State and Internationalization of Society - Literature review Example

Your Full Your Lecturers 25 August, Analysis of the Concepts of The Global Model Versus The National Model in International Relations This paper examines the various views of international relation in three distinctive section. Section A focuses on the concept of a global government in lieu of national governments as described by Amitai Etzioni. Section B looks at the concepts of the order of nations presented by Hendley Bull, which, hitherto, was the default position of International Relations as a discipline. Section C compares the two models and gives an opinion on the new view of international relations in the 21st Century. Section A Etzioni begins his book, From Empire to Community by stating the status quo in global politics. He states that the United States has led a campaign to unify the world (5). He cites the example of the export of democracy to nations in the former third world and the provision of support for development in other nations of the world. This, in his view creates a definition of Americas position as a dominant superpower in the world today. Also, he points out that the global bodies, including the United Nations and other international groups have over the past 60 years supported in the even development of nations and communities in the world. This has led to more nations coming together to achieve things (13). Etzioni identifies that the co-operation of nations under numerous banners has caused nations to live according to harmonised structures and systems. He also indicates that nations do a lot in terms of co-operation like transnational co-operation in commerce, banking, internet, health and research, environment, human rights and crime prevention. This was defined in the section which he called the new safety architecture. The new safety architecture is a concept that is steeped in the fact that nations are better off by co-operating and sharing some resources to achieve ends that are common to them. This is because when nations work together, they get to create a leverage that enable them to get optimum results from limited resources. Also, there are some activities that can only be achieved effectively when nations come together to work on them. Some of these activities include counter-terrorism, cross-border crime prevention and other similar drives. It is thus counter effective for any nation to attempt to live as an island. So he argues that authorities in nations are bound to work together to achieve results and common objectives that are in their best interest. On the individual level or amongst the ruled, there are increasing activities like the Internet, communication technology and the observance of similar standards in business, professions and academia (21). These things act as catalysts that enables individuals to interact with each other without major difficulties. Etzioni therefore states in the final section, Beyond Global Safety that the world is fast evolving to a singly unified entity. It is therefore important for nations and institutions in communities to be globalized. In other words, all these entities and units of nations should work like the United Nations which has global goals. He states that it is not desirable and effective anymore for institutions to have strictly national goals. Rather, nations and institutions must internationalise and seek to operate as global citizens and not just some local national entities as this would defeat their purpose. There is also the need for a global authority to act as a supreme body to co-ordinate the affairs of institutions in nations around the world. Etzioni therefore argues that when entities globalize in their operations and existence, they need to work as informal units in a decentralised fashion. This way, they can consolidate their efforts and meet the best interests of individuals and the wider society since these are the demands of our times. Section B Hendley Bull had a completely different view to the concepts of nations, societies and the international community. Originally writing in the 1970s, his book, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics was a definitive text in International Relations for a long time since it explained the status quo and circumstances that had existed for centuries before then. Hendley Bull states that the world is a unified entity. However, this unified entity is defined by a group of states to form the global system of politics and institutions (3). Just like the United Nations uses the phrase family of nations, Hendley puts the concept of the family of nations into perspective. In contrast, Etzioni states that individuals and institutions cut across borders. Bull argues that the best way to govern people is to organise them to nations and group them in an international model. Through nations, people could interact with each other on an international level. Hendley Bull describes a nation as a group of distinct people who claim sovereignty and are confined to a given geographical area with a government or leadership (12). Thus, the concept of self determination comes to play in Hendley Bulls definition of a nation. And again, this is in sync with the United Nations definition of nations and statehood. Hendley Bull therefore states that if people of the same social-cultural identities living in a give territory, the best way to govern and control them is to define them as a nation. The nation and its government would be responsible for the control and regulation of institutions within it. Thus, the government of a nation will control the activities and sustenance of people within it and this includes agriculture, defence, culture, development, justice and law, finance and taxation as well as administration or the civil service. This way, the government control things in the country. At the same time, the leadership of the government of the country will become the representative face of the nation in the international community or the system of nations. Etzioni