of ethical values, social norms, and state rules,” with the appearance of “myriad cultural-specific variations,” are actually located in all corners of the world. 63 The increased citation of judgments and borrowing of legal doctrines from international and foreign courts by domestic judges is a concrete sign of a developing transnational legal culture. The ongoing codification and harmonization of law on the international plane is beneficial to lawyers who work for cross-border causes. 64 Global law is not confined to a particular field or area between or beyond states.

Transnational law can be understood as a kind of global law with a smaller spatial coverage. 65 One of its core objectives is to foster “cooperation” beyond political and geographical boundaries. 66 Unlike state law, transnational law is not formulated in domestic legislatures and courts but in new arenas outside of the regulatory influence of any individual state. Today, the establishment and interpretation of transnational norms have become “pluralized.” 67 Many transnational, rule-based activities are associated with networks of governmental agencies, commerce, NGOs, social movements, IGOs, and legal professionals. Informal rule systems and economic influences sometimes “supersede” state-driven international law in structuring the global political economy. 68 Fields of rising importance include cyber law, procurement, and transitional justice. 69

3.1. Private transnational law

The prevailing role of sovereign state law in the regulation of cross-border economic transactions is increasingly at odds with flourishing regional and global economies. In response to the regulatory fragmentation of the world market, the international business community has developed a common set of rules intended to reduce costs. 70 The lex mercatoria, or merchant law, is one of the most notable models of private transnational law. Its roots can be traced back to the Middle Ages. The medieval lex mercatoria was a European transnational custom that underwent a process of domestication in history. It was absorbed into English domestic common law and then transplanted to the United States's legal system, where it was later codified. Finally, as an outcome of the uploading of legal norms from the state to the international sphere, its principles became part of commercial treaty law. 71

Modern lex mercatoria is a self-governing, nonstate legal order that is tailor-made for the resolution of transnational commercial disputes. It blends “trade usages, model contracts, standard clauses, general principles, international commercial arbitration with a body of expert legal writing” into a coherent and precise body of norms. 72 As the legal foundation of global capitalism, it offers business people from dissimilar cultural backgrounds a common language to transact stably and predictably. 73 Multinational corporations now use standardized contract forms and conditions, which are recognized by the participants of global business and not by officials of the sovereign state.

Much of transnational law is deeply fragmented. Despite the considerable success of modern merchant law in building a new transnational legal culture, it is fundamentally an Anglo-American and European phenomenon. 74 Arbitral bodies, widely considered superior to their national counterparts in dealing with cross-border problems, continue to serve as the chief institutions for resolving transnational commercial disputes in many parts of the world. Moreover, transnational legal regimes are specialized and uncoordinated. A budding lex sportive internationalis regulates conflicts associated with the Olympic Games, and a lex constructionis is increasingly influential in transnational construction contracts. 75 The Forestry Stewardship Council is another relevant nonstate institution that systematically enforces norms for national environmental conditions. 76 Yet another form of transnational law exists in the spread of highly localized religious and customary laws from one country to another because of migration, the internet and the influence of media, social movements, and NGOs. 77 A notable example is the state-recognized usage of Islamic law by minority communities in predominantly Christian nations.

3.2. International institutional law as public transnational law

The beginning of the twenty-first century witnessed the proliferation of international institutions that altered the traditional politics of interstate relations. 78 The World Trade Organization (WTO), for instance, actively promoted a fundamental set of rules and procedures for the regulation of the global economy. The WTO's expansive elaboration of legal norms through dispute-resolution processes has gradually constituted a legal order that is independent of the states parties. 79 Responding to the 9/11 attacks, the UN Security Council enacted a series of resolutions that gradually developed into a growing corpus of legal norms as well as a “global system of standards, expectations, reporting, and assessment” demanding universal state action against acts of terrorism. 80

Vertical supranationalism, another sign of the globalization of the international system, is playing an ever-more explicit role in the traditionally horizontal regime of public international law. International human rights law is a clear example of law that claims universal authority over all states and peoples. The European Union (EU) is notable for producing binding supranational law in diverse areas like agriculture, competition policy, energy, human rights, monetary affairs, public health, security, and trade. 81 EU law claims authority over a number of sovereign states at the same time, and domestic legal authorities throughout Europe notably accept its validity. Jürgen Habermas sees this cosmopolitan development on the regional level as positively steering peoples toward a “constitutionalized world society,” though he rightly cautions that nation-states will still have an important role to play in the globalizing world. 82

The expansion of IGO rule making, treaty interpretation, and dispute-settlement power has effectively turned IGOs into self-contained legal and political communities. 83 Continuous state consent is no longer possible for the authorization of the massive number of IGO legislative actions. In addition, IGOs have seized opportunities to decide the content of major international norms and to induce states to act consistently with their preferred interpretations. 84 Many IGOs are capable of disseminating new rules in the international community. 85 Therefore, IGOs can be seen as key proponents of the legalization of international governance. 86 The assignment of legal implementation, interpretation, and conflict management responsibilities to IGOs contributes significantly to the divergence of international bureaucratic interests from those of their state political masters.

Furthermore, international tribunals have become centers for coordinating policies at the global and regional level, from trade and monetary issues to labor standards and environmental pollution. 87 In effect, international courts add value to international governance by providing important information about whether a policy or action is permissible under the norms of the existing international political structure. 88 This enables transnational judicial actors to manufacture new norms in the name of law clarification, to shape the expectations of other international actors, and to indirectly condition the behavior of state actors in the future.

Moreover, the progression of “transgovernmental regulation networks” has led to the emergence of a common, if not yet unified, set of principles governing administrative functions in areas such as security, banking, intellectual property, and investment. 89 Similar shared principles seem to be developing in the area of international adjudication as well. 90 Another outcome of transnational legal cross-fertilization is that international courts are behaving increasingly alike in their judgments on an assortment of matters, including the rules of evidence, provisional measures, judicial interpretation, and remedies.

However, the rise of global law does not necessarily imply that a common law of humanity is in the making. Domestic legal systems are likely to develop similarities, though differences in cultural, religious, and legal dimensions will remain. An example is family law, which is rooted in profoundly local social customs and conscience. 91 The emergence of a global law on social security or religious practice is equally inconceivable, at least in the foreseeable future. Moreover, universal norms that aspire to cover the entirety of the human race are problematic. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is, at times, troubled by contradictory conceptions of local human rights as well as conflicting legal norms of free trade. 92 A unitary system of global law is unlikely to result from the current worldwide diffusion of legal phenomena. 93 It is doubtful that the international community would agree to follow one rule system, one language, one culture, or one law. 94 In this world, the coexistence and overlapping of different norms does not eliminate local distinctiveness.

4.1. The sovereign state

States and their governments should not be taken for granted; they are no more than abstractions of social life. 95 Indeed, the ideas of “state,” “sovereignty,” “law,” and “national interests” are unstable and intersubjective concepts. They are mental constructs that exist wholly in the human mind. 96 According to Alexander Wendt, sovereignty is not only “a property of individual states” but also “an institution shared by many states” and characterized by a common expectation that “states will not try to take away each other's life and liberty.” 97 As Andrew Hurrell points out, “sovereignty can only be meaningful if it is recognized by others.” 98 Hence, traditional public international law and the state are in a symbiotic relationship. The former defines the latter, and the latter constitutes the former.

In practice, however, the status of official UN membership conceals “wide variations” among states. 99 Formal sovereign equality does not erase the immense disparities between states in terms of economic wealth, military power, territory, population, and the ability to exercise political and legal influence in the international community. 100 It is thus “terribly misleading” to call all states and their nominal leaders equal “sovereigns.” 101 Corrupted and brutal military regimes do not differ much from organized groups of criminal gangsters. 102 For most of its existence, state power has been fragmented or ineffective in many areas of control and in many countries. Many national political regimes do not even control the whole of their claimed territories. At any rate, it is highly doubtful that the state has ever been as powerful as many—including those who hold that global forces necessarily weaken the domestic polity—believe.

Nonetheless, the sovereign state, as a powerful constellation of organized political institutions, is deeply entrenched. It perseveres in the minds of many as a defining element of political identity. A host of factors supports the argument that the modern state is likely to retain its role as a prominent form of political association, at least for the foreseeable future. States are the only “effective authorities” in the exercise of military might. 103 The contest for national resources continues to be a “crucial factor” that affects “struggles at other geographical and political levels.” 104 The ability of state bureaucracies to exercise substantial control over their citizens through the practices of policing, judging, and administering remains largely intact, even in a so-called era of “global governance.” 105

In addition, domestic polities are able to simultaneously exploit the economic profits of globalization while maintaining core belief systems, such as nationalism, to promote social relationships. 106 Governments play crucial roles in structuring the relatively new relationship between the global market and civil society. 107 Identities and “human consciousness” are often shaped by the very existence of state borders. 108 In this respect, national ideological constructs are much more important than any form of global awareness in conditioning people's concepts of who they are.

Formally, states refuse to acknowledge any higher juridical authority. However, this does not prevent state officials from utilizing global discourse as an instrument to consolidate their rule. The public belief that sovereignty is under stress actually provides officials and lawyers with fuel to shift the blame to transnational forces. 109 Occasionally, national politicians manipulate exaggerated accounts of transnational influences to reassure voters that they are doing the “right thing.” 110 The discourse of “constraint or absence of choice” and the “withering” of sovereignty enable national policy makers to pursue greater power on behalf of the state. 111

4.2. State law and nonstate legal orders

States are governed by elites, who are, of course, human beings. When humans communicate, they inevitably express whether something is acceptable or not, 112 in various formats and with varying levels of preciseness. 113 As such, state politicians and bureaucrats unavoidably make rules in the course of discharging their duties. The foundations of the modern constitutional state rest on the assumption that people can be politically ruled under rational authoritative propositions that speak, argue, command, and justify in the language of law. 114 Public policy is justified in rational-legal terms. 115 Philip Bobbitt indicates that there is probably no state without law. 116 Domestic law is a normative structure through which modern states are politically constructed and governed.

For John Austin, the nineteenth-century English legal positivist, state law is equivalent to the imperative of the sovereign. Thus, it is all that a jurisprudent should study. 117 Another leading positivist, H. L. A. Hart, conceptualized law as the combination of primary and secondary rules authorized by a “rule of recognition.” 118 If we assume that the constitutional design and political-economic conditions of each state are somehow unique, there cannot be a single model of state law. State law serves a variety of purposes. He asserts that it is implausible for law to emerge until the state has attained a legitimate use of violence. Additionally, the state needs law to justify the fight against foreign interference. 119 Brian Tamanaha describes state law as a “preeminent form of law.” 120 Because of the special position occupied by the state in the international political space, state law has the “distinctive” ability to accomplish a wide spectrum of plausible goals and operations.

Sovereign state law provides domestic authorities with the political legitimacy that makes the effective use of coercive force possible. Law and politics give shape and substance to each other. 121 State law is not merely a body of technical rules imposed on individuals by those who dominate the formal lawmaking process. It is also an important integrative force in modern societies. 122 This echoes the earlier view of Durkheim that law, while at times oppressive, consistently functions to hold individuals and groups together. Weber also treats law as a tool in the governing of complicated socioeconomic interactions. 123 Gramsci's perspective on the subject is more skeptical. He argues that domestic law has much to offer the state that wants to disseminate its official worldview and discourage other undesirable and politically incorrect customs and understandings. 124

Global political authority will likely remain fragmented for the near future. It is true that “global governance institutions,” such as the WTO, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the ICC, and transnational networks of judges, regulators, and environmental policy makers, claim and exercise the authority to enforce universal rules. However, they do not seek to “perform anything approaching [the] full range of governmental functions” or to “monopolize the legitimate use of violence within a territory.” 125 These central functions of sovereign state law are not yet replaceable. States are likely to retain their roles as the “unique vectors of law creation and enforcement” that focus on the preservation of regional diversity, which cannot be guaranteed on a global scale. 126 The vast array of local problems around the world presupposes that a centralized global regulative authority is largely impossible.

Global legal norms and actors are understandably less responsive to local social complications than are their domestic counterparts. In this respect, sovereign state law is still prominent, even with the globalization of the international legal order. National law's values and doctrines typically have strong historic ties to the governed communities, and its practices are institutionalized in politics and society. Within the state, law ensures legitimacy through successive historical experiments. As a relatively young regime, transnational law has yet to experience a comparable period of development. This development is necessary because the moral legitimacy of transnational law lies in fluid communities and networks, not consolidated institutions. 127 Hence, it is irrelevant whether the claims of state sovereignty to absolute supremacy are true. Rather, it is the durability of state law that matters.

The profusion of globally focused human rights principles, extraterritorial enforcement arrangements, and economic rules has paradoxically modified the reach of state law. 128 Globalization is not a unidirectional, exogenous force acting on the laws of sovereign states. In fact, state legal actors are highly relevant in the development of global and transnational regulatory rules. Municipal courts are becoming “global governors,” as they regularly deliver judgments with extensive normative implications on transnational actors. 129 In the U.S. alone, thousands of transnational disputes are resolved in the federal courts every year. Judicial decisions of this sort inevitably “allocate resources” among transnational litigants in stipulating legal jurisdiction in various cross-border cases. Domestic court proceedings provide transnational actors with crucial and influential information that shapes their strategic behavior. 130 The ability of state law to forge daily “human imagination” has made localities “veritable partners” in the global order. 131 Some writers claim that the legal institutions of sovereign states play a “critical role” in developing the rules that govern economic activities, both local and global. 132

Transnational processes are exceptionally complex. Nonstate actors do not automatically emerge. States do not naturally compromise their political reach. In many cases, transnational coalitions stem from domestic politics. They may be the offshoots of strategic partnerships between specialized domestic bureaucracies, business corporations, civil society organizations, and other public authorities, often with an aim of overcoming political opposition within national governments and legislatures. 133 Transnational law is not a wholly new invention. It derives principles, terminologies, and ideas from other normative systems, especially sovereign state law.

Most transnational legal practitioners and international judges who devise and carry out nonstate legal norms received their basic professional training in national law schools, and most are qualified in at least one domestic jurisdiction. There is no established transnational law school in any meaningful sense. The same people also appear before municipal courts that apply state law. High-ranking national judges meet regularly in international conferences and serve with others on transnational bodies. Additionally, numerous transnational legal actors are the same judges, lawyers, legislators, and bureaucrats who have contributed to the progression of sovereign state law. The application of law in a globalized world is still, to a considerable extent, at the discretion of these elites. 134 State and nonstate laws are in a composite relationship; they are much more than merely opposing forces.

4.3. The adaptive power of state law

The processes of globalization force national legal authorities to take nonstate actors and transnational entities seriously. In an era when multiple, overlapping legal orders are increasingly accepted and respected, it is clear that sovereign state law is no longer nor necessarily the most powerful legal regime in every circumstance. 135 The relatively diminished importance of the politically organized sovereign state has eroded certain “modern reference points” of legal theory. 136 If transnational forces are breaking down traditional national borders, it is debatable whether sovereign state law can maintain the fiction of absolute sovereignty as well as its constitutional autonomy. The contention here, however, is that even if these claims are likely to fall prey to the changing circumstances of the world, this is by no means equivalent to the marginalization of state law.

After all, the state is a historical product of centuries of evolution. Development and transformation have always been “the order of the day.” 137 State law has a remarkable capacity for co-opting and codifying other normative systems, assimilating them into its own system. For instance, it is capable of catering to global trends, such as political liberalization and social pluralization, by recognizing religious and customary norms and giving effect to nonbinding international standards like the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. 138 State law is not isolated from societal developments. Judicial perceptions and legislative beliefs correlate, however slowly, with the normative changes in society. Conversely, state law plays a proactive role in modifying social norms by managing the ideologies of its constituent populations. 139 These properties of state law are unlikely to change in any basic sense, even in an age of globalization. Backed by the political will of the coercive state apparatus, domestic legal systems constrain the choices of transnational actors. Furthermore, sovereign state law shapes the evolution of global legal norms. 140

As long as the institutionalization of various kinds of transnational regulatory mechanisms endures, it is improbable that the perceived superior status of state law can be substantiated. Even so, the reaction of state legal actors to transnational effects should not be neglected. Governments are visibly, albeit implicitly, expanding their regulatory powers in the exercise of their internal sovereignty when they face external pressures. 141 Networks of global civil society have provoked the state to strengthen its intrusion into previously neglected areas, such as the environment, water, and rights to land. These new forms of state power are frequently justified on the grounds of economic or technical progress. State authorities do not simply ignore the transnational challenge to their powers. Arguably, global processes do not dominate state institutions any more than the statist forces that defy globalization. 142 In the wake of the state's reassertion of authority, evidence suggests that the “renationalization” of transnational law, including the lex mercatoria , is occurring. 143 It is not surprising that state agencies, now organized as part of international or regional economic blocs, subject business actors and the lex mercatoria to greater pressure to obey national policies. Likewise, transnational financial law produced by communities of bankers is often reincorporated into sovereign state law. 144

The persistence of state law correlates positively with the state's coercive influence over daily lives. State law is backed by the armed governing apparatus of the sovereign and is sustained by the rich resources of the state. In many instances, sovereign state law continues to be the most authoritative and precise normative framework. Nonetheless, the conventional division between state and nonstate law is fading. Traditional formalist and statist conceptions of law are no longer adequate. Analyses of law using the state as the exclusive focal point of the international system are unlikely to be theoretically rigorous. 145 The relationships, similarities, and differences between state law and multilevel rules should be given more attention in the academy and the legal profession.

The international system has become less a state-centric, coordinative mechanism than a collectivity of specialized transnational regimes that penetrates into the political constitution of domestic polities. Technological advancements have accelerated the migration and transplantation of legal rules and practices. Nonstate actors like IGOs, INGOs, TNCs, and cross-border social movements have become significant actors in international governance. They have assumed the power to create transnational law that governs many dimensions of the political economy that was previously monopolized by the jurisdiction of the sovereign state.

