Discuss the view that globalization is increasingly rendering the state meaningless

Résumé du document

Most of the theories pertaining to International Relations highlight the centrality of the state on the international scene. The Nation-state has been characterized by the principle of sovereignty since the Westphalia Treaty in 1648. A good definition of sovereignty can be found in the book on International Relation Theories: Discipline and Diversity: "sovereignty refers to the capacity or characteristic (of nation-states) to be independent of external influence in the management of their internal affairs, where the distinction between internal and external is delimited by territorial boundaries of a state's claim to (sovereign) authority." (Dunne, Kurki and Smith, 2007,p.270).

The State has an exclusive competence in its internal affairs, the monopoly of violence, constraints inside its boundaries, and autonomy in its foreign policy. According to International Law, all states are equal and sovereign. However, the phenomenon of globalization that developed during the twentieth century questions the place of the state in the international space.

Globalization refers to cross border flows of goods, investments, information and people, and seems to increase interdependence between states: "Globalization is a complex multidimensional process which operates simultaneously across several institutional domains" (Held and McGrew, 1993, p.264). This phenomenon has economic, political and cultural dimensions, and creates some "turbulences" that affect the nation-states and their sovereignty. Boundaries become increasingly insignificant with globalization. Nonetheless, the nation-state is based on the principle of territoriality.

Is globalization rendering the state meaningless? Can we talk about the end of the sovereignty of the state?

The study of International Relations has been dominated by the realist tradition and its state centric approach. Realism privileges one actor, which is the sovereign state.
Nevertheless, some recent evolutions like globalization have undermined the position of the state and its sovereignty in the international scene.

In an increasingly globalized world, sovereignty seems less relevant and appears compromised by the proliferation of cross border flows that the state cannot control.As Bertrand Badie, a French specialist in International Relations said, the control of the state over society now tends to decrease. There are new political spaces and the territorial boundaries of the states are less pertinent thanks to globalization. (Badie, 1998).
Tags: Globalization,

Extraits

[...] Is the globalization is rendering the state meaningless? Can we talk about the end of the state sovereignty? The study of International Relations has been dominated by the realist tradition and their state centric approach: realism privilege one actor which is the sovereign state. Nevertheless, some recent evolutions like globalization have undermined the position of the state and its sovereignty in the international scene. In an increasingly globalized world, sovereignty seems less relevant and appears compromised by the proliferation of cross border flows that the state cannot control As said Bertrand Badie, a French specialist in International Relations states the control of the state over the society tends to decrease. [...]

[...] In this view, the states keep their significant role and their sovereignty is not diminishing. Even if R. Keohane points out the importance of non states actors, he recognizes their importance and key role: “Wealth and power are sought by a variety of actors in world politics, including nonstate organizations such as multinational business corporations. But states are crucial actors . (Keohane p.25) Indeed, states have lost neither their authority nor their control according to neo realists (Baylis and Smith p.219). [...]

[...] Neo-realists concede that IGOs are only complementary to the traditional diplomacy. Concerning the regionalization process, like ASEAN, they do not really disrupt national sovereignty: the purpose of the ASEAN is purely economical, and ASEAN has a policy of non-intervention in the sovereign affairs of the member states (Lawson p.112). The sovereignty of the state resists also because the intervention of others actors in the internal affairs are forbidden: international law recognized actually the non interference in the internal affairs of the state in the UN charter (article paragraph 7). [...]

[...] Discuss the view that globalization is increasingly rendering the state meaningless Most of the theories of International relations highlight the centrality of the state on the international scene. The Nation-state is characterized by the principle of sovereignty since the Westphalia Treaty in 1648. A good definition of the sovereignty can be found in the International Relation Theories: Discipline and Diversity book: “sovereignty refers to the capacity or characteristic ( of nation-states) to be independent of external influence in the management of their internal affairs, where the distinction between internal and external is turn delimited by territorial boundaries of a state's claim to ( sovereign) authority.” (Dunne, Kurki and Smith p.270). [...]

[...] He argues that states have still the power of decision on security, economic development, and strategic interest levels (Cohen p.165). Samy Cohen also contests the efficiency of the Non Governmental Organization (NGO) as international actors: according to him they still depend on the will of the states. NGOs have put pressure on the states but as the same time, they have asked for a better intervention of the nation states on the international scene. In his paper, International institutions: can interdependence work? [...]