Globalisation has become the most overused and under the specified term in the international scene since the end of the Cold War. From the first public speech of President Bush in early 1990 for the coming of a ‘new world order’, it has come a long way to become the central issue on economic and political affairs (Held & McGrew, p. 1).
In international relations globalization has been the focus of many meetings of diplomats and heads of state. Most of the issues raised in these meetings concern the topic of globalization. Such issues can be international security and peace and trade liberalization among nations. All of these issues require the nation-state to ‘deliver’ some of its sovereignty and powers to a larger organization being that the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, NATO Alliance, etc. This is because globalization has seen to be the coming together of different societies in a sort of ‘joitventure’, thus forming one global society, the ‘global village’. In this global village, the diversities are not meant to be loosened but the integration to the creation of a common set of norms and values is desired and even encouraged (Armstrong, p. 547).
The nation-state has been considered, according to the Westfalian system, the only organization to have sovereign authority within its well-defined boundaries. Also, on the international scene, it is the state that has the right to represent its nation, society, in talks or events with other societies or nations. Only it has the right to engage in talks and negotiations regarding any issue that affects the society living within the borders of that state. Also, on the economic level, it is only the state that (in the capitalist system) defines the rules and laws to be applied in the market.
But globalization has been gradually changing all of this. Now the state is not sovereign in every aspect relating to its society or territory. By engaging and becoming a member of different organizations, the state agrees to give up some of its sovereignty. It has now to abide by the decisions of the organziation it is part of even though it might not agree totally on certain regulations or rules. Many examples could be set here. In international peace and security issues, we can mention the role of international organizations like NATO. When you become a member of the organization then you automatically give to other members privileges regarding the use of your land, air and naval territories.
The case of the peace maintaining operations in Afghanistan is another example of how different states collaborate in that mission. Even though some members of the organization did not agree fully on the issue they had to abide by the decision made within the organization to intervene n Afghanistan and these states give their help, in different forms, to achieve the organization’s objectives.
In the economic field when a nation-state decides to become a member of the World Trade Organization then it has to abide by the rules of the organization and liberalize its market to foreign companies. Thus the state is no longer the ultimate authority that decides the rules of its market but it is the organization that sets (not all) the rules for the individual markets of its members. But many authors disagree with the above-mentioned arguments. They say that even in this international organizations formed as a result of globalizaton, still, the nation-state does not lose its authority and powers (Armstrong, p. 459).
It might be that there are certain nations’ states that prevail over others, but the role of ‘the state remains central in international relations.
References
Held, D. and McGrew, A. Globalization/Anti-Globalization. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Inc., 2004.
Armstrong, D. “Law, Justice and the Idea of a World Society.” International Affairs 75.3 (1999): 547 — 561.