Is Globalization undermining State Sovereignty? 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 Ohmae1 and Scholte2, 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”’3: by emphasizing the continuing importance of states in world politics, academics such as Krasner4 and Gilpin5 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.
1
Ohmae, K. (1995), The End of the Nation State, New York: Free Press. Scholte, J.A. (2000), Globalization: A critical Introduction, London: Macmillan.
2
McGrew, A. (2011), “Globalization and Global Politics” in Baylis, J., Smith, S. and Owens, P. (eds), The Globalization of World Politics, Oxford, Oxford University Press. p.16 4 Krasner, S.D. (1999), Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy, Princeton: Princeton University Press. 5 Gilpin, R. (2001), Global Political Economy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3
CN: 1208755/ SI:100711429
PR1500
Assessed Assignment
Firstly we need to define ‘state sovereignty’. To do so, I will be using the Westphalian6 notion of it. ‘Westphalian sovereignty located supreme legal and political authority within territorially delimited states.’7 The emphasis here is on territory borders and the concept of legitimate sovereign rule. Rulers have complete authority over their subjects and it is understood that no ruler had the right to intervene in sovereign affairs of other nations. In addition, not only is the state said to be free from external intervention, but also from external influence. Furthermore there is to be no legal or political authority beyond the state. We will be using these characteristics of Westphalian sovereignty as a sort of checklist in order to see which aspects of them are being affected by globalization, and how. This approach to state sovereignty will help us answer whether globalization is undermining state sovereignty.
One view of globalization is that it is ‘simply the widening, deepening, and speeding up of worldwide interconnectedness’.8 The process can be described as growing extensively, intensively and quickly, creating a more deepening impact worldwide. This interconnectedness is evident in every sphere, from economics to the cultural. Using this definition, hyperglobalist Rosenau9 argues that the cumulative scale, scope, velocity, and depth of contemporary interconnectedness is dissolving the significance The Peace Treaties of Westphalia and Osnabruck 1648 had established the legal basis of modern statehood. 7 McGrew, A. (2011), “Globalization and Global Politics” in Baylis, J., Smith, S. and Owens, P. (eds), The Globalization of World Politics, Oxford, Oxford University Press. p.24 8 McGrew, A. (2011), “Globalization and Global Politics” in Baylis, J., Smith, S. and Owens, P. (eds), The Globalization of World Politics, Oxford, Oxford University Press. p.16 Rosenau, J. (1997), Along the Domestic‐ Foreign Frontier, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9 6
CN: 1208755/ SI:100711429
PR1500
Assessed Assignment
of the borders and boundaries that separate the world into it many constituent states or national economic and political spaces. It then follows that this is undermining the territorial notion of the sovereign state, and thus agrees that globalization is undermining state sovereignty internationally.
The term ‘interconnectedness’ itself is rather broad. To be more specific in relations to state sovereignty, states have been interconnected more politically, economically and socially on a national scale. Politically, one aspect of globalization is the evolving and expanding of global governance. Although there isn’t a world government to officially strip state sovereignty of its prevention of external intervention, global governance in effect does that job. This form of international system embraces states, international institutions and transnational networks together. By doing so, its scopes and impact have expanded dramatically. In result, its activities have become significantly politicized, as the G20 London Summit and recent Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change attest.10 With this global governance complex, private and non‐governmental agencies have become increasingly influential in the formation and implementation of global policy. For example, major credit‐ratings agencies, such as Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s, determine the credit statues of governments and corporation around the globe. Therefore in that sense, political authority at home having sole influence on its people has decreased. In addition, the state is not shielded from external influences. Thus the state domestically has to conform to the norms of this international system in order to participate. Whether this is a choice or being forced to
McGrew, A. (2011), “Globalization and Global Politics” in Baylis, J., Smith, S. and Owens, P. (eds), The Globalization of World Politics, Oxford, Oxford University Press. p.25
10
CN: 1208755/ SI:100711429
PR1500
Assessed Assignment
is irrelevant because at the end of the day, globalization in this sense undermines state sovereignty by exerting external influences and impacts on the State. Another political aspect of globalization, as defined by Brown11, is the focus on the global structures and processes of rule making, problem solving, the maintenance of security and order in the world system. This clearly undermines the characteristic of state sovereignty in relation to having supreme legitimacy over politics within its state. Although these global structures acknowledge the continuing centrality of states and geopolitics, it does not give them the authority to decline laws that are employed on them. Under condition of political globalization, states are increasingly embedded in worldwide webs of: multilateral institutions and multilateral politics from NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) and the World Bank to the G20; transnational associations and networks like the International Chamber of Commerce. The definitions of globalization given by Rosenau and Brown can be summed up with that of Scholte’s12: it is the ‘de‐territorialization‐or ... the growth of supraterritorial relations between people’. Economically, globalization is described by Gilpin13 as ‘the integration of world economy’ whilst Hirst14 describes it as ‘the continued development of the international Brown, S. (1992), International Relations in a Changing Global System, Boulder, CO: Westview. 12 Scholte, J.A. (2000), Globalization: A critical Introduction, London: Macmillan. p.46
13 11
Gilpin, R. (2001), Global Political Economy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. p.364
Hirst, P. (2002) “Globalization and the Nation State”, Review of International Political Economy 4 (3): 472‐496.