on the other hand states that due to the close co-operation and interaction between nations like immigration, standardisation and communication, national borders are fast disappearing. It is therefore not appropriate anymore for people to be strictly tied down by national boundaries and governments. Hendley Bull however takes the position that the international community or the order of nations is controlled by balance of power regulated by a global or regional body like the United Nations, NATO and other co-operative bodies. Thus, nations can relate with each other through a system of international law and diplomacy that guides their activities and interactions. International law in this sense, is one that concerns only the top-level leadership of government. This top-level leadership of government have the responsibility of regulating activities and institutions in their nations whilst they also represented their nations and took part in international affairs. In this sense, international matters was just reserved for a few governmental authorities and diplomatic representatives. The standpoint for individuals in this situation is that they are to subject themselves to the laws that prevailed in their nations or the nations where they lived. All institutions they had contacts with were to be strictly local and there are complications in any effort to do anything in other nations because every nation had its government strictly regulating affairs in the country. In his conclusion, Hendley Bull stated that although there are inherent weaknesses in the state system of international politics, it is the best way of achieving order in global politics. However, Etzioni believes that institutions are supposed to be global rather than local nationalistic structures. Section C The world moved into the 21st Century with national structures and an international relations model similar to the systems presented by Hendley Bull. Bulls classical method defined the way nations and states operated. Every nation had strict local standards and rules that governed how things were done in a distinct manner. This has been in vogue since the end of the Second World War, which effectively saw the creation of modern nations. Nations after the Second World War have sought a balance of power through the concept of self determination and independence. Each nation had a strict governmental system and structure that defined its activities and regulated the lives of people. Prior to the 21st Century, the relationship between nations was principally defined by international law which was regulated by international political bodies like the United Nations. Trade, war, commerce and other interaction between nations were determined by a few players in the governments of these nations. However, after the collapse of the USSR in the late 1980s, a period defined by Samuel Houghton as the Third Wave of Democracy saw the opening up of nations in the Third World and in Communist nations open up (3). This led to the promotion of human rights, democracy and education in these nations around the world. The concept of human rights and democracy sought to include more members of the public in the governance process and the making of nations. This also came with the development of the private sector and harmonisation of standards which was promoted by the internationalisation of activities. In this period of history, people migrate from nation to nation and it is therefore difficult for nations to act independently. This therefore means that organising people into a geographic nation and the honour of singular ethnic and moral systems is not appropriate any more. This therefore means that Etzionis position is right and more applicable to present global conditions. Also, the promotion of technology and the introduction of new communication systems has reduced the effectiveness of the concept of limiting people to a given geographical areas. This has led to people conducting business and interacting with people from different parts of the world. This therefore implies that Etzionis call for a new global governance system is very applicable to current conditions. It is also evident that the old ways of governments having the monopoly in representing a group of people is gradually losing its worth. This is because in many nations, the private sector championed by multinationals is economically stronger than the government. Also, there are numerous stakeholder groups that need to be honoured and respected with regards to international affairs. This therefore means that there is the need for the global community to come up with a new global governance system that would co-ordinate the activities of all these stakeholders around the world. Government cannot control everything so the concept of the family of states is not applicable anymore. In spite of this evolution, nations are still regulated by governments this is because without governments, there would be absolute anarchy. Also, governments still represent their nations in international affairs and international matters. However, the emergence of other stakeholder groups and new trends limit their activities. In conclusion, Etzioni argues for the creation of new social and leadership structures that provides optimum results for individuals and governments in the 21st Century. Thus, international relations under Etzionis model is one that has a global outlook rather than a nationalistic one. On the other hand, Hendleys position of the state system was applicable in the pre-21st century era, rising to importance in the era of the Cold War. In spite of its weaknesses in todays world, it is still the best option in certain aspects of governance and control. Works Cited Bull Hendley. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. London. Macmillan. 1995. Print. Houghton, Samuel. Third Wave of Democracy. London: Polity Press. 2003. Print. Etzioni Amitai. From Empire to Community: A New Approach to International Relations. Palgrave Macmillan. 2004. Print. Read More