MODULE 1: WHAT IS CONTEMPORARY WORLD?

“This civilization already reached the top of the bell curve and currently is in
decline. If you believe it is progressive, yes it is. But, regressively
progressive.”
- Joshy A J

OBJECTIVES. What will you learn from this module?

At the end of this module, you should be able to:

1. Articulate what makes globalization contemporary
2. Identify the conceptions of globalization and its underlying philosophies
3. Identify the definition of globalization that will be adopted for the course
4. Analyze the diffusion of the nation-state from the treaty of Westphalia to
the wave of contemporary nation-state building
5. Establish the concept of “nationhood” in the Westphalia Treaty
6. Assess the role of colonialism in shaping global political and economic
hierarchy of societies of today
7. Define neo-colonialism, internationalism (include socialist
international/comintern) and globalism
8. Explain the effects of globalization on governments
9. Identify the institution that govern international relations

INTRODUCTION

This course introduces students to the contemporary world by examining the

multifaceted phenomenon of globalization. Using the various disciplines of the social
sciences, it examines the economic, social, political, technological and other transformations
that have created an increasing awareness of the interconnectedness of peoples and places
around the globe.

ANALYSIS. One minute paper!

In one minute, write your own understanding on the question/s below.
Write your answer on the space provided.

1. What is globalization?
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
 LESSON 1 INTRODUCING THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD

ABSTRACTION

WHAT IS GLOBALIZATION?
“Globalization” is a catchphrase familiar to anyone tuned in to social media. Every day
we hear the term globalization on the news, read it in the papers, and overhear people
talking about it. What does this term mean? There is no definite definition of globalization
or globalisation and the term is used to denote a variety of ways in which nation-states,
regions and people, due to advances in transportation and communication systems, are
becoming more and more closely connected and interdependent, not only in the economic
sense, but also in the cultural, political, social, technological, environmental and spatial
aspects.
Shalmali Guttal (2007) defined globalization as “the process of interaction and
integration among people, companies, and governments worldwide. As a complex and
multifaceted phenomenon, globalization is considered by some as a form of capitalist
expansion which entails the integration of local and national economies into a global,
unregulated market economy.”

THE BENEFITS OF GLOBALIZATION

 More international trade
 More wealth in the world
 Improve living standards
 Increased creativity and innovation
 More goods and services generally available at lower prices
 Easy access to foreign countries

TYPES OF GLOBALIZATION
I. ECONOMIC GLOBALIZATION
 Economic globalization refers to the interconnectedness of economies
through trade and exchange of resources.
 It also refers to the widespread international movements of goods, services,
capital, technology and information.
  Economic globalization primarily comprises the globalization of production,
finance, markets, technology, organizational regimes, institutions,
corporations and labour.

II. SOCIAL GLOBALIZATION

 It pertains to human interaction within cultural communities, encompassing
topics like family, religion and education.
 It is a global interconnectedness between people.
 It is also a measure of how easily information and ideas pass between people
in their own country and between different countries (includes access to
internet and social media networks).

III. POLITICAL GLOBALIZATION

 Refers to the amount of political co-operation that exists between different
countries.
 Political globalization refers to the growth of the worldwide political system,
both in size and complexity.
 It also refers to the organization of different countries into trade blocs.

CONVERGING CURRENTS OF GLOBALIZATION

Most scholars agree that the most significant components of globalization is the
economic reorganization of the world. The characteristics of this new world arrangement
are:
1. Global communication systems that link all regions of the planet instantaneously and
global transportation systems capable of moving goods quickly by air, sea, and land;
2. Transnational conglomerate corporate strategies that have created global
corporations more economically powerful than many nation-states;
3. International financial institutions that make possible 24-hour trading with new and
more flexible forms of monetary flow;
4. Global agreements that promote free trade;
5. Market economies that have replaced state-controlled economies, and privatized
firms and services, like water delivery, formerly operated by governments;
6. An abundance of planetary goods and services that have arisen to fulfil consumer
demand (real or imaginary); and, of course,
7. An army of international workers, managers, executives, who give this powerful
economic force a human dimension. (Rowntree, Lewis, Price & Wyckoff, 2008)

FACTORS THAT HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO GLOBALIZATION

There are a variety of factors which have contributed to the process of globalization.
Some of the most important globalization drivers are numbered below.

