The impact of globalization on state sovereignty is precisely based on: National Sovereignty Vs. Globalization
Michele Marsonet, Prof. Dr
Dean, School of Humanities, University of Genoa, Italy
Abstract
Globalization entails the increasing volume, velocity and importance of flows within
and across borders of people, ideas, goods, money, and much else, thus challenging
one of sovereignty’s basic principles: the ability to control what crosses borders in
either direction. Sovereign States increasingly measure their vulnerability not to one
another, but to forces beyond their control. Necessity may also lead to reducing or
even eliminating sovereignty when a government, whether from a lack of capacity or
conscious policy, is unable to provide for the basic needs of its citizens. This reflects a
view that state failure and genocide can lead to destabilizing refugee flows and create
openings for terrorists to take root.
Globalization is frequently discussed as a counterpoint to national sovereignty. It
is commonly asserted that globalization has eroded national sovereignty or that it
has rendered borders obsolete. In particular, it is asserted that, in a globalized world
economy, governments have no alternative but to adopt neoliberal economic policies
of privatization, deregulation and reductions in public expenditure. However, in the
contest between social democracy and neoliberal globalization, the nation—state
per se is only marginally relevant. The crucial issue is whether policy will respond
to the wishes of a democratic electorate, or be tightly constrained by the ‘Golden
Straightjacket’ of international financial markets.
Keywords: globalization; sovereignty; nation; nationalism; state; border.
Introduction
The world formed by over 190 States now co-exist with a larger number of powerful
non-sovereign actors, ranging from corporations to non-government organizations
(NGOs), from terrorist groups to drug cartels, from regional and global institutions to
banks and private equity funds. The sovereign state is influenced by them (for better
and for worse) as much as it is able to influence them. The near monopoly of power
once enjoyed by sovereign entities is being eroded.
As a result, many claim, new mechanisms are needed for regional and global
governance that include actors other than States. This is not to say that Microsoft,
Amnesty International, or Goldman Sachs be given seats in the United Nations General
Assembly, but it does mean including representatives of such organizations in regional
and global deliberations when they have the capacity to affect whether and how
regional and global challenges are met.
36 Academicus - International Scientific Journal www.academicus.edu.al 36
Moreover, and this is a widespread opinion, States must be prepared to give up some
sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function. This is already
taking place in the trade sector. Governments agree to accept the rulings of the World
Trade Organization because on balance they benefit from an international trading
order, even if a particular decision requires that they alter a practice that is their
sovereign right to carry out.
At its core, globalization entails the increasing volume, velocity and importance of
flows within and across borders of people, ideas, goods, money, drugs, viruses, emails,
weapons, and much else, challenging one of sovereignty’s fundamental principles: the
ability to control what crosses borders in either direction. Sovereign States increasingly
measure their vulnerability not to one another, but to forces beyond their control.
Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but
that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order
to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on
elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary. This was demonstrated by the American
and world reaction to Afghanistan’s Taliban government, which provided access and
support to al-Qaeda, was removed from power. Similarly, America’s preventive war
against an Iraq that ignored the UN and was thought to possess weapons of mass
destruction showed that sovereignty no longer provides absolute protection. Imagine
how the world would react if some government were known to be planning to use
or transfer a nuclear device or had already done so. Many would argue correctly that
sovereignty provides no protection for that State.
Necessity may also lead to reducing or even eliminating sovereignty when a government,
whether from a lack of capacity or conscious policy, is unable to provide for the basic
needs of its citizens. This reflects not simply scruples, but a view that state failure and
genocide can lead to destabilizing refugee flows and create openings for terrorists
to take root. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s intervention in Kosovo was an
example where a number of governments chose to violate the sovereignty of another
government to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide. By contrast, the mass killing in
Rwanda and in Darfur, Sudan, demonstrate the high price of judging sovereignty to be
supreme and thus doing little to prevent the murder of innocents.
