LESSON 4: THE GLOBAL INTERSTATE SYSTEM

Objectives:
At the end of the chapter, the learner is expected to:
1. Explain the effects of globalization to governments.
2. Differentiate nation and state as well as globalism and globalization.
3. Identify and discuss the purpose of the different institutions that govern
international relations.
4. Appreciate the importance of informationalism and global citizenship.

Input 1: Introduction

The state has traditionally been the subject of most interest to scholars of global
politics because it is viewed as “the institution that creates warfare and sets economic
policies for a country.” Furthermore, the state is a political unit that has authority over its
own affairs. In other words, its borders are recognized by other countries. It is assumed
that whoever is in charge of those borders has the right to determine exactly what is
going to happen in their country. The Treaty of Westphalia of 1648 established the
notion of the nation-state and the idea of state sovereignty. Today, the globalization of
politics created an atmosphere where the ideas of the nation-state, state-sovereignty,
government control, and state policies are challenged from all sides.

With globalization, some scholars suggest a decrease in the power of the state
and that other actors are actually becoming more powerful. These actors include
multinational corporations and global civil society organizations, like the Red Cross, that
cross national boundaries.

Is the idea of the nation-state outdated in the contemporary-world? If so, what is

it that we need to think about as “replacements”? In this chapter, we will look at regional
alliances and worldwide organizations of states. This manifests the efforts of countries
and governments in the world to cooperate and collaborate together. Next, international
and regional economic bond bodies, such as IMF and the World Bank, must also be
considered as they often push for neoliberal reforms in the world. The third kind of
replacement to the traditional nation-state and the idea of national autonomy comes
from the non-state actors. One of these if the private capital groups, including banks
and groups of people, with money that can determine the well-being of people in a
particular area. Multinational corporations and non-governmental organizations, such as
the Amnesty International, are significant organizations that put into question the
strength of national autonomy and global politics. The emergence of non-state
organizations, like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and terrorist organizations, which seek power try to
depose a government and replace the system with their own ideological belief.
Global Governance in the Twenty-First Century

There is a series of specific factors behind the emergence of global governance.

The first on the list must be the declining power of nation-states. If states themselves
were “highly contingent and in flux” (Cerny, 2007, p. 854), it would open the possibility
of the emergence of some form of global governance to fill the void.

A second factor is the vast flows of all sorts of things that run into and often
right through the borders of nation-states. This could involve the flow of digital
information of all sorts through the Internet. It is difficult, if not impossible, for a nation-
state to stop such flow and in any case, it is likely that such action would be politically
unpopular and bring much negative reaction to the nation-state involved in such an
effort. For example, China’s periodic efforts to interfere with the Internet have brought
great condemnation both internally and externally.

Then, there is mass migration of people and their entry, often illegally, into
various nation-states. If states are unable to control this flow, then there is a need for
some sort of global governance to help deal with the problem. The flow of criminal
elements, as well as their products (drugs, laundered money, those bought and sold in
sex trafficking, etc.), is a strong factor in the call for global governance (Levy and
Sznaider, 2006). In these cases and others, there is a need for some degree of order,
some sort of effective authority, and at least some potential for the improvement of
human life. These are but a few of the things that can be delivered by some form of
global governance.

Another set of issues that has led to calls for global governance involves
horrendous events within the nation-states that the states themselves either
foment and carry out, or unable to control (Nordstrom, 2004). For example, in
Darfur, Sudan, perhaps hundreds of thousands have been killed, millions of people
displaced, and the lives of many disrupted in a conflict that date back to early 2003. The
government of Sudan and its military have been implicated in the conflict between
ethnic and tribal groups and the Sudanese government has been resistant to outside
interference in its internal affairs. One could even go back to WWII and argue that the
Holocaust could have been prevented, or at least mitigated, had there been a viable
form of global governance to put pressure on Nazi Germany and ultimately, to intervene
in a more material way, perhaps militarily (Bauman, 1994).

