Factors for Determining the Extent to which the State has Full Control within its Territory - Essay Example

? Factors for Determining the Extent to which the has Full Control within its Territory and Factors for Determining the Extent to which the State has Full Control within its Territory States are essentially political units comprising of people, a well-defined territory as well as a set of governing institutions. These states are sovereign, which means that other states recognize them as having exclusive rights to make their own domestic and foreign policies. This implies that these states are independent actors in international politics. The United States comprises of varied populations and it has basis on an ideology. All states have ideologies or systems of beliefs, values as well as ideas. The context in which the states operate and the way these contexts influence or shape the decisions they make is important. There are factors that determine the extent to which these states have full control within their territory. At the heart of these factors is the concept of sovereignty. This means sovereignty determines the extent to which a state is in complete control within its territory. There is a link between the idea of country sovereignty and its capacity to guarantee the best interests of its own people. Therefore, if it does not act in the best interest of its own citizens, it is not often thought of as a sovereign state. Other factors such as globalization have also come into play in determining the extent to which a country has full control within its territory (Dierks 2001). In the modern world, people are living in a globally mutually dependent system where events taking place thousand miles away have an effect on them (Cohen 2006). The world is shrinking because of globalisation, which is a political, economic, socio cultural and technological process whereby state borders significance decrease and their citizens reside in an incorporated worldwide system. Nonetheless, government and non-government actors are demanding the supremacy of states as well as their self-governance (Bhagwati 2004). The attrition of state borders as well as the decline of state self-government is an important matter as it reduces the extent to which a state has full control within its territory. Sovereignty distinguishes a state from all the other associations. It denotes the final and ultimate legal authority and beyond, which no further legal power, exists (Keohane & Nye 2001). It has two aspects: internal sovereignty and external sovereignty. Internal sovereignty is the ultimate authority of the state over every person and association within its geographical boundaries. By virtue of internal sovereignty, the state formulates and enforces laws on people as well as associations. Any person or association who violates these laws receives a punishment. On the other hand, external sovereignty refers to the freedom of a state from foreign powers control. There is no external authority, which can limit the state’s power. France is a sovereign state, and this enables it to have a considerable control within its territory. It comprises of equal persons and not separate communities. There is national sovereignty also known as top-down sovereignty, which is sovereignty of national states as well as popular sovereignty or bottom up sovereignty, which is sovereignty of the people (Krasner 1999). In France, national sovereignty matches up to the notion that each Nation, which has an assembly of people unified by a mutual history, culture and language, retain control of the choices, which it has to come to for the common good of the people. Popular sovereignty in France is important because it is the essence of democracy; power proceeds from the people who entrust it in the interim to their elected officials. It is inalienable and delegated (Friedman 2005). People have the freedom to act, decide, and undo. Numerous organisations often operate across the borders of many countries, for instance, Microsoft, which is and an American multinational company that helps customers from the entire world with technical support. There are also organisations such as Red Cross, whose nongovernmental volunteers and professionals come from various countries and offer humanitarian aid in the entire world. This has led to some countries losing their self-government Globalisation is eating into state self-government. It is allowing the interests of well-known persons, NGOs as well as intergovernmental associations to override the states national interests. There is the issue of France and globalization, France’s place, France perception of its role, its important, its sovereignty as well as its capacity to act, which has preoccupied France for a long period since the start of the current deep phase of globalisation. French people are too anxious, and they are not welcoming this topic compared to the other countries, especially the United States. Globalisation limits the extent to which a state has full control within its territory (O'Meara, Mehlinger & Krain 2000). France is wary of this to ensure that the multinational organisations do not interfere with its control over its territory. Multinationals often pressure governments to grant tax breaks, lower environmental standards, and to offer a low-wage workforce. The governments often comply with these requirements or they face the risk of such companies moving their jobs to other countries sacrificing the people’s health for new company tax revenues and jobs (Stille 2002). The U.S. is an extraordinary powerful and affluent state, and its most outstanding power lies in the area of international security as well as its economic strength (Lawrence 2008). However, threats to its self-governance are forthcoming and long term. They do not share common characteristics nor are there necessarily immediate obvious such as threats. One element that seeks to threaten US sovereignty is the concept of international norming: the notion that the US should base its policies on the international consensus as opposed to making its own decisions as a constitutional democracy. Norming will restrain US sovereignty, as the domestic political debate will move to align with broader international opinion (Lievesley 2006). There are important areas where the US sovereignty is under