Abstract

As more nations, people, and cultures adapt to the ever changing international
community, diplomats, politicians, and representatives must adapt to the needs of
states. Globalization links cultures and diplomacy on multifarious levels; economics,
politically, socially, etc. Whether it's the continuing impact of globalization, Globalization
– the method of continuous integration of the countries within the world – is strongly
underway world over. It is a blend of capitalism and democracy, with its negative and
positive effects.

Introduction
International relations is considered a broad concept. In modern usage it includes not
only relations between states but also between states and non-state organizations like
churches, humanitarian relief organizations and multinational corporations, and between
states and intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), like the UN and also the EU. It
embraces the fields of international history, law, and economics and international
politics to establish its course.

What is Globalization?
The definition of globalization has been a big discourse within the academia for the past
few decades. In fact, it is one in every of the foremost and vibrantly debated issues in
modern international relations with the varied discourses presenting diverse definitions
of globalization. It has been presented in numerous and various definitions, like
globalization as an idea, as a pattern or project, as a process of human being's history,
as a probable future, as a situation, and eventually, as a trend (Nahavandian 2007).
Like many social sciences concept, there aren’t one and single definition about the term
of globalization because everyone has seen it in his or her perspective (Salimi 2005).
According to JanAart Scholte (2000, 15-17) at least, five broad definitions of
'globalization' are often found within the literature.
Firstly, globalization as embracing internationalization and through this sense fostering
cross border relations between countries pointing towards growth in international
exchange and interdependence (Hirst and Thompson 1996, 3).
Secondly, globalization as liberalization, that is, removal of government-imposed
restrictions on movements between countries so on make an "open", "borderless" world
economy' (Scholte 2000, 16). Thirdly, globalization as universalization, and in this sense
‘global' is used within the sense of being 'worldwide' and 'globalization' thus, the
spreading of various objects and experiences to people everywhere in the world.
Fourthly, globalization as westernization or modernization which is typically tipped as a
state of fluidity of the social structures of modernity within the planet, destroying pre-
existent cultures and native self-determination. Fifthly, globalization as
deterritoralization. That concerns the remapping of geography, such that social space
isn't any more wholly mapped in terms of territorial borders thus emphasizing worldwide
social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are
shaped by events occurring many miles away and contrariwise. However, one thing that
is common to the various definitions is that globalization represents a worldwide
process of accelerating economic, cultural, and political interdependence and
integration, with deep historical roots. Therefore, a process fostered by liberalized
international trade and innovations in information technology and communication, which
has been promoted and managed to a greater or lesser degree by international
institutions, multinational corporations, national governments (especially the United
States of America), international non-governmental organizations, and actually
individuals with access to the online. Notwithstanding the broad and multifarious
definitions which the discourse has generated, the boundaries of the sphere are distinct
and clear. Economic interdependence of states remains the chief manifestation of
globalization today. However, much attention has been on the additional effects of this
process; specifically, challenges to the state’s primacy, migration, global security
concerns, culture, crime, the environment, and technology. However, it remains a
controversial process that has engendered both dismissive critiques and unwavering
defenses. In this process, all the phenomena and social problems of people are being
changed from the individual, racial, local and national into global ones. Humans are now
more related and enthusiastic to one another. Subsequently, instead of racially, locally,
and nationally different societies, there is an increasing fusion into a single, united
global society. In this arrangement, all persons have memberships and have a
dependency and concern toward it (Ohmae 1990a). So, with cooperation and
collaboration they struggle to get rid of their needs and thus the difficulties of worldwide
society which can be removed (Keohane and Nye 1977, 5-35).
Globalization is therefore extremely often associated with economic globalization, that
is, the integration of national economies into the international economy through trade,
foreign direct investment, capital flows, migration, and consequently the spread of
technology (Bhagwati 2004).
This issue concerning its expanded dimensions greatly impacts human life. So, this
issue has been considered intensively important and has been repeated within the
literature of social and political sciences (Krasner 2001, 2) and thus an honest basis of
assessment of the impacts of globalization on international relations.