Our notion of sovereignty must therefore be conditional, even contractual, rather than
absolute. If a State fails to live up to its side of the bargain by sponsoring terrorism,
either transferring or using weapons of mass destruction, or conducting genocide,
then it forfeits the normal benefits of sovereignty and opens itself up to attack,
removal or occupation. The diplomatic challenge for this era is to gain widespread
support for principles of state conduct and a procedure for determining remedies
when these principles are violated. The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the
M. Marsonet - National Sovereignty Vs. Globalization 37
era of globalization, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an
international system of either world government or anarchy.
The basic idea of sovereignty, which still provides a useful constraint on violence
among States, needs to be preserved. But the concept needs to be adapted to a world
in which the main challenges to order come from what global forces do to states and
what governments do to their citizens, rather than from what states do to one another.
Globalization: advantages and disadvantages
The generally accepted definition of globalization does not exist, as far as it has
most different meanings. Without any claim to a unequivocal definition, it can be
determined it in the following way. Globalization is a process as a result of which the
world becomes more connected and more dependent on all its subjects. Both the
increase of the quantity of problems common for States and the expansion of the
number and types of integrand subjects take place.
In other words the peculiar system emerges, where the problems of separate countries,
nations, regions and other subjects (corporations, different associations, global
media holding companies etc.) interlace into one tangle. Separate local events and
conflicts influence a great number of countries. At the same time decisions in the most
significant centers of the world have an effect on all the fates. In general ‘the processes
of globalization in the broadest sense are characterized by the abrupt intensification
and complication of mutual contacts in the basic branches of the economic, political
and social life, gaining planetary scales’. Globalization is an exclusively versatile process.
Practically all spheres of life experience its impact. Lots of positive as well as negative
phenomena also gain a global character e.g., the struggle for the preservation of the
environment, the antiglobalistic movement itself, drug mafia etc.
Any development always means that a certain part of changes makes the situation
sometimes worse in comparison with the previous events. The scope of sovereign
prerogatives leads both to positive and negative consequences. Thus, the greater
than before openness of boundaries provides not only the increase of trade but
also contributes to the expansion of terrorism and facilitates drug traffic. At the
same time the balance of advantages and disadvantages looks different for different
countries, regions, territories even different social strata. This implies such an
ambiguous perception of globalization. Thus is not in vain that its critics point at the
irregularity in benefiting globalization and the increasing gap in the living standard
of different countries. It is important to note that setting up the outlines of the new
order, globalization thereby breaks the old one, functioning within the state system’s
framework, therefore, the speed of the destruction of old relations often exceeds
the speed of the formation of the new ones. In particular, in a number of countries
38 Academicus - International Scientific Journal www.academicus.edu.al 38
this becomes apparent in the destruction of traditional ideology, based on the
sacralization of fatherland and nations, and consequently, in the weakening of such
earlier highly evaluated qualities as patriotism due to the growth of alternative to the
national preferences and identifications. But instead globalization has not created any
complete ideology to fascinate masses.
The notion of sovereignty
Sovereignty is usually defined as the most essential attribute of the state in the form
of its complete self-sufficiency in the frames of a certain territory i.e., its supremacy
in the domestic policy and independence in the foreign one. This notion became
widespread in the 19th century. But already at the beginning of the Modern Age it
got quite a definite interpretation in the works by Machiavelli, Bodin, Hobbes and
others. Within the Westphalian system of international relations, (it formed after
the Thirty Year War and 1648 Peace Treaties of Westphalia), the principles of state
sovereignty gradually obtained the all-European, and then universal appreciation.
However, it is important to note that this ‘normative trajectory’ of international law
was fully described only by the end of the 18th – early 19th century, this was especially
connected to the events of the French Revolution, and also with Napoleon Wars and
a new order established after the Vienna Congress in 1815. At present the UN Charter
and some other international agreements contain regulations on sovereign equality
of states and nations’ right to self-determination which together with the increasing
degree of external security of most countries, in our view has sufficiently contributed
to the consolidation of the idea of national sovereignty in international affairs in the
second half of the 20th century. Indeed, the tendency toward the recognition of the
sovereign rights is combined with the tendency toward their voluntarily constraint by
the sovereigns themselves.
