LESSON 3: Global Interstate System

Some claim that of all modern societies, contemporary international relations is closest to a social field.
That is, interactions are predominantly spontaneous and free market processes fundamentally
determine major relations. It is further claimed that nobody plans what the society will be like as no
central organizational structure coercively commands behavior. Relations among members of the world
society are said to comprise multiple and overlapping local, regional, and international expectations
dependent on the interests, capabilities, and wills of the parties involved.

Although there are claims that the international order is sewn together by diverse and cross-cutting
balances of social powers, others beg to disagree. Some state that governments seem to be coercively
affected by global actors and there are powerful institutions that govern international relations.

'SYSTEM' IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

In the context of the global interstate system, system fundamentally refers to interactions by various
political entities. but mostly states. Today, the system is virtually global (though it is admitted that some
parts of the globe did not know of other parts, much less interact).

During the 18th century, the term "system" came into common use in the field of international
relations. The Genevan philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) stated that the powers of
Europe form among themselves a kind of system that joins them together through the same religion,
law of nations, customs, letters, commerce, as well as a sort of balance which is the necessary effect of
all this. His thoughts clarified, among other things, that the concept of an international system goes
beyond simple geographic proximity.

The French historian Georges-Henri Soutou (b. 1943) introduces international system as characterized
by the general balance of the powers making it up, and also by shared solidarities that are cultural,
religious, economic, social, as well as with regard to legal and diplomatic structures ("Organizing the
International System," n.d.). International system as a modern in sociology:

... requires going beyond a purely mechanical order to consider relations among the powers, their
power dynamics, and their conviction of having a shared destiny. A system has a transcendental
dimension that surpasses the specificity of each of its members, in order to make up a more or less
coherent whole of countries that observe common rules, and adopt common practices. The relative
haziness of this notion comes from the fact that each state pursues individual goals in keeping with their
singularity. Conceiving an international system involves envisioning a cohesion that is satisfactory for the
greatest number, and which starts out from varied interests that are not always convergent, and that
can even be incompatible. Contemplation of an international system must therefore firstly focus on the
interactions binding the political units of which it consists. ("Organizing the International System," n.d.,
para. 1).

INTERSTATE SYSTEM

Interstate system may refer to a system for international relations, specifically that which deals with
governments or states and their authorities. International relations are broad and can be divided into (1)
interstate, (2) intersocietal, and (3) interpersonal. As we shall see, interstate relations, which are the
concern of interstate system, are related to but are technically different from intersocietal and
interpersonal relations.

Interpersonal relations (in international relations) denote those relations of or between citizens of
different states acting in their personal interests. Migrants, tourists, foreign students, and the
international jet set exemplify such interpersonal relations. Other examples include some international
mails, phone calls, telegrams, and cross-border air and surface traffic.

Intersocietal relations refer to those authoritative actions, understandings, or commitments of the

authorities of groups within one state with those groups or citizens of another state. Examples include
companies selling goods or services to the citizens of other states, contacts between foreign firms, or a
company contracting with a foreign firm. But intersocietal relations also refer to those relations within
groups whose membership and organizations transcend states. This type includes multinational
corporations with foreign subsidiaries, international professional associations, and centrally-
administered international religions like the Catholic Church and the Iglesia ni Cristo from the
Philippines.

On the other hand, interstate relations are those "authoritative actions. understandings, or
commitments of the governmental authorities, that is, the leaders. of one state to or with the
governmental authorities of another state or its groups or citizens, either bilaterally or through
international organizations" ("International Relations."n.d., para. 23). Examples include state visits,
treaties, international conferences, military aid, and the like, as well as nationalizations of foreign
business, applying duties to foreign goods, expelling foreign newsmen, arresting a foreign national, and
censoring foreign magazines. All authoritative actions of a state's governmental authority against any
citizen or group or another state is part of interstate relations.
International relations are thus interpersonal, intersocietal, and interstate and the international field
comprises interpersonal, intersocietal, and interstate behavior and attributes. Technically though, global
interstate system is concerned (only) with the interstate matters. Many say that the current
international system is marked by growing interdependence (that is, the mutual responsibility and
dependency on others) due to growing globalization, specifically the international economic
interactions.

