Musa Khan

15020042
Proffesor Shehryar Khan
Pakistan Foreign Relations
At the end of the 21st century globalization will have sounded the
death knell on the traditional concept of state sovereignty. Discuss
and analyze.
The concept of state sovereignty has remained relatively uncontested since
it was first adopted in the 17th century; however the advent of globalization
in the twenty first century seems to have diminished the importance of this
traditional notion. This essay will begin by elucidating the traditional concept
of state sovereignty in light of its significance in shaping the foreign relation
discourse. It will next discuss the process of globalization and assess the
underlying reasons behind why globalization poses an evident threat to the
traditional notion of state sovereignty. The essay will also highlight how
globalization will inevitably result in the obsolescence of the traditional
concept of state sovereignty. Lastly, with all of this as a background, it will be
argued that the phenomenon of globalization does not imply that the
concept of sovereignty ought to be abandoned entirely rather state
sovereignty ought to evolve in a progressive way in order to compliment the
new globalized socio-political order.
The traditional concept of sovereignty first surfaced with the treaty of
Westphalia in 1648. This peace accord brought an end to the Thirty Years
war which had engulfed the whole of Europe. It recognized the government
as the primary institutional agent representing the state when it came to
interstate relations. It also established equality among states and ensured
the non-intervention of states in the internal affairs of other countries. Great
emphasis was laid on the states right to self-determination. According to
Webber, the government was seen to have a monopoly of violence within the

state. Before divulging further into this discourse, it is important to

differentiate between the state and government. The state is considered to
be sovereign but not the government. The government is a representative of
the state and may be present to fulfill the ends of the state which primarily
include the security of its citizens. (Hobbs) John lock states that the first and
final purpose of sovereignty is, peace, which is the business of government,
and the end of human society. (Locke TT, 1689, Book I, Chapter XI,
106).According to Locke the role of sovereignty has not the aim to preserve
the system of a society, or its government at any price, but the wellbeing
of the individuals in this society. This is the point in Locke's concept of
prerogative and explains why he considers that ultimately sovereignty lies in
the people (Locke TT, 1689). Therefore it is imperative to realize that the
concept of state sovereignty that we are discussing refers to the prerogatives
of the perpetual state which are then transferred to the ruling government to
fulfill the ends of the state and its citizens. This notion of sovereign nationstates is popularly known as the Westphalian system which simultaneously
grants and limits the power of the state: it bestows it with complete control
over its territory while restricting the influence that states may have on one
another1.
Martin Wolf defines globalization as a journey, but toward an unreachable
destination, the globalized world. A world where the cost of transport and
communication were zero and the barriers created by differing national
jurisdictions have vanished (Wolf, 2001: 178). One view of globalizations is
simply the widening, deepening, and speeding up of worldwide
interconnectedness2. It is important to realize that globalization is not a
contemporary phenomenon and that it is perpetual process going on for
1 http://www.globalization101.org/the-issue-of-sovereignty/
2 McGrew,A.(2011),Globalization and Global Politics in Baylis, J.Smith,S. and Owens, P.
(eds),The Globalization of World Politics,Oxford University Press. p.16

quite some time; however now it has brought the world to a certain point
where it seems unlikely that the sovereign state is to remain the main locus
of political authority and community in the future. Its authority is being
challenged by new constellations of authority and community which
transcend the divide between the domestic and the international spheres,
and will soon be replaced by new forms of political life that know nothing of
this distinction.3 According to Bartelson, tension have began to emerge
between traditional view of sovereignty as an indivisible and discrete
condition of possible statehood, and the actual dispersion of political
power and legal authority to the sub- and supranational levels. (Bartelson,
2006, p.467). Hyper globalists such as Rosenau argue that with the passage
of time this interconnectedness will become more and more deeply
entrenched and that this will further undermine the sovereignty of states.
International trade is a perfect example of such interconnectedness where
the economies of various countries are more and more interdependent on
each other.
We have entered the era of a globalized economy in which neither distance
nor national borders impede economic transactions. A perfect example of
this may be to analyze the link between the Chinese and U.S economies. The
export oriented Chinese economy greatly depends on the economy of the
U.S which is the largest importer of its goods and a recession may threaten a
decline in the demand for Chinese goods and as a result harm the Chinese
economy as well. This shows how globalization is reducing the importance of
3 For different versions of this argument, see, e.g., Gill, Reflections on Global Order
and Sociohistorical Time, 16 Alternatives (1991) 275; Luke, Discourses of
Disintegration, Texts of Transformation: Re-Reading Realism in the New World
Order, 18 Alternatives (1993) 229; Cerny, Globalization and the Changing Logic of
Collective Action, 49International Organization (1995) 595; Clark, Beyond the
Great Divide: Globalization and the Theory of International Relations, 24 Review of
International Studies (1998) at 479; Agnew, Mapping Political Power beyond the
State Boundaries: Territory, Identity, and Movement in World Politics,
28 Millenium (1999) 499.