Sovereignty is at the heart of both public international law and the legal constitution of the territorial state. Substantive changes in the international system unavoidably affect the shape of sovereignty and the future of state law. Indeed, in numerous cases, the state's effective monopoly on all legitimate coercive forces within its territory is no longer empirically defensible. The ability of state law to regulate transnationalized activities like cyber disputes and cross-border commercial transactions effectively is on the verge of decline. Nonetheless, the interplay between law and globalization is plagued by uncertainties. 146 Global forces have brought about both intolerable inequality and new opportunities for exchange. The concept of global law is debatable precisely because it is both global and legal. In many respects, transnational norms assume regulatory powers at the expense of municipal legal systems. The relationship between nonstate and state law is further complicated by the deformalization of regulation. The legal norms originating from the less formal rule-making processes of nonstate international actors (including IGOs and lex mercatoria ) is altering perceptions about what the notion of “law” really means.

The modern state and its law are transforming. Undoubtedly, transnational actors have profoundly influenced the content and character of municipal legal systems. However, the globalization of international governance is not about the marginalization of one legal order by another. After all, the homogenization of law on a global scale is largely speculative. A unified constitutional order of mankind is not in the making, at least in the foreseeable future. However, the state may at times strategically choose to comply with international and transnational norms instead of its own traditional state law; the adaptive power of state law should not be underestimated. It may focus less on maintaining sovereign claims to territorial supremacy and more on the protection of local practices and regional diversity. In the end, the fundamental functions of state law, in structuring the institutional architecture of the state, channeling wide-ranging national social policies, and responding to localized needs and conflicts, are irreplaceable. The interplay between the global and the local is far more complex than mere conflict. People who enact and enforce state law frequently shape nonstate law at the same time. Importantly, legal elites whose outlook is both local and transnational possess the extraordinary power to decide whether state or nonstate law is to be followed in a particular policy or situation.

The public imagination of a global takeover of sovereign rights provides national political elites with a resource to strengthen their existing powers and extend the state's regulatory influence into new areas. Domestic governments, which control the armed forces and important natural and economic resources, are unlikely to give up their vested interests unconditionally. In general, sovereign state law is strong and flexible enough to endure the many challenges ahead. Despite globalization, sovereign state law is likely to retain its political influence over the lives of the vast majority of peoples around the world.

See Marcílio T. Franca, Westphalia: A Paradigm? A Dialogue between Law, Art and Philosophy of Science , 8 G ERMAN L. J. 955, 956 (2007).

See M ICHAEL J. W ARNING , T RANSNATIONAL P UBLIC G OVERNANCE : N ETWORKS , L AW, AND L EGITIMACY 11 (2009).

Douglas Howland & Luise White, Introduction: Sovereignty and the Study of States , in T HE S TATE OF S OVEREIGNTY : T ERRITORIES , L AWS , P OPULATIONS 10 (D OUGLAS H OWLAND & L UISE W HITE , eds., 2009).

See D ENIS J. G ALLIGAN , L AW IN M ODERN S OCIETY 175 (2007).

J AN K LABBERS , A N I NTRODUCTION TO I NTERNATIONAL I NSTITUTIONAL L AW 313 (2009).

G EORGE R ITZER , T HE G LOBALIZATION OF N OTHING 2 5 (2007).

For a brief discussion of public and private transnational law, see W ARNING , supra note 2, at 60.

Stephen McBride & John Wiseman, Introduction , in G LOBALIZATION AND ITS D ISCONTENTS 22 (S TEPHEN MCBRIDE & J OHN W ISEMAN eds., 2000); A NOUSHIRAVAN E HTESHAMI , G LOBALIZATION AND G EOPOLITICS IN THE M IDDLE E AST : O LD G AMES , N EW R ULES 17 (2007).

S YED J. M ASWOOD , I NTERNATIONAL P OLITICAL E CONOMY AND G LOBALIZATION 2–4 (2008).

Philip Cerny, Globalization and the Changing Logic of Collective Action , in T HEORY AND S TRUCTURE IN I NTERNATIONAL P OLITICAL E CONOMY : A N I NTERNATIONAL O RGANIZATION R EADER 125 (C HARLES L IPSON & B ENJAMIN J. C OHEN eds., 2000).

See A MARTYA S EN , I DENTITY AND V IOLENCE : T HE I LLUSION OF D ESTINY 125 (2007).

Klaus Dingwerth & Philip Pattberg, Actors, Arenas, and Issues in Global Governance , in P ALGRAVE A DVANCES IN G LOBAL G OVERNANCE 44 (J IM W HITMAN ed., 2009).

See M ARTIN L OUGHLIN , S WORD AND S CALES : A N E XAMINATION OF THE R ELATIONSHIP B ETWEEN L AW AND P OLITICS 145–147 (2000).

W. Andy Knight, Global Governance as a Summative Phenomenon , in P ALGRAVE A DVANCES IN G LOBAL G OVERNANCE 177 (J IM W HITMAN ed., 2009).

M ARGARET K ARNS & K AREN M INGST , I NTERNATIONAL O RGANIZATIONS: THE P OLITICS AND P ROCESSES OF G LOBAL G OVERNANCE 252 (2009); K ELLY-KATE S. P EASE , I NTERNATIONAL O RGANIZATIONS : P ERSPECTIVES ON G OVERNANCE IN THE T WENTY-FIRST C ENTURY 41–56, 89–100 (2010).

J OHANNES D RAGSBAEK S CHMIDT & J ACQUES H ERSH , G LOBALIZATION AND S OCIAL C HANGE 1–16 (2000).

L OUGHLIN , supra note 13, at 144.

K ARNS & M INGST , supra note 15, at 25.

See John Wiseman, Alternatives to Oppressive Globalization , in G LOBALIZATION AND ITS D ISCONTENTS 219 (S TEPHEN M CBRIDE & J OHN W ISEMAN eds., 2000).

Anthony Anghie, Basic Principles of International Law: A Historical Perspective , in I NTERNATIONAL L AW FOR I NTERNATIONAL R ELATIONS 65 (B ASAK C ALI ed., 2010).

James J. Rice & Michael J. Prince, A ‘Double Movement’: Implications of Globalization and Pluralization for the Canadian Welfare State , in G LOBALIZATION AND ITS D ISCONTENTS 172 (S TEPHEN M CBRIDE & J OHN W ISEMAN eds., 2000).

Richard Higgott, International Political Institutions , in T HE O XFORD H ANDBOOK OF P OLITICAL I NSTITUTIONS 625 (R.A.W. R HODES , S ARAH A. B INDER & B ERT A. R OCKMAN eds., 2008).

Alfred C. Aman Jr., Globalization, Democracy, and the Need for a New Administrative Law , 49 U.C.L.A. L. R EV . 1687, 1694 (2002).

Christoph Antons & Volkmar Gessner, Introduction , in G LOBALIZATION AND R ESISTANCE : L AW R EFORM IN A SIA S INCE THE C RISIS 4 (C HRISTOPH A NTONS & V OLKMAR G ESSNER eds., 2007).

David Held, Cosmpolitanism , in G OVERNING G LOBALIZATION : P OWER , A UTHORITY, AND G LOBAL G OVERNANCE 307 (D AVID H ELD & A NTHONY G. M CGREW eds., 2002).

Mohamed S. Abdel Wahab, Cultural Globalization and Public Policy: Exclusion of Foreign Law in the Global Village , in L AW AND S OCIOLOGY : V OLUME E IGHT 375–376 (M ICHAEL F REEMAN ed., 2006).

Heather Hofmeister & Andre P. Breitenstein, Contemporary Processes of Transnationalization and Globalization , 23 I NT ’ L S OCIOLOGY 480, 480–486 (2008).

Andrew Linklater, Globalization and the Transformation of Political Community , in T HE G LOBALIZATION OF W ORLD P OLITICS : A N I NTRODUCTION TO I NTERNATIONAL R ELATIONS 547 (J OHN B AYLIS , S TEVE S MITH & P ATRICIA O WENS eds., 2008).

Brian Z. Tamanaha, Understanding Legal Pluralism: Past to Present, Local to Global , 30 S YD . L. R EV . 375, 409 (2008).

W ILLIAM T WINNING , G LOBALIZATION AND L EGAL T HEORY 252 (2000).

Roger Cotterrell, Transnational Communities and the Concept of Law , 21 R ATIO J URIS 1, 10 (2008).

W ILLIAM T WINNING , G ENERAL J URISPRUDENCE 375 (2009).

W ERNER F. M ENSKI , C OMPARATIVE L AW IN A G LOBAL C ONTEXT : T HE L EGAL S YSTEMS OF A SIA AND A FRICA 5 (C 2006).

T WINNING , supra note 30, at 250.

M ENSKI , supra note 33, at 7–8.

T WINNING , supra note 30, at 216.

Franz Benda-Beckmann & Keebet von Benda-Beckmann, Transnationalization of Law, Globalization, and Legal Pluralism: A Legal Anthropological Perspective , in G LOBALIZATION AND R ESISTANCE : L AW R EFORM IN A SIA S INCE THE C RISIS 73 (C HRISTOPH A NTONS & V OLKMAR G ESSNER eds., 2007).

Dietmar Willoweit, The Holy Roman Empire as a Legal System , in L EGISLATION AND J USTICE 124 (A NTONIO P ADOA-SCHIOPPA ed., 1997).

Id., at 123.

Id., at 129.

Gunther Teuber, Global Bukowina: Legal Pluralism in the World Society , in G LOBAL L AW W ITHOUT A S TATE 12 (G UNTHER T EUBER ed., 1997).

Marc Hertogh, What is Non-state Law? Mapping the Other Hemisphere of the Legal World , in I NTERNATIONAL G OVERNANCE AND L AW : S TATE R EGULATION AND N ON-STATE L AW 1–18 (H ANNEKE V AN S HOOTEN & J ONATHAN V ERSCHUUREN eds., 2008).

D AVID P. F ORSYTHE , H UMAN R IGHTS IN I NTERNATIONAL R ELATIONS 21 (2006).

A NDRES O SIANDER , T HE S TATES S YSTEM OF E UROPE , 1640–1990: P EACEMAKING AND THE C ONDITIONS OF I NTERNATIONAL S TABILITY 3 (1994).

Heyvaert notes that “international law is undergoing a transformation affecting both constituent parts of its essence: the role of states as sole authors of international norms and the binding nature of norms. Both the proliferation of ‘decentered’ forms of international regulation, emanating from non-state actors and the explosive growth of aspirational, coordinating, or facilitating instruments which only partially correspond to the ideal type of the binding norm enforceable through coercion push the study of international law in new and challenging directions.” See Veerle Heyvaert, Levelling Down, Levelling Up, and Governing Across: Three Responses to Hybridization in International Law , 20 E UR . J. Int’l L. 647, 648 (2009); Andrew Halpin & Volker Roeben, Introduction , in T HEORIZING THE G LOBAL L EGAL O RDER 4 (A NDREW H ALPIN & V OLKER R OEBEN eds., 2009).

A NDREW H URRELL , O N G LOBAL O RDER : P OWER , V ALUES, AND THE C ONSTITUTION OF I NTERNATIONAL S OCIETY 62 (2007).

Christian Reus-Smit, International Law , in T HE G LOBALIZATION OF W ORLD P OLITICS : A N I NTRODUCTION TO I NTERNATIONAL R ELATIONS 287 (J OHN B AYLIS , S TEVE S MITH & P ATRICIA O WENS eds., 2008).

V ICTOR P ESKIN , I NTERNATIONAL J USTICE IN R WANDA AND THE B ALKANS : V IRTUAL T RIALS AND THE S TRUGGLE FOR S TATE C OOPERATION 246–247 (2008).

William W. Burke-White, Complementarity in Practice: The International Criminal Court as Part of a System of Multi-level Global Governance in the Democratic Republic of Congo , 18 L EIDEN J. I NT ’ L . L. 557, 589–590 (2005).

Shirley V. Scott, The Problem of Unequal Treaties in Contemporary International Law: How the Powerful have Reneged on the Political Compacts within which Five Cornerstone Treaties of Global Governance are Situated , 4 J. I NT ’ L . L. & Int’l. R EL . 101, 102 (2008).

Alexandra Khrebtukova, A Call to Freedom: Towards a Philosophy of International Law in an Era of Fragmentation , 4 J. I NT ’ L . L . & I NT ’ L . R EL . 51, 101–102 (2008).

Stephan Hobe, Globalization: A Challenge to the Nation State and to International Law , in T RANSNATIONAL L EGAL P ROCESSES 388 (M ICHAEL L IKOSYKY ed. 2002).

Martti Koskenniemi, Global Governance and Public International Law , 37 K RITISCHE J USTIZ 241, 242–245 (2004).

Pierrick Le Goff, G lobal Law: A Legal Phenomenon Emerging from the Process of Globalization , 14 I ND . J. G LOBAL L EGAL S TUD . 119, 121–126 (2007).

John Flood, Globalization and Law , in A N I NTRODUCTION TO L AW AND S OCIAL T HEORY 313 (R EZA B ANAKAR & M AX T RAVERS eds., 2002).

Le Goff, supra note 57, at 127–128.

Stefan Oeter, Theorizing the Global Legal Order–An Institutionalist Perspective in Theorizing the Global Legal Order , in T HEORIZING THE G LOBAL L EGAL O RDER 81 (A NDREW H ALPIN & V OLKER R OEBEN eds., 2009).

Teuber, supra note 43, at 4.

M ENSKI , supra note 33, at 610.

D AVID B. G OLDMAN , G LOBALIZATION AND THE W ESTERN L EGAL T RADITION : R ECURRING P ATTERNS OF L AW AND A UTHORITY 35 (2007).

Antons & Gessner, supra note 24, at 4.

Hobe, supra note 54, at 108.

R OBERT O. K EOHANE , P OWER AND G OVERNANCE IN A P ARTIALLY G LOBALIZED W ORLD 214 (2002).

A. C LAIRE C UTLER , P RIVATE P OWER AND G LOBAL A UTHORITY : T RANSNATIONAL M ERCHANT L AW IN THE G LOBAL P OLITICAL E CONOMY 1 (2003).

William Twinning, Implications of ‘Globalization’ for Law as a Discipline , in T HEORIZING THE G LOBAL L EGAL O RDER 43 (A NDREW H ALPIN & V OLKER R OEBEN eds., 2009).

Federico Ortino & Matteo Ortino, Law of the Global Economy: In Need of a New Methodological Approach? , in I NTERNATIONAL E CONOMIC L AW : T HE S TATE AND F UTURE OF THE D ISCIPLINE 99 (C OLIN P ICKER , I SABELLA D. B UNN & D OUGLAS W. A RNER eds., 2008).

Harold Koh, Why Transnational Law Matters , 24 P ENN . S T . I NT ’ L . R EV . 746, 747 (2006).

B ENN S TEIL & M ANUEL H INDS , M ONEY , M ARKETS, AND S OVEREIGNTY 26 (2009).

C UTLER , supra note 68, at 35.

B RIAN Z. T AMANAHA , A G ENERAL J URISPRUDENCE OF L AW AND S OCIETY 128 (2001).

Andreas Fischer-Lescano & Gunther Teuber, Regime-Collisions: The Vain Search for Legal Unity in the Fragmentation of Global Law , 25 M ICH . J. I NT ’ L . L. 999, 1034 (2004).

John Gillespie, Developing a Framework for Understanding the Localization of Global Scripts in East Asia , in T HEORIZING THE G LOBAL L EGAL O RDER 219 (A NDREW H ALPIN & V OLKER R OEBEN eds., 2009).

Kenneth Abbot et al., The Concept of Legalization , in I NTERNATIONAL L AW AND I NTERNATIONAL R ELATIONS 129 (B ETH A. S IMMONS & R ICHARD H. S TEINBERG eds., 2006).

E WARD C. L UCK , U N S ECURITY C OUNCIL : P RACTICE AND P ROMISE 104 (Routledge 2006); S IMON C HESTERMAN , T HOMAS F RANCK & D AVID M ALONE , L AW AND P RACTICE OF THE U NITED N ATIONS : D OCUMENTS AND C OMMENTARY 109 (2008).

T AMANAHA , supra note 74, at 122–123.

See Jürgen Habermas, Ch. 11: A Political Constitution for the Pluralist World Society , in J URGEN H ABERMAS , B ETWEEN N ATURALISM AND R ELIGION : P HILOSOPHICAL E SSAY s (2008).

Jan Klabbers, The Paradox of International Institutional Law , 13 I NT ’ L . Org. L. R EV . 1, 13 (2008).

K ATHARINA P. C OLEMAN , I NTERNATIONAL O RGANIZATIONS AND P EACE E NFORCEMENT : T HE P OLITICS OF I NTERNATIONAL L EGITIMACY 71 (2007).

M ICHAEL B ARNETT & M ARTHA F INNEMORE , R ULES FOR THE W ORLD : I NTERNATIONAL O RGANIZATIONS IN G LOBAL P OLITICS 31 (2004).

J AN K LABBERS , A NNE P ETERS & G EIR U LFSTEIN , T HE C ONSTITUTIONALIZATION OF I NTERNATIONAL L AW 49 (2009).

Ran Hirschl, The Judicialization of Politics , in T HE O XFORD H ANDBOOK OF L AW AND P OLITICS 119 (K ENNETH E. W HITTINGTON , R. D ANIEL K ELEMAN & G REGORY A. C ALDEIRA eds., 2008).

A NDREW T. G UZMAN , H OW I NTERNATIONAL L AW W ORKS : A R ATIONAL C HOICE T HEORY 54 (2008).

See Simon Chesterman, Globalization Rules: Accountability, Power, and the Prospects of Global Administrative Law , 14 G LOBAL G OVERNANCE 39 (2008).

C HESTER B ROWN, A C OMMON L AW OF I NTERNATIONAL A DJUDICATION 260–261 (2007).