siege such as the national security (Kishore 2008). Strong defences are important to national survival and the endless strive to constrain US ability to act in self-defence will limit the US sovereignty. In America, self-governance or the ability to be in full control within its territory is not simply an academic abstract. For the US, sovereignty is control over its own government (Levinson 2008). Sharing or pooling the US sovereignty with international organisations to address global problems will cede some of its sovereignty to institutions that other nations will also control or influence. It will reduce the US autonomy and control over government. Spain is a constitutional monarchy governed under the 1978 constitution. The hereditary monarch who is the head of state may dissolve the legislature, ratify laws, and propose candidate for the prime minister office. Spain’s armed forces main mission is to guarantee the independence and sovereignty of Spain. It contributed military to the Security of Spain and its friends and to foreign stability, peace, and human aid missions within the international organisation framework where Spain operates. Spain has independent and ultimate authority over its geographic area (Spiro 2002). Spain’s power is the basis of its sovereignty as well as its territorial integrity, state supremacy, border inviolability, and its supreme lawmaking authority. The important sovereignty factor in Spain is its degree of absoluteness. Any predecessor law, constitution, or custom does not restrict its self-governance. There are no areas of policies and actions outside its control. This is evident in Spain and Britain fight over Gibraltar sovereignty. Gibraltar lies seven square kilometres at the Iberian Peninsula foot; the Anglo-Dutch naval force captured it in 1704 and gave it to Britain in the Treaty of Utrecht in perpetuity in 1713 (Gold 2009). Spain has made many endeavours to reclaim the place through military resources in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. More recently, Spain re-established its territorial integrity, which is the key validation for its sovereignty claim. The restitution of Brussels concessions at the end of July 2001 assures dialogue on every difference between Spain and Gibraltar regarding sovereignty issues (Gold 2009). Russia has faced serious challenges in its attempts to create a political system, for example, leading figures in the executive and legislative branches have put forth opposing views of governmental instruments and political direction. Recently, Russia has become strong although its status is still far from what the country deserves in terms of reality (Payne &Nassar 2003). It is usually important not to lose the willingness and political will to take further steps. It is specifically the recognition of priority that enables Russia to present the society with a development strategy for the next decade (Campbell 2008). Indiscriminate use of political struggle methods, lack of precision in the allies’ choices, and flirtation with national extremism and criminals are internal threat to the preservation of sovereignty in Russia. In spite of everything, for multifaith and multinationality in Russia, extremism anchored on nationality, race, xenophobia, and religious hatred is particularly dangerous to its self-governance. In Nigeria, the issue of sovereignty is manifested in its economic sovereignty. There has been clear erosion of economic sovereignty, which imposes on national security. Lack of a sound economic foundation puts the security of a state in danger. The erosion of Nigeria’s economic sovereignty is slowly becoming obvious because people fear that foreign investors might take over a considerable chunk of the country capital market (Odubajo 2011). Discussions have become rife on the bank capital standards and a framework for how Nigeria can take part to remove policies to stimulate growth. In case foreign banks take over Nigerian banks, there will be a feeling of despondency among the population. The young persons’ will feel that their inter-generational equity is being mortgaged, and their restlessness will be a concern, impairing national security. Therefore, many nations want to control its territories fully but some factors are limiting this sovereignty. Reference List Benjamin, R 1995, Jihad vs. McWorld, Times Books/Random House, New York Bhagwati, J 2004, In Defence of globalization, Oxford University Press, New York Campbell, K 2008, Climatic sataclysm, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC Cohen, D 2006, Globalization and its enemies, MA: MIT Press, Cambridge. Dierks, R 2001, Introduction to globalization, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc Friedman, T 2005, The world is flat, Farrar Straus and Giroux, New York Gold, P 2009, ‘Gibraltar at the United Nations: caught between a treaty, the charter and the “fundamentalism” of the special committee’, Diplomacy & Statecraft, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 697-715 ‘Russia’ 2011, Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6ed, p.1 Keohane, R & Nye, J 2001, Power and interdependence, 3rd edition, Longman, New York. Kishore, M 2008, ‘The case against the west’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 87, no. 3, p. 111 Krasner, S 1999, Sovereignty, Princeton University Press, New Jersey. Lawrence, R 2008, Blue-collar blues: is trade to blame for rising U.S. income inequality? Washington, DC: Peterson Institute. Levinson, M 2008, ‘Freight pain: the rise and fall of globalization’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 87, No. 6, p.133–140. Lievesley, G 2006, ‘Cuba, the USA and Guantanamo Bay: the collision between national sovereignty and imperial ambition’, Contemporary Politics, vol. 12, no. 1, pp.3-24 Odubajo, A 2011, ‘An exploration of contending issues in Nigeria’s federal practice’, Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences, vol. 3, issue 1, pp. 1-33 O'Meara, P, Mehlinger, H & Krain, M 2000, Globalization and the challenges of a new century, University Press, Indiana. Payne, R & Nassar, J 2003, Politics, and culture in the developing world, Longman, New York. Spiro, P 2000, ‘The new sovereigntists’, Foreign Affairs vol. 79, no. 6, p. 9. Stille, A 2002, ‘What Is America's Place in the World Now?’ The New York Times. Read More