However, the notion of sovereignty is one of the most difficult and ambiguous and
its content has constantly changed and continues changing in connection with the
transformations of international relations and characteristics of the states themselves,
even in connection with complexity of definition of the notion of state. This content
also changed depending on who is implied as the supreme sovereign: a feudal monarch
having the right to grant or split states when sharing the inheritance, an enlightened
absolute monarch who acts on behalf of people, or the nation itself. Besides, the
sovereignty that is absolute in theory of states was always strongly and even fatally
limited by different factors. Sovereignty can be regarded in different aspects and
versions.
In other words, the notion of sovereignty is not univocal and indisputable but provokes
numerous debates and, thus, demands a considerable elaboration, including various
approaches to the classification of the states themselves possessing sovereignty.
M. Marsonet - National Sovereignty Vs. Globalization 39
One gradually becomes aware of the necessity of re-interpretation and re-appraisal
of the notion of ‘sovereignty’ in connection with the emergence of the world political
community, defining boundaries of private sovereignty, principles of their combination
with each other and building their hierarchy, and also taking into consideration actions
of other different subjects: numerous non-governmental organizations, multinational
structures and arrangements, also considering the development of various global
ideologies, for example, Global Civil Society.
Globalization and a reduced sovereignty
As I stated before, in practice the sovereign rights and powers both of States and
nations were always limited by various factors. Nevertheless, in theorists’ minds
‘Westphalian sovereignty’ (i.e., unlimited sovereign rights) still existed. In present
days it becomes clearer that Westphalian system with its principles of international
relations has fundamentally changed. It is also important to mention that nowadays
the idea of states’ free play seems wrong even from a merely theoretical point of view.
The point is that the scope of the inner sovereignty has legally narrowed to a large
degree due to the international agreements including the issues concerning human
rights and what is more – actually, in connection with already formed models and
traditions of states’ behavior. That is why a number of political scientists think the
more precise definition or a reconsideration of the notion of sovereignty is needed.
In my opinion there is a whole range of factors which influence the process of changing
national sovereignty including, of course, technological and economic changes, the
aspiration for escaping wars, the presence of global problems uniting countries, the
processes of the regional rapprochement, the rapid extension of the scope of contacts
of all types and levels among the residents of different countries; the necessity of
solving the great number of issues and settling controversial questions, increasing
number of democratic regimes in the world, etc. However, the factor of voluntariness
in reducing the scope of powers for the sake of gaining extra prestige and benefits may
be considered among them the most significant, moreover, this very fact, as far as we
see, defines the necessity of this movement. Thereupon, I would like to draw attention
to the major process lasting since the end of the World War II, as a result of which
many countries deliberately start limiting themselves in seemingly most sovereign
things.
Hence it is possible to make an important thought on the whole obvious conclusion:
the domestic affairs of a state where nobody intervenes and which are regulated only
by national law and traditions, are contracting and at that in many respects a voluntary
refusing of sovereign from their sovereign rights and international law or law of a
definite community (of a collective participation) is expanding.
40 Academicus - International Scientific Journal www.academicus.edu.al 40
The processes of internationalization have started not today but have already been
going on for centuries accelerating all the time. But as I have already mentioned, the
prevalence and power of these processes yesterday and today are incomparable, in
other words at present they have obtained a qualitatively different level in comparison
with past epochs. First, they have embraced the whole world. Second, the economic
alliances were uncommon before and now they have become the most typical form of
associations. And some of the economic organizations (such as WTO, IMF) encompass
the majority of countries of the world. The scale and aims of political associations have
also changed. Third, the intensity and regularity of state leaders’ contacts have grown
enormously. And the problems they solve have changed greatly. Fourth, only a few
countries are able to carry out an isolationist policy today and avoid any associations
(like the policy of ‘brilliant isolation’ that the Great Britain was carrying out in the 19th
century).