1. The price of transporting goods has fallen significantly, enabling good to be imported
and exported more cheaply due to containerization and bulk shipping;
2. The development of the internet to organize trade on a global scale;
3. TNCs have taken advantage of the reduction or lowering of trade barriers;
 4. The desire of TNCs to profit from lower unit labour costs and other favourable
production factors abroad has encouraged countries to regulate their tax systems to draw
in foreign direct investment (FDI);
5. Transnational and multinational companies have invested significantly in expanding
internationally;
6. The collapse of communism in the Soviet Union; and
7. The opening of China to world trade.

THEORIES OF GLOBALIZATION

All theories of globalization have been put hereunder in eight categories: liberalism,
political realism, Marxism, constructivism, postmodernism, feminism, Trans-
formationalism and eclecticism. Each one of them carries several variations.

1. Theory of Liberalism
Liberalism sees the process of globalization as market-led extension of modernization. At
the most elementary level, it is a result of ‘natural’ human desires for economic welfare and
political liberty. As such, trans-planetary connectivity is derived from human drives to
maximize material well-being and to exercise basic freedoms. These forces eventually
interlink humanity across the planet.
They fructify in the form of:
a. Technological advances, particularly in the areas of transport,
communications and information processing, and,
b. Suitable legal and institutional arrangement to enable markets and liberal
democracy to spread on a trans-world scale.

Such explanations come mostly from Business Studies, Economics, International

Political Economy, Law and Politics. Liberalists stress the necessity of constructing
institutional infrastructure to support globalization. All this has led to technical
standardization, administrative harmonization, translation arrangement between languages,
laws of contract, and guarantees of property rights.

But its supporters neglect the social forces that lie behind the creation of technological
and institutional underpinnings. It is not satisfying to attribute these developments to
‘natural’ human drives for economic growth and political liberty. They are culture blind and
tend to overlook historically situated life-worlds and knowledge structures which have
promoted their emergence.

All people cannot be assumed to be equally amenable to and desirous of increased

globality in their lives. Similarly, they overlook the phenomenon of power. There are
structural power inequalities in promoting globalization and shaping its course. Often they
do not care for the entrenched power hierarchies between states, classes, cultures, sexes,
races and resources.

2. Theory of Political Realism

Advocates of this theory are interested in questions of state power, the pursuit of national
interest, and conflict between states. According to them states are inherently acquisitive and
self-serving, and heading for inevitable competition of power. Some of the scholars stand for
a balance of power, where any attempt by one state to achieve world dominance is countered
by collective resistance from other states.
 Another group suggests that a dominant state can bring stability to world order. The
‘hegemon’ state (presently the US or G7/8) maintains and defines international rules and
institutions that both advance its own interests and at the same time contain conflicts
between other states. Globalization has also been explained as a strategy in the contest for
power between several major states in contemporary world politics.

They concentrate on the activities of Great Britain, China, France, Japan, the USA and
some other large states. Thus, the political realists highlight the issues of power and power
struggles and the role of states in generating global relations.

At some levels, globalization is considered as antithetical to territorial states. States, they

say, are not equal in globalization, some being dominant and others subordinate in the
process. But they fail to understand that everything in globalization does not come down to
the acquisition, distribution and exercise of power.

Globalization has also cultural, ecological, economic and psychological dimensions that
are not reducible to power politics. It is also about the production and consumption of
resources, about the discovery and affirmation of identity, about the construction and
communication of meaning, and about humanity shaping and being shaped by nature. Most
of these are apolitical.

Power theorists also neglect the importance and role of other actors in generating
globalization. These are sub-state authorities, macro-regional institutions, global agencies,
and private-sector bodies. Additional types of power-relations on lines of class, culture and
gender also affect the course of globalization. Some other structural inequalities cannot be
adequately explained as an outcome of interstate competition. After all, class inequality,
cultural hierarchy, and patriarchy predate the modern states.

3. Theory of Marxism
Marxism is principally concerned with modes of production, social exploitation through
unjust distribution, and social emancipation through the transcendence of capitalism. Marx
himself anticipated the growth of globality that ‘capital by its nature drives beyond every
spatial barrier to conquer the whole earth for its market’. Accordingly, to Marxists,
globalization happens because trans-world connectivity enhances opportunities of profit-
making and surplus accumulation.

