Globalisation Essay

Do processes of ‘globalisation’ undermine the capacity of states/governments to act independently?


In attempting to answer the question about the nature of the processes of globalisation on states/governments capacity to act independently I will initially outline my definition of ‘globalisation’ and explain briefly why it is such a contentious concept. I will then explain the normative understanding of national sovereignty within the traditional ‘Westphalian’ system and its inherent contradictions within our modern ‘globalised’ world. Whilst concentrating particularly on economic and political globalisation I will argue that these do put pressure on states capacity to act independently and change the nature of national sovereignty. This leads to the conclusion that we have moved into a post-Westphalian system that changes, but not eliminates, state sovereignty and in turn the capacity for states/governments to act independently. This new system also creates problems with a ‘double democratic deficit’ and the impact of globalisation on states capacity to act being asymmetric along traditional ‘distorted’ global political lines.


Globalisation itself ‘has become a deeply controversial issue.[1]’ Even in modern Politics literature it has been described as ‘slippery and elusive[2]’ concept because ‘it is not a single process but a complex of processes, sometimes overlapping and interlocking processes but also, at times, contradictory and oppositional ones.[3]’ A more simplistic explanation of Globalisation is that it is ‘the process of increasing interconnectedness between societies such that events in one part of the world more and more have effects on peoples and societies far away.[4]’ That definition suggests that Globalisation must have been in development for some time already but I would suggest that it is the rate of the acceleration, deepening, stretching and thickening of this process that exemplifies this phenomenon.


The state has had a privileged position ever since the ‘Peace Treaties of Westphalia (1648) established the legal basis of modern statehood and by implication the constitution of modern world politics.[5]’ The aim was to ensure ‘agreement amongst Europe’s rulers to recognise each other’s right to rule their own territories free from outside interference.[6]’ It was only in more recent time that ‘sovereign statehood and with it national self-determination finally acquired the status of universal organising principals of world politics.[7]’ This evolution ‘welded together the idea of territoriality with the notion of legitimate sovereign rule’ and this sovereignty involved ‘the rightful entitlement to exclusive, unqualified and supreme rule within a delimited territory.[8]’


It is these established ideals of sovereign power as exclusive, unqualified and supreme control of everything within the state that are the antithesis of globalisation. As ex-US President Clinton noted the “line between domestic and foreign policy is blurring.[9]” This blurring is linked to globalisation because of the ‘growth of ‘superterritorial’ relations between people, a reconfiguration of social space in which territory matters less because an increasing range of connections have a ‘trans-world’ or ‘trans-border’ character.[10]’
Globalisation comes in many forms but I believe that two key areas highlight the effects these processes are having on state independence are predominantly economic globalisation and political globalisation.


Economic Globalisation can be summed up as ‘a shift from a world of distinct national economies to a global economy in which production is internationalised and financial capital flows freely and instantly between countries.[11]’ With this comes ’the reduced capacity of national governments to manage their economies and, in particular, to resist their restructuring along free-market lines.[12]’ Multinational corporations can exercise power over national governments by ‘relocating capital and production elsewhere’ if they do not like a particular policy ensuring developing-world states provide ‘cheap labour and low production costs without being able to oblige them to make a long-term investment.[13]’ The rate in which this economic globalisation is developing ‘far outstrips that of political globalisation[14]’ so the current global governance systems are unable to control this economic globalisation to retain Westphalian state sovereign power.


Political Globalisation is illustrated by ‘the growing importance of international organisations[15]’ that are trans-national, so operate, ‘not within a single state, but within an international area comprising several states.[16]’ From the European Union to the World Bank, the United Nations or Amnesty international they all try to compete and develop their functions within the global community. With international organisations that recognise the principles of inter-governmentalism a state can ‘take concerted action without sacrificing national sovereignty’ but with some supra-national organisations like, for example, the European Union have ‘an authority that is ‘higher’ than that of the nation–state and [is] capable of imposing its will on it.[17]’ With political globalisation we have the inherent problem that our recognition of, and emphasis on, autonomous nation states is at odds with the expansion of contemporary economic and cultural globalisation. When a modern state becomes ‘embedded in frameworks of global and regional governance [they] confront a real dilemma… state autonomy is compromised.[18]’