14
CN: 1208755/ SI:100711429
PR1500
Assessed Assignment
system of commercial liberalism’. Worldwide economic integration has intensified due to the expansion of global commerce, finance, and production binding together the economic fortunes of nations and communities across the world, thanks to the emerging global market economy. The effect of this integration is that no national economy, in theory, is able to insulate itself from the contagion effect of turmoil in the world’s financial market. The credit crunch of 2008, initiated within the USA yet effected by many counties worldwide like Germany and Japan, illustrates this perfectly. This undermines state sovereignty in that there is external influence on the individual state. In addition, it also creates a sort of “dependency” on other states, thus undermining state’s potential to rule its territory as a self‐sufficient unit. Furthermore, they are compelled to adapt to the new global economic situation or have been pressured to do so, as emphasized by Sassen15.
The political and economical aspects of globalization leads us to the perception that globalization is watering down the popular fiction of the ‘great divide’. This is where political life is separated into two distinctive separate spheres of action, the domestic and international. As Jayasuriya 16 had pointed out, ‘the erosion of the internal sovereignty of the State is perhaps the first noticeable manifestation of the transformation of sovereignty’. This has been the case when we looked at the political and economical aspects of globalization and its affects (as discussed already) on state sovereignty domestically and internationally. Sassen, S. (1996) Losing Control? Sovereignty in an Age of Globalization, New York: Columbia University Press. 16 Jayasuriya (1999), “Globalization, Law, and the Transformation of Sovereignty: The Emergence of Global Regulatory Governance”, Indiana Journal of Global legal Studies 6 (2): 454
15
CN: 1208755/ SI:100711429
PR1500
Assessed Assignment
Having talked about the internal sovereignty of a state, we need to go back to the territorial aspect of state sovereignty. This brings our attention to Harvey’s17 description of globalization as “time‐space compression”. It can best be described as a shrinking world, for example: the source of local developments, from unemployment to ethnic conflict, may be traced to distance conditions or decisions. This encourages deterritorialization as social, political, and economic activities are increasingly ‘stretched’ across the globe so that they are no longer organized solely within a state territory. With this feature of globalization, it is undermining state sovereignty in accordance to its territorial characteristic.
We have been looking at the effects of globalization and how it has impacted state sovereignty in terms of authority and territory. However it is important to look at the impact of globalization in relation to the ethos of the population. Socially, globalization has allowed global communication and organizations between like‐minded people across the globe through advanced technology. This had lead to the transnational spread of ideas, cultures and information amongst not only those like‐minded people, but also between different culture groups. These ideas may include ideologies such as democracy or the debate of ‘universal’ human rights. One could argue that this had lead to events which are beyond state control; people have been influenced in such a way that they act against the ethos of the state, which was the case with the Arab Spring. Harvey, D. (1989), The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Conditions of Cultural Change, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17
CN: 1208755/ SI:100711429
PR1500
Assessed Assignment
Globalization undermines state sovereignty by exerting external influences, in the form of ideas, into the state. In result this can lead to the population questioning the legitimacy of the government to exert absolute power over the state. Again, the Arab Spring is an example. These external forces give communities and culture groups the confidence to fight against their current regime, because they feel united and supported to do so by other fellow international members after communicating with them through the advanced technology and increased communication present in globalization. This is a good example of how globalization undermines state sovereignty domestically in a state.
However, there are counterarguments to hyperglobalist theories. Hirst18 argues that although there are changes in supra‐national organization (such as the World Trade Organization) and governance, the sovereign territorial state is not being undermined even if its role is changing. The new standardized rules, reached by agreement between states, can only work if there are territorial agencies that enforce them locally and have the power to do so. Those agencies can only be, and are, states. Moreover, in order for international treaties to be implemented, they have to be deliberated, signed and delivered domestically and internationally by the states. Hirst emphasizes the significant importance of the state as a key actor in globalization in relations to global governance and economics.