THE EFFECTS OF GLOBALIZATION ON GOVERNMENTS

State is commonly defined as a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under
one government. Government is the governing body of a state, nation, or community. A government is
thus the political administration of a state or country. A state is the geographic unit that has a distinct
constitution, fiscal system, and is sovereign (that is, self-governing and independent from other states as
recognized by them). It is in a state where a government can exercise its powers.

One of the debatable issues relevant to the outcomes of globalization is the effect that it has had on
governments or state entities. Looking at globalization vis-à-vis governments is an essential part of the
overall impact that globalization has had on the world. Aside from defining the globalization, looking at
its pros and cons, and trying to understand this phenomenon the future, it is also vital to evaluate
particular implications of globalization, and specifically the effects of economic globalization, as well as
the political impact of globalization on the behavior of governments or states. So, what are the ways in
which the government leaders, and the state as a whole, have been fashioned by globalization
economically and politically?

Concerning globalization and economic sovereignty. Osland (2003) contends that "the key question
regarding globalization and governments is whether or not globalization threatens national sovereignty.
(p. 142)" History seems to manifest that the governments of states were contributory in driving
globalization. Governments' calls to carry out naval expeditions, their policies for or against tariffs, and
their willingness to endorse economic enterprises that lead to a growth of technological innovations in
their nation are all ways in which a government can drive globalization.

As of late nonetheless, the question has been how globalization affects governments, as regards their
overall behavior, and more definitely, whether globalization limits state sovereignty. For instance, with
the upswing of globalization, some say that governments are far less able to govern their own politics
without considering the outside world. In the present day, it becomes difficult to be economically
isolated. As a result, some believe that today, "government matters less and less in a global economy.
Nation-states are simply other actors on the global stage rather than its directors" (Osland, 2003), and
that "aggressive global production systems and capital markets now occupy the 'commanding heights' of
global development, forcing governments on the defensive and pressuring them to deregulate,
downsize, and privatize many of the social management functions they assumed during the past
century" (Yergin and Stanislaw, 2000).

Joyce S. Osland. Ph.D. of San Jose State University College of Global Leadership and Innovation
enumerates some of the pros and cons of globalization related to governments. The positives include
the following (2003):

1. increased economic development benefits some governments:

2. increased jobs and expanded infrastructure benefit some countries;

3. transfer of modern management techniques into business sector:

4. greater interdependence among trading and investment partners may deter war; and

5. proliferation of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to counter-balance decreased governmental

power.

On the other hand, the negative effects of globalization on governments include these (2003):

1. power of multinational enterprises (MNES) increased at the expense of government power,

sovereignty, and ability to regulate business;

2. MNEs externalize some of their costs to countries;

3. ompetition for factories and foreign direct investment (FDI) result in too many concessions to MNES
by some governments:

4. some MNEs influence local government policy and threaten to leave if their demands are not met;

5. MNEs pay fewer taxes to governments and incorporate where the tax rate is lowest, depriving their
own country of revenue; and

6. governments are pressured to reduce tax rates and decrease social benefits that may affect stability.

As regards globalization and political sovereignty, with the rise of globalization come increased
international human rights norms which have brought serious challenges on traditional meanings of
state sovereignty. Since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, the state model has been the prevailing one in
international relations (as explained in a previous section of this book). With the formation of the
League of Nations, and more so later with the establishment of the United Nations in the past century,
governments and states have continued to have their respective sovereignty questioned by human
rights activists who demand the state live up to its function as the defender of its population.
With platforms such as the United Nations, international actors can come together and work on
international legal treaties for the reduction of state sovereignty through some agreements. Although
states sometimes violate treaties and conventions, but with some enforcement mechanisms today such
as the International Criminal Court. the capacity of governments leaders to guard themselves from
international eyes, in terms of media and expectations of international law, is significantly curtailed.

