Effects of Globalization on Sovereignty of States
Effects of Globalization on Sovereignty of States
Over a long time, the world remained an unchallenged sovereignty, because sovereignty was perceived as the natural state of affairs. However, states are slowly losing their autonomy and independence due to globalization. Emergence of global monetary unions, non-governmental organizations, and global television networks among other aspects of this process have had significant effects on the sovereignty of states. There are several instances, where governments have complained for being overstepped by international institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund and the Word Trade Organization (Eick, 2010). The organizations are accused for their role in establishing universal standards of operation, which changes the scope of state authority.
Kofi Annan addresses the idea of globalization and its implication on sovereignty of nation states in her articles published in the New York Times on December 6th 2016. In her publication, titled “Democracy Under Pressure,” Annan performs critical analysis of the effects of globalization on democracies. Although some countries have made significant steps in enhancement of democracy, Annan rightfully notes that indicators of legitimate democracies, such as trust in politicians, have greatly diminished. He asserts that globalization is a force that poses a big threat to cultural identity and economy of independent states.
There are various achievements that are attributed to democracy. As Annan (2016) points out, millions of people have overcome poverty, because production costs of manufactured goods reduce globally due to globalization. Despite these positive aspects, Annan states that this process has also widened inequalities and minimized governments’ capacity of control over boarders and economies of the individual states. Globalization continues to make the world more independent with political systems remaining national. Political leaders are unable to fulfill the pledges, which they make during campaigns due to complex international issues that they have to deal with upon assuming office. Leaders inability to deliver on their mandates as per the expectation of citizens is cited as an indication that countries are losing their sovereignty. Annan gives an example of Europe by stating that the European Union is fraying in its attempt to adapt democracy to the increasing global interconnectedness. Globalization has resulted in formulation of rules that encourage free movement. In Annan’s opinion, many European states suffer the implications of a flood of immigrants and terroristic attacks, which make them consider closing their boarders.
The article also addresses the idea that globalization has divided societies into winners and losers. Indeed, Annan (2016) is right in his claim that few individuals and organizations have accumulated wealth and reduced taxes by taking advantages of global markets and capital mobility. However, Annan regrets the fact that many more people in Western countries regretfully experience stagnation of incomes (Annan, 2016). He states that globalization does not raise all boats to the same extent, as some populists like the President of the United States of America, Donald Trump, claim.
Despite the undesirable implications that globalization has on democracies, the situation can be corrected by enabling states to restore their sovereignty. There is a need to ensure that legitimacy of elections is upheld worldwide, since democracy is the most efficient form of government. Annan also supports the idea of promoting this polity, as he believes that it plays a pivotal role in fostering peace, development and respect for human rights, as well as the rule of law in national states. The best way to help democracies thrive as globalization progresses is avoiding its exportation, while inspiring people to adopt it by providing the benefits of implementation in sovereign states.
The implication of globalization on sovereignty of states is also addressed by Chaturvedi (2011) in the article “Globalization and its effects on sovereignty of states”. The author acknowledges the influence of globalization on facilitation of free flow of information and technological advancements. In a similar tone to that one used by Annan in the New York Times, Chaturvedi supports globalization for its role in imposing market discipline on the participants. The author sites a number of challenges that globalization poses with respect to sovereignty of states, but appreciates the fact that it has largely contributed to development and prosperity.
Chaturvedi states that globalization has influenced the ability of states to capture historical time by means of appropriating tradition, constructing, and reconstructing national identity. Annan (2016) made references to the impacts of international organizations on the sovereignty of states. In the same way, Chaturvedi discussed various dominant institutions, which establish identities that thrive if internalized by social actors only. The author discussed the influence of globalization from the perspective of its ability to expose people to numerous possibilities. This process has increased the possibility and speed of expansion for international trade. Besides, globalization has given rise to the global media, which increases the exposure of the potential customers to products and services. Chaturvedi (2011) also associates globalization with an increase in migration rates across cultures, which results in changes within local cultures and traditions, hence leading to undermining of national identity and acceptance of cosmopolitan viewpoints.