See Wahab, supra note 26.

Goldman, supra note 64, at 302.

Sabino Cassese, The Globalization of Law , 37 N.Y.U. J. I NT ’ L . L. & P OL . 973, 992 (2006).

See M ENSKI , supra note 33, at 3.

Chunying Xin, The Theory and Practice of Legal Transplant , in D IVERSE L EGAL C ULTURE IN THE A GE OF G LOBALIZATION 4 (C HUNYING X IN ed., 2007).

See Philip Allott, The Concept of International Law , 10 Eur. J. Int’l. L. 31 (1999).

A LEXANDER W ENDT , S OCIAL T HEORY OF I NTERNATIONAL P OLITICS 280 (1999).

H URRELL , supra note 48, at 49.

T WINNING , supra note 30, at 51.

M ICHAEL B YERS , C USTOM , P OWER, AND THE P OWER OF R ULES 35 (1999).

David Kennedy, Leader, Clerk, or Policy Entrepreneur? , in S ECRETARY OR G ENERAL ? T HE UN S ECRETARY G ENERAL IN W ORLD P OLITICS 165 (S IMON C HESTERMAN ed., 2007).

See V AUGHAN L OWE , I NTERNATIONAL L AW 22 (2007); Phil Williams & Gregory Baudin-O’Hayon, Organized Crime and Money Laundering , in G OVERNING G LOBALIZATION : P OWER , A UTHORITY, AND G LOBAL G OVERNANCE 139 (D AVID H ELD & A NTHONY G. M CGREW eds., 2002).

E RIC H OBSBAWM , G LOBALIZATION , D EMOCRACY, AND T ERRORISM 23 (2007).

Wiseman, supra note 19, at 222–223.

Mark Laffey & Jutta Weldes, Policing and Global Governance , in P OWER IN G LOBAL G OVERNANCE 79 (M ICHAEL N. B ARNETT & R AYMOND D UVALL eds., 2005); see Richard Mohr, Local Court Reforms and ‘Global’ Law , 3 U TRECHT L. R EV . 58 (2005).

Andrew Hurrell, Power, Institutions, and the Production of Inequality , in P OWER IN G LOBAL G OVERNANCE 50 (M ICHAEL N. B ARNETT & R AYMOND D UVALL eds., 2005)

Wiseman, supra note 19, at 220.

Nadita Sharma, The Making of the Citizen Self and Citizen Other: Canada's Non-Immigrant Employment Authorization , in G LOBALIZATION AND ITS D ISCONTENTS 129 (S TEPHEN M C B RIDE & J OHN W ISEMAN eds., 2000).

M ATTHEW W ATSON , F OUNDATIONS OF I NTERNATIONAL P OLITICAL E CONOMY 205 (2005).

Rob Watts, The Right Thing: Globalization and the Policy Process—A Case Study , in G LOBALIZATION AND ITS D ISCONTENTS 78–79 (S TEPHEN M C B RIDE & J OHN W ISEMAN eds., 2000).

R ENATE H OLUB , A NTONIO G RAMSCI : B EYOND M ARXISM AND P OSTMODERNISM 164 (1992).

Wayne Sandholtz & Alec Stone Sweet, Law, Politics, and International Governance , in T HE P OLITICS OF I NTERNATIONAL L AW 240 (C HRISTIAN R EUS -S MIT ed., 2004).

G OLDMAN , supra note 64, at 300.

J AMES G. F INLAYSON , H ABERMAS : A V ERY S HORT I NTRODUCTION 106–109 (2005).

P HILIP B OBBIT , T HE S HIELD OF A CHILLES : W AR , P EACE, AND THE C OURSE OF H ISTORY 6 (2003).

See J OHN A USTIN , T HE P ROVINCE OF J URISPRUDENCE D ETERMINED (2000).

See H.L.A. H ART , T HE C ONCEPT OF L AW (1997).

Id. , at 216.

Tamanaha, supra note 29, at 411.

I AN W ARD , A C RITICAL I NTRODUCTION TO E UROPEAN L AW 227 (2009).

See J üRGEN H ABERMAS , B ETWEEN F ACTS AND N ORMS : C ONTRIBUTIONS TO A D ISCOURSE T HEORY OF L AW AND D EMOCRACY (1996).

Alan Hunt, The Problematization of Law in Classical Social Theory , in A N I NTRODUCTION TO L AW AND S OCIAL T HEORY 24–26 (R EZA B ANAKAR & M AX T RAVERS eds., 2002).

A NTONIO G RAMSCI , S ELECTIONS F ROM THE P RISON N OTEBOOKS OF A NTONIO G RAMSCI 246 (Q UINTIN H OARE & G EOFFREY S MITH eds.,1992).

Allen Buchanan & Robert O. Keohane, The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions , in L EGITIMACY , J USTICE, AND P UBLIC I NTERNATIONAL L AW 30 (L UKAS H. M EYER ed., 2009).

Brigitte Stern, How to Regulate Globalization? , in T HE R OLE OF L AW IN I NTERNATIONAL P OLITICS 267 (M ICHAEL B YERS ed., 2000).

Cotterrell, supra note 31, at 15–16.

Id. , at 5.

See Christopher Whytock, Transnational Law, Domestic Courts, and Global Governance , U NIVERSITY OF U TAH S. J. Q UINNEY C OLLEGE OF L AW L EGAL S TUDIES R ESEARCH A RTICLE S ERIES (No. 07–05, 2007), available at: http://ssrn.com/abstracts=976274 .

Yishai Blank, Localism in the New Global Legal Order , 47 H ARV . I NT ’ L . L. J. 263, 281 (2006).

D ANIEL W. D REZNER , A LL P OLITICS IS G LOBAL : E XPLAINING I NTERNATIONAL R EGULATORY R EGIMES 34 (2007).

Oeter, supra note 61, at 74.

Catherine Dupre, Globalization and Judicial Reasoning: Building Blocks for a Method of Interpretation , in T HEORIZING THE G LOBAL L EGAL O RDER 123 (A NDREW H ALPIN & V OLKER R OEBEN eds., 2009).

T WINNING , supra note 29, at 84.

Cotterrell, supra note 30, at 5.

G EORG S ORENSEN , T HE T RANSFORMATION OF THE S TATE : B EYOND THE M YTH OF R ETREAT 22 (2004).

Stephen Allen, The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Towards a Global Legal Order on Indigenous Rights? , in T HEORIZING THE G LOBAL L EGAL O RDER 207 (A NDREW H ALPIN & V OLKER R OEBEN eds., 2009).

Anne Griffiths, Legal Pluralism , in A N I NTRODUCTION TO L AW AND S OCIAL T HEORY 309–310 (R EZA B ANAKAR & M AX T RAVERS eds., 2002).

See Pizhao Che, The Globalization of Law , 4 T SINGHUA L. R EV . 53 (2002).

Benda-Beckmann & Benda-Beckmann, supra note 41, at 70.

John W. Cioffi, Governing Globalization? The State, Law, and Structural Change in Corporate Governance , 27 J. L. & S OC . 572, 600 (2000).

Teuber, supra note 42, at 28.

Paul Berman, Global Legal Pluralism , 80 S. C AL . L. R EV . 1155, 1162 (2007).

Griffiths, supra note 137, at 298.

Cassese, supra note 93, at 992–993.

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• I·CONnect
• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1474-2659
• Print ISSN 1474-2640
• Copyright © 2024 New York University School of Law and Oxford University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

The State and Globalisation

This is an excerpt from Understanding Global Politics by Kevin Bloor. You can download the book free of charge from E-International Relations .

This chapter provides an overview of the role and significance of the state and globalisation. It seeks to outline the characteristics of the nation-state, national sovereignty and interdependence. The advantages and disadvantages of globalisation will be considered alongside its implications. The process of globalisation has potentially altered how we should understand the role of the state within International Relations. Given the contested nature of the subject matter, this is part of a broader theoretical debate between the two dominant paradigms of International Relations. The chapter ends with an examination of the ways and extent to which globalisation seeks to address and resolve issues within contemporary world politics.

The Nation-State and National Sovereignty

The Nation-State

A nation-state is both a legal and theoretical concept. In a legal sense, a nation-state is an entity in which the majority of its citizens share the same national culture and identity. A nation can be defined as a community of people united by a common language, history or culture inhabiting a particular territorial area. In terms of the state, the sociologist Max Weber (1994) argued that the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of coercion within a given political entity. In a de facto sense, a nation-state can therefore be defined as a political community bound together via citizenship and nationality. Members of nation-states are considered citizens, and such a consideration includes the attachment of rights and obligations.

In terms of the latter, a nation-state is a theoretical ideal in which national and cultural boundaries match up with territorial ones. A nation-state is therefore based on the belief that the nation should be able to define its own borders and thereby exercise control over them. The term is common within political discourse and the idea of a nation-state continues to shape independence movements. Throughout the world, independence movements seek to form their own nation-state, and as such ascertain the dominant mode of sovereign self-determination.

In an era characterised by globalisation, nation-states find it increasingly difficult to protect their borders from external threats posed by non-state actors that operate in the space between states, such as international terrorists. Nation-states can also find themselves relatively powerless against the dynamics of a global financial system. Unsurprisingly, many informed commentators contend that the Westphalian era is in decline due to the wide- ranging impact of globalisation. That said, citizens of a nation-state often hold a deep emotional attachment to their nation, following the ascendance of nationalism and national identity from the Romantic period onwards (Carr 1945). National identity offers a sense of comfort in a world of rapid and sometimes bewildering social change, and globalisation may have led to a revival in nationalism. Indeed, there are several populist parties, figures and movements, such as Fidesz in Hungary, The Law and Justice Party (PiS) in Poland, The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) in the UK, Geert Wilders’ Dutch Freedom Party, or even ex-President Donald Trump that gain support based on opposition towards globalisation and the so called ‘liberal elite’.

It is also worth noting the distinction between a nation and the state. Crucially, the state is an objective reality, defined whereby a single faction holds a legitimate monopoly of violence and thus bureaucratically administers a defined territory, whereas the nation is a construct. The UK is a state, whereas British identity is difficult to adequately describe in any meaningful sense. In global terms, political tension is surely inevitable when there are numerous nations living alongside each other in any given territory, particularly when there is a substantial minority to accommodate. Equally, conflict may arise when divergence exists between the dominant nation and other national groups with opposing cultural traditions. In the world’s most populous democracy, India, Hindus are the majority religious group. However, there are more Muslims residing in India than there are in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Indian society seeks to accommodate non-Hindu religious groups via an official policy of secularism.

The nation-state is also an instrument by which a nation may serve its collective interest. To establish an effective and functioning society, the nation-state may seek to coerce oppositional forces. As such, one of the outcomes of nationalism is the rhetorical construct of ‘terrorists’ against those who pose a threat to national identity. The nation-state may therefore be a counter against terrorist groups utilising what James Kiras calls the ‘weapon of the weak’ (Baylis, et al. 2019).

In order to more properly comprehend the meaning of a ‘nation-state’, a useful comparison can be made with other types of states. For instance, a ‘multinational state’ is one in which no singular ethnic group is dominant. These are sometimes referred to as ‘multicultural states’ depending upon the level of assimilation amongst ethnic groups. This may consist of an official recognition from the national government (as in the case of Canada). There are also entities that differ in size to a nation-state. For instance, the city- states of pre-unification Italy were much smaller than a nation-state and were usually dominated by a single ethnic group. In contrast, an empire is composed of several countries under a single monarch or system of government. At its peak, the British Empire was the largest in history with almost one in four of the world’s people living under its dominion. A colonised homogenous nation within an imperial system is not a sovereign state, and as such, cannot be thought of as a nation-state.

A contrast can also be made between a nation-state and a confederation with a league of sovereign groups (e.g. Switzerland is a confederation that consists of twenty-six cantons under a common government). From a similar perspective, a federation is a political entity that contains partially self- governing regions under a central government. This is often designed to reflect ethnic diversity. For instance, the federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina is delineated along ethnic lines. Two of the most powerful countries in the world (the United States and Russia) are also classed as federations.

Any understanding of a nation-state also requires an examination of the actual meaning of a nation. For instance, the UK consists of at least four separate nations. England, Scotland and Wales are distinct nations within a unitary political system centred upon the sovereignty of the Westminster parliament. Northern Ireland is a far less cohesive nation due to a sectarian division between an Ulster-British culture and an Irish culture.

In essence, a nation is a constructed entity in which people are bound together by a common language, religion, historical narrative and cultural traditions. It is grounded in a palpable yet intangible sense of national identity and belonging. The historian Benedict Anderson (1983) provides a useful insight here with his phrase ‘imagined communities’. For him, a nation is a social construct imagined by those who perceive themselves to be members of that group. An imagined community is distinct to an ‘actual’ community because it is not based upon everyday interaction amongst its members, but upon the perceived and constructed linkages between those members. It is inherently constructed and bound up with sentimental appeals to kinship with others.

A nation is often confused and conflated with the notion of a nation-state, but this is often misleading. A nation is an intangible entity based upon a collective identity, whereas a nation-state is a territorial construct in which the boundaries of a nation overlap with that of the state. The nation-state is, importantly, also a legal concept based upon the principle that each nation- state is sovereign over its defined territory.

A stateless nation consists of an ethnic or identity group that does not possess its own nation-state. Stateless nations are either dispersed across several states (such as the Yoruba people in sub-Saharan Africa) or form the majority population of a province within a larger state (such as the Catalans and the Basques). There are also stateless nations with some history of statehood. For example, the Tibetan government-in-exile asserts that Tibet is an independent state under unlawful occupation from the People’s Republic of China. There are other nations that were always stateless due to domination by another state. For instance, Israeli occupation of Palestinian land is now the longest in modern history.

There are also a number of ethnic (and religious / linguistic) groups who were once a stateless nation that later forged a nation-state (such as the nations of the Balkans that constituted the former Yugoslavia in 1946). There are also situations in which members of a stateless nation may become citizens of the country they reside in despite their oppression. Members of a stateless nation invariably group together to demand greater autonomy or full independence. There are varying degrees of autonomy available such as devolution, full fiscal autonomy and full sovereign independence.

As a case study, ‘Kurdistan’ presents an interesting example. The Kurdish nation covers four states and Kurds have faced sustained discrimination from the official authorities. Most dramatically, the Kurdish people were gassed by the Saddam Hussein regime during the Iran-Iraq war, and now face discrimination from the Turkish authorities. The Kurdish nation seeks to establish control of northern Syria in addition to its autonomous entity within the Republic of Iraq. Demands for independence are championed by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK).

National Sovereignty

National sovereignty refers to the ability of the state to impose a system of government upon its citizens. In Weberian language, the modern state is defined by its monopoly over the legitimate use of coercion or force within that given political entity. For realists in particular, this is the very essence of national sovereignty and an unmistakable reminder of its importance.

Under international law, a state is said to be sovereign over a territorial area. International law (following the 1933 Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States) defines a sovereign state as one with a permanent population, a clearly defined geographical scope, a single government and diplomatic recognition from other states. To illustrate the point, there are a number of states that are not recognised as such within the international community. For instance, the Turkish-occupied region of Cyprus is only recognised by the government in Ankara. An unrecognised state cannot engage in diplomatic relations with other sovereign states, and therefore lacks one of the essential characteristics of statehood.

The concept of national sovereignty also refers to the authority exercised by a governing body without interference from external sources or organisations – known as ‘external sovereignty’. In a theoretical sense, sovereignty is absolute. In practice, this is never the case as even dominant states are subject to international laws and conventions. In an increasingly interconnected system, the potential for outside interference is a constant feature. Indeed, the Russian and Chinese authorities have proved particularly adept at cyberwarfare.

Any proper understanding of national sovereignty requires a sharp distinction between de facto and de jure sovereignty. Sovereignty in a de facto sense means the ability to act in a certain manner, as the ultimate decision-making power over a defined territory. The latter, de jure sovereignty, merely refers to the technical and legal ultimate decision-making power of an actor or agent. The terms political sovereignty and legal sovereignty are also used here. It should be relatively clear that de facto (or political) sovereignty is of greater importance than de jure (or legal) sovereignty. The Republic of China (commonly known as Taiwan) holds de facto sovereignty but is not universally recognised by other states. For instance, the United States does not support full national independence for Taiwan although it does favour Taiwan’s membership in various international forums.

In a practical sense, a state is subject to a degree of influence from more powerful states. Whilst the UK is able to determine its own foreign policy, decisions are shaped to a considerable extent by its special relationship with the US. Given its relative power, the UK is unlikely to act in a manner contrary to its strategic and military ties with Washington. On a more straight-forward point, colonies are neither de facto or de jure sovereign, with ultimate decisions being made by the colonial power.

From a theoretical standpoint, it has been argued that we have reached a post-Westphalian epoch in which the concept of sovereignty and the nation- state can no longer be sustained. This argument has grown due to the process of globalisation. The phrase post-Westphalian has also gained in salience from usage by prominent political figures and academics (Kreuder- Sonnen and Zangl 2015).

One of the more obvious consequences of the post-Westphalian system is the increased reliance upon humanitarian intervention in order to maintain liberal values. Military intervention from a US-led alliance has been implemented in several parts of the world (such as in Iraq 1991 and 2003, and Afghanistan in 2001). Humanitarian intervention within a failed state may even be coordinated by regional powers. Since 2015, the Saudi-led ‘Arab coalition’ has offered military assistance to the internally recognised government in Yemen. Humanitarian intervention underlines the extent of global governance within the contemporary era.

From the opposing angle, notions of state sovereignty and non-intervention remain relevant towards our understanding of global politics. There are a number of conflicts in which international organisations (and powerful states) choose not to directly intervene. From a realist interpretation, the dependent factor is the relative standing of the country in question. In the post- Westphalian world, it can sometimes be advantageous for a country to be of little economic or strategic interest to the outside world. In contrast, those with valuable resources (notably hard commodities such as oil or metals) are always more likely to attract intervention from outside forces out of their own policy of self-interest.

