This means that the states have a certain amount of sovereignty, but not complete autonomy to simply do as they wish. States are free to adopt their own laws, but they must do so within the confines of the larger body. The key reason for this level of global awareness stems from advances in technology that make it possible. Let us once again simplify things. People were limited to local villages by a lack of transportation that allowed them to engage in trade with other communities. As technology advanced, they were able to travel larger distances and increase their world. Now we have reached the point where we are no longer limited by technology in our ability to communicate, travel and conduct commerce anywhere in the world. Even remote islands can stay globally connected through technology. Globalization is just the next step in integration due to the ability do so. This brings us to our final conclusion.
The development of the United States and the Civil War resulted in a new definition of sovereignty. If one compares the philosophy that arose in the United States to that of feudal England it appears that there are different levels of sovereignty. Once could consider feudal England to be a case of complete sovereignty of the King over the local peasants. However, the Civil War proved that complete state sovereignty and complete unity cannot exist side by side. The end result was a case where the Federal law still has sovereignty over state law, but the states do have some form of sovereignty and self-determination. One could consider this case one of "limited sovereignty." The states have the rights of self-determination, but only within the limits allowed by Federal law.
Let us consider the recent argument over homosexual marriage. This is an issue that re-hashes many of the issues that were present during the Civil War. However, it is no longer an all or nothing arrangement. Some states decided to recognize the civil union between homosexuals as a legal union. However, some states still consider the only legal union to be one between a man and a woman. The acceptance of homosexual marriage in some states led to them becoming a haven for homosexuals that wish to marry. If these persons did not agree with the laws of their state, they were free to move to a location where the laws were more compatible with their beliefs and desires. This is a case of state sovereignty.
The real question in this case is the adoption of federal laws regarding this issue. At the time of the state adoption of laws allowing homosexual marriage, there were no known federal laws that deal with the issue. The debate has become one of sovereignty. There are those that wish to adopt legislation banning or promoting homosexual marriage on a Federal level. There are others that feel that federal government should stay out of it and allow the states to decide the issue for themselves, called deregulation. If Federal legislation is adopted, then the individual states will have to change their laws to comply with it. If the states are allowed to retain control, then the states will have to decide the issue themselves, but are completely free to do so. This issue has become central in the sovereignty argument.
Matter of Degree
If one examines the arguments for sovereignty thus far, one thing should be apparent. The individual represents the lowest level of a hierarchy that extends to a larger and larger body of society. Each level is subjugated by the next higher level. We are members of societies within societies. The first level is that of the family. Our family is a member of the community. The community is a member of the county or parish. The county is a member of the state and the states are a member of the nation. The nation is a part of the global community. All of the arguments made in the previous section can be applied as nations make a conscious effort to become one nation.
We have demonstrated that one cannot have complete sovereignty and complete unification on the same level of society at the same time without conflict (Nye, 2004). Each subsequently lower level can only have a limited amount of sovereignty. It cannot make laws that contradict the larger body of society above it. This make a strong case that sovereignty is not complete, unless one happens to be at the top level. We can talk about "degrees" or "levels" of sovereignty at the lower level, but we cannot achieve complete sovereignty by its strictest definition.
Globalization is simply the addition of another level of ...
Thus far, we have examined the idea of sovereignty from many different standpoints. From a human rights standpoint, we have found that the individual has certain rights that are considered inherent with our simply being alive. However, we have also found that at times these individual rights were violated. We found that in order to understand sovereignty, we first had to define the various levels of society within which we must exist. We found that the ideals of the different levels of society cannot conflict. We found that there are different levels of sovereignty and that a state, or nation state, can have greater sovereignty when issues do not concern the larger governing body. In issues that create concern for the larger body, the individual state or nation will have sovereignty that is restricted by the boundaries set by the larger body.
If one examines the laws governing the nations that are part of the United Nations they will find that the terms of sovereignty and self-determination of the nations are clearly defined (Bayfesky, 2000). It would appear that the larger body has the right to determine how much sovereignty the lower body is allowed. The same can be found in the limits set on the individual by society. We have laws to prevent theft, murder, and harm to others. The individual is not simply allowed to do as they wish to another. This is similar to the relationship between various nations and the newly emerging set of Global governance.
