Globalization and Decline of State

Realism has dominated international relations theory since emerging in the 1930’s. The era of state conflict lasting from the 1930’s to the end of the cold war in 1947, proved the perfect hostile environment to fit the largely pessimistic view of world politics. While many aspects of realism are still alive in International Relations today; including the dominant presence of states, intrinsic of war and the decentralised government. However, realism only reaches so far in explaining and creating a structure for international relations. Whilst the strengths of the theory lie in its pragmatic approach to power politics and conflict. However, the realist view is weakened by changes in the way that conflict is fought, the ineffectiveness of the balance of power model and the increasing global and interconnected world. Thus, using realism as a structure to explain international relations today is to some extent, a theory of the past.

‘Globalization: What’s new? What’s not? (And so what)’, portrays the speed in which globalism has increased through many different factors; economically, military, environmentally and socially. This is an idealist analytic approach, not set in stone. This leads on to

For Realism in particular, this criticism is primarily focused on its state-centric approach. One of Realism’s main assertions is that the states are best unit of analysis (John, 132). Critical Theorists believe that in the context of Globalization, this view is “increasingly problematic” (Beck, 463). According to Ulrich Beck, the “mistakes of the national perspective are recognizable to the extent that boundaries have become permeable and interdependences, which transcend all borders, are growing exponentially” (463). Realists continue to analyze (only) the State, despite mounting evidence that the state may not always be the most influential actor. By focusing so much on the Nation-state, and discounting the role of Globalization, Realism fails to account for large-scale transformation. In other words, Realism “is a kind of political irrealism because it neglects the possibility and reality of a second ‘Great Transformation’ of the global power game” (Beck 457). It believes that the world will stay as it currently is forever.

According to constructivism “The world of international relations is not just the world of material capabilities and materialistic opportunities it is also a social world”. Constructivists believe that actor states are occupied with both normative and material factors. They do not deny that the material world shapes their structure, but they believe that through reflections and discourse, actor states are malleable and influenced by each other. Constructivism thus deals with the process through which principled ideals become social norms. In being so, constructivism becomes a critical component for the international recognition of a state. This becomes crucial for actors, as the internationalization of social norms will ensure compliance over external pressure. Thus, democracy promotion can be subsumed under the socialization and internalization by actors. The persistence of democratic international institutions after the cold war as well as the mass identification of states as democracies and the absence of a strong alternative political ideology have contributed to a process of socialization promoting democratic cooperation. Therefore, after the Cold

The era of globalization has witnessed the growing influence of a number of unconventional international actors, from non-governmental organizations, to multi-national corporations, to global political movements. Traditional, state-centric definitions of foreign policy

Globalization, a contested concept among leading theorists in its definition, chronology, and measurement of effects, is almost certainly of a multidimensional nature if such theorists’ perspectives are all taken equally into consideration. The broad phenomenon of globalization can therefore be scrutinised more closely by separation and analysis of individual dimensions, such as its political, economic, cultural and ecological dimensions. This approach, while allowing for a more focused examination of the causes and effects of globalization within a single dimension, serves to highlight the interconnectedness of each dimension. The following essay will expose the complex interconnection between the political, economic and cultural

The influence of the desire of the “World State” to have stability among its members is

Globalization involves a variety of links expanding and tightening a web of political, economic and cultural inter-connections. Most attention has been devoted to merchandise trade as it has had the most immediate (or most visible) consequences, but capital, in and of itself, has come to play an arguably even larger role than the trade in material goods. Human movements also link previously separate communities. Finally, there is the cultural connection. All the individual data would indicate that we are undergoing a process of compression of international time and space and an intensification of international relations. The separation of production and consumption that is the heart of modern capitalism appears to have

In many aspects globalization is usually described as a process where due to an increase in trade, technology and cultural exchange the world is getting more interconnected making distances less and less which is giving rise to a capitalist economy. According to (Wallerstein 2004), “world economy has always been capitalist”. It’s like everyone is specialized to perform a certain task and that’s how the idea of division of labour is built within us which ties us to the system of capitalism. Competition and the will to earn more is ingrained which creates state subsidies and makes strong states to use their power to prevent weaker states from succeeding.