Globalisation

The Process of Globalisation as a Complex Web of Interconnectedness

Globalisation can be defined as a complex web of mutual dependence within a multitude of areas (economic, social and political). Globalisation has been driven by a number of interlinked factors such as technological development, economic integration and the movement of people. In terms of theoretical perspectives, the trend towards globalisation is perhaps best outlined via ‘the cobweb model’.

In an era characterised by globalisation, the velocity of events has been profound. Events in one part of the world can have an immediate and lasting impact upon another. Technological developments in communication tie the world together in ways unimaginable to previous generations. In the words of the cultural theorist Marshall McLuhan (1964), we inhabit a ‘global village’ in which the world is getting smaller. Some have even depicted globalisation as concomitant with the death of distance (Cairncross 1997). Either way, globalisation is built upon an intricate web of communication within the political, cultural and economic sphere over the course of the second half of the last century.

If there was to be but one word that summarises the phenomenon of globalisation, it would be that of interconnectedness . Globalisation is ultimately a process that generates deeper and wider levels of interaction and integration amongst a plurality of actors (such as Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), Multinational Corporations or Companies (MNCs), and states). In an ever-more interconnected world system, transnational networks surmount traditional boundaries and make them largely irrelevant.

Globalisation is conventionally divided into three areas: economic, political and cultural. In each of these areas, the extent to which the world is connected is stark and seems unlikely to be reversed in the foreseeable future. In terms of economic globalisation, the world is analogous to a global marketplace. Local and national economies are embedded within a worldwide market, with the forces of supply and demand transcending national borders. For instance, in commercials for the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. (HSBC) a child attempting to sell or market a homemade product outside their home will take multiple currencies. Such a scenario, no matter how unrealistic, would not have been conceivable prior to globalisation. The spread of economic interdependence has been facilitated by deregulation and technological developments. A clear illustration of this was the 2008 financial crisis and credit crunch. Instigated by a complex relation between deregulation, investment into ‘subprime’ mortgage bonds, issuing cheap mortgages, and a lack of consideration for systemic risk by banks in the US, the financial contagion affected virtually all parts of the global economy. The interconnectivity of the markets could no longer be denied by even the staunchest of globalisation sceptics.

In political terms, globalisation has called into question the continued relevance of the Westphalian conception of the nation-state. Traditionally, the principle of national sovereignty lay at the very heart of international relations. Due to the interconnectedness of the global system, nation-states have little choice but to work together to deal with cross-border issues such as terrorism, security and the movement of refugees, to name but three. In an era characterised by globalisation, even the most powerful states co-operate with other actors to achieve their aims, and this has been made absolutely clear with the increased relevance of International Organisations at both the global (the UN, NATO, ICC, etc.) and regional (EU, AU, ASEAN, etc.) levels where such interconnectivity, cooperation and common interest is made manifest.

In order to underline this argument, it seems fittingly ironic that the process of integration has gone further and deeper amongst the European states that gave birth to the nation-state through the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 than any other. Since the Treaty of Rome in 1957, the European Union has formed a set of intergovernmental and supranational institutions. States that once went to war against one another for extended periods of time chose to pool (or share) their sovereignty over certain areas of governance. There are few clearer illustrations of interconnectedness in the political realm than within the EU. On the international stage, the EU repeatedly employs its considerable soft power in an effective manner. In a highly symbolic move, the EU was awarded the Nobel peace prize in 2012 for its role in continually stabilising the region and transforming Europe from a continent of war to one of peace and cooperation.

In a cultural sense, the Internet has brought people together like never before. We are able to connect with others in a manner inconceivable just a couple of decades ago. The statistics are truly staggering here. If Facebook were a country, it would be the largest in the world on the basis of population (Taylor 2016). In addition, the number of monthly users of Twitter now exceeds the entire population of the United States (Statista Research Department 2021). Such unprecedented levels of communication generate yet further interdependence within the economic and political realm. For instance, initial protests in 2011 against the Tunisian regime spread via the use of social media to five other countries, causing the overturning of several long-standing regimes – the effects of which are still observable in Libya and Syria today. This international event is known today as ‘The Arab Spring’.

All three elements of globalisation interconnect and overlap in some manner. An understanding of economic globalisation inevitably entails a cultural and political context. For instance, the increased salience of the global marketplace comes with a sense of cultural imperialism. Equally, the growing success of companies from certain countries underlines shifts in the power balance within global politics (such as the continued rise of China).

The Impact of Globalisation on the State System

The political scientist David Held (Held, et al.. 1999, 2) argues that globalisation consists of the ‘widening, deepening and speeding up of worldwide interconnectedness in all aspects of contemporary social life.’ The process itself permeates all facets of international relations including the state system, the economic and the everyday. In order to properly comprehend the meaning of interconnectedness and interdependence, it is first necessary to define the terms.

In the context of globalisation, interconnectedness entails two related elements. The first is the loosening of international borders to facilitate the flow of goods, services and people. Secondly, institutions have either been created or modified to accommodate the new normal. In doing so, globalisation can be said to have created a global village in which we are all connected in some manner. For instance, technological developments enable us to share images and ideas on an immediate and far-reaching basis.

Mutual dependence is perhaps most overtly expressed within the realm of economic globalisation. In terms of the positives, countries that might have once engaged in warfare now have a strong financial incentive to avoid such a scenario. Despite the hyped-up rhetoric of a ‘trade war’ between the US and China, neither side has any rational interest in implementing complete protectionism. The liberal perspective refers to this as the ‘capitalist peace theory’ (Gartzke 2007), or sometimes the ‘Commercial Peace Theory’. On the downside, economic instability in one region of the world can have a damaging impact upon others, as discussed in relation to the 2008 global financial crisis. Despite some limited level of state regulation, transactions worth trillions of US dollars occur outside of any meaningful government control.

Another area in which interconnectedness holds major implications relates to humanitarian intervention. The normative element of liberalism tends to provide a basis for humanitarian intervention. However, realists remind us that humanitarian and strategic considerations are often meshed together. As such, humanitarian intervention in an era of globalisation can be justified on grounds of self-interest. In some regions of the world, intervention is a useful means of preventing regional instability, which can also affect neighbouring regions. States also have a rational interest in adopting a highly selective definition of humanitarian intervention. For instance, authoritarian regimes that violate human rights are highly unlikely to experience outside interference from a strategic ally.

Globalisation demands that we rethink our conventional view of world politics. As Professor Anthony McGrew (2016, 29) points out ‘the sovereign power and authority of national governments…is being transformed but not necessarily eroded’ in the twenty-first century. Illustrating this, globalisation has turned traditional assumptions on their head (such as the dichotomy between the domestic and external sphere of politics). ‘Power politics’, in the established sense of the phrase, also needs to be reconfigured to recognise the importance of economic ties. Due to interconnectedness and mutual dependence, a multitude of actors play an increasingly important role within global affairs. Globalisation has also brought with it an expanded vocabulary of International Relations with terms such as complex interdependence, soft power, global governance, and so the list could go on.

According to liberal theorists like Robert Keohane, interconnectedness and mutual dependence will contribute towards the establishment of a more peaceful world order. As states tend to maximise their own perceived interests, they each have a stake in maintaining the global economic system. The dynamics of globalisation enable states to escape the straight jacket imposed upon them by the Westphalian conception of the sovereign state. Naturally, these normative assumptions about globalisation are not universal. The realist perspective takes a less optimistic view of globalisation. Despite an undeniable degree of connections and interdependence, the state system remains anarchic and states must always ensure their own survival, at least for Realists. Conflict between (and within) states therefore continues to be a feature of contemporary international relations.

The Challenge of Globalisation to State Control Over Citizens

The process of globalisation makes it more difficult for the state to perform the fundamental function of maintaining social order within its borders. There are several cogent illustrations of this point. Most notably, the formation of a shared space between like-minded individuals and organisations undermines the ability of the state to claim a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. When faced with demand for radical change, the legitimacy of the existing regime can buckle under severe strain from the momentum of transnational movements (as witnessed during the Arab Spring).

In the twenty-first century, politics is increasingly conducted on a cross-border level. As people make meaningful and lasting connections on this basis, their loyalty to the state is greatly weakened. This is a particular problem within failed states such as Libya. After forty-two years of Muammar Gaddafi as ‘Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution of Libya’, in 2011 the demise of Gaddafi’s regime caused the emergence of a power vacuum that led to a NATO-led coalition intervening via the installation of a no-fly zone and the assistance of the United Nations (UNSMIL). This was all the more important due to the oil reserves in the country, leading to a number of critics claiming intervention arose out of national interest (Campbell, 2013). However, this cross-border phenomenon also presents a problem for those states with well-established and clearly defined territorial borders. A number of closely connected movements calling for greater regional autonomy makes it much more problematic for the central government to uphold the law.

Globalisation has also made it more difficult for the state to control the movement of goods, services and people within its own borders. The dynamics of globalisation are shaped primarily by the forces of demand and supply, whilst governments are somewhat marginal to the process. In EU countries, for example, the member states must uphold the four freedoms (including the free movement of labour and capital). In the Global South, the state is in a particularly weak position in relation to the demands made by multinational companies. The former is in need of jobs and investment, whilst multinationals are in a position to provide.

Having acknowledged this, the state also retains its importance. The agents of the state remain the most important elements in the maintenance of law and order. The implementation of social order requires a fully functioning government with an effective state apparatus. The state also remains a relevant institution due in part to the public’s reaction against the process of globalisation. In countries throughout the world, there has been a resurgence in nationalist feeling via self-styled ‘strong men’ to deal with the dangers posed by globalisation (such as terrorism and uncontrolled immigration). This is an observation that readily applies to the United States (Trump), Brazil (Bolsonaro), Russia (Putin), India (Modi), Hungary (Orban) and the Philippines (Duterte), alongside many others.

From an academic standpoint, Professor Steve Smith (Baylis et al.. 2019) argues there is a clear paradox at work here. In one sense, the public wants governments to protect them from the chill winds of globalisation. This approach necessitates policies such as increased military spending and tougher border restrictions. Equally, the process of globalisation makes the maintenance of stability and order considerably harder to achieve in practice. Either way, globalisation can be said to have changed how the state exerts control and influence over its citizens.

On the Development of International Law Alongside Globalisation

The impact of globalisation on international law is contested. From one angle, it could be argued that it represents a profound alteration in the behaviour of states. International law is arguably more effective than ever before due to the interdependence fostered by globalisation. These developments have embedded certain norms of behaviour that emphasise diplomacy, cooperation and the maintenance of liberal norms.

In order to support this argument, there has undoubtedly been a major expansion in the scope and efficacy of international law since the 1990s. Tyrants that would at one time have escaped trial by international jurisdiction due to their strategic importance to a Cold War ally are more likely to be held to account for their crimes. Most have welcomed such developments as a positive outcome of globalisation.

From the opposing angle, globalisation has done little to alter the fundamental basis of international law. All too often, international law is merely a servant of the most powerful. For instance, international law undoubtedly has a Western-centric bias towards universal human rights. This often provides a fig-leaf to advance American interests (such as the invasion of an oil-rich country). There are also clear double standards at work that underline the extent to which international law serves as a tool of powerful states. For instance, the United States has never been a member of the International Criminal Court. This may in part reflect the hegemonic power held by Washington.

In theoretical terms, the realist perspective has long viewed international law as ineffective. According to Hans Morgenthau (1948, 21) states are ‘continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organised violence in the form of war.’ The trend towards globalisation has done nothing whatsoever to change this long-standing observation about the anarchic system of international relations. Frankly, the only obligation to behave in accordance with international law are in those rare occasions when the threat of sanctions is both credible and potentially effective. In the case of the US- led invasion of Iraq, this was emphatically not the case.

As one would expect, the liberal perspective takes a more positive view of international law. The creation of a more just system of international relations requires international law. In contrast to the realist paradigm, international law is considered important because it sets the boundaries of acceptable behaviour. It confers legitimacy towards humanitarian intervention and offers redress of grievance for sovereign states. The achievements of international law should therefore be recognised and built upon.

No understanding of international law would be complete without marking out the distinction between jus ad bellum and jus in bello that are central to the legal discussion of ‘Just War’. The former relates to laws that specify when a state is justified in the use of military force, i.e., the condition on which a war may be considered ‘just’. There are two main provisions to consider. Under Chapter 7 Article 42 of the UN Charter, the Security Council may authorise military action in order to ensure peace. This tends to occur for peacekeeping missions in failed states such as Sierra Leone (1999–2006), Bosnia (1992– 1995) and Somalia (1992–1995). Under Article 51, states can also use military force as a legitimate means of self-defence against an armed attack. In addition, Article 2(4) calls on member states to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of an independent state.

Jus in bello , however, refers to the conduct of warfare, i.e. what sort of action is ‘just’ during warfare. For instance, the use of chemical weapons is prohibited under international law. The treatment of captured military personnel, medical staff and non-military civilians is covered under four separate Geneva Conventions. Whilst there is considerable evidence to suggest that states adhere to the principles of jus ad bellum and jus in bello , powerful states have ignored these fundamental tenets of international law. During the Iraq war, for instance, the US-led coalition failed to gain full authorisation from the UN Security Council prior to the invasion of Iraq. The treatment of ‘enemy combatants’ at Guantanamo Bay is also a clear violation of what should constitute the just conduct of warfare.

Humanitarian and Forcible Intervention in a Globalised World

Humanitarian intervention can be defined as the use or threat of force with the express goal of bringing the violation of human rights to an end in a specific locality. Non-military forms of intervention may also be included – such as the provision of aid and the imposition of diplomatic sanctions. There is often an absence of consent from the host state, although a functioning government might be lacking in the case of a failed (or failing) state. Humanitarian intervention often occurs in response to a scenario that does not pose a direct threat to the strategic interests of states involved in the intervention.

There is of course an unyielding tension between the Westphalian principle of state sovereignty and the use of humanitarian intervention. The concept of non-interference in the affairs of a sovereign state is a central feature of international law. Article 2(7) of the UN Charter clearly states that nothing shall authorise intervention in matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state. Yet, having said this, the UN Charter facilitates the use of force in order to establish peace and stability in Article 51. There is also a degree of consensus over the essential characteristics of humanitarian intervention. According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, there are four principles that provide the foundation for humanitarian action: humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence.

Humanitarian intervention can at times bring together an unlikely alliance of hard-headed realists and idealistic liberals. The former may support intervention in order to rid the world of a geopolitical threat to regional or national security whereas the latter tend to support intervention in order to uphold universal human rights and to seek justice. There are several illustrations in which both realists and liberals could comfortably identify some degree of justification. One of these examples would be NATO’s intervention within Kosovo in 1999.

The background to humanitarian intervention in Kosovo is one of Serbian nationalism, ethnic cleansing and genocide. In the aftermath of the Bosnian war (1992-1995), Yugoslav forces sought to eradicate the Albanian population in Kosovo. The Kosovo Liberation Army was formed as a reaction to human rights abuses by Serbian forces in Kosovo and the region broadly, abuses which were denied by the then Serbian President Slobodan Milošević, such as the Srebrenica Massacre in 1995 where over eight-thousand Bosnian Muslims were murdered by the Serbian aligned army. After diplomatic attempts to end the killing, NATO sought to intervene on behalf of Kosovan Albanians. Although the Security Council failed to authorise intervention, NATO engaged in a campaign of air strikes in an attempt to defeat Serbian forces. The short-lived Kosovo war was fought between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Kosovo Albanian rebels. The war was brought to an end via a peace treaty that ensured the withdrawal of Yugoslav and Serb forces in order to provide space for an international presence. According to official estimates, almost 1.5 million Kosovo Albanians were forced to leave their homes.

Another revealing case study to consider here is the multi-state NATO-led 2011 coalition in Libya. Unlike Kosovo, the military organisation gained official authorisation for humanitarian intervention in order to protect civilians in the midst of the civil war that broke out at the start of the Arab Spring. The UN Security Council was committed to the clear and achievable aims of bringing an immediate ceasefire to the civil war in the failed state (including an end to crimes against humanity in terms of attacks against civilians). The Libyan intervention was part of a broader attempt by NATO to reinvent itself in a post-Cold War era. It was a largely successful intervention partly due to the lack of an effective response from the Gaddafi regime. NATO countries managed to utilise their military hardware in terms of enforcing a no-fly zone, a naval blockade and an arms embargo.

In a strictly legal sense, Chapter 7 of the UN Charter allows the Security Council to take action in those situations where there is a ‘threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression’ (United Nations, 1945). The exact meaning of what constitutes a ‘threat’ has been broadened since the end of the Cold War, which has led to the authorisation of force in situations that at one time would have been considered either an internal conflict or one firmly within a superpower’s sphere of influence.

On pragmatic grounds, humanitarian intervention can be justified in order to prevent genocide. The 1948 Convention of the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide defines the term as those acts ‘committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national ethnic, racial or religious group.’ If this definition is met, those states and organisations tasked with the mobilisation of resources face a number of practical dilemmas. Perhaps the most important of these is how to avoid further instability within the country affected. Examples of jus post bellum to consider include political reconstruction, financial reparations and restraining conquest. Another additional concern is how to construct an effective strategy on the ground in terms of gaining public trust.

In regards to global governance, gaining authorisation from the UN Security Council can at times be problematic. In order for action to be effective, the five permanent members need to adopt unanimity. Given the moral dilemma posed by potential intervention, agreement can at times be difficult to achieve. For instance, in November 2002, Washington interpreted UN Resolution 1441 as a justification for intervention against the Iraqi regime. Although the resolution was passed on a unanimous basis, at least three of the permanent five voiced grave doubts about the wisdom of military intervention. In other situations, a member of the permanent five has used their veto powers to prevent any planned intervention on humanitarian grounds (such as the Syrian Civil War).

The ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) also bears some relevance towards our comprehension of humanitarian intervention. Endorsed in 2005 by General Secretary Kofi Annan as official policy of the UN, R2P is a global political commitment to recognise the obligations that arise from the concept of sovereignty. R2P is therefore based on an understanding that sovereignty imposes a positive duty upon the state to protect those housed within its borders. When a state fails to do this, the responsibility shifts towards the international community. The responsibility to protect entails three stages (to prevent, to reach and to rebuild). Supporters claim that the doctrine of R2P will, in time, replace the right to intervene. The international community has a duty to intervene when a state has failed to meet its obligations. R2P has also been praised for its reliance upon non-military measures, and for changing the contours of the debate over humanitarian intervention.

The Debate Between Hyper-globalisers, Globalisation Sceptics and Transformationalists

When considering the theoretical debate concerning globalisation, the obvious starting-point is the dichotomy between the two main theoretical perspectives discussed in the previous chapter – i.e. realism and liberalism. As a conventional starting-point, realism stipulates that globalisation has done little to change the fundamental conduct of international relations. The Westphalian system may have changed, but it’s far from buried. It is also possible for the major powers to impose economic protectionism and exercise populist language. From a less dramatic perspective, the decision to leave the European Union by the UK also demonstrates the continued relevance of national sovereignty within the contemporary era. In time, globalisation itself may perhaps be viewed as a passing fad.

The traditional theoretical opponent of realism is that of liberalism. Liberals claim that globalisation represents an irreversible and profound change in the dynamics of international relations. There are two aspects to consider here. The first is a direct challenge to the realist paradigm. Liberals point out that the borders of states are now more porous than ever before. The sovereignty of states has been compromised beyond recognition and the billiard-ball analogy now looks one-dimensional. Whilst realists cling to an out-dated statism, we now have a disaggregated state in which various agencies pursue their own departmental interests. The second is the prescriptive element of globalisation. Liberalism is built upon the assumption that human nature is perfectible. Institutions can therefore provide for an effective system of global governance as an extension of this will to perfect our human condition, and eradicating war is part of this process. Liberal thinkers undoubtedly have a more optimistic outlook than their realist counterparts.

Outside of the liberal-realist debate are a number of other theoretical perspectives that hold a perspective on globalisation at their centre. Three of these will be discussed, namely: Hyper-globalisers, Globalisation Sceptics, and Transformationalists. Each will be addressed in turn. As the term implies, hyper-globalists such as Kenichi Ohmae (1995) predict that globalisation represents the gradual demise of the sovereign state. Governments around the world can no longer manage their own domestic affairs as international interdependence has become a fact affecting both domestic and foreign affairs. Instead, governments must negotiate with non-state actors in order to achieve their aims. This is shown most dramatically within the economic sphere.

Globalisation Sceptics however stipulate that the hyper-globalist argument is little more than ‘globaloney’ (Veseth 2006). The sceptical position proclaims that there is nothing inherently new in the current mania for globalisation. Far from being a profound transformation in global politics, the process of globalisation occurs in waves and there is little to stop the tide turning against globalisation (an argument supported by the rise of populism). In recent years, there have been a number of ‘strong men’ who have sought to present themselves as opponents of globalisation. Alongside this, Stephen Krasner (1999) adds that states and geopolitics remain the principal agents and forces that shape world politics.

The sceptical argument is supported by patterns of global trade. The most significant trading links are concentrated within the relatively wealthier economies. Trading links are also increasingly formalised on a regional rather than truly global basis. From a more sceptical position, Justin Rosenberg depicts the term globalisation as a ‘conceptual folly’ which acts as a self- serving myth (2000). Globalisation is only meaningful for the rich and powerful. For the majority of people, the term is largely without substance. This is an argument that seems pertinent to the Global South (sometimes called the ‘majority world’ because the majority of the earth’s population inhabit developing countries).

Transformationalists such as David Held and Anthony McGrew (2002) claim that both hyper-globalists and sceptics exaggerate their arguments. Transformationalists seek a half-way position between these two polar opposites. Whilst they accept that globalisation has undermined traditional notions of International Relations (such as the distinction between the domestic and the external), predictions about the demise of the nation-state are premature. Given its position within the broader debate concerning globalisation, it could be said to offer the best of both worlds. It also helps us escape the blunt dichotomy of the realist-liberal debate.

Debates Concerning the Impact of Globalisation: The Pros and Cons

The Impact of Globalisation

When seeking to evaluate the impact of globalisation, there are a number of clear advantages worth highlighting. Perhaps the most obvious benefit of globalisation exists within the economic sphere. Globalisation entails free movement of goods, services and, to a more limited extent, people. The world economy is often analogous to a marketplace in which prices are determined by the forces of demand and supply, often just referred to as ‘market forces’. This helps to ensure that scarce resources are allocated in an effective manner. Economists such as those from the Chicago school (Friedman 1980) argue that free trade creates wealth and opportunities that benefit everyone. The impact of ‘trickle-down economics’ can be seen most dramatically in China. As a result of free-market reforms, China has witnessed the largest number of people lifted out of poverty in world history. However, it is important to remember that the efficacy of ‘trickle-down economics’ is heavily contested by economists also.

Secondly, globalisation facilitates a shared global social space forged by a heightened sense of cross-border solidarity. This shared social space is most evident in transnational movements supportive of democratic values, such as freedom of assembly. During the early 2000s a wave of peaceful protests engulfed authoritarian regimes in the former Soviet Union, for example, prompted by the spread of values from such a global social space. The demand for change was characterised by a series of colour revolutions during the noughties. Calls for democratic reform spread from Yugoslavia (2000) to Georgia (2003), Ukraine (2004) and Lebanon (2005). A similar phenomenon also occurred some years later during the Arab Spring, beginning in Tunisia in December 2010.

Thirdly, the technological dimension of globalisation prevents authoritarian systems acting in a manner that seeks to suppress dissent within their own borders – at least theoretically. Images of human rights violations can now be uploaded and disseminated at the click of a button. For instance, during the Umbrella Revolution in Hong Kong, protestors shared pictures of the police using tear gas against them. This led to even more people joining the movement. Non-governmental organisations, pressure groups and civil society expose the treatment of dissidents in a manner scarcely imaginable in previous generations.

In the political realm, globalisation enables states to pool their resources and thereby tackle cross-border problems in a more effective manner. Environmental degradation, cyber-terrorism and global pandemics have no respect for national borders. The nature of these problems is such that sovereign states must work together and coordinate their efforts. This entails the added benefit of encouraging a sense of cooperation to advance a worthy cause (such as banning chemical weapons via the Chemical Weapons Conventions (1997)).

In addition, economic liberalisation provides greater opportunities for less developed countries to specialise in certain goods and services. This enables those lesser economically developed countries to engage in export-led growth, generate wealth and improve their balance of payments. The subsequent increase in living standards will therefore assist with the process of economic development. This is based upon the old adage that ‘a rising tide lifts all boats’. From a similar angle, globalisation makes it easier for people to emigrate in order to gain better prospects in life, which benefits both themselves and the host economy. Immigrants tend to fill job vacancies based upon highly-skilled occupations such as premiership footballers and so-called ‘McJobs’ such as cleaning (Bloor 2019).

Finally, globalisation may result in more openness over financial transactions which should help combat the twin problems of tax evasion and tax avoidance. There are growing calls for tax justice in order to ensure that the wealthy 1% contribute more. Schemes advocated by progressives (such as the Tobin tax on currency conversions) would also raise tax revenue in order to improve public services. This is a particularly acute problem within less developed countries.

Given the nature of political debate, there are clearly a number of drawbacks with globalisation. The main argument of the anti-globalisation (or alter- globalisation) movement is that developing countries are locked in a desperate ‘race to the bottom’ in order to entice powerful multi-national organisations. MNCs are able to relocate and outsource employment to those less economically developed countries with the least regulation and the lowest level of corporation tax. This is the inherently exploitative situation presented to the world’s most disadvantaged people. For example, Apple has been accused of using sweatshops in the Chinese city of Shenzhen. Images of suicide nets, shared on social media, designed to prevent employees from escaping their working situation is emblematic of the dark effects of globalisation. Workers in much of the developing world are also prevented from joining a trade union by oppressive regimes.

Secondly, the rampant consumerism and unregulated capitalism facilitated by globalisation does lasting damage to the environment. Although globalisation raises awareness of our connection to nature, this does not always translate into effective action. This is particularly noticeable within developing countries reluctant to accept restrictions on economic growth. For instance, gaining agreement to tackle the global environmental emergency has been curtailed by the reluctance of the world’s largest emitter of CO2 emissions (China) to accept the international consensus in this particular area. Globalisation thereby contributes to negative consequences for us all due to the heightened depletion of natural resources.

From a geostrategic perspective, globalisation may also result in an increasingly unstable international system, due to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Nuclear proliferation can be characterised as either horizontal (with more states gaining a nuclear capacity) or vertical (with more weapons accumulated by existing nuclear powers). For example, India and Pakistan are both nuclear powers with a historic rivalry over the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir. Despite pressure from the international community, neither state is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (1968). Globalisation also enables terrorist groups and violent non-state actors to proliferate in the cracks between states in the global space that it creates. This argument also applies to extremist groups capable of threatening innocent lives throughout the world.

In an economic sense, cross-border agreements designed to facilitate the process of globalisation present a number of disadvantages for workers in wealthier economies. For instance, outsourcing has resulted in lower wages and an erosion in job security. In the US, the phrase ‘being Bangalored’ is commonly used when people in sunset industries lose their jobs (such as the so-called ‘Rust Belt’ in the US). Companies can also threaten to take their operation overseas and thereby ensure that workers comply with a deterioration in pay and working conditions.

There are a number of figures on the left of the political spectrum who claim that globalisation tends to benefit the wealthy. The world-wide Occupy movement points out that the wealthy 1% have captured the political process to the detriment of the remaining 99%. Rather than wealth trickling down to benefit everyone, economic liberalisation enables the rich to hoard their wealth in offshore accounts. Globalisation also enables the transnational elite to evade / avoid paying tax and thereby escape their obligations as citizens of communities. In addition, the removal of trading barriers tends to benefit those with existing economic resources. The result is a system tilted heavily towards those with money and influence. Ultimately, globalisation has led to greater levels of inequality within society.

Another inherent problem with globalisation is that it makes it easier for the spread of fatal diseases to cross territorial borders. During the Ebola virus outbreak in 2013, 11,000 people died from a disease originating from near the Ebola River in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The source of the Ebola virus was thought to be bats that then transmitted the virus to humans (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2021). The freedom of movement associated with globalisation undoubtedly poses a greater risk of an outbreak turning into a global pandemic. We are closer to one another than ever before, but contained within that is a heightened risk to our health and wellbeing. The Covid-19 pandemic is the perfect illustration of this and the manner in which globalisation has sped up the possibility of the spread of disease-based crises.

Finally, globalisation can be said to have eroded our sense of national and cultural identity. That which once made us distinct has been replaced by a monocultural world dominated by Western-based multinational companies such as Starbucks and Facebook. Cultural globalisation is actually a misnomer for a bland and homogenised form of Westernisation that, ultimately, erodes cultural pluralism. The magnitude of the issue was brought home when it was found that more people recognise the golden arches of McDonalds than the Christian Cross (Lubin and Badkar 2010).

Having considered both sides of the argument, it is worth noting that the future course and direction of globalisation is an uncertain one. At the present time, even its most enthusiastic supporters would have to concede that globalisation is a deeply uneven process. According to the sociologist Manuel Castells, the term ‘variable geometry’ describes the asymmetrical nature of globalisation (1996). It is however conceivable that the future course of globalisation could serve all members of society and even the ecosphere. It should also be said that the process is not irreversible and may in time subside due to the forces of nationalism and populism.

The Implications of Globalisation for the Nation-State and Sovereignty

Globalisation entails a compression of the world and a transformation in our conception of self and identity. The world appears to be getting smaller due to technological developments, the affordability of travel and the impact of market forces. Globalisation also influences the integrity of national borders and their economic development. For better or worse, we are now all connected in a multi-layered system of mutual dependence. It is therefore undeniable that globalisation has had a deep and lasting influence upon the nation-state and national sovereignty.

According to the Japanese academic Kenicki Ohmae, globalisation has weakened the nation-state. The apparatus of the state no longer adequately protects a nation from the forces of globalisation (1995). From a similar angle, the noted sociologist Michael Mann (1997) identifies four threats to the nation-state: identity politics, post-nuclear geopolitics, global warming and global capitalism. Whilst the extent of each threat differs, they all offer a direct challenge to the sovereignty of the nation-state. If their arguments are accurate, then globalisation spells the death knell of the nation-state. Given the overwhelming impact of globalisation, territorial borders no longer offer a meaningful demarcation by which to comprehend the complex interactions of the modern era. The Westphalian conception of national sovereignty faces a slow but steady slide into permanent irrelevance.

In order to substantiate this argument, globalisation can be said to have had a profound impact upon the nation-state in three key areas: political, economic and cultural. In the political realm, globalisation undermines the ability of the nation-state to chart its own path. Given the interconnected character of the international system, it is simply impossible for states to retain absolute sovereignty in the economic realm (an argument made manifest by the great recession of the late noughties). However, the most symbolic argument to consider here is that of deeper European integration. Since the 1950s, the nation-states of Europe have formed an ‘ever closer union’ that renders the

traditional conception of national sovereignty increasingly obsolete, as the characteristics that constitute a nation (singular common language, culture, history and social norms) become weakened or less concrete as individuals of different nations mix. Whilst member states still retain a degree of political legitimacy within their own borders, they are tied together in a complex web of mutual dependence. Member states work together to advance their national interests and are subject to sanctions for failing to impose EU-wide rules and directives.

In the economic realm, the world is interconnected like never before. Symbolically housed in Washington D.C., the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank regulate the macroeconomic policies of those countries in debt to the global banking system. Structurally assisted programmes impose crippling repayment schemes upon many of the poorest countries in the world. Moreover, the sovereignty of the nation-state is undermined by multinational companies (MNCs). When the combined GDP of leading MNCs is greater than certain developed countries, it is hard to deny that the nation-state has lost some of its relative status.

The global financial and currency system can also determine the economic policies and objectives of even the most developed economies. States therefore have no choice but to pool resources and work alongside transnational organisations. This loss of direct control can only be interpreted as a loss of national sovereignty.

In the cultural realm, globalisation is often called Westernisation due to the spread of western norms. From the perspective of the non-Western world, this represents a modern-day version of cultural imperialism. For instance, the dominance of English-language programmes and American films undermine the national identity that lies at the very heart of the nation-state. The cultural element of globalisation has grown in significance, paralleling the rise of soft power in the global system. The threat is considered so significant that some countries have implemented protectionist measures to prevent their cultural way of life from being undermined, and this of course comes with political and social consequences, as is the case with all ‘nationalist’ protectionism.

Having said all this, there are those who claim that the nation-state is a robust concept that retains its relevance. In order to support this view, it could be argued that nation-states throughout the world have not been greatly affected by globalisation. Indeed, even the smallest countries retain their raison d’etre . For instance, the nation-state is defined by territorial boundaries. It also preserves a monopoly on the legitimate use of political violence in accordance with Max Weber’s conceptualisation. Indeed, this definition has become more salient in the modern era as a means of distinguishing the legitimacy of the nation-state from that of terrorist groups. It should also be noted that the nation-state remains the most salient actor on the world stage when compared to international institutions, NGOs and sub-state actors. Based on such arguments, Paul Hirst and Grahame Thompson (1996) claim that the nation-state remains a powerful entity in an era of globalisation, overlapping with a number of the arguments presented by globalisation sceptics or even some transformationalists.

It could also be argued that globalisation has contributed towards an expansion in the power of the nation-state and national sovereignty. Far from being washed up with the tide of globalisation, states have adapted and prospered accordingly. National sovereignty can be viewed thus as a bargaining tool which can be bartered in order to advance the national interest. This could explain why nation-states have willingly joined regional forums designed to foster trade and cooperation. It’s worth noting here that power is exercised in a somewhat different manner than ever before due to globalisation. One illustration of this argument is the transformation of the UK from having the largest empire in history to one of the leading proponents of soft power. Globalisation thereby encourages states to achieve their foreign policy objectives via the use of such power.

Whilst globalisation undoubtedly presents challenges for the nation-state, the concept remains a powerful force for three reasons. Firstly, the rules that govern globalisation are largely determined by nation-states – something that can be seen by the machinations of statist obligation construction UN resolutions. Secondly, sovereignty is retained when a member of an international organisation that requires the cessation of a certain degree of individual decision-making capability of its member-states chooses to leave that particular organisation (as in the case of the UK’s ‘Brexit’ from the EU). More importantly, the process of globalisation has actually contributed to a revival of nationalist sentiment. There are few better illustrations of this point than in the United States. In 2016, the Republican candidate Donald Trump was elected on a mandate to ‘Make America Great Again’, implying that America’s ‘greatness’ had been lost in the contemporary global era, and thus a reversal of such global processes was necessary. During his presidency, he took decisions contrary to the ethos of globalisation: such as a travel ban imposed on majority-Muslim countries or withdrawing the US form the 2015 Paris Climate Accords. Although it is fashionable to claim that globalisation renders the Westphalian system irrelevant, this is far from given. In reality, globalisation has done nothing to prevent states from putting their own interests first, or indeed utilising globalisation for their own ends – a realist argument.

In this vein, economic globalisation also brings undoubted benefits to nation- states. For instance, multinational companies provide governments with added tax revenue. In other words, as multinationals grow larger, they spread globally and largely accumulate wealth (which the state collects in corporation tax). The location of such companies also creates jobs within the host economy. An increase in international trade also requires the existence of global regulatory bodies. The enhanced flow of goods, services and people can only occur via an institutional framework provided and managed by national governments. Such factors ultimately strengthen the ability of nation- states to implement policies that meet their specific national interests.

