Globalization and sovereignty pdf

Sovereignty Sovereignty is the central attribute of the state as a form of political organization. Sovereignty and statehood have become so closely interlinked that a non-sovereign state tends to be regarded as only a quasi-state. It does not signify merely a certain degree or quantity of power, as if the extent to which a state is sovereign can be measured simply by calculating its relative military and economic power. Sovereignty signifies simultaneously a right to act and a power to act.

There are cases where the power of a state to act is so confined and limited that its sovereign right to act is rendered largely meaningless. Equally, there are times when the actual power of a state is so great that, although its sovereign right to use this power has not been formally acknowledged by others, it is tacitly recognized.

These are extreme cases, however. Normally, sovereignty means the possession of a right and power, and disputes about sovereignty are disputes about right and power. Sovereignty manifests itself in different forms, and this largely accounts for the varying definitions that are given of it. Seen from one angle, the right and power of sovereignty is exercised over territory, and is akin to the right and power of possession or ownership of a potion of the earth's surface.

This ownership of territory includes in turn a right and power over all that exists, whether static or mobile, human or non-human, within the territory concerned, and extends to so-called territorial waters and airspace. Sovereignty can be defined more narrowly as the right and power to make the ultimate or final decision about the terms of existence of a whole territorially-based body politic.

It denotes a central core of right and power which may be called the right and power of self-determination, that is, a right and power to determine for and by oneself—and not at the command of others—the fundamental issues relating to one's existence. No external body has the right to command or order a sovereign state to act in a given way about matters of fundamental concern to it. Sovereignty is consequently often confused with independence, and the definition is accurate so long as it is not confused with total independence.

This is because the right of sovereignty itself is based on recognition by other sovereigns, and hence on some kind of relationship with other states. The self-proclaimed republic of Northern Cyprus is a good example of a state that is not sovereign because it is not generally recognized as such.

Sovereignty relates to fundamentals. This is why it is sometimes equated with the right and power to wage war against external enemies or, internally, with the right and power to suspend the normal operation of the law in the face of some threat to peace or stability. It shows itself typically in times of crisis and upheaval. In such times, sovereign power may well extend in an all-encompassing way, but there is no necessary link between it and a totalitarian form of government.

D according to which the Emperor was superior to all governments, monarchies or republics of the Christian countries. This reaction was also directed against the doctrine of the superiority of the Pope over all Christian rulers.

In addition to the reaction against these two external factors, the theory of state sovereignty was also designed to combat, internally, the fissiparous tendencies and centrifugal forces of feudal barons The more modern doctrine of sovereignty emerged in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries. For the Italian political scientist, Niccolo Machiavelli, the security of the prince and the stability of the state constituted an end, which justified all means for its attainment.

Thomas Hobbes provided a more refined and systematic exposition of the concept. These writers were chiefly concerned with the need or desire to preserve and strengthen the unity of the state against the very real dangers of religious civil war.

To Rousseau, the individual is subject to no other individual but merely to the volonte Generale, the will of the community.

All rights reserved. American Political Science Review, , p. Cited in B. Okere, Ibid, p. Perspectives of Globalization As noted earlier, globalization is the term used to describe one of the most contemporary phenomena of our time; involving the diffusion of ideas, practices and technologies through the various now available means of communication and interraction. It has led to internationalization of most issues in human and state existence.

It is not merely liberalization of markets, though in many cases that has been the result. This involves a change in the way we understand geography and experience localness. As well as offering opportunity, it brings with it considerable risks linked, for example, to technological change.

Globalization, thus, has powerful economic, political, cultural and social implications for sovereignty. Globalization and Political Sovereignty Globalization has led to a decline in the power of national governments to direct and influence their economies especially with regard to macroeconomic management ; and to determine their political structures.

There is a strong indication that the impact of globalization is most felt through the extent to which politics everywhere are now essentially market-driven. It is not that governments are now unable to run their states, but to survive in office; they must increasingly "manage" national politics in such a way as to adapt them to the pressures of trans-national market forces.

The institutionalization of international political structures has led to political globalization. Since the early nineteenth century, the European interstate system has been developing both an increasingly consensual international normative order and a set of international political structures that regulate all sorts of interaction.

Okere, op. Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity. The most dominant of the general and global organizations that had emerged was the League of Nations and now succeeded by the United Nations.

The impact of these organizations is to create of a process of institution-building, where the organizations are able to determine and dictate what happens in the governance of member states.

This is the trend of political globalization. Non member states find themselves outside this cooperation and are regarded as deviants. The future would see more states edging to conform to the norms laid down by these organizations. Already, the impact is being felt in the area of human rights. Due to the internationalization of human rights, a state is no longer free to treat its nationals and aliens the way it pleases. It must conform to international standards laid down in the various human rights treaties, most of which are now regarded as customary law.

Persistent, concentration of sovereignty in international institutions will eventually lead to a state of subjugation of political sovereignty to the dictates of the institutions. Though the capitalist world-system has been international in essence for centuries, the extent and degree of trade and investment globalization has increased greatly in recent decades.

Economic globalization has been accelerated by what information technology has done to the movement of money. According to Karky, economic globalization is a historical process; the result of human innovation and technological progress. It refers to the increasing integration of economies around the world, particularly through trade and financial flows. The internationalization of financial markets, of technology and of some manufacturing and services bring with them a new set of limitations upon the freedom of action of nation states.

In addition, the emergence of institutions such as the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, involve new constraints and imperatives. Globalization and Cultural Sovereignty From our perspective, culture refers to the patterns of behaviour and thinking that people living in social groups learn, create, and share.

