Denationalization and security provision in OECD nations

Legitimization and Effectiveness of Denationalization Processes

The work of Zangl and Zurn entitled: "The Effects of Denationalization on Security in the OECD World" published by the Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies" states: "Denationalization can partly explain not only the outstanding and unprecedented success with which nation states in the OECD world are today able to provide external defense and ensure the rule of law, but also their growing inability to adequately secure their legitimate monopoly of force and to provide sufficient internal protection. This transformation in the provision of security by states within the OECD world has far-reaching consequences for international politics." (1998) the work of Perez (2006) entitled: "The Internationalization of Lawmaking Processes: Constraining or Empowering the Executive?" relates the suggestion that "globalization and the proliferation of international regimes have contributed to constrain the executive power, compromising state sovereignty."

I. DENATIONALIZATION

Denationalization or to 'denationalize' is defined as "...to divest of national character or rights" and "to remove from ownership or control by the national government" (Merriam-Webster, 2008) the work of Paul van Seters entitled "Communitarianism and Law" states "Political parties may have many prudent reasons to avoid Europeanization and denationalization of their rivalry in the public sphere. It involves the risk of party schism, the loss of political capital of older generations of leaders and activists, a struggle for power between politicians of large states and politicians of small states, an increase of transaction costs of politics and costs of campaigning, basic uncertainty about the relation between loss of old constituencies and gain of new ones, the danger of artificial divisiveness regarding European policies, and the familiar dark side of international public associations (lack of engagement, corruption, bureaucratization, irresponsibility in financial and economic matters, and hypocrisy in legal and moral matters)." (2005) According to van Setters the communitarian case for European integration."..seems weak. On the one hand, communitarian philosophers and social scientists argue that the European scale is too large to engender common values and norms in society and coherent laws and policies in politics. On the other hand, historians and experts in comparative studies argue that the European Union is neither a community nor a state but a joint venture of governments for control of state rule and national passion in an expanding region. Member states may represent real communities in the spirit of representative and participatory democracy. But they cannot create an overarching community of communities, neither by democratic means nor by authoritarian ones." (Van Seters, 2005)

II. FORMATION of NEW INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

Zurn writes in the work entitled: "Global Governance and Legitimacy Problems" that while the traditional institutional norms were previously viewed as "an international complement to a dominantly national paradigm, today's international institutions are an expression of political denationalization. The new international institutions are much more intrusive into national societies than the traditional ones." (2004) Stated as the reason is the containment of "supranational and transnational features" which are increasingly undermining the "consensus principle of international cooperation." (Zurn, 2004) When these changes are comprehended by society and political actors, they then "begin to reflect on the features of a legitimate and effective political order beyond national borders." (Zurn, 2004) the result is stated to be that denationalization "...becomes reflexive and thus politicized." (Zurn, 2004) Simultaneously, "the politicization of international politics harbors the potential for resistance to political denationalization, which increases the need...for the legitimation of such international institutions." (Zurn, 2004) Zurn relates that in normative terms there exists an agreement that is broad in nature and that holds that the "functioning of international institutions such as the WTO or the UN does not meet democratic standards." (2004)

III. DEMOCRATIC DEFICITS

Stated as 'democratic deficits' are:

1) the lack of identifiable decision-makers who are directly accountable for wrong decisions-making processes and thus the advantage the executive decision-makers have over others in terms of information;

2) the prime actors in international politics (multinational business and the superpowers) are at best only accountable to a fraction of the people affected by their activities;

3) Most deficits cannot easily be remedied because the democratic majority decisions depend 'in descriptive terms' and 'at least partially' on "a political community built on trust and solidarity." (Zurn, 2004)

In relation to the 'descriptive perspective' or in relation to 'societal acceptance' the democratic deficit of international institutions was viewed for an extended time as "a purely academic problem" however there has been a shift in focus accompanied by "massive protests, partly violent, at major meetings of international institutions" such as that in Seattle and Genoa and including at EU summit talks (Nice, Gothenburg) and as well that has been noted to be a rise in the "right-wing populist tirades against the EU and other international institutions." (Zurn, 2004) Zurn notes that in the United States, "objections by national parliaments...to international agreements..." (Zurn, 2004)

Zurn relates that taking activities of other states under consideration has been the only manner in which states have been able to achieve their political goals entirely since states "only actually became states by being acknowledged as such by other states, and the territorial integrity of a state was unquestionably influenced by the expansionary plans of neighboring states." (Zurn, 2004) From this view states interdependence is "a constitutive characteristics of the modern state system." (Zurn, 2004)

