Globalization - THREAT S TO THE NAT ION-STATE

As a result of the heritage of Westphalia, we came to think of the nation-state as an autonomous,

rather self-contained,5 entity, but in fact many of the global processes that slice

through it (see below, as well as throughout this book), indicate that the nation-state is not, and
undoubtedly has never been, such a “container.” As a result, one observer concludes

(and the authors would agree) that the “state is today highly contingent and in flux” (Cerny

2007: 854).

Global flows and processes

The nation-state is especially threatened by the global economy and global economic flows. An

extreme argument is made by Ohmae who contends that “The uncomfortable truth is that, in

terms of the global economy, nation-states have become little more than bit actors” (1996: 12).

He talks in terms of a borderless global economy that nation-states are unable to control.

A similar argument is made by Strange who contends that the decline of the nation-state

is linked to technological and financial changes, as well as to “the accelerated integration of

national economies into one single global market economy” (Strange 1996: 13–14). While

nation-states once controlled markets, it is now the markets that often control the nationstates.

(We will have much more to say about these economic factors in the next two chapters.)

In this context, Strange takes on the Westphalia system and dubs it a “Westfailure.”

She does so because the state has failed to control the financial system (she cites the Asian

financial crisis, but the Great Recession is an even better example), to protect the environment,

and to deal with social inequality (Strange 1999: 345–54).

There are a variety of other factors threatening the autonomy of the nation-state including

flows of information, undocumented immigrants, new social movements, war, terrorists,

criminals, drugs, money (including laundered money, and other financial instruments),

sex-trafficking, and much else. Many of these flows have been made possible by the development

and continual refinement of technologies of all sorts. The nation-state has also

been weakened by the growing power of global and transnational organizations (e.g. the

EU) that operate largely free of the control of nation-states. Another factor is the growth of

global problems (AIDS, TB, global warming; see Chapters 11 and 12) that cannot be handled,
or handled very well, by a nation-state operating on its own. A more specific historical

factor is the end of the Cold War which had been a powerful force in unifying, or at least

holding together, some nation-states. One example is Yugoslavia and its dissolution with

the end of the Cold War, but the main one, of course, is the dissolution of the Soviet Union

into a number of independent nation-states (Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, etc.). Then there are

“failed states” (Boas and Jennings 2007) (e.g. Somalia) where there is, in effect, no functioning

national government, as well as states that are in the process of breaking down (Li 2002;

Foreign Policy and Fund for Peace 2013). Clearly, failed states, and states that are disintegrating,

are in no position to maintain their borders adequately.

One way of summarizing much of this is to say that the nation-state has become increasingly

porous. While this seems to be supported by a great deal of evidence, the fact is that no

nation-state has ever been able to control its borders completely (Bauman 1992: 57). Thus, it is

not the porosity of the nation-state that is new, but rather what is new is a dramatic increase in

that porosity and of the kinds of flows that are capable of passing through national borders.

International human rights

Another threat to the autonomy of the nation-state is the growing interest in international

human rights (Blau 2012; Chatterjee 2008; Donnelly 2013). Indeed, the issue of human

rights, defined as the “entitlement of individuals to life, security, and well-being” (Turner 1993, 2007a:
591) has emerged as a major global political issue. It is argued that because

these rights are universal, the nation-state cannot abrogate them.6 As a result, global

human rights groups have claimed the right to be able to have a say about what is done to

people within (for example, torture of terror suspects) and between (for example, illegal

trafficking in humans [Farr 2005]) sovereign states. Thus, in such a view, human rights

are a global matter and not exclusively a concern of the state (Brysk 2013; Levy and

Sznaider 2006). Furthermore, the implication is that the international community can

and should intervene when a state violates human rights or when a violation occurs

within a state border and the state does not take adequate action to deal with the

violation.

A concern for human rights on a global scale emerged in reaction to the Holocaust
(Bauman 1989) and other twentieth-century atrocities. On December 10, 1948, the

UN General assembly approved a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Below are a few

of the Articles of this Declaration most relevant to its relationship to the nation-state.

Article 1

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason

and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction

of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national

or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or

international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent,

trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 13

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each

State.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his

country.

Article 15

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his

nationality.

Article 19

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to

hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas

through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 22

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization,

through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization
and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for

his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 30

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any

right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights

and freedoms set forth herein.

What this Declaration and its Articles suggest is that human rights take precedence over

the nation-state and that the UN is seeking to exert control over the state, at least on

these issues.

As a result, at least in part, of growing interest in human rights in recent years, more

people throughout the world have come to define themselves as global citizens and agitated

against human rights abuses throughout the world. The creation of the International

Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002 created a venue in which those accused of human rights

abuses could be tried and found guilty (Schabas and McDermott 2012). However, such an

international system is seen by some as a threat to the sovereignty of the nation-state

(Sorensen 2007). As a result, the US, for one, has refused to recognize the ICC.