Finally, the nation-state has in some areas reasserted its ability to control events and implement actions as a response to globalisation. We are bound together in security matters like never before as a result of the threat posed by organisations with a distinctly global reach. Whilst few would contend that globalisation entails a heightened sense of risk, the response to such threats underlines the continued relevance of national sovereignty. The global response to the COVID-19 pandemic is a particularly salient example to consider. Far from being passive victims of globalisation, it is entirely possible for sovereign states to impose differing and unprecedented restrictions upon people’s movements and thereby reasserting themselves as an ultimate decision-making power within a given territory.

The Extent to Which Globalisation Addresses Contemporary Issues

In an increasingly interconnected world characterised by a complex web of mutual dependence, the process of globalisation can be utilised to address contemporary issues. Equally, it also presents a series of intricate barriers towards conflict resolution and the threat of global warming. In each dimension, there are both positives and negatives to consider. There are also several dependent factors to highlight when seeking to evaluate the manner and extent to which globalisation addresses these pressing issues.

The very character of globalisation offers opportunities for state and non-state actors to address issues of a transnational character, such as a reduction in global poverty and environmental protection. In these cases, the role of international organisations has proved an increasingly important one. This observation also applies to human rights alongside conflict prevention and resolution. Globalisation similarly enables like-minded individuals to work together and promote worthy goals, such as the protection of human rights. Equally, the process of globalisation accentuates threats of a cross-border character. For instance, technological developments make it easier for terrorist groups and violent non-state actors to promote their cause.

Attempts to address the problem of poverty incorporate states, non-state actors and sub-state actors. In a particularly clear illustration, the G8 Summit held at Gleneagles in 2005 agreed to write off the entire debt owed by 18 ‘Highly Indebted Poor Countries’. It was a decision influenced by campaigns from prominent pressure groups such as Make Poverty History, and it was implemented by a number of progressive political leaders. It remains symbolic of the manner in which globalisation frames our approach to issues that affect billions. In 2021, an estimated 9% of the world’s population lived on less than $1.90 a day.

In terms of eradicating poverty, the main focus of the United Nations has centred upon targets agreed by the member states. In the year 2000, the Millennium Declaration was signed, committing countries to combat poverty (along with other related goals such as fighting hunger and disease). The eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) entail specific targets and indicators that member states agreed to achieve by the year 2015.

The Millennium Development Goals sought to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, implement universal primary education, promote gender equality and empower women, reduce child mortality, improve maternal health, ensure environmental sustainability, to develop a global partnership for development and to combat HIV/AIDS alongside other diseases. In 2015, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) replaced the MDGs. There are 17 global goals in total designed to be the ‘blueprint to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all’ (United Nations 2021). Revealingly, the first goal is that of eradicating poverty and malnutrition. It is also worth noting that the language used is more purposeful than that adopted for the MDGs. In an attempt to ensure these goals are met by the year 2030, data is available in an easy-to- understand manner. The emphasis upon sustainability also reflects the growing salience of environmental issues and sustainable development.

Another aspect of tackling poverty is to open up national economies towards free trade. The so-called Washington Consensus consists of a set of policies based upon deregulation, privatisation and marketisation. The basis of the Washington Consensus is therefore centred firmly upon a free-market philosophy. There are powerful arguments to support the Washington Consensus. Supporters claim that the free market is the best system available for lifting people out of poverty. Liberal theorists are highly supportive of global capitalism as they claim that free trade enhances the level of cooperation between states. According to the World Bank (2021a), more than a billion people have escaped extreme poverty since the early 1990s and poverty rates in 2019 were lower than they had ever been, although rising slightly in 2020.

From the opposing angle, the alter-globalisation movement is heavily critical of the Washington Consensus. They claim that policies imposed upon national governments serve the interests of the wealthy and exploit those marginalised within the global economy. The invisible hand of Adam Smith (1999; 2009) actually prevents those at the bottom from escaping a structure systematically biased against them. The recent coronavirus pandemic also has a disproportionately negative impact upon the world’s poorest people.

As with much else within the field of International Relations, a great deal depends upon the perspective taken. From the predominant Western viewpoint, globalisation is often viewed as a welcome economic development. There is undoubtedly much merit in this argument. However, for those who exist at the periphery of the world economy globalisation is clearly an uneven process with several adverse effects over which they have little control. Whilst there has been some progress in lifting people out of poverty, globalisation also tends to exacerbate inequality between wealthy states and those in the Global South. In theoretical terms, this is often heard from dependency theorists (Prebisch 1950) and the world systems approach (Wallerstein 1979).

Another issue to consider is the provision of foreign aid from wealthy governments. Those in favour claim that financial assistance can be targeted towards poverty reduction schemes. Opponents however argue that foreign aid is routinely misappropriated by powerful elites, particularly within authoritarian and dictatorial regimes. In addition, the level of corruption within a recipient state prevents aid from reaching those most in need. The provision of foreign aid also results in a dependency culture that undermines self- reliance and initiative. It could also be argued that foreign aid actually contributes further towards global inequality.

It must be acknowledged that there is little evidence to suggest that aid has a positive impact upon poverty levels. Given the realities of international relations, states tend to pursue their own interests via foreign aid. For instance, the UK government has been accused of providing aid to Malaysia to fund a project linked to arms sales. Political considerations are also central towards the provision of aid from the Chinese government. Furthermore, wealthy governments have failed to meet the guidelines laid down in the 1987 Brundtland Report – which introduced the concept of sustainable development and how it could be achieved.

There is a glaring contradiction that lies at the very heart of globalisation. In one sense, globalisation contributes towards a more peaceful world order. The spread of democratic norms underpinned by economic interdependence reduces the number of conflicts between states. Equally, globalisation can exacerbate conflict and contribute towards heightened levels of political instability. This can entail several related problems such as an influx of refugees, armed insurgencies against the ruling government and inter-ethnic conflict.

One of the most interesting case studies to consider here is that of global terrorism. In an age of globalisation, terrorism has shifted from an essentially state-bound or regional problem to a global phenomenon. Its method of funding, communication and expansionist objectives have all become globalised over time. For example, Islamic State (also known as ISIL/ISIS/IS/ Daesh) broadcasts its message to a potential audience of billions via social media. Indeed, despite its historical connections, the goal of an Islamic state under the leadership of a caliph (a political-religious ruler and considered a successor to the Prophet Muhammad) has been symptomatic of the globalised era.

Regarding terrorism, globalisation enhances the threat posed throughout the world. Due to the erosion in conventional state boundaries, terrorist groups find it easier to target states and other actors. However, this is not a one- sided process. Globalisation also allows states to co-ordinate efforts to combat terrorism. Sovereign states continually exchange information on known terrorists and their associated activities, a great illustration of this being the ‘Five Eyes’ intelligence alliance between Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the US and the UK. The international fight against terrorism can at times lead to an unlikely alliance between countries with apparently little in common. Just as terrorist groups have become globalised, so too has the response from states to the threat of global terrorism.

The impact of globalisation is particularly evident in regards to the spread of information. At one time, states had a near monopoly on the use of propaganda whilst terrorist groups had restricted means by which to spread their message. More importantly, the agents of the state often had effective means of censorship. However, due to technological developments, governments throughout the world find it almost impossible to control the flow of information and the ‘spin’ placed upon it. New social media provides the oxygen of publicity for violent and extremist groups to disseminate their worldview and gain support. This provides the added benefit of gaining funding, recruitment, and the platform to offer a spectacle for all the world to see.

Terrorist groups have also become more problematic for states to deal with because of changes in their structure. Terrorist cells now operate locally which means that states can only tackle the spread of terrorism one cell at a time. This tactical change has made it more problematic for governments to defeat extremist groups. This is particularly notable within ISIS strongholds in Syria and Iraq. Such groups endorse the unofficial maxim of globalisation in theory and practice: ‘think locally, act globally’.

Human Rights

The international human rights agenda can be dated back to the UN Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), signed on 10 December 1948. For the very first time, a common standard for universal human rights was agreed upon by the signatory nations. It marked a unique moment in world history and was indicative of a new world order determined to avoid another period of turmoil, persecution and genocide.

The UDHR demonstrates that sovereign states are both willing and able to specify fundamental human rights. This has since been extended towards protecting the most vulnerable, such as refugees, prisoners, and children. With the benefit of hindsight, the UDHR helped lay the foundation for further treaties that broadened the concept of human rights. There is even a sufficient body of international human rights law to justify the use of the phrase International Bill of Rights. Once hailed as ‘a Magna Carta for all humanity’ (Klug 2015), the International Bill of Human Rights seeks to bring together a number of rights into one codified document (United Nations General Assembly 1948). It consists of the five core human rights treaties of the UN that function to advance the fundamental freedoms and to protect fundamental human rights.

Perhaps the clearest illustration of globalisation in the context of human rights is the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC). Created in 2006, the UNHRC investigates allegations of human rights violations within member states. The UNHRC replaced the UN Commission on Human Rights, which had been previously criticised for allowing countries with a poor record on human rights to join the organisation. However, the UNHRC has not been without criticism. For instance, the US has accused the organisation of holding an anti-Israeli bias. To support this claim, the Council has passed more resolutions condemning Israel than the rest of the world combined. Washington objects to the focus upon Israel, although this ignores the point that the use of veto

powers in the UN Security Council shields Israel from their actions in Gaza and the West Bank. The Trump administration withdrew the United States from the UNHRC – the first country ever to do so. Having said this, the UNHRC has taken steps to defend rights in despotic regimes such as Myanmar, Burundi, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The UNHRC could therefore be seen as an illustration of globalisation and its impact upon the protection of human rights from both a positive and more critical angle.

The effectiveness of human rights within the contemporary era is subject to heated debate. Despite globalisation helping to raise and promote awareness of human rights, ensuring compliance remains highly problematic due to various reasons. First and foremost, the international organisations responsible for implementing global governance lack sufficient resources to enforce compliance upon rogue states. For instance, the international community has been unable to exert any lasting influence upon North Korea. The Kim dynasty has violated human rights for several decades. Having chosen isolation and rejected globalisation, the regime in Pyongyang remains largely impervious to pressure from any form of global governance.

Another illustration of this argument concerns the International Criminal Court (ICC). Established with the Rome Statute of 1998, the ICC deals with the violation of human rights with a remit to cover areas such as genocide, land grabs and war crimes. However, the effectiveness of this legally independent (albeit UN-associated) institution is constrained due to relatively powerful countries refusing to join. This includes China, Israel, Iraq and of course the United States. Even the Philippines left the organisation under President Duterte in protest at the ICC launching an investigation in their country.

Secondly, the effectiveness of the human rights agenda is undermined by its Eurocentric (or Western-centric) bias. In some parts of the world, the concept of individual rights lacks legitimacy. It is revealing to note that the continent of Asia lacks a regional human rights organisation comparable to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). In addition, the Arab League has long taken the view that national sovereignty should apply on a literal basis. It could even be said that the documents that specify universal human rights are largely ‘paper rights’ in certain parts of the world.

In contrast to the flowery rhetoric of global governance, there is no international court to administer human rights law. In reality, only a handful of quasi-judicial bodies exist within the umbrella of the United Nations. Although the aforementioned ICC has expanded its jurisdiction, it still leaves a wide remit of human rights abuses free from investigation. It is also problematic to circumvent the principle of national sovereignty. This is a particular problem when faced with populist leaders, especially in the current age where illiberal democratic norms appear to be becoming increasingly popular (Mudde 2019, Müller 2016). Furthermore, globalisation has increased public demand for social protection whilst decreasing the capacity of the state to provide it. Some states genuinely find it difficult to protect human rights due to the immense power of multinational companies, global markets, and the IMF/ World Bank. Globalisation could therefore be said to undermine the ability of a hollowed-out state to ensure adherence to human rights.

From a more positive angle, international institutions are able to nudge recalcitrant states towards better behaviour. International human rights law provides a framework by which to govern the actions of states. As with people, most states follow the law because it is the law. This tautology is made more effective when reinforced with a veneer of legitimacy and a set of effective sanctions (e.g. trade and diplomatic restrictions). Globalisation has also increased the salience of human rights within the international community.

As a process, globalisation undoubtedly sheds greater light upon human rights abuses. The ability of authoritarian regimes to cover up a violation of human rights has been greatly curtailed by the spread of technology. Protestors and dissidents can upload and share images throughout the world in a manner unimaginable in the past. Technological developments also enable like-minded groups to work together to enforce social change. That said, the problems of monitoring and implementing international human rights law remain largely unresolved.

The Environment

International cooperation in this area emerged during the growing awareness of environmental issues in the 1970s. The UN Environmental Programme (UNEP) was established in 1972 to co-ordinate the environmental activity of member states. However, the UNEP is institutionally weak and provides ineffective protection. As with much else provided by the United Nations, its effectiveness is hampered by a constrained mandate and a lack of funding.

In an era of globalisation, there have been a series of multilateral agreements that seek to address environmental issues. In 1992, the UN Conference on Environment and Development (also known as the Rio Summit) provided a forum in which member states could collaborate on issues such as sustainability. It established a global environmental agenda that has since been developed during subsequent conferences. The UN Conference on Sustainable Development created the Climate Change Convention. It was also agreed that signatory states would not carry out any activity on the lands of indigenous peoples that might cause environmental damage. Finally, the Rio Summit instigated a process that led towards a firmer commitment towards the Convention on Biological Diversity.

In the specific area of environmental protection, the international community has often been prepared to reach agreements and demonstrate a common show of unity. According to the WTO, there are over 250 multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) currently in force dealing with a multiplicity of environmental issues. Some of those agreements have been truly historic. For instance, due to the 2015 Paris Agreement, signatories pledged to reduce their carbon emissions. However, it has proven difficult to persuade the most powerful countries to take the required action. Most notably, the United States failed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Partly because of this, global emissions were on the rise in 2005 (the year the Kyoto Protocol became international law). China has also been reluctant to deal effectively with carbon emissions, whilst the Trump administration withdrew from the Paris Agreement – although later re-joined under the Biden administration in 2021.

Given the pressing nature of climate change, there have been proposals to implement a truly effective governing body or centralised institution. Even the strongest defenders of national sovereignty recognise that international agreements are neither legally binding nor effective enough to tackle the climate crisis. There have, for instance, been proposals for a World Environment Organisation (WEO). However, the US prefers voluntary initiatives to ensure that economic interests are protected. This also matches the national interests of several emerging economies, such as the BRICS.

It has also been proposed that environmental issues should be directly incorporated into the WTO. The WTO can apply legal pressure and resolve trade disputes. However, critics claim that this would fail to address underlying market failures or improve rulemaking in terms of environmental protection. Providing greater power for the WTO is also problematic for those critical of the Washington Consensus and its adverse impact upon the Global South.

Perhaps the main problem posed by environmental degradation is that states are often reluctant to cast aside the advantages provided by retaining the status quo. Whilst creating a more effective system of global governance is laudable, there is insufficient political will to surrender national sovereignty. Environmental degradation is a problem for all countries and demands a complete rethink of the Westphalian system to be resolved in an adequate manner. There is also to some extent a trade-off between economic development and environmental protection.

When it comes to the international community and the environment, the narrative has typically been ‘too little too late’. Given its gathering pace and irreversible character, the society of states has a clear interest in resolving the problem. However, this has proved immensely difficult to implement. More than any other issue, environmental degradation demands effective collective cooperation from the international community on an unprecedented global scale. Globalisation has not yet managed to circumvent the barriers presented by sovereignty and national interests.

This chapter sought to provide an overview of the role and significance of the state and globalisation. It provided an outline of concepts such as the nation- state, national sovereignty and mutual dependence. The impact of globalisation was weighed up in terms of both positives and negatives. Whilst it is arguably too soon to provide a definitive conclusion, globalisation may well hold significant implications for the future of the nation-state. According to some, the nation-state needs a radical rethink in an era characterised by globalisation.

It must however be acknowledged that globalisation provides the means by which transnational issues can be addressed. It is surely important to note that there is nothing deterministic about globalisation and the future of the state. Change is a constant within global politics. Hence, given the evidence outlined, there seems little to suggest that the notion of ‘the state’ will be any different. The following chapter will provide a consideration of global governance. Taking forward some of the themes explored in this chapter, the implications of globalisation will be examined in regards to its political and economic dimensions. This will lead towards a consideration of human rights and the environment.

Further Reading on E-International Relations

• The End of Enlightenment and the First Globalisation
• State-Building, Sovereignty and Migration Management in the Global South
• Prosecuting Heads of State: Sovereignty Immunity and the Anti-Impunity Norm
• What Is Sovereignty? Lessons from the UK
• The Performativity of Sovereignty: Challenging Essentialism within IR Theory
• India’s Taste for Violence: Globalisation Beyond Commercialisation

Kevin Bloor is an author, Principal Examiner and teacher. He has over twenty years of experience in the social sciences and is the author of several texts and educational resources such as Understanding Global Politics , The Definitive Guide to Political Ideologies,  Understanding Political Theory and Sociology: Theories, Theorists and Concepts . He holds a BA in Politics and International Relations and an MA in International Relations, both from Staffordshire University, and an MPhil in Government from Manchester University.

Kieran O'Meara

Please Consider Donating

Before you download your free e-book, please consider donating to support open access publishing.

E-IR is an independent non-profit publisher run by an all volunteer team. Your donations allow us to invest in new open access titles and pay our bandwidth bills to ensure we keep our existing titles free to view. Any amount, in any currency, is appreciated. Many thanks!

Donations are voluntary and not required to download the e-book - your link to download is below.