International treaties also affect the states' ability to pass economic policies. As Stiglitz (2007) states,

Increasingly, a government's ability to control the actions of individuals or companies is also limited by
international agreements that impinge on the. right of sovereign states to make decisions. A
government that wants to ensure that banks lend a certain fraction of their portfolio to underserved
areas, or to ensure that accounting frameworks accurately reflect a company's true status. may find it
unable to pass the appropriate laws. Signing on to international trade agreements can prevent
governments from regulating the influx and outflow of hot, speculative money, even though capital
market liberalization can lead to economic crises (pp. 20-21).

INSTITUTIONS THAT GOVERN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

International relations (also referred to as international affairs) have a broad purpose in contemporary
society, as it seeks to understand the following ("International Relations," n.d.):

1. the origins of war and the maintenance of peace:

2. the nature and exercise of power within the global system; and

3. the changing character of state and non-state actors who participate in international decision-making.

Historically, the formation of treaties among nations served as the earliest form of international
relations. The study and practice of international relations in today's world and globalized society is
valuable for several reasons. Ideally speaking. international relationship has the following roles.

1. It promotes successful trade policies between nations.;

2. It encourages travel related to business, tourism, and immigration, providing people with
opportunities to enhance their lives

3. It allows nations to cooperate with one another, pool resources, and share information as a way to
face global issues that go beyond any particular country or region. Contemporary global issues include
pandemics, terrorism, and the environment.
4. It advances human culture through cultural exchanges, diplomacy, and policy development
("International Relations," n.d.),

The practice of international relations is significant in a wide range of settings. Some examples include
Humanitarian organizations (Action Against Hunger, Oxfam International, World Food Programme);
Government agencies (Department of State, Department of Homeland Security. Department of
Commerce); International corporations (General Electric, Exxon Mobile, Toyota, Nestle, Siemens); Media
outlets (BBC, Washington Post, The Guardian. Der Spiegal, New York Times, Forbes, Wall Street Journal):
International communications (Amnesty International, Freedom House, Human Rights Watch, Reporters
Without Borders); Research centers/Think tanks (Brookings Institution, Center for International Policy,
Council on Foreign Relations. Global Public Policy Institute); and Intergovernmental organizations (World
Trade Organization, United Nations, NATO).

International institutions form an essential part of contemporary international relations. They govern
much interaction at the system level and in effect outlaw some traditional institutions and practices of
international relations. World trade organizations, for instance, emerged as a commanding international
organization capable of effectually influencing individual governments to follow international trade
rules, policies on subsidies, copyrights, taxes and tariffs. States can not violate rules without facing
economic sanctions or consequences.

Institutions that govern international relations such as international organizations are established and
expected to provide solutions whenever encounter transnational challenges. These include financial
market instability, trade protectionism, sovereign debt crises, international and civil wars, humanitarian
emergencies, flows of refugees, outbreaks of infectious diseases, climate change, and the development
of poor nations. Their role in world politics is nonetheless controversial as some see them as alternatives
to unilateral state policies and others consider them as fig leaves for the exercise of power by dominant
states. Some are often dissatisfied by their performance in addressing global problems.

An international organization is an institution with an international membership. scope, or presence.

Technically, it is an organization drawing membership from at least three states, having activities in
many states, and whose members are held other by a formal agreement. There are two main types:

1. International non-governmental organizations (INGOS). These are non-governmental organizations

(NGOs) that operate internationally. Their members are associations or individuals. These include
international non-profit organizations and worldwide companies such as the World Organization of the
Scout Movement, International Committee of the Red Cross, and Médecins Sans Frontières.
2. Intergovernmental organizations, also known as international governmental organizations (IGOS).
These organizations are chiefly composed of sovereign states (referred to as member states) and have
been established by intergovernmental agreements. Most closely associated with the term
"international organization," its remarkable examples include the United Nations (UN), Organization for
Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), Council of Europe (COE), International Labour Organization
(ILO. and International Police Organization (INTERPOL). The first and oldest intergovernmental
organization is the Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine, created in 1815 by the Congress of
Vienna.