borders amongst states which divided them into independent and

autonomous economic and territorial entities. Another example is the
reliance of the Pakistani economy on the dollar currency of the United States.
Pakistan is significantly exposed to the fluctuation of the dollar as it is bound
to import most of its oil in this currency. This is a dilemma faced by many
other countries around the globe. Furthermore the Pakistani government,
which has taken substantial loans from the IMF in order to alleviate its fiscal
burdens, has to make its payments in US dollars. This comes to show how
the economic sovereignty of states has begun to waver and how one state
can influence the internal affairs of another state in this globalized world.
The most unavoidable and colossal features of this globalized world has been
the emergence of international organizations and global governance.
Globalization has lead such an immense convergence of ideas and beliefs
across borders that people soon realized the dire need for common
International laws. Organizations such as the United Nations backed by
nearly 193 member nations has the responsibility of codifying and ensuring
that the International law is adhered to by all member states. For a
proponent of the traditional concept of sovereignty the UN can be seen as a
platform where nation states may unite to impose their combined will on a
particular state and in due process undermine his right to self-determination.
Self-determination is a cardinal pillar of the sovereign state and international
organizations such as the UN pose as a serious threat to its future
application.
International organizations such as the WTO and the IMF are excellent
examples of the economic interference of international institutions. These
Breton Woods institutions, there is a clear confrontation of the struggle for
global economic openness versus sovereignty of individual state. In the WTO,
the majority of independent countries are either members or perspective
members. Its purpose is to open up the world market by removing trade
barriers, by creation of a multilateral trading system. The WTO favors the

free market approach in order to develop international businesses. It opposes

all protectionist policies of states that they may have through tariffs and
trades barriers, thus interfering with the right of self-determination of each
participant.4 On the other hand IMF grants loans to governments; however
these loans have certain stipulations which the state governments have to
adhere to. The stipulations require them to restructure their tax policies and
other economic policies in order to avail the loan. Although these loans may
prove to be beneficial for the state they are nothing less than an
encroachment of the sovereignty of the state in regards to dealing with its
internal affairs.
Another example may be international crediting-rating agencies such as
Moodys and Standard and Poor determine the credit worthiness of state
banks. A Country depends on the credit ratings provided by these private
companies which mirror the economic stability of the country. This shows
how such international private regimes have begun to influence states as
well. Transnational Multi-National Corporations (MNCs) cannot be overlooked
when we talk about the modern globalized world. These international
businesses have the ability to set norms and standards for domestic
industries as well as influence public policies in their favor. It can be said that
this highly globalized environment is proving to be extremely conducive for
these private economic actors (MNC) and public international actors (e.g.
EU,WTO, UN) which are slowly but surely diluting the sovereignty of states
with the passage of time.
The equality amongst states is another attribute of this concept of state
sovereignty and there are a plethora of instances when these international
organizations have failed to maintain the sanctity of this principle. The
United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is a committee responsible for
maintaining international peace based on the international laws and norms.
4http://skemman.is/stream/get/1946/1617/5238/1/Globalization_vs._State_Sovereig
nty_Constitutional_Rights_in_a_Crisis.pdf

This committee has five permanent members which are granted veto power
when it comes to making a decision. This violates yet another principle of
state sovereignty as it grants certain states greater power than others when
it comes to interfering with the international or domestic affairs of a state. It
allows stronger states the privilege of shaping the agenda of these
organizations in accordance with their own national interests. The U.S has
strong ties with the state of Israel which has violated international
humanitarian and territorial laws in Palestine on numerous occasions.
Throughout the history of the U.N the Americans have vetoed any ruling
against the acts of Israel in the region. The same inequality principle is
violated by the IMF through its discriminative system of voting. The loans
and grants endowed to states based on a weighted system of votes. A state
which has contributed more in the fund has a greater say in which state is
given financial assistance. This shows how economically stronger states can
influence economically weaker states through this carrot approach.
By the end of the twentieth century the nature of international conflicts
greatly changed. The increasing technological advancements coupled with
the globalization have led to a dispersal of advance weapons technology
throughout the world. Nuclear weapons have completely changed the
conception of wars which may result in the Mutually Assured Destruction
(MAD) of all involved parties. This also means that the spillover of a war is
bound to affect other countries as well. Therefore, in such a volatile and
sensitive situation arises the need for supranational organization such as the
IAEA which monitors the domestic nuclear activities of the states and ensure
that they conform to their regulations. On many occasions the UNSC has also
violated the right of self-determination for many countries aiming to acquire
nuclear technology on the pretext that it is a threat to global peace. In 2002,
when Iran announced it had two nuclear facilities under construction the
UNSC imposed stiff sanctions on them based on the non-compliance report
handed in by IAEA.