Sovereignty and Globalization

• First Online: 19 March 2023

Cite this chapter

• J. Samuel Barkin 2  

604 Accesses

1 Citations

The first of the distinctions around which this book is organized is between sovereignty and globalization. Sovereignty is the starting point in traditional international relations theory. In the past two decades, globalization has become a buzzword both for those applauding and for those opposing trends toward policy convergence among states. Is globalization undermining the sovereign state system? If so, what role do international organizations (IOs) play in the process? International organizations can be seen as the agents through which states are promoting the forces of globalization, or as the agents that states are using to protect themselves from the broader forces of globalization. If the former, they are helping to undermine the traditional state system. If the latter, they are helping to support it.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abbott, Kenneth, Robert Keohane, Andrew Moravcsik, Anne-Marie Slaughter, and Duncan Snidal. “The Concept of Legalization,” International Organization 54 (2000): 401–419.

Article   Google Scholar  

Barkin, J. Samuel. The Sovereignty Cartel . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021.

Google Scholar  

Barkin, J. Samuel. “The Evolution of the Constitution of Sovereignty and the Emergence of Human Rights Norms.” Millennium 27 (1998): 229–252.

Barnett, Michael, Jon C.W. Pevehouse, and Kal Raustiala, eds., Global Governance in a World of Change . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022.

Bull, Hedley. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. London: Macmillan, 1977.

Book   Google Scholar  

Clapp, Jennifer. “Africa, NGOs, and the International Toxic Waste Trade.” Journal of Environment and Development 3 (1994): 17–46.

Dinan, Desmond. Ever Closer Union: An Introduction to European Integration , 4th ed. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2010.

Drezner, Daniel. “Globalization and Policy Convergence.” International Studies Review 3 (2001): 53–78.

Gallagher, Kevin, and Jacob Werksman, eds. The Earthscan Reader on International Trade & Sustainable Development . London: Earthscan, 2002.

Gruber, Lloyd. Ruling the World: Power Politics and the Rise of Supranational Institutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000.

Henkin, Louis. How Nations Behave: Law and Foreign Policy , 2nd ed. New York: Columbia University Press, 1979.

Jervis, Robert. Perception and Misperception in International Politics . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976.

Keck, Margaret, and Kathryn Sikkink. Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998.

Knorr, Klaus. “Supranational Versus International Models for General and Complete Disarmament.” In The Strategy of World Order. Vol. IV, Disarmament and Economic Development , edited by Richard Falk and Saul Mendlovitz, pp. 326–353. New York: World Law Fund, 1966.

Krasner, Stephen. Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999.

Leonard, H. Jeffrey. Pollution and the Struggle for World Product: Multinational Corporations, Environment, and International Comparative Advantage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Mander, Jerry, and Edward Goldsmith, eds. The Case against the Global Economy: And for a Turn toward the Local . San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1996.

Mearsheimer, John. “The False Promise of International Institutions.” International Security 19 (1994–1995): 5–49.

Moravcsik, Andrew. The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998.

Ruggie, John Gerard. “Multilateralism: The Anatomy of an Institution.” International Organization 46 (1992): 561–598.

Scholte, Jan Aart. Globalisation: A Critical Introduction , 2nd ed. Houndmills, Hampshire: Palgrave, 2005.

Simmons, Beth. “The International Politics of Harmonization: The Case of Capital Market Regulation.” International Organization 55 (2001): 589–620.

Sinnar, Shirin. “Mixed Blessing: The Growing Influence of NGOs.” Harvard International Review 18 (Winter 1995–1996): 54–57.

Strange, Susan. “Cave, Hic Dragones: A Critique of Regime Analysis.” International Organization 36 (1982): 479–496.

Thomson, Janice. “State Sovereignty in International Relations: Bridging the Gap between Theory and Empirical Research.” International Studies Quarterly 39 (1995): 213–234.

Union of International Organizations. Yearbook of International Organizations , 48th ed. Munich: K.G. Saur, 2011.

Wapner, Paul. Environmental Activism and World Civic Politics . Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996.

Zarakol, Ayse, “What Made the Modern World Hang Together: Socialisation or Stigmatisation?” International Theory 6 (2014): 311–332.

Zürn, Michael. A Theory of Global Governance: Authority, Legitimacy, And Contestation . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Conflict Resolution, Human Security, and Global Governance, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA, USA

J. Samuel Barkin

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Samuel Barkin .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Barkin, J.S. (2023). Sovereignty and Globalization. In: International Organization. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22559-8_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22559-8_2

Published : 19 March 2023

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-22558-1

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-22559-8

eBook Packages : Political Science and International Studies Political Science and International Studies (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

The Effects of Globalization upon the Sovereignty of National Country

• September 2020
• Conference: Circle International - International Journal of Sales, Retailing and Marketing
• At: Lancashire, United Kingdom

• University “VITEZ” Travnik

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Anthony Giddens
• J World Trade

• INT REV ADM SCI

• Zvonko Posavec
• Benedict Kingsbury
• John H. Jackson

• INT RELAT ASIA-PAC
• Raimo Väyrynen

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

YaleGlobal Online

Globalization vs. economic sovereignty.

Almost all countries in the world have accelerated their tempo of economic opening up since the beginning of the 21st century.

With the initiative, they expect to inject a new driving force into domestic economic development, and to create new market opportunities. They hope to integrate their domestic economy into the global market, and to develop economic muscles that can punch a worldwide weight.

However, for any country, opening the economy to the outside world is by no means a free lunch. The policy will inevitably come at a cost.

The cost can be perceived to be a weakening of the nation's "economic sovereignty," namely the erosion of permanent and exclusive privileges over its economic activities, wealth, and natural resources.

A review of the world's history will find it is common that economic sovereignty of an individual member is from time to time influenced by global economic trends.

The increase of the number of international organizations and the expansion of their functions have undeniably restricted an individual country's sovereignty to certain extent.

The most typical example is the increasingly extensive involvement of the world's three leading financial institutions the World Bank (WB), the International Momentary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) in domestic economic affairs of their members.

The 60,000-plus transnational corporations, which developed rapidly in the latter half of the last century, are now sharing or "encroaching upon" individual country's "sovereignty" in the economic domain.

Owing to disorderly domestic economic establishments, many underdeveloped nations even have to resort to foreign assistance and intervention, leading to their governments being deprived of the control of their own economy.

Due to this, some scholars predicted the loss of their economic sovereignty under this form of neo-colonialism. More importantly, some of the world's leading economic entities, such as the United States, the European Union and Japan, by taking advantage of their predominant economic status, are affecting or infringing upon other countries' economic sovereignty.

Under these circumstances, an increasing number of scholars have concluded that the economic dominion of individual nations has come to an end.

Basing this assertion upon the penetrating systems and rules of the world's financial organs, some of them insist on a kind of theory such as state economic sovereignty being eroded. Some deny the long-existed doctrine of the "national entity being in a central position," by citing trade liberalization and economic integration tendency and thus advocate "ambiguity of economic sovereignty."

Also, some even assert that in the greater globalization picture, a country's economic sovereignty should be discarded and state sovereignty should be replaced by supranational law.

As the academic debate of the economic rights of a state reaches boiling point, the era of globalization begins.

However, while stressing the possibility of a nation's economic sovereignty being enfeebled in the course of economic globalization, many of these scholars have obviously forgotten that individual nations also have the ability to produce and mould international frameworks, rules, systems and orders, the ability that has been called a "structural power."

Late British international economist Susan Strange believed that this kind of power is embodied in the four basic international structures which are the security, knowledge, production and financial, as well as in some sub-structures such as trade.

After an analysis of the "structural power," we can see that in the economic globalization era, sovereign states have never lost control of their sovereignty. The power of international economic organizations originates from its transfer from individual members in the world community. And their birth is exactly the product of sovereign states' self-restriction and self-restraints in the economic realm.

Also, economic activities of transnational corporations have not brought about any essential restrictions on state sovereignty of individual nations.

So far, transnational corporations have not changed their legal status as legal entities under the jurisdiction of the state. And their worldwide business activities also have not changed individual countries' right to exercise their full sovereignty.

For this, the United States' move to disintegrate the Microsoft corporation years ago could serve as an example. Despite its economic strength being even larger than a number of individual nations, the world's largest software producer still lacked an effective means to influence American economic sovereignty.

Possibly, for the ones who strongly advocate the "end of economic sovereignty," the most convincing evidence is the debilitating of sovereignty of a host of economically weak nations.

However, this phenomenon is just the product of developed nations' unfair treatment of developing nations in the era of economic globalization.

Most of the time, developed countries turn to double standards in economic affairs and apply their self-concocted theories like "human rights being superior to sovereignty" and "economic integration outweighing sovereignty" to force weak nations into conceding some of their inherent privileges. However, these countries repeatedly stress that they should not accept international economic regulations at the sacrifice of weakening, infringing upon, and harming their own decision-making rights.

Thus, it can be concluded that the dispute about economic sovereignty is essentially a hidden power struggle on the world stage. Under the current context of "economic openness," outside economic influences upon individual nations are distributed in an unbalanced manner. Similarly, their ability to weaken the economic sovereignty of different nations also varies.

The author is a professor with Tianjin-based Nankai University

Question: What is a sovereign economic entity? PS: Type IMF is International Monetary Fund.

A 'sovereign economic entity' is a nation, for example, that is in control of its own monetary system and economy. None are, a few have tried to reclaim their economic sovereignty, Greece, Libya, Venezuela and others and we can see the reaction from the economic powers who serve as thugs for international capital. In deed it is a 'hidden hand' until you get too far out of line, then the hand becomes a fist. We have a global monetary system that has pretty much taken control of the global economy. While a state might claim to be sovereign, if they do not create and issue their own money as a permanently circulating asset for the benefit of their nation, as opposed to private commercial banks creating and issuing it as debt for private profit, they have little to no control over their economy which means their nation's labor and material resources. Private control of the money system means that they control the entire economic development of society and being profit-only motivated, it is never really for the benefit of the people or national economy. It also means they have considerable control over all the funding of the political process, the media etc. In fact it allows banks to choose which candidates win elections and which companies grow to dominate their respective industry and market. As I have often said, "Any nation that does not control the money is controlled by those who do." https://www.monetaryalliance.org/ https://internationalmoneyreform.org/ https://monetary.org/

• Search Search Please fill out this field.

The Role of the Nation-State

The effects of globalization, the bottom line.

• Government & Policy

What Is the Role of the Nation-State in Globalization?

Daniel Rathburn is an editor at Investopedia who works on tax, accounting, regulatory, and cryptocurrency content.

Globalization is the increasing interconnectedness of different parts of the world. As the world's economies grow more interdependent, some people are concerned that globalization will lead to the collapse of political boundaries and, alongside it, the fading sovereignty of individual countries, or nation-states.

Learn more about how the rise of globalization has affected the role of nation-states.

Key Takeaways

• Nation-states are groups of people with a common heritage and culture who are also united under a common government.
• The rise of globalization has affected the role of nation-states economically, politically, and culturally.
• Nation-states must contend with changing populations, trade flows, and cultural identities, which can create complex challenges as well as new opportunities.

A nation-state is a group of people with a shared culture and heritage who also operate under a common government. "Nation" refers to the shared culture, while "state" refers to the government that has sovereignty over that nation. In this sense, the United States is itself a state.

Historically, the nation-state provided a unified identity for its people and fostered a sense of belonging. However, the role of the nation-state in globalization is more complex.

Globalization is generally recognized as the fading or disappearance of economic, social, and cultural borders between nation-states. Some scholars have theorized that nation-states, which are inherently divided by physical and economic boundaries, will be less relevant in a globalized world.

While increasingly reduced barriers regarding international commerce and communication are sometimes seen as a potential threat to nation-states, these trends have existed throughout history. Air and sea transportation that made same-day travel to other continents possible and greatly expanded trade among countries did not abolish the sovereignty of individual nations.

Instead, globalization is a force that changed the way nation-states govern themselves and deal with one another, particularly in the area of commerce.

Growing Westernization

One commonly recognized effect of globalization is that it often favors Westernization, meaning the norms, ideals, systems, and cultures of the West are often dominant. With sophisticated economies and efficiency-driven, capitalist systems, Western companies and Western culture often dominate the global marketplace.

This can put other nation-states at a disadvantage when dealing with the Americas and Europe. This is particularly true in the agricultural industry, in which second- and third-world nations face competition from Western companies but without the same resources and technologies.

New and Changing Economic Policies

Another potential effect is that nation-states are forced to examine their economic policies in light of the many challenges and opportunities that multinational corporations and other multicultural organizations and entities of international commerce present.

Multinational corporations, in particular, challenge nation-states to confront the unique issue of foreign direct investments , forcing nation-states to determine how much international influence they allow in their economies.

Nation-states also must reckon with changing labor dynamics as multinational companies outsource labor to other regions.

Changing labor dynamics can affect not only the labor market in a company's home country, but also create social and economic changes in the areas where it draws new labor resources.

Changing economic realities caused by globalization affect a nation-state's economic sovereignty, with imbalances furthered by poverty and indebtedness.

Rising Interdependence

Beyond (and due to) issues of commerce, globalization also creates a sense of interdependence among nations. Enmeshed economies, free trade agreements, and greater immigration all strengthen international ties.

This growing interdependence could create an imbalance of power among nations of different economic strengths. On the other hand, increasingly interdependent economies also often strengthen security alliances between countries, lessening the risk of war and fostering greater peace.

Cultural Changes

Globalization and its attendant exchange of cultural ideas can create a global culture, which may be at odds with national identity.

Historically, members of a nation share a cultural identity, which can include its history, heritage, holidays, and heroes. But as globalization ushers in new ideas and open borders create new or burgeoning minorities within a state, the homogeneous culture of a nation may have difficulty assimilating these changes. This difficulty may weaken—or be seen to weaken—the power of the nation-state and create new challenges alongside political and economic ones.

Has Globalization Reduced the Power of Nation-States?

While some scholars assert that globalization has reduced the power of nation-states, others see this power instead concentrating in some states, such as China and the U.S. Still others see the power concentrating not in states at all, but in financial centers and multinational corporations.

What Are the Benefits of Globalization?

Globalization often brings with it increased access to markets, improved standards of living, lower costs for products, and widespread innovation.

Will Globalization Continue?

The global integration that is globalization will continue, albeit in changing ways, according to McKinsey Global Institute research. Some of the changes it expects to see include the leveling-off of the trade of goods and services, but an increase in the flow of knowledge, intellectual property (IP), and technology.

The role of the nation-state in a global world is largely a regulatory one as the chief factor in global interdependence. While the domestic role of the nation-state remains largely unchanged, states that were previously isolated are now forced to engage with one another to set international commerce policies.

Through various economic imbalances, these interactions may lead to diminished roles for some states and exalted roles for others.

Utah State University. " Nations, States and Nation-States ."

European Scientific Journal. " Three Different Perspectives On The Role Of The Nation-State In Today's Globalized World ," Page 1.

Pooch, Melanie U.. via JSTOR, “ Globalization and Its Effects. ” In DiverCity – Global Cities as a Literary Phenomenon: Toronto, New York, and Los Angeles in a Globalizing Age , Pages 15–26. Transcript Verlag, 2016.

Agreement Lathi Jotia. " Globalization and the Nation-State: Sovereignty and State Welfare in Jeopardy ." US-China Education Review B 2, 2011, pp. 243-250.

Brittanica. " Nation-State ."

McKinsey Global Institute. " How Our Interconnected World Is Changing ."

• Terms of Service
• Editorial Policy
• Privacy Policy

The devastating Globalization effects on State Sovereignty Term Paper

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

The steady decline of the state, aspects of state power affected by globalization, works cited.

Advancements in technology have made the flow of information, capital, labor and other factors of production considerably effortless. State boundaries are fast becoming insignificant as a seemingly seamless virtual world is created 1 . The expansion of international trade has led to the rise of multinationals which are not content with a strong presence in the home country, and find it necessary to spread their wings across state borders.

Sovereign states are also finding it impossible to remain isolated and political partnerships and federations have become a necessity in the evolving world order 2 . These changes are all results of globalization, which is now seen by many as a necessary evil.

The above occurrences have dire consequences on the concept of statehood. States especially those in the developing world are increasingly losing grip of sectors over which they hitherto held unquestioned control 3 .

This paper explores how globalization is contributing to the slow but sure death of the concept of statehood in most nations. The views of two globalization theorists in relation to this topic are examined, and possible solutions of this problem are also suggested.

Global socio-economic health and financial stability depend significantly on legitimate state control and regulation of the economy 4 . Neoliberal ideologies, however, view the state as an imposer of unnecessary regulation and control over economic units, thereby being a hindrance to global trade 5 . Neoliberals, therefore, advocate for reduced state involvement and control in the economy.

The rise of globalization has reversed the roles of the state and even if its hand is still seen in many processes, it has been weakened considerably 6 . As will be seen later, the state’s capacity to make binding decisions has been reduced by the power that globalization has granted other entities such as multinational companies and international bodies.

State control over trade and interactions among its citizens and institutions gives a semblance of order and control within the state. The ease of movement and exchange of information, however, has created a virtue community which exists outside the borders and limits of state control 7 .

This community forms part of what some theorists call a “nation without a state” 8 . This is just but one of the many examples illustrating how the concept of “nationhood” is fast being rendered irrelevant in a world that is turning into a small global village.

States are losing ground in areas such as control over trade and democratic processes within their territories as a result of globalization.

Susan Strange expresses her views on the effect of globalization on the decline of the state in “The Erosion of the State” through a description of ways in which globalization erodes the powers held by the state over various processes. She lists three main problems which in her opinion, embody the problems that stem from globalization.

The first on this list is the erosion of state control over financial markets. Trade is no longer controlled by the state, but by multinational corporations, international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF, and trade organizations 9 .

Globalization has been a significant factor in the spread of market economy ideologies, and its entrenchment in most economies in the developed and developing world.

Most international companies that invest in the economies of the developing world have a global presence and trade in different financial markets across the globe. It is, therefore, difficult for any state to effectively control trading in financial markets.

Market forces have taken over the control of financial markets, which are greatly influenced by decisions of companies and investors 10 . Though this may be instrumental in encouraging competition among firms, it is not necessarily good for all in the economy.

