1
GLOBALIZATION AND THE CHALLENGES OF THE
STATE SYSTEM IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY.
BY
EMMANUEL JOSEPH CHUKWUMA DURU
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
UNIVERSITY OF CALABAR
CALABAR – NIGERIA
[email protected]
+234(0)8O37239727
AND
2
OGBONNAYA, UFIEM MAURICE
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE/
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
UNIVERSITY OF UYO
UYO – NIGERIA
[email protected]
+234(0)8063407042
ABSTRACT
This paper examines the emergence of the current form of globalization in relation to
the Westphalia state system. The central objective of the paper is to investigate the
challenges which the process of globalization poses to the existence of nation-states
especially in the twenty-first century. In the last three decades, global developments
have seen the state system retreating, weakening, shrinking, and sinking as
globalization undermines its tax base, erodes its regulatory apparatuses and policy
machinery, questions its sovereignty and territorial authority. The paper
predominantly utilizes secondary data and employs descriptive analytical technique.
Our findings reveal that despite the challenges which globalization poses to the
existence of nation-states, it has not transcended the state system. The state remains
the prime instance of democratic decision-making, popular sovereignty and central
actor in international relations. Here, it is argued that globalization cannot transcend
3
the state system because, apart from the internal contradictions inherent in the
ideological underpinnings of the process which makes it subject to transformation
and declination, its propelling forces and instruments of operation are not just byproducts of the state and its government; they also need the state and its attributes to
function effectively.
KEY WORDS:
Globalization, Nation-States, Westphalia State System,
Sovereignty, Territoriality Authority, Foreign Policy Machinery,
International Relations, International Terrorism, Multinational
Corporations, International Organizations
INTRODUCTION
According to Global Policy Forum (2009), some individuals, scholars and analysts
see the “state” as an ancient institution, going back to Rome, Greece and before,
theorized by Plato, Aristotle and other classical philosophers. Others insist on the
unique features of the modern state, with its extensive rule of law, citizenship rights,
4
and broad economic and social responsibilities. The Forum contends that a state is
more than a government because governments change while states endure. It goes
further to assert that “a state is the means of rule over a defined or ‘sovereign’
territory. It is comprised of an executive, a bureaucracy, courts and other institutions,
and above all, a state levies taxes and operates a military and police force. States also
distribute and re-distribute resources and wealth”.
However, scholars generally trace the origin of the state system from the year 1648
when the Treaty of Westphalia, which brought the thirty-year civil to an end, was
signed. Though before then, states existed and entered into relations with each other,
but they were not sovereign states as their authority was restrained by the Roman
Church and the Roman Emperor.
Over the years, the state-system has grown and prospered. Nation-states have wages
wars on increasingly destructive and global scale (World War I and II of 1914 – 1919,
and 1938 – 1945, respectively). They have also assumed broad tasks of social and
economic management (they welfare state). In all, their ubiquity was taken for
granted.
Events in the last three decades or so have, however, shown the state system to be in
retreat – weakening, shrinking and sinking as globalizing capital seems to be
undermining their tax bases, eroding their regulatory apparatuses, stymieing their
policy machinery and questioning their legitimacy and territorial integrity.
5
This work, therefore, seeks to examine the status and future of nation-states in
contemporary international relations within the context of the challenges posed by the
process of globalization.
CONCEPTUAL AND EPISTEMOLOGICAL ISSUES
A most rewarding approach to this study is to situate certain leading concepts in their
correct and critical perspectives by way of conceptual and contextual analysis in order
to justify whatever direction(s) our argument here will lead to.
Globalization is a typical social science concept, so easy to use but so difficult to
define in such a way that it can ensure in-controvertible acceptance.
It was in
recognition of this fact that Clark (1997:6) writes that “the utility of ‘globalization’ as
a theoretical concept is in dispute.” Asobie (2001:37) agrees with Clark. According
to him, “globalization is a contested concept. Its meaning is in contention. Its
character is a point in dispute. Its history is mired in controversy”. It is our argument
here that the “controversy” and “dispute” surrounding the definition and meaning of
globalization arise from the fact that scholars and policy makers who write, do so
from different disciplinary backgrounds as scholars and stand points as international
actors. But for our purpose here, globalization is taken to mean a process whereby
social relations acquire relatively distance less and borderless qualities, so that human
lives are increasingly played out in the world as a single place. Social relations - that
is, the countless and complex ways that people interact with and affect each other –
are more and more being conducted and organized on the basis of a planetary unit. By
the same token, country locations, and in particular the boundaries between territorial
6
states are in some important senses becoming less central to our lives, although they
do remain significant (Scholte, 1997).