Marxists reject both liberalist and political realist explanations of globalization. It is the
outcome of historically specific impulses of capitalist development. Its legal and institutional
infrastructures serve the logic of surplus accumulation of a global scale. Liberal talk of
freedom and democracy make up a legitimating ideology for exploitative global capitalist
class relations.

The neo-Marxists in dependency and world-system theories examine capitalist

accumulation on a global scale on lines of core and peripheral countries. Neo-Gramscians
highlight the significance of underclass struggles to resist globalizing capitalism not only by
traditional labor unions, but also by new social movements of consumer advocates,
environmentalists, peace activists, peasants, and women. However, Marxists give an overly
restricted account of power.
 There are other relations of dominance and subordination which relate to state, culture,
gender, race, sex, and more. Presence of US hegemony, the West-centric cultural
domination, masculinism, racism etc. are not reducible to class dynamics within capitalism.
Class is a key axis of power in globalization, but it is not the only one. It is too simplistic to
see globalization solely as a result of drives for surplus accumulation.

It also seeks to explore identities and investigate meanings. People develop global
weapons and pursue global military campaigns not only for capitalist ends, but also due to
interstate competition and militarist culture that predate emergence of capitalism. Ideational
aspects of social relations also are not outcome of the modes of production. They have, like
nationalism, their autonomy.

4. Theory of Constructivism
Globalization has also arisen because of the way that people have mentally constructed
the social world with particular symbols, language, images and interpretation. It is the result
of particular forms and dynamics of consciousness. Patterns of production and governance
are second-order structures that derive from deeper cultural and socio-psychological forces.
Such accounts of globalization have come from the fields of Anthropology, Humanities,
Media of Studies and Sociology.

Constructivists concentrate on the ways that social actors ‘construct’ their world: both
within their own minds and through inter-subjective communication with others.
Conversation and symbolic exchanges lead people to construct ideas of the world, the rules
for social interaction, and ways of being and belonging in that world. Social geography is a
mental experience as well as a physical fact. They form ‘in’ or ‘out’ as well as ‘us’ and they’
groups.

They conceive of themselves as inhabitants of a particular global world. National, class,

religious and other identities respond in part to material conditions but they also depend on
inter-subjective construction and communication of shared self-understanding. However,
when they go too far, they present a case of social-psychological reductionism ignoring the
significance of economic and ecological forces in shaping mental experience. This theory
neglects issues of structural inequalities and power hierarchies in social relations. It has a
built-in apolitical tendency.

5. Theory of Postmodernism
Some other ideational perspectives of globalization highlight the significance of
structural power in the construction of identities, norms and knowledge. They all are
grouped under the label of ‘postmodernism’. They too, as Michel Foucault does strive to
understand society in terms of knowledge power: power structures shape knowledge. Certain
knowledge structures support certain power hierarchies.

The reigning structures of understanding determine what can and cannot be known in a
given socio-historical context. This dominant structure of knowledge in modern society is
‘rationalism’. It puts emphasis on the empirical world, the subordination of nature to human
control, objectivist science, and instrumentalist efficiency. Modern rationalism produces a
society overwhelmed with economic growth, technological control, bureaucratic
organization, and disciplining desires.
 This mode of knowledge has authoritarian and expansionary logic that leads to a kind of
cultural imperialism subordinating all other epistemologies. It does not focus on the problem
of globalization per se. In this way, western rationalism overawes indigenous cultures and
other non-modem life-worlds.

Postmodernism, like Marxism, helps to go beyond the relatively superficial accounts of

liberalist and political realist theories and expose social conditions that have favored
globalization. Obviously, postmodernism suffers from its own methodological idealism. All
material forces, though come under impact of ideas, cannot be reduced to modes of
consciousness. For a valid explanation, interconnection between ideational and material
forces is not enough.

6. Theory of Feminism
It puts emphasis on social construction of masculinity and femininity. All other theories
have identified the dynamics behind the rise of trans-planetary and supra-territorial
connectivity in technology, state, capital, identity and the like.