In regards to the ethical function of states, Chaturvedi argues that globalization is a threat for state sovereignty. The writer echoes Annan (20016) by stating that this process has led to establishment of transnational non-governmental organizations, such as Amnesty International and the Medicines Sans Frontiers among others. He argues that such foundations present a great challenge for state activities and the legitimate role of countries in upholding the rule of law within their territorial boarders, which is a vital aspect of the sovereignty of states. Annan and Chaturvedi are in agreement that transnational non-governmental organizations influence the sovereignty of countries by interfering with their activities, including nuclear testing and detainment without trial. As such, globalization has limited the authority of states in implementing laws that must be conformed with the international practices. To a large extent, the international law takes precedence over the governing principles, which determines ethically acceptable actions by states.
Territorial states have transformed into a mixture of economic interests and social identities, in an integrated but unstable global economy. In support of this idea, Chaturvedi refers to the fact that globalization has enabled international corporations to cross state boundaries during labor recruitment and finally, moved the obtained labor force across borders. The trend clearly shows that globalization has expanded the limits of economic relations across borders, resulting in unstable national states. It is possible to argue that countries are still the primary players in world affairs, but it is equally necessary to understand that powerful international bureaucracies have taken advantage of globalization to the extent that they currently operate on citizens directly, without much control from the governments. It implies that state borders have slowly become permeable, as states’ power and authority grow weaker.
Erick (2010) also alludes the reduced state control by suggesting that globalization presents an additional influence on local economic identities and developing capacities. The author states that although globalization does interfere with territorial distinctiveness, it has a lot of influence on the ability of developing countries to protect their economies. The primary principles of democracy, competition and participation, should be considered as the building blocks of economic prosperity. Erick (2010) states that economic development and wealth acquisition by states limit their chances for participation in wars against other developing democracies, as wars become associated with high costs and less benefits. On his part, Annan (2016) looked at democracy as a means towards achievement of stability, but recognized the influence of the international community on developing countries. At the same time, Erick (2010) asserts that democracy is a vital aspect of sovereignty, as it gives citizens an opportunity to determine their leader. However, he also recognizes the political influence of globalization, where dominant states always try to affect leadership in the developing countries.
Globalization has resulted in the global markets, which weaken national sovereignty due to formation of international organizations, banks, and trade organizations among other lobbies that influence political decisions in independent countries. In democratic states, citizens trust into capacity of their elected leaders to make informed decisions on their behalf. However, in the modern world, such leaders are compelled to consider the interests of the international community due to the common standards that have been established to control state actions. Therefore, the sovereignty of states is greatly reduced, and leaders cannot use their mandate as expected by citizens.
Thus, globalization has opened up national boundaries, hence facilitating international trade. Global markets have been established through joint initiatives that boost growth of local economies. Three authors, the positions of which have been analyzed in this discussion, all stated that globalization has facilitated technological advancements that aid in economic growth. However, it is evident that states are slowly losing their autonomy due to this phenomenon. Globalization has set the stage for formation of international laws that highly restrict political and economic decisions, which can be made by independent states The established universal standards of operation have a lot of influence on country and its leader authority.
- Free plagiarism report (on request)
- Free revision (within 2 days)
- Free title page
- Free bibliography
- Free outline (on request)
- Free e-mail delivery
- Free formatting
- Quality research and writing
- 24/7/365 Live support
- MA, BA, and PhD degree writers
- 100% Confidentiality
- No hidden charges
- Never resold works
- 100% Authenticity
- 12 pt. Times New Roman
- Double-spaced/Single-spaced papers
- MA, BA, and PhD degree writers
- 1 inch margins
- Any citation style
- Up-to-date sources only
- Fully referenced papers