IV the SPREAD of INDUSTRIALIZATION

Zurn relates that as industrialization spread in the 19th century that the interdependence "extended into the economic and thus societal sphere" and that the international system of states was "for a long time...unable to cope with the interdependence of societies and the increase of transborder externalities." (Zurn, 2004) One example provided is that it has been demonstrated by economic historians that "the world economic crisis of 1929 was not a direct consequence of the so-called Black Friday, but in fact brought about by the reaction of the major trading nations to the sudden fall in stock-market prices." (2004) the reaction from states with economic importance was to increase their customs tariffs and devaluation of their currencies in order to protect their own economy from the crisis. The result was a breakdown in world trade in total and the Great Depression. (Zurn, 2004; paraphrased) Since the ending of World War II the western world has been stated to have been able to "turn economic interdependence to their advantage..." And that this success "can be attributed to the international institutions established after World War II under the leadership of the U.S.A., and of which the economic institutions were of particular significance." (Zurn, 2004) Zurn notes the international trade regime (GATT) as well as the regimes, which regulate currency and financial affairs and their creation of "an institutional framework without which the world-wide post-war economic boom would not have been possible." (2004) it is related that embedded liberalism was the facilitator of "relatively unrestrained economic trade among all industrial countries, but still left room for different national political and societal structures." (Zurn, 2004) According to Zurn the challenges that nation-states face in their attempt to accomplished their goals in governance "do not...directly translate into the 'fall' or 'retreat of the nation-state'." (2004) While the challenges are often serious in nature the outcome is for the greatest part determined "by political responses to them and not to the challenges themselves." (Zurn, 2004)

V. RESPONDING to GLOBALIZATION'S CHALLENGES

There are various ways that governments and other political organizations can provide response to globalization's challenges and Zurn states that the most frequent of all responses is "the establishment of international institutions." (2004) Therefore, it is held by Zurn that "embedded liberalism has a dynamic of its own: the growing numbers of international institutions since World War II has made national borders less significant for societal transactions (societal denationalization) and this in turn has led to an increase in the number and political scope of international institutions (political denationalization)." (Zurn, 2004) the economic policies were in the beginning under the guidance of the Bretton Woods institutions however, in the ongoing political denationalization these institutions have "become involved in a whole range of conceivable policy areas." (Zurn, 2004) the international institutions in the present delve deeply into the national systems while historically they granted a large degree of autonomy to the national political systems.

VI. INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS & the 'NEW QUALITY'

There has been a growth in the numbers of international agreements between governments growing from 15,000 in 1960 to more than 55,000 in 1997 and Zurn states that "a similar growth rate is measured in the annual ratification of multilateral treaties." (2004) These growth rates falling just short of "central globalization indicators" and exceeding growth rates in national legislation are in the primary areas of international economic and international environmental policy however there has also been a great deal of growth in the areas of both security and human rights policy. Accompanying the "increase in international agreements" is "a growing intensity in transgovernmental relations through the building up of networks among various national state authorities such as regulatory bodies, courts, executive bodies and also, increasingly, legislatives in different countries." (Zurn, 2004)

VII. GATT

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)

IX. COMPLEX INTERDEPENDENCE

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 the consideration with multi-actors and different subsystems." (Isiksal, 2004)

SUMMARY & CONCLUSION

This work has related that complex interdependence has the characteristics including that in which the actors are states as well as non-state actors and that inclusive is multiple communication channels including that of the interstate, transgovernmental and transnational communication channels. Another characteristic of complex interdependence is that the interstate relationships agenda is comprised by multiple issues with no clear or consistent hierarchy and military security is not dominant in the agenda. Finally, the military force's role is one that is minor in nature in terms of international relations because governments do not use military force toward other governments in the region or due to the issues at hand in an environment where complex interdependence is in place. Denationalization has been shown to be at least partially the reason that nation states in the OECD have succeeded in the provision of external defense as well as ensuring the rule of law. However, these nation states have been limited in securing their "legitimate monopoly of force" and in making provision of "sufficient internal protection." This has been related to be far reaching in terms of political consequences at the international level. It is held that globalization in combination with international regime proliferation have facilitated the constrainment of executive power resulting in a compromise of the sovereignty of the nation states. Political rivalry is accredited for the avoidance of 'Europeanization and denationalization" because the inherent risks are loss of political capital that older generations have possessed" and this results in a struggle for power between the large states and the political parties of small states and ultimately increases costs associated with political transactions and campaigning costs.

International institutions have different features that result in problems in overcoming globalization and which include the fact that regulations are addressed by societal actors and as well the new international institutions are not concerned with management of the interface because an actual reduction in agents of pollution makes a requirement that regulations be effective behind national borders and within the societies at the national level. Thirdly, the greatest concern of international institutions is presently identification of solutions to problems that are high complex in nature. Zurn has informed this study that three different mechanisms results in a rise in the features of the supranational and transnational institution: (1) a high density of international institutions resulting in collisions between international regulations that are different from international regulations; (2) the significant independent supranational and transnational institution features gives rise as the numbers of regimes proliferate that are focused on "behind the border" issues and in which societal actors are specified as the "ultimate addresses." (2004) This results in more complicated compliance and monitoring and verification. Last, the need for international institutions to "gather and distribute impartial knowledge and information on complex international problems" makes the trending toward supranationalization and transnationalization stronger. (Zurn, 2004) International institutions today are an "expression of political denationalization." (Zurn, 2004) the transformation involves three specific phases and the first of which is identified by the emergence and trend of supranationalization and transnationalization. Secondly, the process transforms into one that is reflexive and in which comprehension on the level of society and politics is within the realm of "a legitimate and effective political order" that reaches beyond national borders.