Biological sex is held to mold the overall social order and shape significantly the course of
history, presently globality. Their main concern lies behind the status of women, particularly
their structural subordination to men. Women have tended to be marginalized, silenced and
violated in global communication.

7. Theory of Trans-formationalism
This theory has been expounded by David Held and his colleagues. Accordingly, the term
‘globalization’ reflects increased interconnectedness in political, economic and cultural
matters across the world creating a “shared social space”. Given this interconnectedness,
globalization may be defined as “a process (or set of processes) which embodies a
transformation in the spatial organization of social relations and transactions, expressed in
transcontinental or interregional flows and networks of activity, interaction and power.”

While there are many definitions of globalization, such a definition seeks to bring
together the many and seemingly contradictory theories of globalization into a “rigorous
analytical framework” and “proffer a coherent historical narrative”. Held and McGrew’s
analytical framework is constructed by developing a three part typology of theories of
globalization consisting of “hyper-globalist,” “skeptic,” and “transformationalist” categories.

The Hyper-globalists purportedly argue that “contemporary globalization defines a new

era in which people everywhere are increasingly subject to the disciplines of the global
marketplace”. Given the importance of the global marketplace, multi-national enterprises
(MNEs) and intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) which regulate their activity are key
political actors. Skeptics, such as Hirst and Thompson (1996) ostensibly argue that
“globalization is a myth which conceals the reality of an international economy increasingly
segmented into three major regional blocs in whom national governments remain very
powerful.” Finally, transformationalists such as Rosenau (1997) or Giddens (1990) argue that
globalization occurs as “states and societies across the globe are experiencing a process of
profound change as they try to adapt to a more interconnected but highly uncertain world”.

Developing the transformationalist category of globalization theories. Held and McGrew

present a rather complicated typology of globalization based on globalization’s spread, depth,
speed, and impact, as well as its impacts on infrastructure, institutions, hierarchical
structures and the unevenness of development.

They imply that the “politics of globalization” have been “transformed” (using their word
from the definition of globalization) along all of these dimensions because of the emergence
of a new system of “political globalization.” They define “political globalization” as the
“shifting reach of political power, authority and forms of rule” based on new organizational
interests who are “transnational” and “multi-layered.”

These organizational interests combine actors identified under the hyper-globalist

category (namely IGOs and MNEs) with those of the skeptics (trading blocs and powerful
states) into a new system where each of these actors exercises their political power, authority
and forms of rule.

Thus, the “politics of globalization” is equivalent to “political globalization” for Held and
McGrew. However, Biyane Michael criticizes them. He deconstructs their argument, if A is
defined as “globalization” (as defined above), B as the organizational interests such as MNEs,
IGOs, trading blocs, and powerful states, and C as “political globalization” (also as defined
above), then their argument reduces to A. B. C. In this way, their discussion of globalization
is trivial.

Held and others present a definition of globalization, and then simply restates various
elements of the definition. Their definition, “globalization can be conceived as a process (or
set of processes) which embodies a transformation in the spatial organization of social
relations” allows every change to be an impact of globalization. Thus, by their own definition,
all the theorists they critique would be considered as “transformationalists.” Held and
McGrew also fail to show how globalization affects organizational interests.

8. Theory of Eclecticism
Each one of the above six ideal-type of social theories of globalization highlights certain
forces that contribute to its growth. They put emphasis on technology and institution
building, national interest and inter-state competition, capital accumulation and class
struggle, identity and knowledge construction, rationalism and cultural imperialism, and
masculinize and subordination of women. Jan Art Scholte synthesizes them as forces of
production, governance, identity, and knowledge.

Accordingly, capitalists attempt to amass ever-greater resources in excess of their

survival needs: accumulation of surplus. The capitalist economy is thoroughly monetized.
Money facilitates accumulation. It offers abundant opportunities to transfer surplus,
especially from the weak to the powerful. This mode of production involves perpetual and
pervasive contests over the distribution of surplus. Such competition occurs both between
individual, firms, etc. and along structural lines of class, gender, race etc.