Though it could be simply assumed that the concept of the state should be known to
all by now, convention dictates that we re-state it especially within the context of our
epistemological foci. Epistemologically, the term ‘state’ is derived from the Italian
word, “lo stato”, coined by Niccolo Machiavelli to describe the whole of the social
hierarchy that governed and ruled a country. But over the years, the term has come to
acquire more complex and sophisticated meaning.
According to Rasmussen (2001:3), the world ‘state’ means “the supreme legitimate
authority entrusted with the exercise of violent force over a group of people”.
Conspicuously absent from this definition is the concept of territorial authority, yet
the legitimacy and jurisdictional authority of states is tied so intimately to this
attribute that it cannot be ignored. This shortcoming notwithstanding, the above
definition has a conceptual utility having clearly pointed out one of the core attributes
of the state with which we are concerned here; “exercise of violent force over a group
of people.”
In a more specific way, Knutsen (1992:2) operationalizes the state as follows;
By “state” here, is meant the territorial state: an
independent political community which possesses a
government and asserts sovereignty in relation to a
particular portion of the earth’s surface and a particular
segment of the human population.
7
On the other hand, modern international relations, according to Knutsen (1992) has
been dominated by the twin notion of the presence and absence of sovereignty.
Applied to relations within states, sovereignty involves the belief that there is a final
and absolute authority in society. Applied to relations among states, it expresses the
antithesis of this belief, i. e. , the principle that internationally, over and above a
collection of societies, no supreme authority exists.
International terrorism term terrorism is defined by the United States Law Code – the
law that governs the entire country, to mean “premeditated, politically motivated
violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or
clandestine agents.” Drawing from the same source, international terrorism refers to
terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country (U.S. Code Title
22, ch.38, para. 2656f(d)). This is to say that international terrorism refers to those
acts in which the terrorists cross national frontiers to carry out attacks, or attack
foreign targets at home such as bombing embassies, or hijacking air or sea liners
(Lesser, 1999:6).
Finally, Multinational Corporation refers to oligopolistic corporation in which
ownership, management, production, and sales activities extend over several national
jurisdiction. It is comprised of a head office in one country and a cluster of
subsidiaries in other countries (Caves, 1982).
GLOBALIZATION AND THE CHALLENGES OF THE STATE SYSTEM
8
As we earlier observed in this paper, globalization is a process that has intensified in
the twenty – first century, permeating the whole world, with far – reaching
ramifications covering economic, political and socio – cultural dimensions of
contemporary life. These are the dimensions of globalization and through these
dimensions, its agents such as multinational corporations (MNCs), international
organizations (IOs), ideological groups and violent non-state actors (VNSAs) are
made manifest. On the other hand, it is asserted here that the most important
characteristics and indicators of the Westphalia state system remain sovereignty,
territorial authority and monopoly on the exercise of means of violence.
This section examines how globalization through its agents constitutes or poses a
challenge to the state system through the violation of its sovereignty and territorial
authority. This is because as we pointed out earlier, globalization has developed on the
questioning of national boundaries and state sovereignty with the emergence of nonstate actors in international relations such as international organization, Multinational
Corporation, and ideological groups and violent non-state actors which carry out
international terrorist acts.
As key actors in the globalization process, multinational corporations have greatly
accelerated integration of the global economy. In the 1960s and 70s, foreign direct
investments (FDI) by American MNCs increased dramatically. Overseas expansion is
frequently accompanied by corporate alliances with companies from the countries
such that “what now predominates by way of global trade is better described as interand intra-company transfers rather than trade among nations” (Asobie, 2001:38). The
9
growth of FDIs and corporate alliances since 1980s emphasizes the role of MNCs in
the global economy and as globalization increases the power of MNCs, Strange
(1997:369) submits that “political and economic power is shifting from states to
firms”.
Accordingly,
there are arguments that economic globalization, especially the
activities of MNCs, massive international financial flows and growth of international
trade – which have been by technological advancement, innovations, development of
communication and transportation systems challenge the state. The challenges are
numerous; national governments are no longer in control of the spread of ideas,
capital, technology, labour, trade or ownership of economic assets. National
governments now have less influence o business transactions. Globalization leads
increasing
interdependence
and
greater
international
competition.
National
governments are losing control of national economic policies and even their own
economic future to MNCs (Strange, 1997).
As independent actors in international relations, international organizations (IOs) have
been variously described as “modifiers of state behaviours” (Toulmin, 1994:7) and as
“institutions for punishing transgressing states” (Robert and Kingsbury, 1993:19).
