The Pros And Cons Of National Integration

The “state” is best understood in relation to a government’s power, influence and involvement with citizens’ rights in a given territory. The larger the state the more involved it is in the lives of its citizens.

The definition of ‘state’ is ambiguous. The meaning can change depending on the context. For instance, it could relate to agencies within the state such as government bodies, or the practices carried out by individuals. Furthermore, the state is part of everyday life and manifests itself through the combination of institutions, practices, people and discourses. This creates social order (Blakeley and Saward, 2009, p. 360).

With nation-state is on the down trod, the process of globalization has further rendered the realist perceptions as anachronistic, diminishing the capacity of policy making autonomy of state. Since states are not been able to function within its own capacity because they are having compulsory interdependence between each other, its self-decision making is greatly affected, inevitably compromising all social, political and economic regulations. Also the massive proliferation of people (refugees) across different borders, undermines security balance and renders it sometimes ineffective, stating the terrorism attack on Germany Dec 2016 as a reminder of the catastrophe that a de-territorialized state can encounter..

The ultimate goal under such a state is to escape it and the only way to do so is through the generation of a social contract between all men. The essence of this contract can be summarized in two points: firstly, that all men give up their equal predisposition to kill one another and/or rule one another. Secondly, that all men transfer their rights and their collective goal of achieving peace and security to a sovereign office that can achieve these goals by upholding the social contract through fear, punishment, and consent (76).

* While the political culture may help build a national community, it may also provide a basis of division.

scale politics. Political communities are necessary for allowing a complexity in diversity. They are needed to allow natural

The world economy today is characterized by a lot of different processes constantly changing its essence. Thus, the topicality of this paper is based on an increasing number of countries recognizing their interdependence and therefore the relevance of the integration associations without which it is difficult to imagine the relationship between any of the countries. Economic integration at the international level implies a cooperation of economies tend to pursue mutual assistance and development, mainly in the area of trade.

Basically, every state will always focus on two things; the first is protecting their national interest and achieve their national interest. In order to achieve their national interest, every country will focus on raise more advantages by

In regards to the influence of politics towards a state, Rustow discusses the process to which democracy is developed. National unity is key, and is the foundation of the process (Rustow 1970: 350); Lacking national unity would mean that democracy would not be able to flourish, or even begin developing. By national unity, Rustow means that as a whole, a majority of citizens in a country not yet in a democracy, must agree on identification of their political status (Rustow 351). This would allow the transition to democracy to be more smoothly, and have minimal conflict since the majority of citizens would agree on their political identification for their country.

However, this monopoly is limited to a certain geographical area, and in fact this limitation to a particular area is one of the things that defines a state” (Weber, 2015, p. 136). Put simply, states are the only organization which can legitimately threaten, coerce or use force against citizens or the state. This definition of sovereignty is pretty incongruous with the responsibility to protect doctrine. While the United States has endorsed the responsibility to protect, it is not the usual justification provided to explain foreign policy, however, when looking at the US intervention we do see the same flexible idea of sovereignty. In this essay, I will argue that the process through which the United States engages in State building, is rooted in the empire building that the US underwent during its own state formation, following its independence as it expanded westwards. US led state formation projects that attempt to develop democratic institutions and stimulating economic development, can therefore be understood as a continuation of American imperial goals.

We shall be glad to answer any kind of question related to this term paper and we shall be glad to provide further clarification if needed.

Recognition of a new state is a very vital process[ This decision is of fundamental importance.”Recognition of a new state is that chunk that a new political unit must meet to be recognized as a significant member of the international community.Whether its regional or global.”S.D.KRASNER] for the creation of a new state.There is no treaty defining recognition and therefore it is a difficult subject of International Law(Anne Schuit,2012.Page 382)[ JOURNAL ARTICLE..ANNE SCHUIT.International Community Law.Review 14(2012)Recognition of Government in International Law and the Recent Conflict in Libya.Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Brill.com/iclr]. Recognition of a new state means that an existing state officially admits or takes

In this perspective, the fundamental features of the state would then become the historically variable ensemble of practices and techniques that produce, naturalize and manage territorial space as a bounded container within which political power can be exercise to achieve various, relatively well integrated, somewhat changing policy objectives (Jessop 2007:5). Specifically, the state can be defined as a distinct ensemble of

Political factors are associated to development of regionalism; its main points are internal or external threats, domestic politics and leadership.

So maybe we'd better take a more careful look at the factors that seem to contribute to the idea of 'nation-statehood'. First, geography is an obvious factor. Countries like Japan and New Zealand have very clear boundaries, and their physical isolation makes these nations very homogeneous. However, geography is often irrelevant- Ireland and Cyprus are certainly very strongly divided islands. And many countries, notably African countries, have boundaries that have nothing to do with natural features or ethnicity or anything else. They are simply straight lines drawn in the last century by former colonial powers. Is there a question?