Legitimization and Effectiveness of Denationalization Term Paper

Excerpt from Term Paper :

" (Zurn, 2004)


Zurn (2004) states of GATT that this regime is a primary example of an international institution in the traditional sense in that the form of GATT regulation has three features, which are distinctive as follows:

1) the states are the ultimate and exclusive addressees of the regulation. They are issued with directives not to increase customs tariffs or to apply them in a discriminating way. The objective of the regulation is therefore to influence state behavior in order to solve the problem in question.

2) Such regulations take effect at the borders between states, and in this sense, they primarily constitute a form of interface management, regulating the transit of goods and bads out of one national society into another.

3) There exists a relatively high degree of certainty as to the effects of such regulations. The actors are able to make relatively precise, empirically sound predictions about the economic consequences of their tariffs. (Zurn, 2004)


According to Zurn's work in the present age of "societal denationalization and globalization" there are differing features of international institutions" and international regimes for overcoming the problems of the global environmental are such as the following:

1) the ultimate addressees of regulations issued by international institutions are largely societal actors. While the states act as intermediaries between the international institutions and the addressees, it is ultimately societal actors such as consumers and businesses who have to alter their behavior in order, say, to reduce CO2 or CFC emissions;

2) the new international institutions are no longer merely concerned with interface management. The reduction of pollutants requires regulations that take effect behind the national borders, within the national societies. In this sense, the international climate regime regulates behind-the-border issues, but the new international trade regime, with its focus on the prohibition of subsidization and overcoming discriminatory product regulations, has also developed in this direction. Equally, the measures of the Security Council of the United Nations have for some time now increasingly been directed at intrastate rather than interstate wars;

3) International institutions today are for the most part concerned with finding solutions to highly complex problems. There is therefore a high degree of uncertainty as to the ecological and economic consequences of, say, a particular climate regime. The same is true of other environmental regimes, but also financial agreements and regulations on product safety as well as security issues. (Zurn, 2004)

Zurn relates that the reason that the new quantity and quality of international institutions leads to a "relative rise in supranational and transnational institutional features" is found in three differing mechanisms as follows:

1) a high density of international institutions increasingly gives rise to collisions between different international regulations as well as between national and international ones. In such cases, a supranational arbitration body is a sensible means of settling differences. The dispute settlement procedure of the WTO for instance decides in case of a collision between WTO rules and domestic regulations as well in case of collision between environmental and trade goals, for instance with reference to the Codex Alimentarus. Furthermore, the increased complexity also gives rise to a greater need for independent dispute settlement bodies. The quantitative growth and the growing complexity of international institutions thus leads to an increased need for supranational components.

2) the significance of independent supranational and transnational institutional features also increases as the numbers of regimes grow that are concerned with behind -- the border issues and specify societal actors as the ultimate addressees. In such cases, verification problems become more complicated. The more difficult compliance and monitoring become, the greater the need for supranational and transnational agents to gather and provide reliable information on compliance rates. Hence, many international secretariats have the assignment to gather information about rule compliance and, at the same time, transnational NGOs, as for instance Amnesty International, are most active in this area; and 3) Finally, the growing need for international institutions to gather and distribute impartial knowledge and information on complex international problems also strengthens the trend towards supranationalization and transnationalization. The conferences and institutes created by the United Nations Environmental Program are good examples for this development. (Zurn, 2004)

Zurn relates that the traditional institutions were historically viewed as "...an international complement to a dominantly national paradigm..." However, the international institutions of today are stated to be "an expression of political denationalization." (2004) it is possible, according to Zurn to separate the transformation process into different stages as follows:

1) the first stage is characterized by an emerging trending towards supranationalization and transnationalization as the more or less 'unintended, indirect outcome of the sum of deliberate political responses to perceived functional demands on international institutions as a result of societal denationalization;

2) the process becomes 'reflexive in this stage and when actors in society and politics gain a comprehension of the changes their view settles on the features of a 'legitimate and effective political order beyond national borders'. According to Zurn, this is "where issues of transboundary identity and transboundary ethics are taken on board in their deliberations." (2004)


The work of Keohane and Nye entitled: "Power and Interdependence" made an introduction to the concept of 'complex interdependence'. Keohane and Nye are noted to have played a role that is dominant in the "early formation of this challenge" of an intellectual nature to Realist comprehension of International Relations. (Isiksal, 2004) Keohane and Nye state as one a basic assumption that in the "era of interdependence, the very nature of world politics is changing and Keohane and Nye provide "a means of distilling and joining the positions in both modernist and traditionalist perspectives by developing a coherent and theoretical framework for the political analysis of interdependence." (Isiksal, 2004) the world has become more interdependent in the area of economics as well as communications and human endeavors and the primary actors in this area are stated by Isiksal (2004) to be non-territorial actors and to include multinational corporations, international organizations, and transnational social movements." (Isiksal, 2004)

There are also issues of a multiple nature however with "no hierarchy and military concerns play relatively less importance." (Isiksal, 2004) it is within the context of these assumptions that Keohane and Nye discuss interdependence and they begin "by defining interdependence as a situation of mutual dependence where the loss of autonomy creates reciprocal costly benefits." (Isiksal, 2004) the goal of Keohane and Nye was the development of "a coherent theoretical framework that could explain the continuity and change in world politics in order to demonstrate the reality of interdependence in contemporary world politics." (Isiksal, 2004) Complex interdependence was defined by Keohane and Nye by three specific characteristics as follows:

1) the actors are states and non-state actors with multiple channels of communication; interstate, transgovernmental and transnational;

2) the agenda of interstate relationships consists of multiple issues that are not arranged in a clear or consistent hierarchy. In other words, there are multiple issues with no hierarchy; military security does not consistently dominate the agenda; and 3) Military force that plays a relatively minor role in international relations mainly because "it is not used by governments toward other governments within the region, or on the issues, when complex interdependence prevails." (Isiksal, 2004)

Resulting is a "distinctive political processes which translate power resources into power as control of the outcomes of the linkage strategies, agenda setting, transnational and transgovernmental relations." (Isiksal, 2004) There is no claim made in the work of Keohane and Nye that military power is insignificant in nature and they state the argument that military actions come at a high cost and that there has been an increase in these costs for the reasons as follows:

1) the first example is that nuclear weapons increase associated costs of conflict; and 2) Relative to cost three is no guarantee that military means will be more efficient than economic ones in achieving goals. (Isiksal, 2004)

Isiksal (2004) states that it is explained by Keohane and Nye the cost had four explanations:

1) There is a risk of nuclear escalation, 2) Negative effects on achievement of economic goals, 3) Domestic opposition to the human costs in the case of war; and 4) Peoples resistance in weak countries. (Isiksal, 2004)

It is related by Keohane and Nye that "...transnational actors would seek their own goals rather than a state-based desire. Consequently, international organizations would play significant role on setting the security agendas as also be voice of the weaker states." (Isiksal, 2004) it is also related by Keohane and Nye that institutions which are powerful and that possess powerful norms might "play a role that is similar to the states both domestically and internationally." (Isiksal, 2004) Stated by Isiksal (2004) is that the dynamics of the post-international politics "...along with security concerns cannot be simply explained by inter-state relationship or by the system that only states formed as main units. Instead, security concerns should be taken into…

Cite This Term Paper:

"Legitimization And Effectiveness Of Denationalization" (2008, October 27) Retrieved August 17, 2017, from

"Legitimization And Effectiveness Of Denationalization" 27 October 2008. Web.17 August. 2017. <

"Legitimization And Effectiveness Of Denationalization", 27 October 2008, Accessed.17 August. 2017,