The downside of this event is that the power that these multinationals hold may be used inappropriately used to engage in unfair competition or even to effect takeovers in the market. The state, having lost its teeth in this sector cannot offer effective protection to weaker firms in hostile situations.

Globalization has also led to the loss of decision making powers by the state 11 . States are not completely deprived of their power and authority to make decisions, but these decisions are often successfully contested and questioned by global firms.

An example supplied by Imade 12 is that of environmental policies formulated by governments for the protection of the environment, but they are repeatedly contested by oil companies on the premise that they restrict trade.

The binding force of states’ decisions has shrunk and corporations continue to question state control and authority over their activities within the territory.

The weakness in state control over multinationals especially in the developing and underdeveloped parts of the world has led to severe environmental degradation 13 . Though globalization has brought progress with it, most countries in the third world do not enjoy its benefits. Strict implementation of environmental policies unfavorable to the companies has dire consequences.

These may include threats to pull out of the economy, leading to loss of hundreds of jobs, or withdrawal of funding or support for various projects. The state is rendered helpless in such circumstances.

Decision making in the provision of essential public social services such as education and medical care has always been the preserve of the state 14 . However, since many of these services are funded by foreign organizations (especially in third world countries), decisions about the ‘what and how” aspects of these services are made jointly by the donors and the recipients of aid.

If it is not in the interests of the donor, certain services such as family planning may not be provided in accordance with the government’s wishes, as it is rendered powerless in the making of decisions regarding the issue.

Strange introduces the concept of “new diplomacy” in the globalization discourse. This term is explained as part of the process of eroding a state’s power to make uncontested and binding decisions. It refers to the bond between states and companies, and amongst companies in the global economy. Companies realize that individual states’ economies cannot thrive or survive in the absence of international trade.

For this reason, they acquire bargaining power in the decision making process of the state. They can, therefore, negotiate with governments on matters relating to employment, wages, labor and trade. In this regard, the state is stripped of its power to make independent decisions without considering the bearing they will have on its relations with the companies.

When companies, and not the government, make decisions regarding employment and wages, at this point the state’s existence can be said to be irrelevant. This is one of the major problems of globalization that developing economies are facing. Foreign investments drive economic growth, but the price is too high.

The conditions of labor deteriorate and the minimum wage is very low, since the big boys in the industry are mainly interested in maximizing profits and keeping costs at a minimum. Economies in parts of the world such as Asia, Africa and Mexico deal with problems of exploitation consistently, since multinationals take advantage of the cheap labor available due to the high unemployment rates.

The views of Strange mainly reflect the negative impacts of globalization and its role in the attrition of the concept of nationhood. Other voices however, point out that though globalization has a negative impact on state power, there is some good that can come out of it.

Joseph Stiglitz opines that when globalization reduces a state’s effectiveness in decision making, there are several negative outcomes that emerge. Countries’ vulnerability to international shocks is increased. Affected nations cannot effectively cushion their economies from the volatilities of global economic conditions.

He voices a strong criticism of the IMF which he says contributes to many of the world economic disasters such as economic troubles in parts of Asia through its unfavorable economic policies. In his opinion, a state willing to implement policies it deems necessary in its economy may be stopped by such international financial bodies which have conspired with Washington and other powers to control the world’s economy.

He opines that it is a conspiracy to keep other economies under their command and control. Though his opinions seem somewhat biased, they nevertheless, make a lot of sense in view of what happens in the world.

Most governments cannot make financial decisions that the IMF and the World Bank object to 15 . This is because the interdependency among economies and nations that has been brought by globalization has sunk many nations deep into debts, and their decisions are therefore controlled by the lenders-the IMF and World Bank.

In this regard, only physical boundaries of states exist, but the states were eroded a long time ago. Decisions affecting the so called states are centrally made at the world headquarters in Washington.

As a result of the above, political, social and financial instabilities increase and there is a decrease in economic growth. Imade 16 argues that globalization and capitalism benefits the affluent in the developed world and leaves the people in third world countries unprotected.

The central argument is that without proper controls and protection mechanisms in place, third world development and statehood are on their deathbeds. This will continue being the case unless globalization adopts a human face.

Stiglitz, however, gives another face to globalization and says that it is not always a bad thing, and some good can be realized from it. If a state is to retain its “statehood” and sovereignty in the face of globalization, then it must take it with caution. It should be adopted and embraced after paying attention to the uniqueness of an individual country.

The individual goals of the country, its policies, structures and culture among other considerations should be examined before taking the plunge and embracing globalization. The problem I have with the last part of the argument is that it is almost impossible for a country to disregard the force globalization. Even when it is not in line with its interests, it is treated as a necessary evil that the state must deal with.

The “Washington Consensus” propagated ideas such as that states are unnecessary, and that markets are best left alone 17 . State interference in a market economy is seen as inappropriate, and market forces are left to operate and control it.

This only hurts the weak economies in the third world, but the beneficiaries such as the US will not say this. Poor regulation is weak economies such as Thailand and Indonesia has been blamed for exposing them to volatilities such as those in capital flows and employment shifts 18 .

I attribute the loss of “nationhood” of nations across the world to globalization. It is globalization that has given so much power to multinational companies over states. The stakes are high and states willingly hand over their powers, though there are elements of arm twisting in some instances.

Ease in the exchange of information has made geographical boundaries irrelevant in modern operations. States have little control over what happens over the internet, and regulation of these activities is limited.

Not every aspect of the erosion of statehood is negative. The reality is that globalization has expanded the horizons of international trade and eased the way business is conducted. However, the loss of state power over certain processes hurts the economy and other stakeholders.

The advantages of letting market forces control the market are not lost to me, and I acknowledge the fact that undue government interference in the activities of businesses hurts the conduct of business by creating an unfavorable environment.

Additionally, globalization as a single factor is only a contributory to, but is not the only cause of states’ loss of ground in areas that they previously controlled. The decline of the state has also been attributed to other factors by a variety of writers.

Blad 19 makes the case for the augment of national culture in the decline of the state. Other factors to which state decline has been attributed include the spread of terrorism and invasion of sovereign territories.

An increased consciousness of one’s ethnicity or sense of identity can lead to the detestation of things that are foreign 20 . Ethnocentric reactions towards foreign things and control have been witnessed in prosperous societies in the recent past.

Civil solidarity surges forth when the society view the state as a puppet of foreign forces and the public wants nothing to do with it. The result is the rejection of the state’s authority over it and its affairs, and at this stage an uprising may erupt.

Blad 21 identifies the Bretton Woods system as an example of state decline in favor of neo liberalism as a result of rise national culture. Closely related to national culture is the failure or incapacity of state institutions to propagate and support a national ideology that the public can identify with.

What is likely to happen is that counter ideologies will spring up in such a situation, as was the case in the rise of “urban youth culture” in Brazil. It is my opinion, however, that these other explanations cannot be separated from globalization. This is because ease in the flow of information is important for these uprising to succeed. In this case, globalization also plays a role, albeit from the periphery.

The spread of terrorism has necessitated the concerted efforts of all stakeholders in the fight against it. This fight has an international aspect to it, and international security agencies often disregard state regulations and authority in the extraction of information about terrorists and in the pursuit of suspected terrorists.

When it comes to terrorism, states lose their statehood and sovereignty. A good example is the capture of Osama bin Laden by American forces, whose operation can be said to have violated the sovereignty and territorial rights of Baghdad.

The invasion of a sovereign state by foreign forces acting under the umbrella of international bodies such as the United Nations sometimes contributes to the decline of statehood. Excluded here are sanctioned peacekeeping missions.

The focus is on invasions that are motivated by factors other than assisting to keep peace. Globalization also has a role here. The global scramble for natural resources has made some states invade others with the intention of siphoning natural resources such as oil from those countries.

The rapid advancements in technology have absolutely changed the world. Globalization as a process began centuries ago, but it is only recently that its effects have been seen. There is faster movement of factors of production and transmission of information.

These fall on the positive side of globalization. However, it is a concept that has contributed significantly to the decline in statehood of nations, there are also other factors to blame, such as the spread of terrorism and the rise of national culture.

Blad, Cory. “The Paradoxical Return of National Culture in Globalization Era: Theorizing Present and Future Legitimization.” Race, Gender and Class. 18.3-4(2003): 329-347. Print.

• Imade, Lucky. The Two Faces of Globalization: Impoverishment or Prosperity? 2003. Web.

Payne, Richard. Global Issues, Politics, Economic and Culture, London: Pearson Education, 2011. Print.

• Blad, Cory. “The Paradoxical Return of National Culture in Globalization Era: Theorizing Present and Future Legitimization.” Race, Gender and Class. 18.3-4(2003): 329-347.
• Blad, ibid.
• Payne, Richard. Global Issues, Politics, Economic and Culture, London: Pearson Education , 2011. Print.
• Payne, ibid .
• Blad, supra.
• Imade, ibid.
• Payne, supra.
• Payne, supra .
• Imade, supra.
• Globalization and Development
• Microeconomics: Competition and Monopoly
• The First Saudi Kingdom and Its History
• Political Philosophies: Plato and Hegel Conceptual Differences
• Hiram Fong: Political and Life History
• Globalization Effects: The Privatization of Institutions
• The New Concept of Strategic Sourcing and Its Implications
• Globalization and the Economics of Child Labor
• Backlash against Globalization
• Globalization
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, June 6). The devastating Globalization effects on State Sovereignty. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-devastating-globalization-effects-on-state-sovereignty/

"The devastating Globalization effects on State Sovereignty." IvyPanda , 6 June 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/the-devastating-globalization-effects-on-state-sovereignty/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'The devastating Globalization effects on State Sovereignty'. 6 June.

IvyPanda . 2019. "The devastating Globalization effects on State Sovereignty." June 6, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-devastating-globalization-effects-on-state-sovereignty/.

1. IvyPanda . "The devastating Globalization effects on State Sovereignty." June 6, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-devastating-globalization-effects-on-state-sovereignty/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The devastating Globalization effects on State Sovereignty." June 6, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-devastating-globalization-effects-on-state-sovereignty/.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

EFFECT OF GLOBALIZATION ON SOVEREIGNTY OF STATES

We had lived in a world of essentially unchallenged sovereignty for several generations now, and had begun to think of it as the natural state of affairs. However, the idea of states as autonomous, independent entities is collapsing under the combined onslaught of monetary unions, global television CNN, the Internet, governmental and non-governmental organizations. In this article, we intend to examine the effect of globalization on the notion and incidence of sovereignty of states and how nation states have adapted to the new challenges of globalization. Governments and activists alike complain that multilateral institutions such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and the International Monetary Fund overstep their authority by promoting universal standards for everything, which in turn alter the scope of state authority. It is our intention to consider just how much globalization has affected state authority.

Related Papers

Essien U K P E U K O Y O Ukpe

GLOBALIZATION AND STATE SOVEREIGNTY By Essien Ukpe Ukoyo Ukpe, Department of Political Science, Akwa Ibom State University, Obio Akpa Campus, Akwa Ibom State E-Mail: [email protected], GSM: 08167960417; 08023515344 ABSTRACT Globalization unarguably has many advantages, but the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages. The hopes in the early 1990s that growing international economic interdependence would provide the basis for a peaceful world order have not come to fruition. Worst of all, globalization leads to the diminution of states’ sovereignty thereby exposing weaker nations to the vagaries of economic manipulations of international financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization. These organizations which are agents of globalization, founded and controlled by the highly industrialized nations have not the survival of the weaker nations at heart. Consequently, weak economic nations are put to the worst in the world system due to the high cost of economic globalization. This paper recommends that weak economies should first build strong economic base for their countries before opening up their economies to the international market economy if they are going to survive the global holocaust.

Leonid Grinin

The process of globalization undoubtedly contributes to the change and reduction of the scope of state sovereign powers. The list of threats to state sovereignty often includes global financial flows, multinational corporations, global media empires, and the Internet etc. At the same time (note that this point is debated surprisingly little and occasionally), since the end of World War II, increasingly more states have been willingly and consciously limiting their sovereign rights. And what is extremely important, many countries quite often give away some of their sovereign powers voluntarily. In the article, it is argued that the factor of voluntariness in reducing one's own authority is, no doubt, the most important in understanding the future of the state. There are several reasons for such voluntariness and ‘altruism’, including the fact that such a restriction becomes profitable, as in return the countries expect to gain quite real advantages especially as members of regional and interregional unions. The transformation of sovereignty proceeds somehow almost in all countries. However, it is more characteristic of Western countries.

Dian Rositawati

Globalization creates and changes complex legal configurations. As the global connectedness increase, cross border transactions and communications enlarge and therefore there is a demand to create transnational rules. Globalization appears to be eroding the Westphalian norms upon which the modern nation-state relation is constructed. State is not the only body that hold the monopoly authority in law making process. However in the practice, states are not simply given their sovereignty capacities.This essay seeks to discuss the challenge delivered by globalization to the conception of state sovereignty. The thesis is that globalization transformed the form of state sovereignty and therefore there are roles embraced by state in safeguarding their sovereignty.

Dukagjin Leka

State and sovereignty are two words, which in XXI century are the most commonly used, as in internal plan as well as at in the international plan, the latter even more. But, while in the past centuries was talked about sovereignty as something that is strongly and indivisible connected to the state as a mother with her child, in this century-in globalized world, the state and sovereignty are being used as something that were strongly connected, but today this connection is softened. This is done for many different reasons, because we are living in the time, where state sovereignty is not considered anymore as something absolute and intangible, meanings that no longer exists literally, and this is being proven every day more and more. We have the cases of humanitarian intervention, where the sovereignty of a state is taken temporarily or is violated, then we have the creation of regional and international organizations that every day more and more have gained strength within their or...

Queena Long

There has been much debate about whether globalization is undermining state sovereignty in the study of world politics today. This is due to the fact that the term ‘globalization’ itself is rather subjective and broad. There are two rather distinct arguments used in this debate. Hyperglobalists, such as Ohmae and Scholte , hold a pessimistic view and argues that globalization brings about the demise of the sovereign nation state: global forces undermine the ability of governments to control their own economics and societies. In contrast, ‘the sceptics reject the idea of globalization as so much “globaloney”’ : by emphasizing the continuing importance of states in world politics, academics such as Krasner and Gilpin argue that states and geopolitics remain the principal agents and forces shaping world order today. In this essay, we will firstly define the terms ‘globalization’ and ‘state sovereignty’. Looking at the impact of globalisation domestically and internationally of a state, we will pin point which aspects of state sovereignty are being undermined before looking at the arguments proposed by the “sceptics”. Then we will conclude whether or not, or to what extent is globalization undermining state sovereignty.

Kamarulnizam Abdullah

International journal of applied research

Swapna Prabhu

Has the ongoing process of Globalization visibly shifted the global contours posing a challenge to state sovereignty? To address this question there arises a need to analyze theoretically the notion of state sovereignty and the developments witnessed in the globalised world. As against Jospeh Nye’s views on international integration and cooperation, there seems to be contending trend of globalization posing a serious threat to the national identity and sovereignty of a nationsocially, economically and politically. The present paper is an attempt to examine in detail the various theoretical standpoints on globalization and state sovereignty that would facilitate our understanding of the ambiguities existing in contemporary international politics.

Daniel Sorluca

There is a belief, implicit in the question, that national sovereignty should not only be considered outdated, but a source of division and violence within the world. The proposed solution to the problems in the world is to transcend the idea of the nation state through the evolutionary premise of globalization to ultimately create global governance. This essay will be divided into three main parts. The first part will establish the importance of the State in response to the first part of the question. Secondly, I will discuss the concept of globalization and hypothesise the ultimate realisation of globalisation as a New World Order. And finally, I will propose a possible balanced internationalist solution to the debate that does not see the state being eclipsed by globalisation, but a world in which statist, internationalist and globalist dynamics all inter-relate with one another.

Suhaib Farooq Bandey

All our life we had studied and heard that sovereignty is not just an element of state, but is heart and soul concept, of state. By going through works of great scholars, political thinkers and sociologists all that we can get to understand about sovereignty of a state is that it is an inalienable characteristic of the state or so to say, it is a natural state affair. But after the onslaught of international entities like IMF, WTO, GLOBAL TELEVISION and etc independent character of the state or the idea of the state as an autonomous body is fading. There are many who assert that globalization kills state’s autonomy and there are others who believe that globalization in turn strengthens the independent character of the state. It would be wrong to say that sovereignty has totally lost its importance. It is a very attractive concept to weaker nation states, especially to those states which have had great influence of developed nation states on their political domestic structure. The sole reason behind this that sovereignty provides their international recognition, which in turn brings them closer to international organizations and sometimes to investments above all it provides them and their leaders the status they always look for. In this study we intend to analyze and examine the effect of globalization on concept of sovereignty of state and how nation states have attuned themselves to these new challenges posed by globalization. There is an outcry from Government and activists that multilateral institutions like the United Nation, WTO, and IMF promote and chalk down certain universal standards to be followed, which in turn curtails the scope of state authority. The basic idea is to find out how much globalization has affected state authority.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

The Jahangirnagar University Journal of International Relations

Md. Azmal Mahmud Khan

Research on humanities and social sciences

Mossa Hussen

International Journal for Innovation Education and Research

Chandra Kodituwakku

Bibhu Sharma

Edward Cohen

International Theory

Arthur Stein

The European Journal of Economics, Law and Politics

andrada nour

International Organization

Bruce Cronin

Bigyachandra Ningthouja

Fatih Duman , İsmail Seyrek

jose aims rocina

Academicus International Scientific Journal

michele marsonet

Thess Hrubisko

Binneh Minteh, PhD

Windy Warderson

SAMUEL OTENG

International conference KNOWLEDGE-BASED ORGANIZATION

Daniel SOLESCU

Development and Change

Emmanuel Nuesiri

Boston College Law Review

Frank Garcia

World Wide Journal

Pongrácz Alex

Yves Schemeil

Maneesha Tripathi

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

• You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
• You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
• You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
• A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.