Subnational, national, supranational
As has been mentioned above, in political science it is realized to a certain degree that
the doctrine of national sovereignty has become old-fashioned. However it seems
that most researchers (especially in Russia) still underestimate the gravity of changes
of sovereignty and the necessity to re-think this notion itself in the context of modern
processes, but also a great number of others, connected with it. At the same time we
agree that the State still principally remains (and will endure for quite a long time) the
superior unit of historical and political life. Moreover, the division of the new and old
phenomena is always a crucially important matter and a new order comprises very
strong elements of the old one.
However, obviously, the scope of the sovereign rights in the modern world has
greatly redistributed, so in the international community there no more exist ‘one
and indivisible’ government and public and national sovereignty. The sovereignty is
more often distributed between supranational, national, subnational, and sometimes
regional and municipal units. Consequently, as has been mentioned above, new
powerful factors have appeared and in the long run these factors gradually lead the
state to stop being the principal sovereign and to give this place to larger supranational
formations and structures. And in my opinion this tendency will be increasing. On
the other hand, I would like to add that this is not a one-sided and univocal but a
many-sided process: sovereignty will reduce somehow (e.g., in matters concerning
economic strategy) but in some way, it will become stronger and even grow. So, e.g.,
Egbert Yan considers that ethnical-linguistic, cultural and social functions of the state
will increase. That is why it is dangerous to hurry too much to bury national state, for a
long time it will remain the leading player in international affairs (as on the whole one
should be cautious enough while forecasting the global political changes). Besides,
M. Marsonet - National Sovereignty Vs. Globalization 41
as some scholars fairly point out, the abrupt reduction of sovereignty and traditional
functions of a state may cause chaos.
Though sovereignty is contracting, we find significant this principle itself (more exactly
the appeal to it in certain cases), that will probably long remain one of the most
important in the international affairs. That is why its open disrespect will continue
to provoke condemnation. When old ideas are still alive and the new ones have not
become firmly established the collisions may obtain a form of opposition of principles
which hides their historical significance. In that case it is difficult to understand who
is right, who is wrong. For instance, if one bases oneself on the right of the strong to
openly trample on the sovereignty principle even with respect to a dictatorial regime,
the sympathy may appear on the per se reactionary side. The war in Iraq in 2003 proves
this. That is why it appears that in the legal and moral aspects really irreproachable
arguments are desirable which would be based on the world organizations
decisions (the UN in the first place). That is why to support the actions against the
regimes-disturbers the sanctions of exactly this kind are important.
Therefore, as has been shown above, since the end of the Second World War the
tendency is more clearly revealed that countries gradually delegate a part of their
sovereignty to the world international organizations. Even a larger part of sovereignty
passes to regional associations. And the integration of states in suprastate economic
associations is becoming more and more important part of globalization. Such
supranational formations are present on almost all continents and in some cases a
transformation of economic alliances into political ones is outlined. Of course, the
process of creating really formed, systematically and profoundly integrated suprastate
formations can not be quick. Neither will it be smooth in my opinion, since all its
members cannot ignore their own interests and in this or that way they will defend
their interests against the others. Besides, within the countries themselves different
political powers interpret national aims quite in a different way. In other words the
adjustment of the supra- and intrastate interests is a difficult problem, and different
confrontations are inevitable here. Besides, common aims also may be interpreted in
a different way. In this sense, a very significant example is that of the USA which were
able to bring together into a tight knot their purely national narrow political problems
(such as the coming elections or the necessity to increase the president popularity)
with world interests.
