Sovereignty Is a Legal Fiction - Coursework Example

 Sovereignty is a legal fiction ABSTRACT: As a basic principle of the international order for centuries, concepts of state sovereignty are intrinsic to understanding the world system. Despite the entrenchment of this basic principle in the international system of governance, geopolitics has recently posed significant challenges to the concept of sovereignty and its evolution over time. While some feel that state sovereignty is a scared right which can never be trampled upon, others feel that sovereignty can be abrogated in a variety of instances and persuasively put forth the argument that sovereignty today is a legal fiction. Addressing the concept of sovereignty through an analysis of its recent challengers, namely the globalization phenomenon and American unilateralism, the following essays asks whether or not state sovereignty remains a viable concept in the twenty-first century. Sovereignty is a legal fiction State sovereignty is a basic principle of the current international order and notions of sovereignty are intrinsic to the global system of international affairs. Despite the fact that ideas about state sovereignty shape the international system and are basic premises of the functions of global governance, this important concept is under threat from a variety of forces. Seeking to address the concept of state sovereignty in the twenty-first century, this essay will explore the abrogation of sovereignty as a direct result of globalization and the increased salience of unilateral action by the dominant power in the international system. Firmly entrenched as a guiding principle in international affairs, basic concepts of state sovereignty are responsible for the current structure of the international order. How has sovereignty, a guiding principle of the international order been challenged in recent times? How have the forces of globalization and American hegemony led to the decline of state sovereignty? These questions, and many more, will be discussed with reference to the question of sovereignty in modern times. Globalization, Neoliberalism and State Sovereignty Globalization is an international phenomenon with important geopolitical ramifications. The current state of world affairs has its precursors in the social revolution of the 1960s, economic crises in the 1970s culminating the collapse of the New Deal and the OPEC oil crisis, as well as the emergence of neo-liberalism as a driving political and economic force in the 1980s. Events from the late 1960s reverberated in the Communist world and finally came to a head in the 1980s with total economic and political collapse. The Soviet sphere, coupled with the former Yugoslavia, provide the best examples of this phenomenon. The end of the Cold War has had important implications for the spread of capitalism and a neoliberalist-oriented agenda which promotes the supremacy of the market system.1 Globalization, as it exists today, rests largely on the shoulders of neoliberal economics and the global entrenchment of capitalism as the dominant economic system in the world. Neo-liberalism, the belief in laissez-faire economics, was best articulated by Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States in the 1980s. US President Ronald Regan famously remarked “government was not the solution but the problem”2. Neo-liberals put all of their faith in the distributive capabilities of the invisible hand of the free market, and believe that business was inherently good and that government bad. The government was longer interested in the provision of welfare but existed to stimulate the capitalist economic market. The United States under Ronald Reagan was thus described as the “greatest of the neo-liberal regimes”3. Accordingly, The essence of neo-liberalism, its pure form, is a more or less thoroughgoing adherence, in rhetoric if not in practice, to the virtues of a market economy, and, by extension, a market-oriented society. While some neo-liberals appear to assume that one can construct any kind of ‘society’ on any kind of economy, the position taken here is that the economy, the state and civil society are, in fact, inextricably interrelated (Coburn 2000). How did neoliberalism, the dominant political and economic ideology of the West since the Reagan years make inroads around the world and into the formerly Communist countries of Eastern Europe? The Second World, consisting of the global Communist community during the Cold War, was severely undermined by economic and political crises which began in the late 1960s. The result was political and economic disorder. Economic crises undermined the political foundations of states like China and the USSR – particularly after the deaths of men such as Mao & Brezhnev – and the centrally planned economic systems of these countries remained under stress and increasingly precarious. The Soviet world was also not immune to global economic crises as evidenced by effects of the OPEC crisis of 1973. These aftershocks paved the way for perestroika and glasnost in the USSR, the implosion of Yugoslavia and popular Chinese dissent expressed in Tiananmen Square and captured live on camera. The political and economic fragilities of the Second World were exposed following 