Their contests can be overt or latent. Surplus accumulation has had transpired in one
way or another for many centuries, but capitalism is a comparatively recent phenomenon. It
has turned into a structural power, and is accepted as a ‘natural’ circumstance, with no
alternative mode of production. It has spurred globalization in four ways: market expansion,
accounting practices, asset mobility and enlarged arenas of commodification. Its
technological innovation appears in communication, transport and data processing as well as
in global organization and management. It concentrates profits at points of low taxation.
Information, communication, finance and consumer sectors offer vast potentials to capital
making it ‘hyper-capitalism’.

Any mode of production cannot operate in the absence of an enabling regulatory

apparatus. There are some kinds of governance mechanisms. Governance relates processes
whereby people formulate, implement, enforce and review rules to guide their common
affairs.” It entails more than government. It can extend beyond state and sub-state
institutions including supra-state regimes as well. It covers the full scope of societal
regulation.

In the growth of contemporary globalization, besides political and economic forces, there
are material and ideational elements. In expanding social relations, people explore their
class, their gender, their nationality, their race, their religious faith and other aspects of their
being. Constructions of identity provide collective solidarity against oppression. Identity
provides frameworks for community, democracy, citizenship and resistance. It also leads
from nationalism to greater pluralism and hybridity.

Earlier nationalism promoted territorialism, capitalism, and statism, now these plural
identities are feeding more and more globality, hyper-capitalism and polycentrism. These
identities have many international qualities visualized in global Diasporas and other group
affiliations based on age, class, gender, race, religious faith and sexual orientations. Many
forms of supra-territorial solidarities are appearing through globalization.

In the area of knowledge, the way that the people know their world has significant
implications for the concrete circumstances of that world. Powerful patterns of social
consciousness cause globalization. Knowledge frameworks cannot be reduced to forces of
production, governance or identity.

Mindsets encourage or discourage the rise of globality. Modern rationalism is a general

configuration of knowledge. It is secular as it defines reality in terms of the tangible world of
experience. It understands reality primarily in terms of human interests, activities and
conditions. It holds that phenomena can be understood in terms of single incontrovertible
truths that are discoverable by rigorous application of objective research methods.

Rationalism is instrumentalist. It assigns greatest value to insights that enable people

efficiently to solve immediate problems. It subordinates all other ways of understanding and
acting upon the world. Its knowledge could then be applied to harness natural and social
forces for human purposes. It enables people to conquer disease, hunger, poverty, war, etc.,
and maximize the potentials of human life. It looks like a secular faith, a knowledge
framework for capitalist production and a cult of economic efficiency. Scientism and
instrumentalism of rationalism is conducive to globalization. Scientific knowledge is non-
territorial.

The truths revealed by ‘objective’ method are valid for anyone, anywhere, and anytime on
earth. Certain production processes, regulations, technologies and art forms are applicable
across the planet. Martin Albrow rightly says that reason knows no territorial limits. The
growth of globalization is unlikely to reverse in the foreseeable future.

However, Scholte is aware of insecurity, inequality and marginalization caused by the

present process of globalization. Others reject secularist character of the theory, its
manifestation of the imperialism of westernist-modernist-rationalist knowledge. Anarchists
challenge the oppressive nature of states and other bureaucratic governance frameworks.
Globalization neglects environmental degradation and equitable gender relations.
(politicalsciencenotes.com 2017)

ACTIVITY. How Globalized is your Home?

Get a piece of paper and do some inventory on your home possessions. List down
the things that are essentials to your daily living and organize them into two parts, things
made in the Philippines and the foreign brands. Use the table below in doing the activity.

Made in the Philippines Foreign Brands

After organizing, answer this question briefly.

1. Discuss why certain products are made in the Philippines while others are produced
abroad.
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
 LESSON 2
LESSON 2 ESTABLISHING THE NATIONS

ABSTRACTION

TREATY OF WESTPHALIA
On 24 October 1648, the Treaty of Westphalia was signed, marking the end of the Thirty Years' War.

Ratification of the Peace of Münster (Gerard ter Borch, Münster, 1648).

The Westphalia area of north-western Germany gave its name to the treaty that
ended the Thirty Years' War, one of the most destructive conflicts in the history of Europe.

