Globalization and Its Challenges to Liberal and Realist Assumptions Regarding the State and New Security Concerns

Realist perspective explains globalization in terms of the relative distribution of power (Nau 2007, 278). In their opinion, trade and economic activities thrives “only under favorable security

In being so, liberalism possesses both economic and political components. Economic liberalism argues that, increasing economic interdependence would lead to a more peaceful international realm. Political liberalism bases itself on the belief that ‘A just world order assumes the establishment of republics ’. Thus, political liberalism as practiced by the United States during Cold War becomes a critical proponent of democracy promotion by noting that overlapping national interests will allow for a tamer international environment, engendering the notion that democracies do not engage in wars. Although democracy as interpreted by liberal theory on its own does not lead to free market, it may create the necessary infrastructure for such an event to occur. The promotion of democracy, to a great extent, increases economic interdependence through the alignment of core national values and therefore decreasing the probability of hegemony between the states. However, The notion of liberalism was undermined in the literature of the United States foreign policy after the Cold War. Even though the states were economically interdependent during the Cold War yet they engaged in rivalry for resources to the extent that if, assumingly, the “World Trade Organization” came to be perceived as a corrupt institution,

The first interpretation of sovereignty that is examined by Flanagan views sovereignty in an international sense. Sovereignty for these leaders means gaining more international power and acceptance. Flanagan argues that major international bodies such as the United Nations will be accepting such an attempt at sovereignty (71). As the second

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

struggle for power in the international system still exists, however the collection of powerful, banded states “create rules and institutions that ensure a stable order in which to pursue their interests” and ultimately “dominate the system.” Liberalism recognizes that multiple states can share a benefit and while relative power exists, and there is the potential for communal gain that is nonzero-sum. This key distinction is essential to building a comprehensive perspective of the liberal system, and its actors, who promote adherence to the rules established for the collective gain of the members of the system, not just the relative gains against the adversaries. In addition, unlike a realist paradigm, once a hegemon becomes so powerful that it decides to unilaterally act in pursuit of its interests, it will soon recognize the limits of its power.

Liberalism was previously a projection of how international relations ought to be; now, liberalism is a modern theory towards peace attained with a state’s ambition for dominance. “Self-interest” has two definitions in accordance to liberalism and realism. Liberalism considers the measure of power within states through stable economies, the possibility of peace and cooperation, as well as the concepts of political freedoms (human rights). Realism believes states are driven by competitive self-interest; international organizations hold little to no real influence because states are self-preserved. International relations is governed by states acting in their self-interest through liberalism; states act in their self-interest by cooperating with one another through international organizations, transnational advocacy networks, and non-governmental organizations. International organizations, normative values, and terrorism are all examples of how international relations is progressing into liberalism.

Over the course of history, domestic politics have been shaped by international forces. Forces like war and trade; empire and colonies; migration and the spread of ideas. Globalization and Neoliberalism plays an important role in impacting politics in all states. “Globalization is a system in which human beings are no longer part of isolated communities that are linked through narrow channels of diplomatic relations of trade”(O’Neil,2017, pg.346). Globalization creates a division between international relations and domestic politics. When globalization makes a distinction, then the aspects of domestic politics are controlled by global forces. Globalization changes the  institutions of economics, politics, and society. The institutions are measure by space and time of social norms, culture, boundaries. The boundaries create a local identity and control (particularly-“state, religion, or set of cultural values holds sway over the land and here but not there.”)(O’Neil, 2015, pg.348).  Furthermore, political isolation becomes impossible to happen.

On a European level, and to a degree on an international level it is argued that national states have experience a decrease of sovereignty. This is due to some political powers giving been

In Empire, Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri report a new shift in the international politics and outline the structure of its power. They claim that a new sovereignty is rising in the world system, and its structure of the rule has emerged along with the global market. Since the global market is eroding the Westphalia sovereignty, the economic factor of production and exchange move easily across the national boundaries. Throughout the process of globalization, the sovereignty of the nation-state has progressively declined in the hand of capitalism. Even the dominant nation cannot be called a supreme and sovereign authority either outside or within its territory. Hardt and Negri (2000) state, “The

Globalization implies distinctive things to diverse individuals. To the individuals who support it, it speaks to less explanations behind outfitted clashes, more open doors for getting away from the bounds custom and bias, a higher expectation for everyday comforts, and more access to the great things of life; so, private enterprise and majority rules system. To the individuals who doubt it or disdain it, it implies the submersion of national power, the elimination of territorial societies, the advancement of multinational enterprises and the chapter 11 of corner stores, the undermining of religion, and the defilement of profound quality; to put it plainly, private enterprise and popular government.

Liberalism popularly functions to describe the ideal result of peaceful economic and political relationships between democracies. In this theory, democratic ideals and promotion of democracy globally results in cooperation that otherwise wouldn’t happen, causing each nation’s growth to slow and hindering international relationships. The theory begins to falter upon inspection of its effectiveness for all nations. When liberalism begins to affect democratic ideals into states with weak political institutions, the result if often not the ideal cooperation predicted by liberalism. In fact, the democratic ideals advocated for in liberalism frequently resulted in large scale civil and international violence in states with shaky political institutions, mostly due to the lack of accountability and credibility in the forces that take power (Snyder 58). In addition, liberalism often creates economic competition that takes advantage of developing nations. Through that fact, we find the economics of liberalism often causes the opposite of the promised effect for increased cooperation and peace. Liberalism’s ideals make sense. However, by failing to recognize the need for

In these two article globalization and the increase of globalism is described in two very different ways. Waltz arguing from a realist’s perspective; that the politics of the state is ultimately affected within globalization. R.O.keohane and J.S.Nye Jr express a liberal opinion, arguing the many different factors that affect the increase in globalism.

As a result globalisation has also undone some important cultural and psychological underpinnings of sovereignty. However, it is imperative to note that the effect of globalisation on different nation states will not be the same, because states differ domestically, historically, politically and socio-culturally. Therefore, states will make different policy choices in response to the same global phenomena (Held 1989, 237).

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.

In regard to the issue of globalization, realist had a negative view about it. According to realism, globalization will only increase interdependence among states, causing insecurity (Kay, 2004). It also suggests that it will raise suspicion because the distribution of power is unequal, and it “favors the dominant international actors” (Kay, 13). The major challenge for realist is the role of power and the gains and loss of a state due to globalization. On one hand, a state can utilize globalization to advance their own interest and gain and exert power; on the other hand, interdependence can cause vulnerability which can lead to conflict (Kay, 2004). In a realist world globalization is basically a strategy in the competition for power between several major countries.