Odock (2006) states that this development is not difficult to explain as many
international organizations tend to develop a distinct identity with a unique corporate
interest that need to be projected and protected. Albala (2005) has chronicled how
international governmental organizations such as UNO, AU, NATO, etc, have against
10
the principles of sovereignty and territorial authority of nation-states intervened in the
internal affairs of nation-states through peacekeeping operations. Thus, by their
actions, international organizations are tending towards supra-nationality in a way that
is transcending the sovereign authority of nation-states and their governments.
International terrorist organizations as agents of globalization also constitute
challenges to state’s monopoly on the exercise or use of violence. According to
Aydinli (2006), intensifying global transformations are meeting with adventurous and
empowered individuals and have begun to allow the creation of autonomous and
independent non-state actors as security challengers. Ultimately, states are being
forced into struggle against newly emerging actors whom they are poorly prepared to
encounter. What this means, according to Aydinli, is that rising security challenges
posed by non-state actors are exceeding the expectations of state and statespeople. For
instance, recent examples, particularly with Al Qaeda experiences prove that what Al
Qaeda represents in terms of the global potential and feasibility for non-state actors as
security challengers with destructive capabilities rivaling those of the states, should be
seen as alarming.
Remo (2007) also argued that due largely to globalization, terrorist involvement in the
illegal global economy, and the connections that they make have made them much
more formidable challengers to the state. He further asserted that this challenge to the
dominance of the Westphalia state in international politics has become more prevalent
as the state itself has become increasingly deficient. He, however, observes that the
implication of both the relative and absolute decline of the state is that those involved
11
in international security in the twenty-first century will need to understand the threats
from violent non-state actors.
Examining the challenges posed to the state system by globalization, Jayantha
Dhannapala, a former Under – Secretary General for Disarmament Affairs, United
Nations, on April 2, 2001 wrote that;
In an age of total war, of instant communications and fast cheap
travel, the nation state has appeared to many observers as a
quaint, even dangerous anachronism. Modern technology has
rendered the nation-state obsolete as a principle of political
organization, for the nation-state is no longer able to perform
what
is the elementary function of any political organization: to protect
the lives of its members and their way of life. The modern
technologies of transportation, communications, and warfare and
the resultant feasibility of all –out atomic war, have completely
destroyed this protective function of the state (Dhanapala, 2001:
6).
A High – Level Panel on Globalization and the State set up by the United
Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Second Committee in its 56th Session
on November 2, 2001 reported that political aspects of globalization have
led to a shift of power from sovereign states to technologically advanced
global elites and private multinationals (often times non-state interests).
Globalization has also contributed to the internationalization of cross –
12
border problems such as drug and human trafficking and terrorism. On the
social level, it has created openness to other cultures and promoted a flow
of ideas and values. As cultures interact, some have faced the risk of being
diluted and/or destroyed at the expense of others.
Summarizing its report, the Panel wrote that “globalization may be seen as having an
impact on the state in forms of:
1.
Undermining the power of the state;
2.
Undermining the democratization process;
3.
Over-stretching the state’s capacity to handle international and computer-based
crimes; and
4.
Undermining its capacity to effectively regulate and protect the environment
(UN, 2001:1 – 4).
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on our findings and in response to globalization, we recommend that states
across the world should:
i)
Adopt and strengthen protectionist policies of some sort, maintain stable
macroeconomic policies aimed at enhancing competitiveness of domestic
markets, while ensuring sufficient domestic spending for social protection;
ii)
Work on the formation of a set of global responses to terrorism in area of
diplomacy, economy, finance, and security;
iii)
Strengthen public administrative systems and address institutional capacity
needs;
13
iv)
The challenge to the state is to create a future for all human kind that is based
on ethical principles and in which responsibility and reciprocity are
necessary pillars in all social spheres. In this context, global arrangements
should be reached among states and their governments, in various areas
such as facilitation of labour mobility, curtailment of international crime
and terrorism, reducing global insecurity and poverty; and bridging socioeconomic inequalities.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Much as globalization challenges the state system in the twenty-first century, it is still
correct to assert that “the state remains, at least potentially, the prime instance of
democratic making and popular sovereignty” (Albala, 2005:2). Even Dhanapala
(2001) was correct I asserting that “sovereignty”, which is a core attribute of the state,
“stubbornly persists even in an age of globalization and it is manifested in such
functions as the coining of money, the gathering of taxes, the promulgation of
domestic laws, the conduct of foreign policy, the regulation of commerce, and the
maintenance of domestic order. These are all functions that are reserved exclusively to
the state, a condition that even the European Union is challenging today in many
dimensions of governance, but has by no means overcome”.