1968 and slowly led to political decay, leading to the eventual implosion of the Soviet Union. In addition to establishing a foothold in the formerly Communist countries of the East, neoliberalism has been entrenched around the globe.4 Critiques of the Globalization Phenomenon What are the criticisms of globalization and how do proponents of globalization respond to these critiques? Critics of globalization argue that this phenomenon is thinly disguised neo-imperialism and actually represents an insidious attempt to spread Westernization and Western concepts of capitalism, exploitation and greed across the globe. World systems theorists would argue that globalization does nothing more than entrench the dominant economic position of the developed countries of the West while perpetuating an unequal global distribution of wealth thus ensuring the continued subservient status of the developing countries of the world, within the current global economic system. Global economic institutions such the World Bank (WB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) often bear the brunt when it comes to criticizing the global economic system and the state of global affairs. These organizations are routinely criticized as being anti-democratic, exploitative in nature and often as agents of Western imperialism. Members of the anti-globalization movement represent a backlash against the dominant economic ideologies of our time including capitalism and neoliberalism as the economic order of the day. Proponents of globalization argue for that many criticisms of globalization are unfounded. Accordingly, they point to the fact that there is a wholesale lack of evidence for many of the claims put forth by anti-globalization activists and argues that capitalism and neoliberal economic principles have benefited people all around the world, including those in the so-called Third World. The embrace of capitalist ideals by nearly all of the countries of the former Soviet Block is seen as evidence of the appeal of neoliberalism and capitalist economic principles.5 Globalization has been propelled by capitalism and the internationalization of the capitalist economic system. The main effect of globalization is the world-wide spread of neoliberalism around the world and the entrenchment of capitalism as the dominant – some would say sole – viable economic system for the world economy. Enthusiastically promoted by the Reagan and Thatcherite regimes in America and Britain, neoliberalism was given a huge boost following the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the fall of communism in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s. Entrenched as the dominant economic ideology across the globe, neoliberalism is the underlying force behind the current wave of globalization. Neoliberalism effectively diminishes state sovereignty by promoting transnational economic forces, to the detriment of state actors and the supremacy of the state. Despite numerous detractors on all corners of the globe, globalization remains an important force in modern society and a key component of continued and sustained economic growth on a global scale.6 The Emergence of US Unilateralism, Realism and State Sovereignty Realists argue that states exist within an anarchic geopolitical framework and this framework is an inherent component of international relations. In fact, for realists the desire to maximize state interest within a situation of global anarchy is the most crucial component required in the understanding of political actors and state behavior. Proponents of the Bush Doctrine argue that the anarchic nature of the international order, exacerbated since 9/11 and the War on Terror, promotes unilateral action on a global scale. The result of aggressive American unilateralism is an entrenchment of hegemony and of the unipolar system. Accordingly, since realism can account for the changing face of the international order, it is the best system-level theory to understand American unilateralism, the global War on Terror and the New World Order. First and foremost for realist, states operate within an anarchic international environment. The international system is inherently unstable and is aptly characterized by widespread anarchy. Due to the absence of a suprastate or overarching Leviathan authority, realism argues that states are placed in inevitable and perpetual competition, described as the security dilemma. Because of the anarchic nature of international affairs, state actors are perpetually concerned with their survival. For realists, the international system is a “dog-eat-dog world” and ensuring survival is paramount for any and all states. According to Hans Morgenthau, pioneering German political scientist and an early proponent of realist thought, due to the inherent instability of the international system, the fundamental national interest of all states is to “protect [its] physical, political, and cultural identity against encroachments by other nations”7. This anarchic environment is particularly relevant to understanding system-level analyses of a world order in which the United States, as global hegemon, acts to safeguard its interests in the face of global terror.8 The structure of the system – the distribution of