The war or series of connected wars began in 1618, when the Austrian Habsburgs
tried to impose Roman Catholicism on their Protestant subjects in Bohemia. It pitted
Protestant against Catholic, the Holy Roman Empire against France, the German princes
and princelings against the emperor and each other, and France against the Habsburgs of
Spain. The Swedes, the Danes, the Poles, the Russians, the Dutch and the Swiss were all
dragged in or dived in. Commercial interests and rivalries played a part, as did religion and
power politics.

Among famous commanders involved were Marshal Turenne and the Prince de
Condé for France, Wallenstein for the Empire and Tilly for the Catholic League, and there
was an able Bavarian general curiously named Franz von Mercy. Others to play a part ranged
from the Winter King of Bohemia to the emperors Ferdinand II and Ferdinand III, Bethlen
Gabor of Transylvania, Christian IV of Denmark, Gustavus II Adolphus and Queen Christina
of Sweden, the Great Elector of Brandenburg, Philip IV of Spain and his brother the
Cardinal-Infante, Louis XIII of France, Cardinals Richelieu and Mazarin and several popes.
Gustavus Adolphus was shot in the head and killed at the battle of Lutzen in 1632. The
increasingly crazed Wallenstein, who grew so sensitive to noise that he had all the dogs, cats
and cockerels killed in every town he came to, was murdered by an English captain in 1634.
Still the fighting went on.

The war was largely fought on German soil and reduced the country to desolation as
hordes of mercenaries, left unpaid by their masters, lived off the land. Rapine, pillage and
famine stalked the countryside as armies marched about, plundering towns, villages and
farms as they went. ‘We live like animals, eating bark and grass,’ says a pitiful entry in a
family Bible from a Swabian village. ‘No one could have imagined that anything like this
would happen to us. Many people say that there is no God...’ Wenceslas Hollar recorded
devastation in the war zone in engravings of the 1630s and starvation reached such a point in
the Rhineland that there were cases of cannibalism. The horror became a way of life and
when the war finally ended, the mercenaries and their womenfolk complained that their
livelihood was gone.

The peace conference to end the war opened in Münster and Osnabrück in December
1644. It involved no fewer than 194 states, from the biggest to the smallest, represented by
179 plenipotentiaries. There were thousands of ancillary diplomats and support staff, who
had to be given housing, fed and watered, and they did themselves well for close to four
years, despite famine in the country around. Presiding over the conference were the Papal
Nuncio, Fabio Chigi (the future Pope Alexander VII), and the Venetian ambassador.

The first six months were spent arguing about who was to sit where and who was to
go into a room ahead of whom. The principal French and Spanish envoys never managed to
meet at all because the correct protocol could not be agreed. A special postal system handled
reams of letters between the envoys and their principals at a time when it took ten days or
more to send a communication from Münster to Paris or Vienna and twenty days or more to
Stockholm or Madrid. Slowly deals were hammered out. Even then it took almost three
weeks just to organize the signing ceremony, which commenced at 2pm on the afternoon of
Saturday, 24 October 1648.

The treaty gave the Swiss independence of Austria and the Netherlands independence
of Spain. The German principalities secured their autonomy. Sweden gained territory and a
payment in cash, Brandenburg and Bavaria made gains too, and France acquired most of
Alsace-Lorraine. The prospect of a Roman Catholic re-conquest of Europe vanished forever.
Protestantism was in the world to stay.

THE INCREASINGLY PLIABLE CONCEPT OF SOVEREIGNTY

Sovereignty presupposes that the state is a territorially bounded unit with an inside
and an outside. Internally, the sovereign state is conceived to be an entity that can exercise
supreme authority within its own territorial boundary. Thus, a state is sovereign because it is
acknowledged that there is no external organization that can exercise authority within the
territorial boundaries of that state. Externally, a state must be recognized by the other
sovereign states and identified as an equal member of the international society. Putting
internal and external considerations together, it follows that sovereign states have an
international obligation or duty to abide by the norm of non-intervention. Put differently,
sovereignty requires all states to acknowledge that they have no right to intervene in each
other domestic affairs.

