Globalization

Globalization and the Sovereignty

Globalization is not a recent concept. It means that a nation or state's independence to control events within its borders is challenged by transnational corporations, economic gloabalization and trade, international crime and the increase in global communications and developments in technology. In other words, it means that the worldwide, virtually instantaneous interdependence about many aspects of economic and cultural life. Streeten defined the components of this fundamental change in our lives as below:

"additionally to economic interdependence in terms of trade, finance, direct investment, there are technological, educational, cultural, ideological, and environmental, legal, military, strategic and political incentives that are rapidly spread

throughout the world. Money and goods, images and people, sports and religions, guns and drugs, diseases and pollution can now be moved quickly across all over the world".

Although people in many places seem prepared to die for the better option, we can say that there is no absolute model of the state. While we are talking about the state and globalization, we face the same dilemma while discussing the family characteristics in the West. In other words, the traditional Western family model and marriage has lived many changes, and faced irreversable damages. We can not state how the family will be in the future. The only thing we can do is keeping old and traditional values. They may not be consistent with the realities of present. Similarly, states are seeing considerable elements of traditional statehood being eroded.

The sum of the various elements of globalization have caused sovereign state less and less a locus of policy and control under some organizations such as the WTO, the EU, NAFTA. Those organizations have become more significant players in the world politics arena. Indeed, it will be increasingly difficult for our future civil servant to define what are national and international dimensions of problems.

It is easier to see globalization in terms of its component parts than as a broad sweep. However, it is the point where we need to start, for it is in this huge, interdisciplinary context. The importance of this is that globalization will be perceived and handled sectorally and incrementally. In this case, the overarching structure remains only as sum of its disparate parts without any real institutional or regulatory coordination, or even sense. It could be argued that the EU grew this way for the longest time with the allegation that it was some economic union. However, it is not common that unions have a parliament. More specifically, what is the collective shared vision of globalization? Globalization will lead to declining role of the traditional definition of state by means of treaties, international organizations, free-trade agreements, etc.

More than 190 countries now take place in the political arena with a larger number of powerful non-sovereign and at least partly (and often largely) independent actors that at least partly, varying from corporations to non-government organisations (NGOs), from terrorist groups to drug cartels, from regional and global institutions to banks and private equity funds. The sovereign state is effected by them causing better or worse as much as possible. The monopolistic power once enjoyed by sovereign entities is now being eroded.

As a result, new mechanisms and systems are needed for regional and global governance including actors besides states. This does not mean giving seats giantic corporations in the global governance organizations. It means including representatives of those organisations in regional and global deliberations if they are able to contribute to the total welfare and effect challenges.

Moreover, independent states must be ready to give up some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is functioning well.

This case is actually occurring

in the business and trade life. Governments agree to accept the rules of the World Trade Organisation. Because, they benefit from international trading order, even if a particular decision requires that they change a practice that is their key sovereign right.

Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change. Under one such arrangement is the Kyoto Protocol. It runs through 2012 and signatories agree to reduce specific emissions. Now, a successor arrangement is needed that many governments, including the United States, China and India, accept emission limits. Or it is needed to adopt common standards because they recognise that they will become bad if no country agrees.

All of these statements suggest that sovereignty must be redefined if states must deal with globalisation.

Especially, globalisation requires the increasing volume, velocity and importance of flows within and across borders of people, ideas, goods, dollars, greenhouse gases, viruses, drugs, emails, weapons, and a good deal else. Also it requires challenging one of fundamental principles of sovereignty: the ability to control what crosses borders in either direction. Sovereign states measure their sensitivity increasingly, not to one another, but to forces beyond their control.

Therefore globalisation means that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in