Has Globalization Undermined the Concept of State Sovereignty - Essay Example

? Globalization and Sovereignty - Has globalization undermined the concept of sovereignty? One of the popular concerns regarding globalization is related to its impact on the conventional system of the states. the concern leads on to examine whether a process of economic globalization has acted towards the fall or displacement of the country states as the global framework began undergoing gradual changes thereby emanating the national boundaries. Certain experts such as Joseph Camelleri and Jim Falk observe that the world’s system is moving on to a new period where the institution of the state and its sovereign are being underestimated and changed by the different components of globalization. Even the truth behind globalization has been brought into discussion by the politicians and analysts. Sometimes the issue centers on the exaggeration of globalization while at other times the question centers on whether any material change is brought about. The question still remains regarding the loss of state sovereignty or the significance of the state to international associations. Globalization and its consequential transnationalism has brought about a loss in state’s sovereignty in some respects while Before analyzing this argument of state sovereignty it is important to elaborate upon the different definitions of the concept and its relevant concept. The autonomy of the state gradually comes to be threatened under the pressures of market forces acting globally, or transnational administrative system. The country states have been losing grip over certain domains within and across the boundaries. Eli Noam observes that the influence of telecommunications will gradually lead to fading of the concept of the territory and the idea of a nation exerting influence over electronic communication will become outdated. In most cases the power of the state is fragmented especially in complex system. The power is delegated stepwise to other institutions and organizations for taking collective decisions. It is difficult to identify any single origin of authority especially in the context of the international institutions. The international organizations project a framework which is competitive in nature but their ways of decision making through the principle of agreement or majority rule might lead to decisions which are not in tune with the state’s interest or different form state policy. The minimization or time and space resulting from globalization reduce the role of the state in the global context. This process of globalization, as described by Ronald Robertson might be stated as “compression of the world and the intensification of the consciousness of the world” which is caused by the fast progress in technology and growing economic activities (Lynch, 51). The self-sufficiency and the proficiency of the country’s power get eroded as the societies are penetrated by international forces. Government therefore loses control over the local or domestic market and the economy as it incorporates the “development of transnational practices” and “an increasing number of inter-state connections” (Lynch, 51). Eric Helleiner has however ventured towards a careful analysis of the loss of sovereignty concept. According to him economic globalization’s impact on the world is more complex compared to the argument centering on the challenge posed by financial globalization to the nations. His argument speaks in favor of information technology enabling the regulatory power of the states. Therefore one cannot say that the sovereign states have been able to regulate international funds into the nation’s economy. It has often been argued that as the movements of financial capital increased across borders it created pressures for deregulation which in turn provoke liberalization of financial markets. According to Helleiner the influence of the nation states should not be emphasized. This is because the economic globalization has merely led to increase the nation states’ power via cooperative action at the international level. Arguments have also pointed out that owing to mobilization of financial capital sovereign states have not been able to formulate a macroeconomic policy independently for their nation. Experts observe that a state might miss out its macroeconomic autonomy while the non-state units like the credit rating agencies are emerging in the financial scenario. Transnationalism as well as interdependence restrains the ability of the state to get involved in taking independent domestic policy related decisions. Helleiner points out in this context that this lack of independence of a state to take macroeconomic decisions has often been overemphasized especially as long as the impact of external forces is concerned. The problem as Helleiner and Janice Thompson points out lies in the definition of sovereignty of a state which is measured in terms of its degree of control over the activities within and across borders. Thomson refers to the “de-territorialization of state authority claims” (Lynch, 56) based upon which it might be argued that economic globalization leads to waning of the state’s authority. Saskia Sassen puts forward the view that establishment of financial centers raises challenge to the sovereignty of the state as they are the bodies situated within the domestic territories but lie outside the regulatory domain. This is often referred as the “denationalization of national territory” (Lynch, 56). As one explores the argument of territoriality, the fall in sovereignty is more prominently indicated. Stevenson and Cooper (2009) puts forward the argument that