Culture distinguishes one human group from others. Culture has several distinguishing characteristics. First, it is based on symbols -abstract ways of referring to and understanding ideas, objects, feelings, or behaviours; and the ability to communicate with symbols using language. Second, culture is shared. People in the same society share common behaviours and ways of thinking through culture.

Third, culture is learned. While people biologically inherit many physical traits and behavioural instincts, culture is socially inherited. A person must learn culture from other people in a society. Fourth, culture is adaptive. People use culture to flexibly and quickly adjust to changes in the world around them23 Since no human society exists in complete isolation, different societies also exchange and share culture.

In fact, all societies have some interactions with others, both out of curiosity and because even highly self-sufficient societies sometimes need assistance from their neighbours. Today, for instance, many people around the world use similar kinds of technology, such as cars, telephones, and televisions. Commercial trade and communication technologies, such as computer networks, have created a form of global culture. Therefore, it has become increasingly difficult to find culture that is shared within only a single society.

Cultural exchange can provide many benefits for all societies. Different societies can exchange ideas, people, manufactured goods, and natural resources. Such exchanges can also have drawbacks, however. Bureaucratic organization and rationality, belief in a law-like natural universe, the values of economic efficiency and political democracy have been spreading throughout the world since they were propagated in the European Enlightenment Whereas the modern world-system has always been, and is still, multicultural, the growing influence and acceptance of Western values of rationality, individualism, equality, and efficiency is an important trend of the twentieth century; a trend which has heightened both in speed and nature.

Time and space compression by new information technologies is simply an extension and acceleration of the very long-term trend towards acculturalisation. New Approaches to the State in the Social Sciences. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. The right to development has been defined as the particular process of development in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized.

It is a process of step-by-step progressive realization of all the rights, the implementation of a development policy to realize these rights, and the relaxation of resource constraints on these rights through economic growth.

The right to this process has to be viewed as a composite right wherein all the rights are realized together in an interdependent and composite manner. The right to development is not only a claim on the outcomes of development that is an improved realization of different rights, but also the process of achieving these outcomes.

That process would be globalization. Globalization in principle expands the opportunities to enjoy goods and services beyond what a country can produce itself, just as participating in an expanding market does for an individual, thus potentially enhancing the capabilities for enjoying the right to development. To translate the potential opportunities into actual capabilities, a country would need to adopt an appropriate set of policies.

Thus, even though this interaction continues, countries must elect what to accept and what to reject, by adopting appropriate policies that would be to their best benefit. This is a reflection of the sovereignty of such a state. Sovereignty in a Globalized World Sovereignty used to mean final authority. This is no longer so. When philosophers Jean Bodin and Thomas Hobbes elaborated the notion of sovereignty in the 16th and 17th centuries, they were concerned with establishing the legitimacy of a single hierarchy of domestic authority.

Although they both accepted the existence of divine and natural law26, they believed the word of the sovereign was law. However, in the contemporary world, sovereignty primarily is linked with the idea that states are autonomous and independent from each other.

Within their own boundaries, the members of a polity are free to choose their own form of government. Another point is that no state has the right to intervene in the internal affairs of another state. Sovereignty is also associated with the idea of control over trans-border movements.

Finally, sovereignty also means that political authorities can enter into international agreements. States are free to endorse any contract they find attractive.

Any treaty among states is legitimate provided that it has not been coerced. This is the new strength of sovereignty. This statement we believe concedes to the impracticability of absolute sovereignty. The response of states to globalization and its impact on their sovereignty is nothing compared with what followed the invention of the printing press. Most sovereign monarchs could not contain the spread of the concepts that spread with it and many lost not only their kingdoms but also their heads.

Despite the perceived impacts of globalization on sovereignty of states, states appear to be stronger and more able to address internal problems and no leader has lost its state yet to globalization. In addition to attempting to control the flows of capital and ideas, states have long struggled to manage the impact of international trade. The opening of long distance trade for bulk commodities in the 19th century created fundamental cleavages in all of the major states.

One thing is certain; globalization is changing the scope of state control. The reach of the state has increased in some areas and contracted in others. Rulers have recognized that walking away from issues they cannot resolve can enhance their effective control.

For instance, beginning with the Peace of Westphalia, leaders chose to surrender their control over religion because it proved too volatile. Keeping religion within the scope of state authority undermined, rather than strengthened, political stability.

Monetary policy is an area where state control has contracted. With the exception of Great Britain, the major European states have established a single monetary authority.

For many states, there is no longer a sharp distinction between citizens and non- citizens. Permanent residents, guest workers, refugees, and undocumented immigrants are entitled to some bundle of rights even if they cannot vote. The ease of travel and the desire of many countries to attract either capital or skilled workers have increased incentives to make citizenship more flexible.

This book was originally published as a special issue of the journal Globalizations. This book argues that our current global food system constitutes a massive violation of human rights. Lively account of how people power has shaped British history -- from Peterloo to the Poll tax and beyond. This book instead emphasises autonomy and the role of direct action by local communities in developing countries.

Skip to content. With each case, the contributors explore how claiming food sovereignty allows individuals to challenge the power of global agribusiness and reject neoliberal market economics. The concept unites individuals, communities, civil society organizations, and even states in opposition to globalizing food regimes. With perspectives drawn from Europe, the Americas, Asia, Africa, and Australia, Globalization and Food Sovereignty is the first comparative collection to focus on food sovereignty activism worldwide.

It covers themes including the physical basis of agriculture, the influence of trade policies, the nature of globalis. New concerns are arising, including the environmental impact of food production and trade, animal welfare, the health and safety of food, and the social and economic impact of international food trade.