The creation of new modern-states saw hope for better international society, marked not only by economic exchange but also by political cooperation after the dilution of superpower deadlock. The collapse of Soviet Union led to the formation of modern states - states with liberal, representative democracy constituting the network of transnational development and interconnecting global society. Goods, Capital, People, Knowledge, communication, weapons, crime, beliefs rapidly moved across territorial boundaries (McGrew, 1992). As rightly said, “Today, these modern-states

To explore more about the mindset of neoliberalism, Robert Keohane (2000) suggested the idea of complex interdependence. To begin with, non-state actors can participate in international politics directly, while transnational world breaks down the assumption of state as the only actor, and increases the importance of non-state actors like NGOs and TNCs. Besides, international issues are complicated, breaking down the level of politics. In other words, there is no absolute difference or hierarchy between high politics like military security and low politics like public affairs and economy. Thirdly, military power is important for balancing, but it is not the only method to solve the problems. Military power, for example, cannot solve economic problems. While interdependence between states becomes more and more prominent under the increasingly globalizing world, the costs of using force to resolve disputes therefore become much

The possibility of change and cooperation within the international system is a topic that has been hotly debated amongst different professional theorists and political scientists for centuries. Many have talked about the need for peace, meanwhile trying to formulate solutions to help prevent wars and conflicts but most have concluded that there are definite deterrents that preclude cooperation between states. Neorealists argue that due to the absence of an overriding sovereign authority in the international system, cooperation between states is exceptionally difficult to achieve. Constructivists assert that ideas and norms of individual states matter because they shape the identity of the actors and therefore the structure of the international system, in turn allowing for some kind of change and possible cooperation. This essay will analyze different obstacles that can impede states’ ability to cooperate while outlining the underlying assumptions of each theory by first evaluating neorealists’ pessimistic view of change and by secondly illustrating a different perspective offered by constructivists.

Nation-states are considered to have the main influence in world politics. However, increase in globalization movement has resulted to complications in world politics to the extent that nation-states do not have full control over world politics. Nations-states, private sectors and international organizations make up the international system. There is a continual increase in the number of international organizations. The increase does not support the occurrence of political, social and economic transactions that are conducted between societies, states and individuals. Currently, the transnational system that has emerged as a result of establishment of several non-state actors poses a great threat to state-based

Globalisation is the process by which the world is becoming increasingly interconnected, leading to cultural, political and economic changes. According to Waters (1995) it is: “A Key idea by which we understand the transition of human society into the third millennium”. Referring to Schotte (2000), ‘Globalisation’ is in other words is ‘Liberalisation’, ‘Americanisation’ and ‘Internationalisation’ of the world, promoting the capitalist free-market, universal human rights and a common global regime(Walby, 2003). As a result, it leads to a variety of changes in the world, such as: increased production of goods and services, access to highly advanced technology, better communication through social media, spread of ideology, drugs and diseases across different states. Undoubtedly, globalisation had a positive impact on the world through improvements in communication, reduction in overall global unemployment, reduction of ‘absolute poverty’, bringing equality and political representation (Manza and Brooks,1998) and the creation of ‘luxury goods’ that unfortunately tends to benefit elite groups. Many scholars and activists argue that the ’nation state’ concept is slowly fading away due to evolved powers of new actors in the International Arena, such as: NGO’s, MNC’s, TNC’s and other global governing organisations and unions that can dictate to “sovereign states" to take specific actions, which in the end alters the political roles of states and undermines its legitimacy. This

The concept of globalization is a complex and peculiar one, failing to be definable by a single, precise definition. Centrally, globalization involves information and goods being exchanged amongst different countries. These interactions and interchanges among countries globally over time is due to an increase in communication and transport networks. Globalization is often divided into three main areas being economic globalization, cultural globalization and political globalization. All three are vital areas to one’s life and globalization is said to have a large impact on each. Although globalization is controversial in the aspect that it cannot be declared just how much of an influence the notion has in the world. Political scientists such as Muhammad Ijaz Latif, Anton Pelinka and Martin Wolf all discuss this issue in their respective pieces as well as differing aspects of globalization such as the role the European Union plays in relation to globalization, the different perspectives of globalization and the challenges of the nation-state in regards to globalization.