Then, there are global problems that single nation-state cannot hope to
tackle on their own. One is the global financial crises and panic that sweep the world
periodically, which nations are often unable to deal with on their own (Strange, 1996).
Indeed, some nations (e.g., the nations of Southeast Asia) have often been, and are
being, victimized by such crises. Unable to help themselves, such nations are in need of
assistance from some type of global governance.
 Nation-states have long struggled to deal with problems like these through
various interstate systems (e.g., alliances such NATO), but the more recent dealing with
various sorts of issues and problems.

Activity 1:
Directions: Answer the following questions:
1. Examine the interaction between the nation-state and international organizations.
Which has the greatest impact on governments?
2. Do civil society and NGOs strengthen or undermine the role of the governments
in international relations? Why or why not?
3. Are the civil society and other organizations truly separated from the
government’s actions and policies? In what ways can the state maintain its
sovereignty amid globalization?

Effects of Globalization to Governments

One of the key aspects of state sovereignty is the government. It is a group of

people who have the ultimate authority to act on behalf of a state. Each state has its
own right to self-determination and that other country should not intervene in the affairs
of that state unless there are extraordinary reasons to do so. Other countries must
recognize sovereignty or the right to govern one’s own territorial borders. Each state is
autonomous unto itself and responsible within its own system of government to those
who are governed. The decisions, the conflict, and the resolution of that conflict are
done through the institutions of government established and codified in that particular
state, whether or not through elections. Elections, especially in democratic society,
provide the leadership of the state. In addition, the policy is developed and implemented
in the interest of the people of a state by a specific government. A civil society within a
state can also act as a counterweight or as a supplement to government. Civil society
includes the private economy, educational institutions, churches, hospitals, fraternal
organizations, and other non-profit organizations.

There have been several challenges to the government and ultimately, to state
autonomy. We can divide these challenges into four: traditional challenges, challenges
from national or identity movements, global economics, and global social movements.

Traditional Challenges

External intervention can generally be described as invasion by other countries.

For example, when Saddam Hussein was the ruler of Iraq in 1990, he decided he was
going to take over the oil fields of Kuwait. He invaded Kuwait and took it over. As a
result, he was dislodged by an international coalition led by the United States.

These days, we can see external intervention in other forms. Russia’s external
intervention into the affairs of Ukraine, a sovereign state in the post- Soviet era, is
another instance of intervention in the autonomy of the state. Russia intervenes in the
affairs of people in Crimea who want to become part of Russia again even though they
are part of Ukraine. Crimea declared its independence from Ukraine and re-affiliated
with Russia. This is a case of how there might be a national identity within a country that
is assisted by a neighboring country. Ukraine argues to have autonomy to determine the
case for Crimea. As a result, there is current conflict between Ukraine, not recognizing
Crimea’s sovereignty, and Russia not recognizing Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea.

Internal political challenges can also happen. For example, after Arab Spring in
Egypt, a new constitution was created and a government was elected. That
government was more fundamentalist and rejected the notion of a plural society that
included religious diversity. The military staged a coup that deposed the government in
order to restore stability. Other examples include the Taliban’s efforts to control the
government of Afghanistan. In Syria, the original rebellion against Assad came from
the country’s own internal dissenters who wanted to replace the government even
though they were also Syrian nationals.

There are regional organizations challenging state autonomy. The United

Nations intervened in Sudan because of the several years of civil war. More recently in
Europe, specifically in Greece, it also interfered in the Greek debt crisis.

Challenges from National/Identity Movements

The next challenges are part of a national identity or movement. It is important to

know that a nation has cultural identity that people attached to, while a state is a definite
entity due to its specific boundaries. However, different people with different identities
can live in different states. For example, the Kurds reside in several different countries
including Iraq, Iran, and Turkey. The Catalans live primarily in Spain but we can also
find some of them in France. Scottish nationalism is another example that challenges
the traditional notions of a state sovereignty. In 2014, Great Britain had a vote in
Scotland to decide whether Scotland was going to become its own autonomous state
apart from Great Britain. They voted against it but Scotland has a significant degree of
autonomy now as compared to more than two decades years ago.