He then goes on to discuss how the anti‐globalization movements already see
18
Hirst, P. (2002) “Globalization and the Nation State”, Review of International Political Economy 4 (3): 473
CN: 1208755/ SI:100711429
PR1500
Assessed Assignment
institutions like the WTO as a supra‐national tyranny. In response, the states play a vital role in resisting them and their influence.19 Due to their territory and legitimacy, states still hold the authority to speak on behalf of their populations on global issues. One could say that they are better at sustaining the global order than these trans‐ territorial and apparently more “global” bodies. For example, globalization economically such as ‘free trade and financial flows do not remove the need for international action by states, rather they reinforce it’20.
Hirst’s ideas of state sovereignty in relations to globalization are, in my opinion, strongly based on the assumption that it is the Westphalian Sate Sovereignty which can perform the “responsibilities” of keeping the international system stable and cooperative. Because of this I believe that these assumption had made the claims of Hirst’s rather invalid since we can see that Westphalian State Sovereignty has indeed, to a large extent, been undermined by globalization as discussed earlier. Globalization had transformed the nature of politics, from state‐centric geopolitics to geocentric global politics. It has definitely changed the ‘processes of governance and accountability in the modern state’21. Although, like Hirst, Cohen22 argues that ‘rather
19
Hirst, P. (2002) “Globalization and the Nation State”, Review of International Political Economy 4 (3): 474 20 Hirst, P. (2002) “Globalization and the Nation State”, Review of International Political Economy 4 (3): 474 21 Sassen, S. (1996) Losing Control? Sovereignty in an Age of Globalization, New York: Columbia University Press, p.xi Cohen, E.S. (2001), “Globalization and the Boundaries of the State: A Framework for Analyzing the Changing Practice of Sovereignty”, Governance 14 (1): 75‐97.
22
CN: 1208755/ SI:100711429
PR1500
Assessed Assignment
than undermining the state, globalization is a product of a rearrangement of the purposes, boundaries, and sovereign authority of the state’, I emphasize that the Westphalian State sovereignty is undermined since globalization had forced these rearrangements of the state. Domestically, the sovereignty of the state, seen with quite a realist view and as a self‐sufficient unit with exclusive political power, is undermined by globalization in the sense that external influence seeps into the minds of the population. Thus the people within the state are more aware of contemporary issues and ideas other than the ethos and norms exerted to them by the current regime in the state. This leads to the diminishing authority of the political actors/elites in the state. Internationally, state sovereignty defined by its territorial borders is wearing aware because of the increasing impact of global governance and the international global community.
Having looked at the impact of many aspects of globalization domestically and internationally on a state, we can conclude that yes, globalization undermines state sovereignty and to a rather large extent. In theory, this undermining will increase as the impact of globalization politically, socially and economically continues to accelerate in the modern age, particularly in the wake of advancing technology.
(Word count: 1983)
CN: 1208755/ SI:100711429
PR1500
Assessed Assignment
Bibliography Books Baylis, J., Smith, S. and Owens, P. (eds) (2011), The Globalization of World Politics, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Biersteker, T.J and Weber, C. (eds) (1996), State Sovereignty as Social Construct, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Brown, S. (1992), International Relations in a Changing Global System, Boulder, CO: Westview. Gilpin, R. (2001), Global Political Economy, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Harvey, D. (1989), The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Conditions of Cultural Change, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Krasner, S.D. (1999), Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Mansbach, R. W., Ferguson, Y.H., et al. (1976), The Web of World Politics: Nonstate Actors in the Global System, New York: Prentice Hall. Ohmae, K. (1995), The End of the Nation State, New York: Free Press. Rosenau, J. (1997), Along the Domestic‐ Foreign Frontier, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sassen, S. (1996), Losing Control? Sovereignty in an Age of Globalization, New York: Columbia University Press. Scholte, J.A. (2000), Globalization: A critical Introduction, London: Macmillan. Articles Aman, A.C. Jr., (1995), “A Global Perspective on Current Regulatory Reform: Rejection, Relocation, or Reinvention?” in Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 2: 420‐64 Cohen, E.S. (2001), “Globalization and the Boundaries of the State: A Framework for Analyzing the Changing Practice of Sovereignty”, Governance 14 (1): 75‐97. Hirst, P. (2002), "Globalization and the Nation State" ‐ paper presented at SEF Sympoium: Nation‐Building in the Globalisation Process ‐ A Contribution to Regional Stability and the Global Security, Birbeck College University of London Jayasuriya (1999), “Globalization, Law, and the Transformation of Sovereignty: The Emergence of Global Regulatory Governance”: Indiana Journal of Global legal Studies 6 (2): 425‐455.
