The notion of state sovereignty in today’s world cannot hold its ability as a result of globalisation. The Sovereign states in the previous year’s known, globalisation has successfully eroded that idea. The main impact of globalisation can be seen in the changing approaches of ‘sovereign states’ when dealing with global changes. There are many factors that are made by globalisation which are known to be breaking up the sovereign state some factors such as the push for protection of human rights and also the influences of non-government organisations.
There's a specialist from your university waiting to help you with that essay.
Tell us what you need to have done now!
order now
The global push to bring out the universal agreement to human rights that was conducted after the world war two had seen the creation of the United Nations carter and the establishment of non-government organisations, which in the end signified the erosion of state sovereignty.
Haass (2006) looks at sovereignty and globalisation and he argues that the United Carter is based on a contradiction, which tries to encourage the rights and movement towards self determination and individuals and groups and at the same time supports state sovereignty and territory. In effect the movement towards human rights and equality weakens the influence of sovereign states in order to allow individual rights throughout every state. Haass (2006) also claims that the making of Non-government organisations that was created to promote human rights for example Amnesty International has influence on limiting that actions of the state in various ways.
By having the support of Non-government organisations this allows the United State to interpret Human Rights Charter in result to support individuals rather than upholding the state sovereignty. Through this we are able to see that the globalisation of Human Rights that is fuelled by the influence of NGO’s has significant effect on the concept state sovereignty.
Agnew (2009) has a look at globalisation and sovereignty and he suggest that globalisation does not provide protections for the state but it increases the ease of movement across nations. The ease of goods, diseases, cultures, drugs, and weapons that travel across borders show that the end of sovereign states is necessary to deal with the consequence of globalisation.
The influence of the World Trade Organisation also suggests the transformation of state sovereignty as a result of globalisation. Governments must meet with the regulations that are set out by the WTO in order to maintain alliance and benefits on an international trading spectrum.
Sassen (1996) looks at how the state is losing control and sovereignty in an age of globalisation. He says that in order for states to maintain defence and protection for themselves the sovereignty must be weakened.
States are also reasserting power due to the effects of GFC by globalisation. The global economy is in rapid decline with GFC.
It is shown that globalisation in the contemporary world has had great impact on the foundations of ‘state sovereignty’. State are not able to deal with international issues anymore without considering diverse factors which have appeared through the current globalised world.
References:
Agnew.A.J, 2009, “Globalization and Sovereignty”, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc, America.
Haass.N.R, 2006, “Sovereignty and Globalisation”, the council on foreign relations, America.
Sassen.S, 1996, “losing control? Sovereignty in an age of globalization”, Columbia University Press, America.
Question Nine: How is global politics affected by culture and Nationalism?
Culture and nationalism allows nations and individuals that are alike to stand together under similar ideologies, beliefs, customs and social norms. Nationalism also allows particular nation states to succeed for self-determination based on their history. On the other hand culture and nationalism are also significant in global conflict due to the overall rations between nations.
Throughout history the effect of culture and nationalism on global politics can be traced. An important example of the effects of strong cultural identity and nationalistic pride is shown through the occurrence of World War One.
Calhoun (2006) looks at Nationalism in the new world and points out that nationalism is an upcoming problem in global politics. The attempt to keep cultural ideals, nationalism is seen as the reason why there is growing conflicts in the contemporary world. Calhoun also points out that certainly ethnic conflicts and war are worsened by the mentioned ideologies.
Nationalism and culture have shown to play a significant role in producing domestic policies such as tax, illegal immigrants, power and also relations between nations. The development of the state power has been strongly shown to be motivated by nationalistic and cultural beliefs on both domestic and international fields.
Smith (2003) looks at the relationship between “kinship and ethnicity” and also nationalism as a key notion in modern day politics and decision making. The concept that Smith puts forward is further supported by Calhoun (2006), in the idea that national boundaries and identities are important to understand the contemporary world. Nationalism and cultural identity are applied by the world leaders and government policy makers to influence and approve decision making. Territorial claims of nation states by world leaders such as Palestinians, Israeli’s and Eritrea can be seen to use nationalism as justification for their actions.
There are many problems seen in some states when small national groups have the feeling that they are not shown or their civil rights are not contained by the state for example the Kurds and Tibetans they seek for their own state which is refused to be accepted by their dominant state.
In the twenty first century it is believed that Muslim countries will continue to change and it is shown that there are already a different variety of political, economical, social differences shown between some Muslim states for example the more wealthy countries such as Dubai have developed.
References:
Barnett.T.P.M, 2009, “Great Powers: America and the World after Bush”, G.P.Putnam’s Sons, America.
Question Two: What were the key developments of the post-cold war era?
The post cold war era saw a great change in the spread of ideologies as well as changes to governance of great world powers. Since the Cold-war era there has been additional unsteadiness that has formed in developing countries for example Asia, and also the Islamic terrorism and the US-led ‘war on terror’ which involved Afghanistan and Iraq.
The end of the cold was a very big historical turning point as measured by changes in the international system, the nation state and the international organizations. The Term cold car is referred to as the period of the US which changed over the period of 1945-89. The end of the cold war saw the creation of the United States as the single great world power. America had become the superpower of the world, this allowed for the spread of democracy across the western world. This resulted in the wide spread of capitalism and with an increase in economic growth. However, into the twenty first century changes to the power of America have occurred. Barnett (2009) indicates that there are emerging states of great powers across the globe this may include China, Japan or even Brazil. He points out that China’s vast growing population as well as its great influence on trade, is a great challenge to America as a great power and recognises the USA’s powers significant end.
The GFC had also been seen as a big crisis for the US economy because it was moving up the level of unemployment.
The fall of the Berlin Wall was also seen to be significant. The Berlin Wall divided Germany from its capital city, and it was knocked down because Germany was separated from political views so they knocked down the Berlin wall to make Germany one.
There has also been the formation of the European Union (EU).
In 1990’s poverty remained a reality for the majority of people, the end of the cold war produced contradictory results in the less developed countries.