state’s sovereignty has a tight grip on the health scenario and have curbed the efforts towards implementation of control measures over communicable ailments. Sovereignty has been taken as a hindrance to the global health governance. These cases are drawn from Asia where states have defended their position on the grounds of the doctrine of Westphalian sovereignty. The peace treaties of Westphalia had not only put an end to the two infamous wars, but also shaped the foundation stone of the international relations. Over the past years, state found its position as the undeniable power in the global ground (D’Anieri, 2009). In later times, more specifically during the eighties and nineties and till date, the state has lost its importance regarding its international role in peacemaking and somewhere in framing of international relations. This change in polarity involves more than one reason - from the shift in planned economy to free market mechanism at the background of globalization, the increasing onslaught of terrorism, enfeebling a nation’s security, etc. Liberalism states that the preferences of the state rather than the supremacy or abilities of the state would fundamentally establish state’s behavior. This theory was popularized almost after the World War I, when the theorists realized the shortcomings of the states to exert complete control on the conclusion and extension of the war. Unlike realism where state is viewed as the only player, in case of liberalism, multiplicity of state’s action finds its due position. This theory also holds that the interstate communication will also extend to economic (via commercial bodies and organizations) as well as political schedules. The preferences may differ depending upon the individual state’s culture, economy and government (Wendt, 1999). Thus, instead of chaotic international system, many opportunities for cooperation and wide-ranging ideas of power can are liable to find its place. Cooperation and interdependence may bring about peace and hence be lucrative. (Nye, 2004) Neoliberalism seeks to develop the idea of liberalism by accepting the neorealist views regarding the states turning out to be main players in international relations. However the concept of non state actors is still existent and intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) play an essential part. Proponents of neoliberalistion, such as Nye (2003) argues upon the concept that states will cooperate without paying much heed towards relative gains, as they are related to absolute benefits. The developing and strengthening interdependence during the Cold War period through international institutions indicates that neo-liberalism is also termed as liberal institutionalism. This would also indicate that the nations retain the independence to make their own choices (free market concept where choices are free) regarding the way it would conduct policy without any international institution restraining a country’s sovereignty. Thus, the theory also includes an economic theory that is based on the validity and functionalism of open and free markets operations with least possible government intervention attempted towards prevention of formation of monopolies or other similar conglomerates. In the current scenario, NGOs play an active role in the political and social fields. Civil society organizations are growing at length all over the world. The 2002 UNDP Human Development Report shows that nearly one-fifth of the world’s 37,000 NGOs have been formed during the 1990’s. NGOs have played the role of a providing an outlet to expressions of grievances and complex needs of the society. They may canalize the societies’ prospects by encouraging them to act ethically, without bending to state power or benevolence, proliferating pluralism and multiplicity in society via protection and maintenance of ethnicity, religion, along with other identities and promotion of secularism. (Robbins, 2007; Dasgupta, 2004) These organizations can be a substitute route to provision of service to the society without the pressures of the state and hence exercise greater flexibility. They aim to ensure that the government and market are answerable to the citizens. In conclusion one may say that though the state has been losing its sovereignty based upon the territorial argument, there are different arenas where its role has been altering. For instance, the states now need to act in the best interest of the nation and administer through global cooperation. For instance, when India faced a crisis in balance of payment situation, it was forced to open the economy and no orient its infrastructure in order to provide its people a better standard of living and attract FDI (Kapila, 2009). Therefore the states need to alter their ruling domains and can still have a crucial role to play not only for the welfare of his nation but to propagate global wellbeing as well. References Dasgupta, S. (2004), The changing face of globalization, SAGE. Lynch, K.L. (2003), The forces of economic globalization, Kluwer Law International. Nye, J. S. (2003), Understanding international conflicts, Longman. Nye, J.S. (2004), Power in the global information age, Routledge. Robbins, P. (2007), Encyclopedia of environment and society, SAGE. Wendt, A. (1999), Social theory of international politics, Cambridge University Press. Stevenson, M.A. & A.F. Cooper (2009), Overcoming Constraints of State Sovereignty: global health governance in Asia, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 7, pp. 1379-1394. D’Anieri, P. (2009), International Politics, Cengage Learning. Kapila, U. (2009), India’s Economic Development since 1947, Academic Foundation Read More