The original premise of this research was that globalization will result in reductions of the sovereignty of nations. It is difficult to make a case that nations will be able to retain complete sovereignty and complete unity at the same time. As we found, these two principals cannot coexist. Globalization must result in a loss of sovereignty to some degree if unity is to be achieved. Nations will have to give up some control for the greater good. However, how much they must give up largely depends on how different their laws are currently from international standards. Those that already have laws that are close to international laws will not feel as greater loss of sovereignty as those that have laws that differ from the larger body. It is all a matter of degree, but no matter how one chooses to look at it, globalization cannot happen without at least some loss of sovereignty on a national level.
Bayefsky, Anne F., ed. 2000. The UN Human Rights Treaty System in the 21st Century. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
Brooks, S. And Wohlforth, W. 2002. American Primacy in Perspective. Foreign Affairs,
July/August 2002. 81: 21-33.
Donnelly, J. 2006. State Sovereignty and Human Rights. Accessed January 12, http://www.du.edu/~jdonnell/papers/hrsov%20v4a.htm.
Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations, 2nd edition, London: Sage Publications.
Kay, S. 2005. Globalization, Power, and Security. Security Dialogue, 35 (1): 11.
Nye, J. 2004. Understanding International Conflicts: An Introduction to Theory and History, 5th ed, New York: Longman, p. 37.
Senarclens, P. 2003. The Politics of Human Rights. In The Globalization of Human Rights, edited by J.-M. Coicaud, M.W. Doyle and A.-M. Gardner. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
Steinberger, H. 2000. Sovereignty. In Encyclopedia of Public International Law, edited by R. Bernhardt. Amsterdam: North-Holland Elsevier.
Vayrynen, R. 2001. Sovereignty, globalization and transnational social movements.
International Relations of the Asia-Pacific; 2001:227-246.
Weissbrodt, D. And Kruger, M. 2003. Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations…
The key reason for this level of global awareness stems from advances in technology that make it possible. Let us once again simplify things. People were limited to local villages by a lack of transportation that allowed them to engage in trade with other communities. As technology advanced, they were able to travel larger distances and increase their world. Now we have reached the point where we are no longer limited by technology in our ability to communicate, travel and conduct commerce anywhere in the world. Even remote islands can stay globally connected through technology. Globalization is just the next step in integration due to the ability do so. This brings us to our final conclusion.
That said, Goodhart believes that global governance, if pushed too far into sovereign nations' doings, can in fact undermine popular sovereignty as "a viable conception of democracy" but it is not doing that and in fact, in a globalized world that is increasingly interdependence needs a new kind of democracy. The new sovereigntists' views are normative while Goodhart's are more along the lines o positivism. Basically, Goodhart argues that
Globalization arguably began even before Marco Polo’s expeditions, possibly being traceable to Alexander the Great’s establishment of overland routes between Eastern Europe and India. The assumption that globalization equals Americanization is profoundly arrogant, and is also ignorant of the history, meaning, and implications of globalization. Globalization implies integration and interdependence of the world. Predating the United States of America, globalization nevertheless reached a peak in the 20th century, when a
Globalization The term "globalization" is a debatable one. Some view globalization as a process that is beneficial -- fundamental to future world economic development -- and also inevitable and irreversible (IMF, 2000). Others regard it with hostility, and sometimes fear, arguing that it increases inequality within and between nations, threatens employment and living standards and disturbs social progress. This paper offers an overview of some aspects of globalization and aims to
Globalization=Western Imperialism Modern science and all the various process that are involved with the modernization process evolved because of the progress made by the western countries and the progress made in the field of science, medicine and the notions held in respect of human rights and liberty. There are several sections of individuals who state that dissatisfaction that people seem to have is that they are troubled with their daily life.
Thus, globalization may have several drivers, factors, and aspects that may pose challenges to a nations strength, power and sovereignty. There may be strong influences from private entities, TNCs and MNCs for the government of a nation-state to formulate policies beneficial to these groups. Then there are the international monetary agencies such as the World Bank and IMF whose policies also undermine governments. All these are strong influences to
For instance the World Trade Organization reports having "allowed First World countries to raise trade barriers protecting their companies, even as we have served as their forum for insisting that Third World countries lower their trade barriers more and more." (WTO, The truth is that if richer nations were to open their markets to the LDC countries for increase opportunities of export, generated would be approximately $700 billion in additional