The Impact of Globalization on State Sovereignty
Political Globalization
•
In historical terms, the
state is a relatively new
form of political organization.
•
But because of their
unique organization,
states
were able to quickly spread across the globe,
supplementing all other forms of political
organization.
•
It could well be speculated by some that if states
have not always been with us
they may at some
time cease to exist.
•
Globalization is seen as the very force to bring
about this dramatic political change,
but
whether such a change is to be welcomed or
feared is uncertain.
State Sovereignty on a Decline
•
At the core of this debate is the fact that
globalization
and globalized institutions complicate the ability of
states to maintain sovereignty.
Internet,
for example,
has had important implications for states regarding
legal authority in many traditional areas:
i.
Because the
Internet does not acknowledge
domestic boundaries or rules
. Thus,
software may
be easily copied and shared, in spite of property
rights or national security restrictions.
ii.
In future developments such as
electronic currency
may further erode the powers of states
by
undercutting their ability to print money, levy taxes,
or regulate financial transactions.
State Sovereignty----(contd.)
•
So far as changes for
state autonomy
and
capacity are concerned one possible scenario is
that the
state will become bound to numerous
international institutions
that will take on many
of the tasks that states normally conduct.
•
A web of organizations
, public and private,
domestic and international,
would shape politics
and polity, set standards, and enforce rules on a
wide range of issues
where states lack effective
authority.
•
The monopoly of violence
which is the final
preserve of states,
may lose its efficacy
in a
globalized world.
State Sovereignty----(contd.)
•
Vital
issues such as environmental degradation, drugs,
trade, technological innovation cannot be dealt with
through force.
Despite the U.S. call for a “war on
drugs” and “war on terror”, one cannot declare war in
the conventional sense.
•
Globalization will also
change the nature of public
participation and democracy.
The increasing
interconnection between domestic and international
institutions makes it more difficult for sovereign actors
to function without
oversight from other
organizations.
•
Globalization will thus
make politics less opaque and
more open to scrutiny
to domestic and international
communities.
Pessimistic Views regarding Political
Globalization
•
Political globalization is also seen
not as a pathway to
peace and participation but as a source of dangerous
fragmentation and weakened democracy.
•
Violence will simply change form and not lose its
utility.
Violent international actors
, which are the
exact opposite of the modern state in many ways, may
be very active.
•
These groups are
decentralized and flexible, hold no
territory and exercise no sovereignty
while drawing
financial and other support from across the globe.
•
Unlike other non-state actors such as NGOs or MNCs
these groups
seek to achieve their objectives through
the acquisition and use of force
and prove to be very
difficult to be countered.
Pessimistic Views----(contd.)
•
The death of a leader
(globalized criminal organizations or
terrorist groups), although a potential setback, will
not
destroy the group itself, since it does not depend on a
hierarchical structure of command and control.
•
Many question how a more globalized political system can
be more democratic.
Increased connections may increase
transparency but, this does not necessarily lay out a
mechanism for individuals to act on that information.
•
Many
international organizations
may not be
democratically formed and
may
not be directly
accountable to anyone at all, e.g. Greenpeace or the
World Wildlife Fund
are not subject to popular
democratic control nor are they necessarily more
transparent than states themselves.
•
This raises the concern of a
“democratic deficit”- a new
form of global illiberalism.
Globalization has sparked debates on the decline of state sovereignty as international institutions and interconnectedness challenge traditional state powers. The shift towards a web of organizations raises questions on the future autonomy of states and the effectiveness of violence as a tool. Vital global issues require cooperation beyond conventional warfare, impacting public participation and democracy. Pessimistic views suggest that political globalization may lead to dangerous fragmentation and the rise of violent non-state actors.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Political Globalization In historical terms, the state is a relatively new form of political organization. But because of their unique organization, states were able to quickly spread across the globe, supplementing all other forms of political organization. It could well be speculated by some that if states have not always been with us they may at some time cease to exist. Globalization is seen as the very force to bring about this dramatic political change, but whether such a change is to be welcomed or feared is uncertain.
State Sovereignty on a Decline At the core of this debate is the fact that globalization and globalized institutions complicate the ability of states to maintain sovereignty. Internet, for example, has had important implications for states regarding legal authority in many traditional areas: i. Because the Internet does not acknowledge domestic boundaries or rules. Thus, software may be easily copied and shared, in spite of property rights or national security restrictions. ii. In future developments such as electronic currency may further erode the powers of states by undercutting their ability to print money, levy taxes, or regulate financial transactions.
State Sovereignty----(contd.) So far as changes for state autonomy and capacity are concerned one possible scenario is that the state will become bound to numerous international institutions that will take on many of the tasks that states normally conduct. A web of organizations, public and private, domestic and international, would shape politics and polity, set standards, and enforce rules on a wide range of issues where states lack effective authority. The monopoly of violence which is the final preserve of states, may lose its efficacy in a globalized world.
State Sovereignty----(contd.) Vital issues such as environmental degradation, drugs, trade, technological innovation cannot be dealt with through force. Despite the U.S. call for a war on drugs and war on terror , one cannot declare war in the conventional sense. Globalization will also change the nature of public participation and democracy. The increasing interconnection between domestic and international institutions makes it more difficult for sovereign actors to function without oversight from other organizations. Globalization will thus make politics less opaque and more open to scrutiny to domestic and international communities.
Pessimistic Views regarding Political Globalization Political globalization is also seen not as a pathway to peace and participation but as a source of dangerous fragmentation and weakened democracy. Violence will simply change form and not lose its utility. Violent international actors, which are the exact opposite of the modern state in many ways, may be very active. These groups are decentralized and flexible, hold no territory and exercise no sovereignty while drawing financial and other support from across the globe. Unlike other non-state actors such as NGOs or MNCs these groups seek to achieve their objectives through the acquisition and use of force and prove to be very difficult to be countered.
Pessimistic Views----(contd.) The death of a leader (globalized criminal organizations or terrorist groups), although a potential setback, will not destroy the group itself, since it does not depend on a hierarchical structure of command and control. Many question how a more globalized political system can be more democratic. Increased connections may increase transparency but, this does not necessarily lay out a mechanism for individuals to act on that information. Many international organizations may not be democratically formed and may not be directly accountable to anyone at all, e.g. Greenpeace or the World Wildlife Fund are not subject to popular democratic control nor are they necessarily more transparent than states themselves. This raises the concern of a democratic deficit - a new form of global illiberalism.
