Globalisation and State Authority in International Relations - Literature review Example

Introduction Delbruck (1993, p 9-36 defines globalisation as the process by which nations loose the central role on controlling politics, markets and laws for the sake of common good. He believes that the process of globalisation is clearly distinct from internationalisation where the latter term refers to a type of cooperation between nations that is done in order to fulfil needs that cannot be met be sovereign countries. He argues that the main difference between globalisation and internationalisation is that in the latter sovereignty of states is maintained while in the former sovereignty is lost. (McGrew, 1998, p 219-243) Gilpin (1987, p19) argues that the process of globalisation is characterised by the interaction of economic and political issues between sovereign states. However, this [process of globalisation has been intensified because of the introduction of technology, better communication and better modes of travel between these countries. Liberal economists believe that globalisation assists in the process of building peace in the world. It encourages economic growth and also institutes order in the international arena. Kennedy (1993, p 12) also adds that the process of globalisation has shown how states no longer take up the central role in their individual economic process. This argument can be verified by the existence of a global economy. The forces affecting the global economy have very little to do with what is prevalent in specific countries. Additionally, the rate of flow on capital from the international arena into and out of specific countries also indicates how nations are loosing their central role. Because of globalisation in the business sector, politics in individual countries has to change to accommodate this new phenomenon,. Some of the arguments for against the denationalisation of states will be examined inn the essay below. These arguments will be based on their effect on state authority in international relations. Arguments supporting the notion that globalisation does NOT remove the state from its central role in international relations Jackson and James (1999, p 34) describe the state as a community of persons that have the sole authority to exert physical force within a certain territory. This means that there are certain features that are distinct to states. If these features are eliminated then that particular state will not have a central role. These factors include; 1) Central political relations 2) Individualised persons 3) demarcating territories 4) authority in making rules ONeill (2006, p13) says that the issue of globalisation has not undermined the states’ role because it has not hampered the issue of central political relations. A case in point is the European Union, where member states from various parts of the European continent are controlled by one unifying force. While the EU has made a lot of changes in those individual countries, it should be noted that their policies have not been bale to reach some crucial elements of particular states. For example, they should have the ability to change trade unions within member states, interest groups and even political parties. EU member countries still retain their autonomy in terms of such issues. Globalisation has therefore not been able to impede political relations. Jackson and James (1993, p23) explain that there are instances where states retain the ability to choose their own policies. The international community can put forward a number of policies but states do not have to accept those policies blindly. States usually decide on which policies they will adopt and then customize the rest. Hellenier (1996, p 193-210) affirms that when one traces the history of states, they realise that states were created through violence. Most leaders would attack their enemies, take over their resources and then use these resources to further expand their territory. This means that the process of state creation was like a cycle and it was very difficult to maintain peace in the world. This notion propagated the creation of global institutions and associations. The reason why global unions were created was to minimise conflicts between various warring states. Globalisation does not undermine state authority; it instead encourages peace, free flow of capital, labour and other business elements. This goes a long way in enhancing political stability within sovereign states. Globalisation does not undermine the state’s central authority in international relations because there are numerous instances in which different countries linked to certain global institutions still maintain their own versions of political systems. Such a case can be seen when examining three countries; Britain, Germany and France. These are all European Union member states and they are capitalist states. However, they all have different ways of implementing their political-economic situation. For example, Britain has adopted a liberal capitalist system within its state. On the other hand, France has adopted a state capitalist system and Germany on the other hand has adopted a corporate based capitalist system. In other words, Britain’s system is not very active. France on the other hand, transformed their system while Germany took up an absorption policy. One can therefore conclude that despite globalisation, states retain the ability to determine what sort of political-economic systems they will adopt. They do not necessarily have to bow to international pressure when they feel that those pressures may not necessary suite them as asserted by Evans (1997, p 62-87) Sassen (1998. p 48) brings out a very profound argument about the role played by globalisation in international relations. She believes that globalization has encouraged certain levels of involvement form the citizens of different states of the world. Most of them have a profound knowledge of what they should do to improve their economies and they also know what their governments need to do to encourage these economic developments. Consequently, this has created a sort of ‘economic citizenship’. This latter term has caused many citizens to demand for their rights from their respective governments and this has consequently empowered their overall influences. By encouraging groups to take charge of the economy through government institutions, then the state is given more autonomy in local and international relations. The same author mentioned above; Sassen (1998, p 48) also talks about the role played by some governments in the lives of others throughout the world. She argues that some countries like the US seem to be movers rather than recipients of some of these political, economic and social aspects associated with globalisation. For example, it is common to find that an employee in a country like Taiwan is using a computer made in the US say IBM. At the same time, that person may be wearing jeans produced form the US too. As if that is not enough, that same person may be listening to a song sung by an American musician such as Avrile Levine. Therefore globalisation has not undermined some states’ authorities in international relations. For such superior countries, most local productions depict their interests while the rest of the world simply takes up what they prescribe. Globalisation is not undermining the state from its central role in international relations because of the fact that most company mergers are not easily effected when the respective companies come from different parts of the world. This fact was illustrated during the 1989 merger between Wilkenson and Gillette. These two companies had been trying to merge for a long time but their states were coming in the way of this. Consequently, the merger was finally accepted after the introduction of fifteen agencies that represented different parts of the world. Their approval was what gave the companies a go ahead. This brings to the fore a serious cry against globalisation. Because so many agencies had to be involved I a merger between two countries shows that many counties still have the ability to control the effects of