and its effects on the sovereignty of the nation-state is a contentious issue in the study of world politics. Some have argued that the sovereignty of the nation-state has indeed been eroded by globalisation due to the trans-nationalisation of production and trade, as well as the increasing role of international financial and legal regimes (Strange, 1996). By contrast, globalisation sceptics such as Hirst and Thompson (1996) consider the thesis of proposed by globalists as politically naïve as it underestimates the enduring power of national governments to regulate internal and international authority. This essay will examine the future of globalisation and how the sovereignty of the nation state has been affected by the major trends of globalisation; economic internationalisation and the emergence of new social movements with both local and transnational consciousness.
Giddens (1990) defines globalisation as the ‘intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring miles away and vice versa’. The nation state, although like ‘globalisation’ the definition is contested, is generally defined as ‘a sovereign state of which most of the citizens or subjects are united also by factors which define a nation, such as language or common descent’ (Holton, 2011:24).
Economic globalisation refers to the ‘increasing interdependence of world economies as a result of the growing scale of cross-border trade of commodities and services, flow of international capital and wide and rapid spread of technologies’ (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2000, 1). When examining economic globalisation one can argue that it has, to a significant extent, diminished the sovereignty of the nation-state. Although the origins of globalisation can be traced back to the second half of the 19th Century, with the emergence of the United Kingdom as the world leader in trade and finance, the first institutional expression and the mechanisms of the globalised economy were set in place only after the end of World War II, with the birth of an international monetary system at the Bretton Woods conference in July 1944 (Mitchell, 1992). The subsequent expansion of trade is a clear indicator of the process of global integration and a key agent in the growth of international trade has been the transnational corporations (TNC). Camilleri and Falk (1992) view international organisation’s such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the European Union (EU), the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), and other United Nation agencies as facilitating multilateral monetary and trade. However, Camilleri and Falk (1992) also see the international integration of trade and finance as having severely constrained the effective range of strategic options and policy instruments available to governments thus decreasing the sovereignty of the nation state. However, Hirst and Thompson (1996), consider the thesis proposed my globalists, such as Camilleri and Falk, as politically naïve as it underestimates the enduring power of national governments to regulate international economic authority. One can agree with Camilleri and Falk’s argument that globalised finance constrains government decisions and therefore significantly diminishes the sovereignty of the state as evidenced by the Greek debt crisis. During Greece’s 2014 review for IMF bailout, German Chancellor Angela Merkel threatened to force Greece out of the Euro and deny their bailout funds if the Greek government did not follow the proposed austerity measures, thus leading some to label Merkel as being ‘Europe’s economic bully’ (Schuman, 2015 [online]).
Globalisation has opened new spaces for communication, allowing ideas to flow freely across borders. Thus, new social movements have emerged that have both local and transnational consciousness’s. Political actors no longer limit their claims to territorial localities: local concerns about environmental issues are quickly reframed in terms of global dynamics, as are discussions about gender inequalities or ethnic conflicts. Furthermore, the concept of the ‘responsibility to protect’ insists that states must protect their own population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. However, if they fail to protect their populations, their responsibility to end atrocities is transferred to the wider ‘international community’, acting through the United Nations (UN). Therefore, the globalist trend of humanitarian intervention at local and transnational levels has largely diminished national sovereignty, many writers also argue that sovereignty derives from a state’s responsibility to protect its citizens; therefore when a state fails in its duty, it should lose its sovereign rights to international bodies (Teśon, 2003).
Despite globalisation largely diminishing state sovereignty, one can argue that globalisation is collapsing due to the decline of US hegemony, which gives way to a new and fragmented system of competing states, more conducive to the principle of sovereignty. Gill and Law argue that the indicators of America’s diminishing influence usually include the ‘loss of nuclear monopoly, the fall in America’s GNP as a proportion of world GNP, the dramatic reduction in US share of global manufacturing capacity and the even more dramatic reduction in the US share of world trade’ (Gill and Law, 1988:340). Camilleri and Falk (1992) argue that US military, though formidable and the largest in the world is no longer sufficient to sustain the hegemonic order established by Pax Americana at the conclusion of the Second World War. Therefore, the question arises: does the decline of the world’s greatest hegemon, the United States, point to the reassertion of state-centric authority during times of transition from one hegemonic system or power to another? The overriding function of the main hegemonic power is to ensure stability for the world system, including the promotion of Western liberal values such as globalisation. Whether the United States is actually in decline is another question entirely. However, the idea of US decline, which Donald Trump’s successful presidential campaign, ‘Make America Great Again’ perpetuates, has serious implications for the future of globalisation.
Indeed, the rise of nationalistic sentiments across the world, particularly Europe, has led to a rejection of globalisation. The 2016 Brexit vote was arguably of a rejection of the pro-globalist, cosmopolitan European Union (EU), whose policies of open borders was seen as a threat to national identity. Furthermore, the 2016 US presidential and senate elections have given office to right wing politicians who express nationalist, isolationist and protectionist sentiments; this arguably represents a tangible retreat from globalisation. However, one also must ask whether these political upsets are the result of a mass protest against the establishment and not simply due to the collapse of globalisation.
In conclusion, globalisation has been a major force in the last century, offering financial and military security to the world and thus has indeed diminished the sovereignty of the nation state to a great extent. However, one could argue that globalisation is in decline due to the demise of US hegemony and due to the return of more nationalistic sentiments across Europe and America. Therefore, one can make the prediction that nation states will slowly regain some of their sovereignty but not all due to the mutual benefits and sometimes irreversible nature of trade and defense agreements.
ere…