Impact of Globalisation on the State Flashcards
(42 cards)
what is the relationship between globalisation and sovereignty?
the relationship between globalisation and sovereignty is the extent to which independent sovereign states are able to control the forces of globalisation
for example, can states insulate themselves from economic and financial shocks in the international system? or can they no longer act as single units?
what is the growing realisation between states?
there is a growing realisation among states that they need to work together to achieve common goals and that common problems need common solutions
there has subsequently been an effort among states to pursue common approaches to global and regional problems through global and regional governance institutions like the UN, the IPCC, the EU and ASEAN
the existence of these institutions can be seen as an acknowledgement that states are no longer as sovereign as they once were
factors behind the widening and deepening of interconnectedness and interdependence
cost of communication
cost of transport
human links
factors behind increasing interconnectedness: cost of communication
a key factor behind globalisation is the rising speed and frequency of communication
technology has had a huge impact and brought huge changes, from the development of the printing press to the telegram to the telephone and to the digital technology of today
mass communication that is virtually instantaneous is now available to billions of people who can use the internet on tablets and mobile phones and access the latest news 24 hours a day
the cost of communication has fallen just as rapidly — today, sending an email or using social media to share information online is virtually free
this increases globalisation, which challenges state sovereignty as states are increasingly interconnected and can no longer act as independent entities
factors behind increasing interconnectedness: cost of transport
like communication, the speed and cost of transport has changed hugely
in 1800, it would take 2 months for a ship to cross the Atlantic Ocean with its cargo, but today a ship can make the same journey in less than a week and a plane can cross the Atlantic in around 5 hours
consequently, the costs of transportation have fallen as well
meaning that transportation costs are no longer prohibitive when it comes to moving goods around the world, which makes global supply changes possible
it also makes the production of goods in other parts of the world possible, meaning that fresh produce can be shipped from a field in one continent to a supermarket in another in a matter of days
this increases globalisation and thus challenges state sovereignty
factors behind increasing interconnectedness: human links
migration has increased due to the low-costs of staying in contact and the relatively low cost of travel to different countries and regions
globalisation and economic growth have encouraged workers to move to countries with high economic development in search of a better life
Gulf states like Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates are very wealthy due to oil production, which has encouraged economic migrants to move to those countries to work
over 50% of the population of these states is now made up of immigrants and both Australia and Switzerland have migrant populations approaching 30% of the total
increasing wealth and leisure time have also led to a huge change in holiday patterns, including the growth of international tourism and long haul travel
as people travel, they meet new people, experience different cultures, form links with each other and stay in touch, thus increasing the interconnectedness of states
increases cultural globalisation, decreases state sovereignty
case study of interconnected trade (demonstrates how interconnected and interdependent the world has become)
the UK imports almost half of its food — this includes food that needs to be grown in warmer climates such as bananas and oranges as well as food to satisfy the year-round demand for fruit and vegetables that would be off-season in the UK
despite having a significant farming industry that exports a considerable amount of its produce, the UK is not self-sufficient in food
between 40-50% of food consumed in the UK is imported from overseas, including around 25% from EU countries — this reliance on imported food is only likely to increase further
examples of staple foods imported to the UK from overseas include tea, coffee, cocoa, bananas, oranges, rice and peanuts
both international trade and the UK’s food security are reliant on factors outside of the UK’s control — things like environmental disasters, poor harvests, animal epidemics and fluctuating currencies can all impact the price and availability of food in the UK
the UK also imports vast numbers of cars and other vehicles, the oil and electricity to power these vehicles, pharmaceuticals, gems and precious metals and clothing — figures suggest that 90% of clothes worn in the UK are imported from overseas
the UK is also reliant on the export of many products and this two way trade is necessary for the prosperity of the UK, including securing employment and low-cost goods for consumers — for example, the largest food/drink export from the UK is whiskey, worth £5 billion a year
this demonstrates that the UK is part of an interdependent and interconnected world
challenges to state control over citizens caused by globalisation
in recent years, the emphasis on states as key actors in the international system has been harder to sustain
there is now a host of actors in the international system, including terrorist organisations like ISIS, TNCs like Nike, global pressure groups like Amnesty International, religious leaders, NGOs like Oxfam and global movements
all of which can increasingly be seen to have increasing influence in global politics
liberals argue that such a non-state actors significantly influence the world today and mean that the state is no longer the principal actor in the international system
it can be argued that states are less likely to be able to exercise their sovereignty in the face of global challenges due to the rise of such nonstate actors
why do some people argue that there is no such thing as international law?
some argue that there is no such thing as international law because laws are sets of rules that can be enforced
however, a key aspect of the international system is the sovereignty of states, meaning that there is no higher authority than the state so international law cannot be enforced
there are no global police that can arrest a country and take them to a global court or throw them in a global prison
this can happen within a country where people are bound by the laws of the land and can be punished by the state because the law is superior to the individual, but there is no such compulsion in the international system so no laws are inforcible internationally
why do some people argue that there is such a thing as international law?
to others, international law is a set of international norms and standards of international behaviour — while these are not enforceable, they are highly respected
the community of states have approved of these standards and there is a strong consensus over many rules
even though international law cannot be enforced in the way that national law can, there are numerous reasons why states would still obey it….