Nationalism and globalization
Globalization as has been proved by different studies produces a dual effect with
respect to nationalism. On the one hand, there can be observed a tendency to
reduction of national sovereignty, on the other – a heavy growth of nationalism
and even the smallest nationalities’ striving for gaining their own sovereignty. The
42 Academicus - International Scientific Journal www.academicus.edu.al 42
explanation of the reasons of separatism in the present period, to which we arrived, at
first glance may seem paradoxical: nationalism is gaining strength because states are
weakening as systems. However, there is no real paradox here, especially taking into
account that the most states’ security is actually provided by the world community
and the strongest states. Besides, nations are not eternal essences, but ethnopolitical
societies, forming mostly within the state framework and under the influence of
technological changes. Under certain conditions their solidarity and homogeneity
intensify, and under the others – vice versa – weaken. So, creating the supranational
systems in the 20th century proceeded parallel with the destruction of colonial empires
as well as of the old and newly created states, especially multinational ones, note
that some of them looked rather stable (the USSR, and earlier in the beginning of the
process, Austria-Hungary). And such a collapse, as we see it, fulfills in a certain sense
a progressive role, facilitating regional and world integration. But it is very morbid and
destructive progress, which confirms the above-said ideas that a progress and regress
are going hand in hand. The matter in fact is in their balance.
Which future?
Turning our mind to the integration processes, one inevitably asks a question whether
it is possible in any way and if it is, then in what way to reconcile various interests
of hundreds of states having not only diverse culture but a great gap in the level of
development. After all, the acceleration of development of the world and limited time
for solving global and other problems do not allow waiting till the underdeveloped
countries find their own way of development, because such a search may take
centuries. The opinion makes a certain sense that supporting the advance to the
overcoming of the backwardness may be achieved only through creating an effective
market and an effective state. And what if the state institution is weak, as in Tropical
Africa and some other places? And what should we do if the state is on the contrary
strong enough to bar the fairly necessary changes (as in North Korea or Cuba)? And
what should be done with the countries whose population and even elite are unable
to understand global problems?
Therefore, in my view, the problem passes to the suprastate level and is connected with
the transformation of sovereignty and with the external influence on those countries,
within which there is no power for independent changes. But we are convinced
that whatever mild is such an influence from outside would be, it will somehow
affect sovereignty. Its limitation in our opinion has two levels. On the one hand, the
developing countries are themselves ready to unite into regional communities to
assert their interests together and solve problems. On the other – they are connected
with the global confrontation between various developed and developing countries
(the North – South problem).
M. Marsonet - National Sovereignty Vs. Globalization 43
First of all the matter concerns global problems. They touch the whole World
community, therefore, the Western interest in their solution in the underdeveloped
countries will be surely increasing. And it seems the latter in their turn will have to
limit sovereignty in this or that way to fit general rules. For instance, we take the
risk of supposing that as demographic and ecological problems are closely connected,
probably, the regulation of population level will gradually become not only national,
but also a common matter. But to solve a lot of common problems it is necessary to
become aware of the fact that development cannot always widen what requires a
voluntary reducing in consumption and also the mechanisms capable of forcing the
majority of countries to accept such limitations. We have advanced enough to be
capable of realizing a new vocabulary, where a key word will be limit. The limits of the
rise, plundering of the environment, interference in the animate nature, armament
limits etc. It seems quite probable that there will be allocation of rates of the economic
growth in future, as without it other limitations seem impossible to reach.
The concept of globalization has been central to many of the political and intellectual
discourses of the 1990s. Used in very different ways by neoliberals, postmodernists
and radical environmentalists among others, globalization has been interpreted in
cultural, technological and geopolitical terms.
Globalization is frequently discussed as a counterpoint to national sovereignty. It
is commonly asserted that globalization has eroded national sovereignty or that it
has rendered borders obsolete. In particular, it is asserted that, in a globalised world
economy, governments have no alternative but to adopt neoliberal economic policies
of privatization, deregulation and reductions in public expenditure.