Another major point is the recognition of human rights in the international

society as global issue which supersedes international boundaries. Due to
globalization no state can remain in isolation from the rest of the world.
North Korea can be considered the only exception to this in the modern
world. It might be necessary for other states or international organizations to
intervene in a state that has the potential to be wiped off the earth, or is on
the verge of commit massive violations of human rights. The Universal
Declaration of Human that was signed by the U.N in 1948 arose from the
experience of the Second World War and reflects the concurrence of the
international community regarding the issue. In 1994, the genocide in
Rwanda is perfect of example where the protection of human rights was
overlooked by the international community in favor of preserving the
territorial integrity of the state. The meager U.N deployed force, UNAMIR was
not enough to prevent the atrocities carried out duing the civil war. The
disaster of Rwanda has become an lesson for the international community to
carry out before the fact humanitarian intervention in the future. So much
so that now other countries can even monitor and enforce human rights
treaties against a state for the treatment of its own citizens.
It is important to see the notion of state sovereignty as evolving one. When
this concept of state sovereignty was first introduced in 1648 the whole of
Europe had suffered a grueling war and the need for such a principle in
shaping future interstate relations was necessary to ensure peace. However,
with the passage of time globalization rendered this traditional form
inefficient. This could be seen in the two world wars of the twentieth century
which were brought to an end by the nuclear bomb in Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. As the era of rapid communication began there was a
dissemination of liberal ideas from the west and soon the world realized the
need for global cooperation in order to bear the fruits of this global village.
The WTO officials argue that sacrificing the short-term goals of protectionist
behavior brings benefits to the whole world, thus affecting all of its

members. Sovereignty can help protect a state from short-term economic

losses, such as unemployment in certain areas of professional work; but, it
brings in the benefits of international cooperation, thus increasing the
effectiveness of production of each individual member. Helen Milner,
political scientist from Stanford University, mentions that international
economic institutions, like the Bretton Woods institutions, constrain the
behavior of the most powerful countries and provide information and
monitoring capacities that enable states to cooperate,2 which further
supports the work of international economic institutions. The Westphalian
principles need to consider the point that, often times, giving up individual
interests results in greater long-term outcome, both for the international
community in overall, and for every player in particular. European Union is
another example where various European states have acknowledged the
phenomena of globalization and decided benefit from it in exchange for a
compromise on their sovereignty. They have forgone their economic
independence however they still have control over issues pertaining to
healthcare, education, culture and social policies. They have progressively
redefined their concept of state sovereignty and moved on to a system which
they see as much more efficient in the current globalized world order.
Economic globalization should be seen as conscious attempt by the states
through active participation in creating an optimal environment with
legislation, public policy and international treaties.5 Soon all states the will
realize the tradeoff between their state sovereignty and the benefits of
globalization and will introduce domestic and international policies which aim
to incorporate them in the international community.

5http://skemman.is/stream/get/1946/1617/5238/1/Globalization_vs._State_Sovereig
nty_Constitutional_Rights_in_a_Crisis.pdf

Bibliography
http://www.articlemyriad.com/relevance-westphalian-system-modern-worldsasha-safonova/
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1437&context=bjil
http://www.academia.edu/2945507/Is_Globalization_undermining_State_Sovereignty
http://skemman.is/stream/get/1946/1617/5238/1/Globalization_vs._State_Sovereignty_Consti
tutional_Rights_in_a_Crisis.pdf
http://www.khorasanzameen.net/rws/gb01e.pdf
http://www.globalization101.org/the-issue-of-sovereignty/

http://scholar.google.com.pk/scholar?
q=globalization+and+sovereignty&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=vexR
VOrZAcv9ygOI1YLwCg&sqi=2&ved=0CBgQgQMwAA