power and capabilities state wide - is important because threats or challenges facing a state which affront the national interest should be “calculated according to the situation in which the state finds itself”9. Thus, power and security requirements are paramount in attempting to define state interest and what motivates states to act. Today, states face a variety of challenges from non-state actors such as Hamas (Isreal/Palestine), Hezbollah (Lebanon), Al Qaeda (Global), ETA (Spain), the PKK (Turkey) or any host of other clandestine sub-state actors. While the challengers facing states may have changed since the days of Morgenthau, the fundamental anarchic conditions he describes have not. Since we have established that the international order is one in which anarchy reigns supreme – an apt characterization of the world order in which terrorism reigns supreme – how does unilateral action safeguard the interests of the world’s hegemonic state?10. Structural realism is an important theory of international relations best articulated by Waltz in his Theory of International Politics. As a systemic approach to the study of state behavior, structural realism places emphasis on the structure of the international system – note that structure can be present under a system of anarchy – and this structure constrains overall state behavior. Accordingly, neorealists – as structural realists are often called – assert that the international order is characterized by its primary ordering principle, anarchy. Anarchy within the international system is directly caused by the fact that there is no central, overarching or omnipotent authority within the international system. Unlike domestic level analyses which view the state as the actor who is responsible for maintaining order and using a Weberian term enjoys a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, the international system is most aptly characterized by the lack of a central authority. The result is chaos within the international system. Accordingly, there are three elements of structural realism which define this theoretical paradigm as an extension of the realist tradition. First and foremost is the continued primacy of the political sphere; by this what is meant is the anarchic political structure of the international system. Accordingly, the anarchic nature of the international system for realists and structural realists alike is a necessary attribute of the world order. The second defining feature of structural realism is the belief that the state is the defining feature of the international system and the focus on the state as the most important actor in the international order. Power as an inherent attribute and goal of all states is an intrinsic component of this second feature of structural realism. This state-centric feature of structural realism which will need to evolve in the post-9/11 period. Since sub-state actors have gained more prominence in the international area through terror and terrorist acts, this aspect of realist doctrine will need to evolve. Finally, the third element is the acceptance of Waltz’s basic framework for the structure of the international system.11 Additionally, structural change affects the behavior of states and the outcomes their interactions produce. It does not break the essential continuity of international politics. The transformation of international politics alone could do that. Transformation, however, awaits the day when the international system is no longer populated by states that have to help themselves. If the day were here, one would be able to say who could be relied on to help the disadvantaged or endangered. Instead, the ominous shadow of the future continues to cast its pall over interacting states. States’ perennial uncertainty about their fates presses governments to prefer relative over absolute gains.12 To conceive of international politics as a Hobbesian State of Nature means not that warfare is constant, but only that it is always a possibility and that actors understand this. Although the anticipation of conflict may make it more likely, it can also lead actors to take measures to reduce the danger. The War on Terror can thus be justified as an attempt by states to pre-empt sub-state threats which have been caused by the existing anarchic international environment. Unilateralism then is a rational response to perceived threat in an anarchic and terror-filled world.13 Unilateralism and Hegemony after the Cold War As the world’s hegemonic power, the United States has, in the Cold War period, resorted to unilateralism and expansive military might. A systemic level response to unilateralism has been a variety of soft-power strategies by second tier major powers (France, Germany and India) to counter the influence of the United States while not harming their economic ties with the world’s dominant economic and military power. Thus although balance of power theory has traditionally focused upon the military dimension of balancing and the Cold War remains perhaps the most poignant example of this theoretical paradigm, in a unipolar world dominated by the United States, second tier powers within the international system has used soft-power balancing strategies to restrain the global hegemon. An excellent