The starting point of the neoliberal account of globalization is the observation that
states have abandoned or lost much of the border sovereignty they possessed
for most of the 20th century. It is then argued that this loss of border sovereignty
entails a loss of domestic economic sovereignty, so that states are constrained by the
pressures of international capital markets to follow the neoliberal policy agenda of
deregulation, privatization and small government, regardless of the wishes of their
domestic electorates. A similar view is implicit, though not always clearly argued, in
postmodernist and ‘Third Way’ accounts of globalization.
Social-democratic opponents of neoliberalism have responded to this argument in
two main ways. First, they have argued that the loss of border sovereignty is primarily
due to mistaken policies of financial deregulation, and have explored responses such
as the imposition of ‘Tobin taxes’ on international financial transactions. Second, they
have argued that the maintenance of social-democratic policies is both feasible and
necessary if the economic disruption associated with globalization is not to lead to
social injustice and disorder.
44 Academicus - International Scientific Journal www.academicus.edu.al 44
The concept of national self-determination was, however, confined to European
nations and their colonial offshoots. The technological superiority of European and
North American capitalism permitted the construction of a global economic system
based on the concept of imperialism. The European powers carved up Asia, Africa and
Oceania between them, establishing direct rule over most of the world and enforcing
market access to countries that remained nominally independent, such as China and
Japan. Under the Monroe doctrine, the United States played a broadly similar role
in Central and South America. The colonial powers used a combination of taxation,
expropriation and trade to extract raw materials from their colonies, while supplying
them with manufactured goods. Unlike the mercantile system of the 18th century,
however, there was no general prohibition on trade between the colonies of one
European country and the merchants of another.
Furthermore, the idea of “State capacity” is useful in understanding the debate about
globalization and neoliberalism. Despite claims to the contrary, the state retains a
substantial capacity to intervene effectively in the economy. However, that capacity
has not grown in line with the demands implied by the range of responsibilities taken
on by governments in the postwar period. When the inadequate capacity of the state
to meet all its obligations becomes undeniable, a period of crisis occurs, which, in
most cases, has been followed by reforms aimed at increasing the role of the market
and winding back that of the state. Because the growth in public provision of human
services represents a response to real social and economic needs, however, neoliberal
attempts to reduce the level of provision and the role of government have not, in
general, been successful. As a result, the fiscal crisis of the state has been followed,
not by fundamental change, but by a prolonged period of muddling through.
Conclusions
For neoliberals, the main policy problem arising from globalization is that of winding
back attempts at government intervention in response to recognition of the limits
on state capacity. By contrast, social democrats must consider how to order social
priorities in the light of undeniable limits on state capacity, but also how to maintain
and increase state capacity. In this section, some responses to the latter problem are
considered.
Progress towards European economic unification remains limited. The European
Monetary Union is already in place, although important European countries including
the United Kingdom have so far not joined. Moves are now being made to harmonize
the rates of tax on income from capital to prevent the competitive bidding down of
rates. Some income redistribution across national boundaries has taken place, though
primarily as the result of sectorial initiatives.
M. Marsonet - National Sovereignty Vs. Globalization 45
By contrast, the European Parliament and associated institutions such as the European
Commission remain ineffectual, so that the European economic policy (other than
monetary policy) is still effectively determined by national governments acting either
alone or in consultation through bodies such as the Council of Europe. Nevertheless,
given the steady progress towards integration that has taken place so far, it is
reasonable to predict that federal European economic policy will continue to grow in
importance relative to national policy.
If nation—states are taken as the unit of analysis, the integration of Europe represents
a substantial loss of Westphalian and border sovereignty. However, in the contest
between social democracy and neoliberal globalization, the nation—state per se is
only marginally relevant. The crucial issue is whether policy will respond to the wishes
of a democratic electorate, or be tightly constrained by the ‘Golden Straightjacket’ of
international financial markets.
Claims of inevitability are commonplace in policy debates. It is frequently argued that
the success of some policy program or other is historically inevitable and therefore
should be supported. For much of the 20th century, historicist claims of this kind were
most commonly made by Marxist and Fabian socialists, but during the 1990s, the
same line of argument was taken over by supporters of neoliberal globalization.