Is State Sovereignty being Transformed by Globalisation - Assignment Example

Portfolio Questions Customer Inserts His/Her Name Customer Inserts Grade Course Customer Inserts Tutor’s Name 31, 08, 2010 Question 1. Is state sovereignty being transformed by globalisation? The advent of globalization has continued to transform the concept of sovereignty that most countries (William 2000) love bandying around. Sovereignty subsumes that a state has a sacrosanct control of its national law; a position even the international law acknowledges (Saskia 1996). Globalization seems to have brought the countries of the world under systems that make them dependent on each other, such that the actions of one country affect the lives of people in the other. One glaring area concerns human rights. No leadership of a country can violate the rights of its citizens, which are enshrined in the United Nations High Commission on Human Rights, under the pretext of sovereignty. Such leaders are often brought to the international court such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), which operates on international and not local laws, to answer for charges of crimes against humanity. Another area is where nations have often come together to provide peace keeping forces where groups within a country go to war (Russell 2006). There are also a number of international laws and treaties which countries have signed and which they have to abide by, even if they contravene those that apply locally. Instead of trying local criminals who have perpetrated crimes in other countries such as America, countries are forced to extradite such criminals to face justice in the countries if the crime. Some states which rely on loans and grants from rich countries and lending institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have been forced to accept certain conditionalities, which in a way violates their sovereignty. Business transactions have also found accommodation under a number of international laws dealing with issues such as arbitration, which go beyond the local laws. Another area where sovereignty has suffered relates to culture. With the opening up of borders to people from other countries, it has become hard for states to maintain their cultural identity because of the influx of foreign cultures, which is in itself an assault on state sovereignty. A further transformation on state sovereignty because of globalization is the involvement of non-state actors in the daily affairs of governance (Doyle 1997). There are a number of organizations with the mandate to operate internationally, irrespective of the country’s situation. Such organizations can audit the conduct of individuals and governments regardless if the local rules and regulations that might otherwise allow some mischief to be perpetuated. This is exemplified by the International Criminal Court (ICC) which has the mandate to try people who commit crimes against humanity. Such individuals cannot be shielded by their local laws once they ratify those of the non-state players. There are also a plethora of NGOs whose mandate is to ensure good governance and engagements in activities that promote human dignity. The advent of globalization has also seen a shift from emphasis on political gains to business ventures where markets play a major force. Globalization is more interested with making profits instead of harping too much on state sovereignty opportunity (Small and Singer 1976). Proponents of globalization hold the view that for globalization to work, their must be a shift of emphasis on state sovereignty to the global state. Question 2. What were the key developments of the post-cold war era? A number of developments in a number of fronts were witnessed in the post-cold war era. Preciously, the world had been polarised as either supporting the West or the East. This bipolarized situation was removed by the end of the cold war. The Soviet Union was forced to reduce the number of employees in the war industry and precipitated major job losses in the country. After the great Depression of 1999, Russia was weakened in all areas. With the Soviet Union standing dissolved, the world became unipolarized, with America remaining the only superpower. The US had its political and military influence spread over most of the world. A new wave that saw many nations democratising also engulfed the world (Held, et al. 1998). This was accompanied by increasing non-governmental activity. Previously, nations would refuse to democratize and remain dictatorial because losing one of the blocs could lead one to joining the other. Twith the cold war removed ended, such a fall back position for leaders and nations came to a natural death. There was also increased globalization of economic power and information, where economic development was dependent on market forces. This led to a decline in development resources. Countries could trade with each other on an equal plane without worrying about the impact this would have on their relations with other members of the bloc. There was also free movement of people across the nations as they transacted various types of businesses. Information could easily be shared without worrying about what members of the opposite bloc would do if they came across classified information. The end of the cold war also saw matters if international security receive a lot of coordination between a number of states. International security for all became a matter of concern for all, where countries would volunteer peace forcers to troubled spots. Because of increased political instability, emphasis was placed on conflict resolution and prevention rather than wait for intervention after war has broken out (Burton 1990). The global commitment to the establishment of large solid military industries and funding for military science increased exponentially. Proxy wars that were very common during the cold war together with the interstate conflicts, ethic conflicts, revolutionary wars and large numbers of refugees that had dominated the Cold War era somewhat came to an