globalization and decisions cannot be made without their approval. David Held (1989, p 237) explains that globalization does not remove the state’s central role in international relations because whenever countries plan on conducting trade agreements, they usually give their president the mandate to make those decisions. The president is like an embodiment of the state. Therefore hen decisions are placed within his mandate then this is a clear indication that the state still holds that power. If trade agreements were simply negotiated by politically independent person, then one would argue that globalisation has diminished the power of the state. But because this is not what happens currently, then one can say that the state still retains their authority. Boyer & Drache (2001, p 211-224) illustrate how globalisation has been highlighted by some business ventures and agreements. However, these business agreements are usually done with citizen’s interests in mind. States that make the choice to do business with others usually consider; taxpayer contribution shareholders and their benefits Citizen’s entitlements etc Armstrong (2002, p 461-478) says that these issues have been addressed during the merger that occurred between the US based Caterpillar and the Japanese based Komatsu. The agreements were only sealed after both governments decided that there would be substantial benefits for the above mentioned interest groups. This means that the state plays a role in trade negotiations and this means that the have the central role in international relations. State sovereignty is also seen in the way immigration departments are run. Most of the time, it is the state that ha the power to control inflow and outflow if immigrants. In the US for example, the highest number of law enforcement officers are found in the department of naturalization and immigration. Even though international communities try to give guidelines about how immigrants should treated, the ultimate decision still lies in the hands of the state; they determine what kind of rights they will grant their immigrants. Arguments supporting the notion that globalisation DOES remove the state from its central role in international relations Well known philosopher –Weber explains that in order for states to maintain their autonomy, they need to possess the ability to control their security system. However, globalisation has changed this drastically. There are very few examples of countries that still have autonomy over their security situation today. Organisations like NATO have been created in order to institute cooperation in this arena. Such global organisations are centred upon the premise that there should be greater cooperation when it comes to defence. They usually advocate for common programs for defence. It has also been seen that there are certain issues that states can do nothing about. For example globalisation has encouraged immigration and regional associations have made it mandatory for their member states to change their immigration laws. More often than not, these immigration laws have been changed to favour further entrance of foreigners and hence more interdependence between nations. Consequently, such a move impedes state autonomy in international relations. (Gerald, 1996, p 193-210) A particularly interesting aspect of globalization is the issue of economic globalisation. Sorenson (1998, p 83-100) argues that there are substantial changes in terms of the way states rune their economies. He believes that the power maintained by states to control state economies is slowly getting eroded. During the seventies and sixties, the United States led the way in terms of foreign direct investments. Most international corporations came form this country and they stimulated interdependence between countries. However, their monopoly did not last for long because other countries like Japan and European countries also invested in the global market through multinational corporations. Presently, some newly industrialized countries have also joined the foreign direct investment band wagon. These multinationals play a significant role in the way state economies are run. There are a lot of contributions made by these multinationals to the global economy too. All these influences greatly undermine state roles in international relations. This is because firms/ multinationals seem to have greater clout that states do as explained by Wesley (1993, p32). East Asia recently had a financial crisis. This was due to the fact that the region could not control the flow of international currencies. The main facto that caused this crisis was globalisation. The state had lost its ability to control how capital entered or left the region. Financial globalisation is usually facilitated by better communication. National currencies are recognised in and out of specific countries consequently affecting the level of c9operation between companies from different states. State control, haws also been reduced drastically because of the way markets are characterised. Most of these markets are geared towards the global market. They consider competitors from other parts of the world. Production processes have also taken a shift form the local front to the international front. Consequently, there is very little that can be done by the state to control some of these aspects. Globalisation in business has severely reduced state control because of liberalisation of trade and introduction of international communication structures as asserted by Riener (1996, p 34) Conclusion Some people argue that globalisation has affected the way business ventures are conducted, how markets and competitors are determined and also how immigrants are treated. But despite these changes, states still posses the power to adopt or reject international recommendations. They decide which immigrants are illegal or legal; they decide whether to adopt a liberal market capitalist system or a corporate capitalist system. They also determine which trade agreements to sign or disregard as illustrated by Gilpin (2000, p 39). Consequently, globalisation has not removed the state from its central role in international relations. References Sassen, S. (1998): Loosing Control? Sovereignty in an Age of Globalisation, New York, Columbia University Press, p148 Delbrück J. (1993): Globalization of law, politics, and markets—implications for domestic law—a European perspective; Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies; I, 9-36 Gilpin, R. (1987): The political economy of international relations; Princeton, Princeton University Press, 19 Kennedy P. (1993): Preparing for the twenty-first century; London: Harper Collins, p12 Sorenson, G. (1998): IR Theory after the Cold War, Review of International Studies, 24, pp.83-100 Addison Wesley (1993): Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy, London: McMillan, p 32 Riener, L. (1996): Globalization: Critical Reflections International Political Economy Yearbook; vol. 9, No.3, p34 ONeill, S. (2006): Flickering Borders: A History of Finite Economic Globalization; Journal of economic Studies, 3. 42, 13 David Held (1989): Political Theory and The Modern State, Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, pp. 237 Gilpin (2000): The Challenge of Global Capitalism, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, p 39 Hellenier, E. (1996): Post-Globalisation; New York: Routledge, pp. 193-210 Gerald, E. (1996): States Against Markets: the Limits of Globalisation, London & New York:Routledge, pp. 193-210 Boyer, R. & Drache, D. (2001): States Against Markets: the Limits of Globalisation; New York: Routledge, pp. 211-224 Jackson, R. and James, A. (1993): The Character of Independent Statehood; Oxford: Clanderon Press, pp 23 Jackson, R. and James, A. (1999): States in a Changing World, Oxford: Clanderon Press, pp. 6 34 Evans, P. (1997): The Eclipse of the State? Reflections on Stateness in an Era of Globalisation; World Politics, 50, pp. 62-87 McGrew A. (1998): The End of the Old Order? Review of International Studies, 24, pp. 219-243 Armstrong, D. (2002): Globalisation and the Social State; Review of International Studies, 24(4), pp. 461-478. Read More