example of this phenomenon was the united opposition of France, Germany and Russia to the United States-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979), p. 30-77. The international order, after the fall of the Soviet Union, is characterized by unipolarity with the United States alone at the helm of the current international order. Despite this profound change within the system, the system itself, according to structural realists, has not been transformed. Transformative of the system may occur one day, Waltz argues, but not until states become motivated by things other than self-interest and if anarchy no longer exemplified the condition of the international order. That is not the case and “until and unless a transformation occurs, [realism] remains the basic theory of international politics”14. Unilateral action on the political front has been a foreign policy objective of the United States under the stewardship of George W. Bush. Unilateralism explains the American decision to abrogated the Anit-Ballistic Missile Defence shield, the decision to ignore the Kyoto Accord and finally, the decision to invade Iraq in 2003. As an explanatory paradigm, Hegemonic Stability Theory, argues that a hegemon or superpower is necessary for the smooth functioning of the international system (the system can be economic or political). A hegemon is described as a superpower and has a preponderance of power in the military, economic and sometimes social spheres. According to neorealists, a hegemonic power shapes the system in its interests and maintains the system through coercion. Coercion today is expressed through unilateralism and unilateral military action by the United States.15 Concluding Remarks State sovereignty, a basic ordering principle of the international order for centuries, has recent come under threat from two distinct and arguably insidious features of the world system, the phenomenon of globalization and American hegemonic unilateralism. Globalization is best expressed as the spread of neoliberalism across the world and the entrenchment of capitalism as the dominant economic ordering principle in the world system. Unilateralism, as a foreign policy tool used by the United States since the dawn of the twenty-first century poses another important threat to the viability and territorial integrity of states around the world. Iraq and Afghanistan pose just two examples of this dangerous pre-emptive precedent. Why does the US resort to unilateralism? In a unipolar world, the hegemonic power must maintain its position of prominence in the international system. Unilateralism is how that goal is accomplished. Structural analyses have thus provided excellent insight into the functioning of the international order. American global hegemony has been reasserted through unilateral – as opposed to bilateral – action and according to realist doctrine, the United States is reaffirming its role as the global hegemonic power, thus contributing to overall system stability. According to this line of thought, the international order is maintained and promoted through the aggressive interest-affirming behaviour of the global hegemon. Although realists will one day have to move away from their state-centric approach to the international order, their focus on anarchy as a defining feature of the international system and power and security as primary motivations for state behavior make realism the most relevant theory of international relations in the post-9/11 unilateral world. Unfortunately though, state sovereignty may soon become a thing of the past. REFERENCES Buzan, B. et al, The Logic of Anarchy: Neorealism to Structural Realism. (New York, Columbia University Press, 1993). Bisley, N. Rethinking Globalization. (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007). Harvey, D., A Brief History of Neoliberalism. (London : Oxford University Press, 2007). Held, D. “Sovereignty, National Politics and the Global System”, Political Theory and the Modern State, (1989), p. 214-242. Hellmann, G. & R. Wolf, “Neorealism, Neoliberal Institutionalism, and the Future of NATO,” Security Studies, 3.1 (2005), 23-49. Hobsbawm, E., Age of Extremes: The Short History of the Twentieth Century: 1914-1991 (London: Abacus, 1994). Jervis, Robert, “Realism in the Study of World Politics”. International Organization, 42.4 (2005), p. 971-991. Keohane, R.O., International Institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations. (Boulder: Westview 2007). Paul, T.V. “Soft Balancing in the Age of U.S. Primacy” International Security, 30.2 (2005), p. 5-41. Skidmore, David, “Understanding the Unilateralist Turn in U.S. Foreign Policy”. Foreign Policy Analysis 1.2 (2005), p. 207-288. Strayer, R. W., Why Did the Soviet Union Collapse?: Understanding Historical Change (New York: I. E. Sharpe, 1998). Waltz, Kenneth “Structural Realism after the Cold War” International Security, 25.1 (2005), p. 5-41. Waltz, Kenneth, Theory of International Politics, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979). Ward, N. and R. Almas, “Explaining change in the international agro-food system,” Review Of International Political Economy 4 (1997) 613-630 Morgenthau, Hans, In Defense of the National Interest (New York: Alfred A. Knopf¸ 1951). Read More