Stewart (2008) submits that “state power is even on the rise, partly as a backlash to
globalization and as a result of growing wealth from energy markets”. He further
contends that even today, the nation, and its associated ideology – nationalism –
14
continues to provide a formidable obstacle to the constructive international
cooperation on an enormous variety of common global problems.
In conclusion, we contend here that obsolete though the state system may be in many
ways in the twenty-first century, it nevertheless persists, as do, quite obviously, a
multitude of states. Globalization has not transcended the state system. Globalization
cannot transcend the state because, apart from the internal contradictions inherent in
the ideological underpinnings of the process which makes it subject to transformation
and declination, its propelling forces and instruments of operation are not just byproducts of nation-states and their governments; they also need the state and its
attributes to function effectively (Doyle, 2009:3).
Thus, the state remains the central (not the only) actor in international relations. It has
not disappeared nor have the activities of the states and their mutually created global
and regional organizations ceded place completely to non-state actors (Duru and
Ogbonnaya, 2010).
As international terrorism, beginning with the September 11th, 2001 bombing of the
World Trade Centre in New York, USA, and other attacks I Spain and Great Britain,
emphasized the vulnerability of international frontiers, and thereby called attention to
the obsolescence of the territorial state as the basis of both individual and group
security, the nation-states have woken up with stricter security measures at national
frontiers and the entry points, all reminiscent of the era of the early phase in the rise of
the modern states (Odock, 2006).
15
REFERENCES
Albala, N. (2005). We the peoples, not the states. Le Monde Diplomatique, Retrieved
December 19, 2008 from
www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/state/2005/09wethepeoples.htm.
Asobie, H. A. (2001). Globalization: A view from the south. Annals of the Social
Science Academy of Nigeria, 13, 36 – 56.
Aydinli, E. (2006). Globalization, security and non-state actors. Paper presented to the
GW Centre for the Study of Globalization. Retrieved December 19, 2008 from
http://gstudynet.org/what/events/gweek/spring06/globalisation.php.
16
Caves, R. (1982). Multinational enterprise and economic analysis. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Clark, I. C. (1997). Globalization and fragmentation: International relations in the
twentieth century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dhanapala, J. (2001). Globalization and the nation-state. Colorado Journal of
International Environmental Law and Policy. Retrieved December 19, 2008
from www.globalpolicy.org/nations/future/2003/0530blol.htm.
Doyle, L. (2009). Shell execs accused of collaboration over hanging of Ken SaroWiwa. The Nation, June I, 3.
Duru, E. J. C. and Ogbonnaya, U. M. (2010). Globalization, international terrorism
and national security challenges. Kogi Journal of Politics, 1(2), 1 – 9, August.
Global Policy Forum (2009). Nations and states: What is a “state”? Retrieved January
29, 2009 from www.globalpolicy.org/nations/statindex.htm.
Knutsen, T. L.(1992). A history of international relations theory: An introduction.
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Lesser, I. B. (1999). Countering the new terrorism. Retrieved July 23, 2008 from
17
www.rand.org/publication.
Odock, C. N. (2006). International relations: Backgrounds, trends and perspectives. In
C. O. Bassey and G. O. Ozumba (Eds.), Political Science: An introductory
reader. Calabar: Wusen Publishers.
Rasmussen, P. R. (2001). ‘Nations’ or ‘states’: An attempt at definition. Scholiast.
Retrieved January 29, 2009 from
www.globalpolicy.org/nations/nation/2001/0720definition.htm.
Remo, W. (2007). Protectors and predators. In L. Anderson, B. Muller and F.
Stepputat (Eds.), Fragile states and insecure people: Violence, security and
statehood in twenty-first century. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 99 – 122.
Scholt, J. A. (1997). The globalization of world politics. In S. Smith and J. Baylis
(Eds.), The globalization of world politics: An introduction to international
relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 211 – 244.
Stewart, D. T. (2008). The myth of the nation-state: Policy innovations. Retrieved
January 29, 2009 from
www.globalploicy.org/nations/state/2008/0902mythstate.htm.
Strange, S. (1996). The erosion of the state. Current History, 96 (623), 365 – 369.
18
Toulmin, S. (1994). The role of transnational NGOs in global affairs. Tokyo: Peace
Research Institute, International Christian University. Retrieved March 16
2009 from www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/state/1994/1122.htm.
United Nations (2001). Report of 56th Session of the United Nations General
Assembly Second Committee High-Level Panel on globalization and the state.
Retrieved January 29, 2009 from www.
Globalpolicy.org/ungeneralassemblypannel/2001/11-2globalization.htm.