In 1899 and 1907, European and non-European states convened to arrange rules to regulate armaments
and the conduct of war. These meetings produced the Hague Conventions, which involved treaties on
the peaceful settlement of war, the rights of neutral states, and the treatment of prisoners of war. These
different conferences and agreements served as forerunners of the international organizations of the
20th century, such as the League of Nations and the United Nations (UN). Later, the UN became the
centrepiece of a network of international organizations as prompted by the political and economic
interdependencies and advances in transportation and communication that developed after World War
II.

International organizations serve many varied functions, such as gathering information and monitoring
trends (e.g., the World Meteorological Organization), providing services and aid (e.g., the World Health
Organization), and staging forums for bargaining (e.g., the European Union) and resolving disputes (e.g.,
the World Trade Organization). They can help to foster cooperative behaviour by establishing political
institutions through which governments can work together to realize common objectives. Individual
states often use IGOS as instruments of foreign policy to legitimize their actions and to constrain the
behaviour of other states.

The roles of international organizations include assisting to set international agenda, arbitrating political
bargaining, establishing a place for political initiatives, and serving as catalysts for coalition-formation.
IGOS also define the salient issues and resolve which issues can be clustered together. thus assist
governmental priority determination or other governmental arrangements. Admittedly though, not all
IGOS seek economic, political, and social integration and cooperation.

INTERNATIONALISM VS GLOBALISM

Although internationalism and globalism may appear to be alike, there exists. conceptual difference
between the two terms. To begin with, internationalism is political, economic, and cultural cooperation
among countries whereas globalism is an ideology anchored on the belief that people, goods, and
information ought to be able to cross national borders unrestrained.
As we would further see, globalism is much wider term than internationalism is in meaning, scope, and
outcome. Internationalism puts stress simply on the cooperation and solidarity among the states, while
acknowledging their sovereign character. Globalism, on the other hand, puts emphasis on the dilution of
the sovereign expression of the nations and also exhibits the conflicts arising out of this dilution.
However, this does not mean that globalism is a negative concept, because surrender of national
sovereignty is intended to moderate the obstructions to international exchanges.

Despite the conceptual differences between the two terms, we practically see a fusion of the two
phenomena. The international and transnational exchanges observe both internationalism and
globalism with varying degrees in the contemporary world. For instance, in international organizations
like the WTO, the mode of exchange is basically a blend of both globalism and internationalism.

Globalism nonetheless tends to dominate the situations exhibiting both phenomena. While nations seek
cooperation for international trade and respect each other's sovereignty in decision-making, yet, it is
usually the nations in the Global South that have to compromise their national interests. In transnational
and postcolonial studies, the Global South refers to what may also be called the developing world' (ie.,
Africa, Latin America, and the developing countries in Asia), developing countries, less developed
countries, and less developed regions.

Even the United Nations that seeks international cooperation and fixes various conflicts observes both
phenomena (though some claim that it is again the globalism that dominates the scenarios). Although
there are varied conflicts over a broad range of issues (like the expansion of Security Council, dominance
of the West, and the like), yet, the organization intends to establish consensus among the stake holders
and impose cooperation in the matters of global importance. Exemplifying this is the 2015 United
Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in which various countries agreed to put their foot down for
the sake of global welfare. While conflicts exist and sovereignty is surrendered to some extent, yet they
get eclipsed by the pursuit of Global interests.

Concerning terrorism and fundamentalism in global context, the aspect of globalism also dominates "in
terms of the rapid radicalisation of people round the globe, while the measures to counter them entails
internationalism wherein 'this threat' is acknowledged and dealt via cooperation between nations"
(Sharma, 2016, para. 6). Among other things, this aspect proves once again that free flow of people,
materials, and information may not necessarily be serviceable as in the case of various global
phenomena such as terrorism, cultural clashes, and spread of nuclear weapons.

In the contemporary world, conflicts, cooperation, and interdependence among several countries go
hand in hand and so do globalism and internationalism. Although in theory they manifest difference in
terms of their conceptual meaning, yet, in practice they are not exclusive of each other and are
frequently seen together with varying degree.