Effects of globalization on International Relations

With the foregoing discourse on globalization, the author will now examine the impact of
globalization on international relations. To do this, the author will determine the impacts
of globalization on international relations vis-à-vis the current framework of a world
system. Firstly, we shall examine the role of the divergent players in this process. This
is to determine the extent and effect of their involvement. Initially, the states were the
initial sole players and then they became the foremost international players. Gradually,
new players emerged alongside the states. These include inter-governmental
organizations, non-governmental organizations, and multinational corporations as well
as international and global institutions and as time went by they replaced the states, or
and sometimes perceived to disregard the states (Berton 1999). The foremost visible
characters of these latest players are their collective, multi-national and global
characters. On the contrary the nation-states emphasized on the national interests of a
nation and that they attempted to form individual decisions to pursue their own targets.
But the new players pay much attention to the interests which different nations take
advantage of while enjoying cooperation and collective participation of these states to
pursue their targets (Ohmae 2002, 208- 210). The emergence of these players has
whittled down the role of states and governmental players have become limited
(Ohmae, 1999b, 3).
Secondly and connected to the first is the change in the structure of international affairs.
The role of the latest players has created a new system of distribution of power in
several “new centers”. In the past, some specific states like France, USA which the
author refers to as the “old centers” played major roles using military power and indirect
rule. With the reduction in the global influence of military power and indirect rule
(including their intellectual, cultural and social dimensions) occasioning the
independence of states, individual states became free to subscribe to the membership
of international organizations. This freedom of membership of international
organizations took power out of limited state members and climaxed in several centers
to which
the states subscribed. The international organizations therefore became the “new
centers” wielding great influence as against the initial position and role of these “old
centers”. Thus, globalization is changing the structure of international governance and
relations. This change of structure is one among the foremost impact of globalization.
Robertson (1992, 61) has argued that we will not understand globalization, without
reference to structuration. These changes will crystallize into the creation of just one or
two super powers and therefore the need for others to obey them. As these stronger
institutions emerge, new canon and institutions of power would be created and
gradually sovereignty of states would be removed. To ensure equilibrium of power while
satisfying the various interests represented, the need for cooperation will be
strengthened thus competitions will become limited and cooperation enforced.
Another impact of globalization is the elimination of limited borders and globalization of
boundaries. Before the 20th century the borders of international relations were limited
and confined to the continents. After the 20th century, the borders of continents
gradually disappeared into global ones and a world system appeared. Wallenstein
(1974) has described that a world system may be a social organization, one that has
boundaries, structures, member groups, rules of legitimation, and coherence.
Accordingly, like an organism, its life is formed from and shaped by the conflicting
forces which hold it together by tension and tear it apart as each group seeks eternally
to remold it to its advantage. As a result, the structures at different times were strong or
weak in terms of its internal workings and functioning. Thus, before globalization
emerged each continent had its own limited boundaries and its members were limited
within the boundaries and the activities of the players within those continents were also
confined. Only few of the players (super powers) had the vast and expanded influence
beyond the continents. The advent of globalization caused these limited borders to fade
away and eventually removed. As continental borders faded and eventually eliminated,
a globalization of boundaries emerged and the field of actors and players became
global (Ohmae 1990a).
Globalization has created and strengthened the respect for and application of
international laws, guidelines, rules and policies among nations. Previously, the states
and governments emphasized the application of national laws and rules to secure their
national interests. Thus, each state had its various laws different from other laws (of
other nations) and they acted accordingly. This frequently created conflict of laws
scenarios among states with each seeking to preserve its national interests at all cost.
However, globalization is increasingly gathering support for the creation, respect and
application for international laws and rules as many countries ensure the domestication
of such laws for recognition and benefits accruable to member states. Nations who
refuse to respect them are “ostracized” in comity and sometimes denied recognitions or
reciprocity. As a result, there are currently footprints of international laws and guidelines
in national laws of states making wider room for globalization. For example, the United
Nations set a common standard on human rights with the adoption of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Although the Declaration is not part of binding
international law, its acceptance by all countries lends great weight to the fundamental
principle that all human beings, irrespective of our nationality, color, religion, language,
or any other status, are to be treated equally and with respect. For instance, the
Convention on the Rights of the Child is one of many legally binding international
human rights treaties and agreements adopted by the United Nations. These treaties
are currently used as a framework for discussing and applying human rights within
national boundaries where they are recognized and received. Thus, the principles and
rights set out are legally binding on the states that choose to be bound by them while
also providing legal and other mechanisms for accountability in the event that
governments violate human rights. The result of this process is that nations now have
respect for international laws which are regarded as consistent with collective interests
of citizenry thereby causing uniformity of the behaviors and activities of people all over
the world. This issue removes the conflicts which appeared as a result of inconsistency
with different national laws and nations freely enforce the collective interests of humans
within their borders. This cooperation of nations includes the execution of the laws.
Thus, for example, a Nigerian can enforce his human rights if violated in France
notwithstanding his nationality. Similarly, in 2003 Nigeria adopted the Child Rights Act to
domesticate the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child.

Conclusion
Globalization impacts international relations in striking ways. It provides opportunities for
growth and helps countries become more integrated in the world economy while at the
same time it assists in economic interdependence. However, it is equally fingered as
engineering increases in inequality within and between nations thus, threatening the
lives it purports to strengthen.