- it is in their interests to do so — if they do not stay within international laws, nobody else will, therefore obeying the rules makes life more predictable and ordered for everyone
- international law can carry a certain legitimacy and obeying it gives a country soft power (the ability to attract and shape the preferences of others through appeal and attraction) or respect in the modern world
- it is the morally right thing to do — states that believe in the rule of law should practice what they preach and apply this principle internationally too
- not obeying international law can lead to a state being isolated or in some circumstances punished — international law clearly does exist and there can be punishment of individuals who are personally responsible for crimes, there have been special tribunals dealing with such crimes and there is now an International Criminal Court (ICC)
what is humanitarian/forcible intervention?
military intervention carried out in the pursuit of humanitarian objectives rather than other objectives
what is the key tension in the international system between humanitarian intervention and sovereignty?
a key tension in the international system is between the principle of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of other states and the moral case for intervention when a humanitarian catastrophe is unfolding in another state
there are questions about whether the world should stand by while innocent people are facing genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes or whether states should intervene, thus dismissing the principle of national state sovereignty
since the Holocaust, what has there been greater support for?
there have been numerous cases where the international community stood by and did nothing as human rights were routinely violated
but it can be argued that since the Holocaust, there has been a great support for the idea that the international community should act if crimes against humanity are taking place in another country
problems with humanitarian intervention
using force in such situations raises considerable moral and legal questions….
- intervention may merely be a form of Westernisation and cultural imperialism
- intervention is not guaranteed to make the situation any better
- intervention goes against the principles of state sovereignty
problems with humanitarian intervention — a form of westernisation and cultural imperialism
forcible humanitarian intervention assumes that there are universal moral absolutes that unite the world
but these may actually be Western inventions and a form of cultural imperialism
perhaps Western powers use intervention on humanitarian grounds as an excuse to increase their own power and further their own national interests, or even as a pretext for the annexation of another state
for example, the Iraq War
problems with humanitarian intervention — not guaranteed to make the situation any better
humanitarian intervention is not guaranteed to make the situation any better
indeed, the use of force to prevent humanitarian catastrophes often escalates war and increase violence, which may lead to the loss of even more lives
it can be seen to go against the just war theory as it is not always a last resort and could lead to disproportionate responses and the loss of more lives
for example, in the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan, intervention caused further instability in the region which led to the rise of militant Islam and anti-Western views and enabled ISIL to gain influence and power
problems with humanitarian intervention — goes against the principles of state sovereignty
forcible intervention goes against the principles of state sovereignty by interfering in the internal affairs of another state
there is a clear challenge to state sovereignty if humanitarian intervention is increasingly permitted by the international community
what else, relating to human rights, challenges state sovereignty?
not only does humanitarian intervention challenge state sovereignty, the International Criminal Court (ICC) does too
it is based in the Hague in the Netherlands
while some significant global actors have not signed up, including the USA, China and Russia, the ICC is the first permanent international criminal court in the world
it has considerably advanced the concept of a higher international law — a large number of states have agreed definitions of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity and have accepted that these crimes can be tried at an international level
this suggests that there is a little less anarchy in the international system and that states are not as sovereign as they once were
what has been an attempt to find a compromise between state sovereignty and humanitarian intervention?
an attempt to find a compromise between state sovereignty and humanitarian intervention has been the doctrine of responsibility to protect (R2P)
this doctrine has been in place since 2005 and focuses on the idea that state sovereignty comes with responsibilities
part of a state’s sovereignty is the responsibility to protect its own citizens and if the state fails to uphold this responsibility, the responsibility to protect falls on the international community, thus allowing for humanitarian intervention through force
is state sovereignty an outdated concept?
YES — states can no longer be said to be sovereign as the centrality of states is challenged by….
- the rapidly declining cost of communication and transport, which increases globalisation and challenges state sovereignty
- increasing human links
- challenges to state control over citizens in areas such as law
- the development of international law
- increasing humanitarian intervention
- increasing influence of nonstate actors in the international system
NO — states are still sovereign because…
• there is no higher power than the state, so international law is not enforceable
has globalisation undermined state sovereignty? YES
state borders are increasingly porous to people, capital and culture, so sovereignty has declined in significance
there has been a rise in nonstate actors such as TNCs, NGOs and terror organisations which operate outside the constraints of sovereignty and lessen states’ power
the trend towards regional and global governance to tackle global issues, such as environmental degradation, poverty and humanitarian crises, has undermined sovereignty
the growing role of international law around human rights and a growing global rights culture has seen the rise of bodies such as the ICC and of humanitarian intervention, which erodes state sovereignty
has globalisation undermined state sovereignty? NO
the borderless world is nonsense — as seen in the huge number of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees who are stuck in holding camps and the creation of the Great Chinese Firewall to control the flow of information into the state
states remain the key actors on the world stage, have re-emerged in relation to 9/11 and the global financial crisis and nearly all states still have internal sovereignty, apart from failed states
regional and global bodies are formed for states, by states — by working together, states are not undermining sovereignty but pooling it with other states to increase their collective power
Trump and the idea of ‘America First’ in relation to NATO, NAFTA and the Paris Agreement threatens to weaken global governance, demonstrating the central importance of states and shows that if states don’t comply with such organisations, those organisations are reduced in effectiveness
while the move towards a global rights based culture may be taking place in the West, China remains firmly wedded to its Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, which includes mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty
with China’s rise in power, if it continues to assert sovereignty as a key principle, it will be a hammer blow to interventionists
difference in realist and liberal opinion on globalisation
the way in which globalisation has impacted state sovereignty is very controversial
realists have generally argued that by challenging the nation states centrality in international relations, globalisation is dangerously destabilising
however, liberals argue that it creates greater prosperity and makes the resolution of global collective dilemmas easier
in what ways has globalisation challenged the nation state? in what ways is state sovereignty no longer important? are states still sovereign?
economic globalisation
intergovernmentalism
regional organisations
the internet
non-governmental organisations
challenges from below