Global movements, such as the Al-Qaeda and ISIS, are another example of
national or identity movements. In this case, they are structured around the
fundamentalist version of Islam.

Global Economics

The third major source of challenge comes from global economics. Global
economy demands the states to conform to the rules of free-market capitalism.
Government austerity comes from developments of organizations that cooperate across
countries, such as WTO and regional agreements, such as NAFTA, the European
Union (EU), and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
 Neoliberal economics or neoliberal capitalism started in the 1980s. It focuses
on free trade and dismantling trade barriers. It made sure that governments did not
impose restrictive regulations on corporate presence, as well as on the free flow of
capital and jobs. Free trade was seen as the ideal or the normative belief, that is, the
best economy is one where there is free trade everywhere. Laws and standards that
would interfere with the flow of capital in a particular country including environmental
regulations, were deemed to discourage economic growth. Neoliberal economics
requires a state to cooperate in the global market through the free flow of capital, the
privatization of services, and fiscal austerity or constraint. In turn, the government’s role
is diminished as it relates to the market. Neoliberal economics is seen as a threat, in
general, because a state cannot protect its own economic interest as a sovereign state.

A specific example to expand global economic influence is the use of IMF and
the World Bank in forcing government reforms in poorer country. Furthermore, the
regional economic development efforts focused on expanding free trade and market
liberalization. Businesses from developed countries put their factories and pay people to
build factories and produce goods in developing countries worldwide. These
corporations will sell the products in developing countries. This exacerbates rising
inequality in the world. Greece is one example that explains how neoliberal economics
can threaten the sovereignty of a state. It began in 1981 when Greece joined the EU. As
a larger alliance, the EU broke down all kinds of barriers among tis member states,
including Greece, like passports, visas, and license plates. It allowed people to travel
across European borders and encouraged economic cooperation and collaboration of
member states. Twenty years later, Greece adopted the euro as its own currency and
got rid of the drachma. The government of Greece borrowed money for infrastructure
improvements, largely linked to their hosting of the 2004 Olympics. This put Greece in a
large debt. In 2007 and 2008, the worldwide financial crisis made Greece’s economy to
collapse.

Aside from high debt that burdened the government, Greece had several of its
employees struggling with pensions. Tax revenues were lower, and as a result, they
could not pay their debts back. In 2009, their credit rating dropped which made it harder
for them to pay back their debt. This led to a series of austerity packages in Greece
which meant that there was less government spending. IMF bailed them out from the
crisis in exchange for more austerity. In conclusion, economic crises can force
government to subscribe to the terms and conditions of the global financial market and
of other nations that can help them regain economic stability.

Global Social Movements

Finally, we have global social movements. Most of the time, they are not seen as
a threat but they definitely challenge state sovereignty. Social movements are
movements of people that are spontaneous or that emerge through enormous
grassroots organization. These social movements are transnational movements which
means they occur across countries and across borders. Therefore, states have less
control over them.
 For example, human rights movements create a public sentiment, value and
agenda. The idea is that there are certain rights that states cannot neglect or generally,
what we call human rights. If a country decides that they are going to have a particular
policy and if that policy violates the international standard of human rights, there is a
challenge to the ability of states to fully implement it. An example is the United States’
position on the death penalty. There is an international consensus, with a few dissenting
countries like China, South Africa, and Russia, against the death penalty. This means
that if somebody is sentenced by death penalty and somehow he is in a country around
the world, there are rules against the state extraditing into the United States.

The environmental movement is another example of global social movements

related to public policy. A specific case is the so-called Blockadia or the state where
social movements emerging in local areas fight back as a response to the controlling
efforts by the apparatus of government to protect the interest of neoliberal capitalists.
Consensus on womens’ rights is another example in many countries. Arguably, the
biggest conflict between the West and the fundamentalist Islam is over the role of
women in society, as well as women’s autonomy. Rights of personal autonomy are
another example and this includes issues on homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and
gender equality.

There is also an increased role in international organizations like the United

Nations and International Criminal Court in Hague, the role of non-governmental
organizations like Doctors Without Borders or Amnesty International, and the role of
global media.