The Westphalian concept of ‘exclusive, unqualified and supreme rule within a delimited territory’ mentioned earlier has been left behind. A new post-Westphalian order has developed where states ‘engage in extensive multilateral collaboration and cooperation[19]’ and ’sovereignty is understood as the shared exercise of public power and authority.[20]’ Borders are still important but territoriality is being subordinated by ‘a new geography of organization and political power is emerging which transcends territories and borders.[21]’ Sovereign power in this new order has been ‘transformed but not necessarily eroded[22]’ it is now uses it ‘as a bargaining tool, in the context of transnational systems of rule making, with other agencies and social forces.[23]’


These changes in the global order have an effect on the independence and accountability of national governments and increased the importance of international organisations thus creating a ‘double democratic deficit.’ Modern Post-Westphalian states have a ‘reduced capacity…to manage their economies’ so therefore reduced capacity to express the will of their electorate. Furthermore we have seen that ‘economic activity increasingly pays little attention to national borders’ but that ‘politics continues to operate largely within in them’ this happens with ‘the international organisations that do exist being too weak to call global capitalism to account.[24]’ There is also a democratic deficit within global organisations, there are over 200 members of the United Nations but ‘issues of international peace and security are determined by only 15 members.., of whom only five can exercise a power of veto.[25]’


Modern global politics should more accurately be called ’distorted global politics’ and this has implications on the relative effects on sovereignty between stronger and weaker nation states. Stronger nations are able to ‘shape the rules and institutions[26]’ of global politics due to ‘enormous inequalities of power between states.[27]’ Weak states alternatively ‘have little or no influence in the creation and enforcement of rules in the system and they have exercised little control over their own integration into the world economy.[28]’ The effect globalisation has on weaker states is therefore greater because they cannot, like stronger states, ‘guard with equal ferocity their independence in economic, foreign policy, human rights and security issues.[29]’

My conclusions are that ‘state sovereignty has been a defining characteristic of international politics for three hundred and fifty years[30]’ but the processes of globalisation mean ‘events in one part of the world more and more have effects on peoples and societies far away’ and thus reduce the capacity for independent action. It is clear that processes of globalisation have changed the nature of state sovereignty and reduce the capacity of nation states to act truly independently. In keeping with ‘distorted’ global politics the processes of globalisation undermine the independence of more powerful nations less because they get to retain more autonomy and have more influence to shape the global governance organisations Globalisation has created a post-Westphalian global order where it is harder for states/governments to exercise tradition independence and instead live in a world of increased interconnectedness and interdependence that favours more powerful states and leads people to ask serious questions about the implications of the inequalities between nations and the democratic credentials of this current world order.

Sebastian O’Brien December 2006





[1] Andrew Heywood, Politics, Second Edition, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, page 140
[2] Andrew Heywood, Politics, Second Edition, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, page 137
[3] Ibid
[4] John Bayliss and Steve Smith, The Globalization of World Politics, Third Edition, Oxford University Press, page 8
[5] John Bayliss and Steve Smith, The Globalization of World Politics, Third Edition, Oxford University Press, page 29
[6] ibid
[7] ibid
[8] John Bayliss and Steve Smith, The Globalization of World Politics, Third Edition, Oxford University Press, page 30
[9] ibid
[10] Andrew Heywood, Politics, Second Edition, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, page 137
[11] Andrew Heywood, Politics, Second Edition, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, page 139
[12] Ibid
[13] Andrew Heywood, Politics, Second Edition, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, page 43
[14] ibid
[15] Andrew Heywood, Politics, Second Edition, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, page 139
[16] ibid
[17] Andrew Heywood, Politics, Second Edition, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, page 148
[18] John Bayliss and Steve Smith, The Globalization of World Politics, Third Edition, Oxford University Press, page 33
[19] ibid
[20] ibid
[21] John Bayliss and Steve Smith, The Globalization of World Politics, Third Edition, Oxford University Press, page 35
[22] ibid
[23] John Bayliss and Steve Smith, The Globalization of World Politics, Third Edition, Oxford University Press, page 33
[24] Andrew Heywood, Politics, Second Edition, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, page 143
[25] John Bayliss and Steve Smith, The Globalization of World Politics, Third Edition, Oxford University Press, page 198
[26] John Bayliss and Steve Smith, The Globalization of World Politics, Third Edition, Oxford University Press, page 340
[27] John Bayliss and Steve Smith, The Globalization of World Politics, Third Edition, Oxford University Press, page 35
[28] John Bayliss and Steve Smith, The Globalization of World Politics, Third Edition, Oxford University Press, page 341
[29] ibid
[30] John Bayliss and Steve Smith, The Globalization of World Politics, Third Edition, Oxford University Press, page 60