end. With the collapse of the Soviet Union after cold war, the Communist Party surrendered power under pressure. Various sections of the Soviet began asking for autonomy, which was granted to most of them. Various nations and communities began developing a lot of interest in claiming for their rights and cultural identity, sometimes through violent means, as a result of increased global support for communities asserting for their rights (Gurr 1993). There was also redefinition of state sovereignty where states received an imposition of new responsibilities that had to be borne in mind when dealing with both their citizens and the entire world. On the whole, the end of the Cold War saw America emerge as the only super power, while the Soviet Union disintegrated. “The world stated becoming a safer place in which people to do business” (Schuett 2010, pp. 124). Question 8. Is WMD proliferation a serious danger? The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) has continued to pose serious threats to the international community. WMD are defined as any type of weapon which can be used for purposes of causing serious bodily harm to a good number of people when it is released or disseminated into the environment. These also include toxic chemicals, disease causing organisms, radiative or radioactive elements.(Eric, et al. 2005).The threat is posed by the faster pace of interaction between non-state and state entities within the international system. The fluid movement of technology, information, money and people as a result of globalization has continued at a faster rate. Technology has increasingly become available to a lvast [population of people who have the ability to use it destructively without the control of states (Russell 2006). The influence of non-state actors has also become dominant in the world where organizations are able to move from one region of the world to the other. Terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda have taken advantage of this and are in fact said to have made massive investments across the globe. This gives it financial resources which they could use to cause mass destruction using unconventional weapons. Another avenue comes from the uncontrolled flow of goods, money, information, and people. This has interfered with states’ traditional indicators of instability as physical violence, which then compels them to send security forces. Because of states’ inability to control the flow of people and related aspects, non-state organizations have taken advantage and come up with threats that states cannot to interpret until they have occurred. The bombing of the Twin Tower of the 9/11 was for example not anticipated because it did not begin as a form of physical violence which the US could notice and take intervention measures (Sean 2004). Globalization is increasingly exposing nations to terrorist attacks because of the ease with which the acquisition of some weapons such as Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons has become. The unrestricted movement of people has made it possible for them to sources for these materials and use them on targets in many parts of the world. The criminals could work in collusion with nationals of that state in order to perpetrate his intentions (Cook and Gu 2009). There are also some countries which are big sponsors of international terrorism, and they are willing to go to any lengths to make sure that certain targets are hit. This is possible because of the wave of globalisation which has given people the freedom to enter and exit countries comfortably. With conflicts reported in many parts of the world which leads to the displacement of people, the international community has provisions of taking care of refugees. These refuges could hence move with guns and other weapons which they could easily sale to international criminals who would then use them to commit worse crimes of international nature. At the same time, globalization has made it possible for goods to be moved from one area to the other. Weapons of mass destruction can easily be conveyed this way to places where they could be used to threaten world peace and stability (Eric, et al. 2005). References Burton, JW 1990, Conflict: Resolution and Prevention. St. Martin’s Press, New York. Cook, S, and Gu, J 2009, ‘The Global Financial Crisis: Implications for China’s South-South Cooperation’, IDS Bulletin, Vol. 40, No. 5, pp. 254-256. Doyle, M 1983, ‘Kant, Liberal Legacies and Foreign Affairs,’ Part 1 and 2, Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 12, nos. 3-4, p. 222. Doyle, M 1997, Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism, W. W. Norton & Company, London. Eric, et al. J 2005, Weapons of Mass Destruction: An Encyclopedia of Worldwide Policy, II, Penn Book Inc, Santa Barbara, CA. Gurr, T 1993, Minorities at Risk: A Global View of Ethnopolitical Conflicts, United States Institute of Peace Press, Washington, D.C. Held, D, et al. 1998, Global Transformations: Politics, Economics, and Culture, Stanford University Press, Stanford, Calif. Henry, S, & Phillip, A 2000, International Human Rights in Context, Oxford University Press, New York. Mansbach, R and Rafferty, K 2007, Introduction to Global Politics, Routledge, New York. Russell, J 2006, ‘Proliferation, Globalization, and International Security: Whither the Nexus and National Security?’ Strategic Insights, Vol. V, no. 6, pp. 152 – 157. Saskia, S 1996, Losing Control: Sovereignty in an age of Globalization, Colombia University Press, New York. Schuett, R 2010, Political Realism, Freud, and Human Nature in International Relations, Palgrave, New York. Sean, K 2004, ‘Globalization, Power and Security,’ Security Dialogue, Vol. 35, No.1, p. 10. Small, M and Singer, J 1976, ‘The War-proneness of Democratic Regimes,’ Jerusalem Journal of International Relations, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 50-69. Smith, A 1986, The Ethnic Origins of Nations, Basil Blackwell, London. William, T 2000, Globalization and Legal Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Read More