Such orthodox and traditional interpretations, however, in the last 50 years or so,
have undergone questioning, revision and readjustment. From the 1960s onwards, the
potential for states to maintain their sovereign status was called into question with
increasing frequency. This trend accelerated in the 1990s with the growing belief that the
forces of globalization had the capacity to erode sovereignty. As the impact of the Cold War
waned, cosmopolitanism gained ground and there were persistent demands by liberal
cosmopolitans on governments in the developed world to promote democratization and to
engage in humanitarian intervention at the expense of sovereign states in the Third World.
Equally, at this time, there occurred a widening and deepening of the European Union,
thereby threatening to undermine the sovereign state at its point of origin. For many
analysts, the combination of these developments seemed to inexorably lead to the conclusion
that the sovereign state is in the process of terminal decline.

International Relations theorists, using the name „poststructuralists‟, have stressed

that because men and women are no longer living in a Westphalian era, politics, sovereignty
and subjectivity all need to be redefined to take account of the fact that it no longer makes
sense to attempt to delineate the world in terms of distinct realms that operate inside and
outside the sovereign state. At the same time, some political philosophers suggest,
conversely, that the sovereign state has such a firm grip on the manner in which politics is
conceived that it is very difficult to conceptualize what politics would look like in the absence
of the sovereign state. For varying reasons, the principal IR Schools of thought –realists,
constructivists and the English School adherents – all conclude that the idea of a
Westphalian era governed by an unchanging principle of sovereignty is simply untenable.

Realists acknowledge that sovereignty has never been a sacrosanct principle in either
the past or the present and have little reason to believe that it will dictate the shape of
international relations in the future. States, in their view, will search for and find pragmatic
solutions that either violate or compromise sovereignty whilst still continuing to put forward
the virtues of sovereignty. Constructivists, on the basis of theoretical and empirical insights,
claim to demonstrate how state practices which define and constitute sovereignty have
changed radically across the centuries. They anticipate that the nature of sovereignty will
continue to be reconstituted in the future as it has also been in the past. The English School
theorists chiefly focus their attention on the issue and practice of humanitarian intervention.
Their perspective, buoyed up by the International Commission on Intervention and
Sovereignty, is that intervention and sovereignty are not in essence mutually exclusive
concepts and that there is a desperate need for the international community of states to
accept that they have a responsibility to intervene – although under clearly specified
circumstances – in order to protect human life. All three theoretical perspectives assume that
sovereignty will continue to be a defining feature of international relations.

THE CHANGING NATURE OF THE NATION STATE

The increasing importance of the global economy and global interdependence,

combined with the heightened power of domestic interests, have forced developed states to
abandon territorial expansion and military conquest as means of accumulating relative
gains. Instead these trading states have concentrated on increasing their share of the world
economy. Only states whose economic output is based on the production of goods from land
seem to retain territorial ambition. But in states where capital, labor and technology are
mobile, and where they dominate the economy, the urge to increase the market share has
supplanted that of territorial acquisition.

For most of the 20th Century, trade was the primary means whereby the
international economy was integrated. Beginning in the 1960s, the emergence of
multinational corporations (MNCs) accelerated the rise of the trading state by
internationalizing the means of production. Increasingly, however, transnational networks
have replaced MNCs as the mode of organization of international trade. These networks are
based on collective action. One no longer tries to gain at the expense of other actors. The
urge to pursue individualistic gain has been replaced by the quest for collective gain. The
gains from the development of such networks have come at the cost of the autonomy of
states. As Keohane and Nye point out, “From the foreign-policy standpoint, the problem
facing individual governments is how to benefit from international exchange while
maintaining as much autonomy as possible.” As these states compete to acquire relative
gains, the global economic system confronts a problem: how can the international system “...
generate and maintain a mutually beneficial pattern of cooperation in the face of competing
efforts by governments (and nongovernmental actors) to manipulate the system for their
own benefit?”

In the post-World War II era, nation-states have been effectively curbed in their
individualistic pursuit of goals and payoffs by the proliferation of International
Organizations and regimes and the internalization of international norms and rules by
domestic societies. The modern nation-state has undergone significant changes both in
terms of its purpose and sovereignty. States have traditionally been based on territorial
factors. Increasingly, however, state participation in the global economy has led to the
former’s integration with the latter and, consequently, an increased degree of
interdependence among states. The result has been the rise of trading states which measure
themselves by their relative shares of the global economy and not by territorial size or
military power.

WHAT IS NATION-STATE?
The concept of a nation-state is notoriously difficult to define.
Anthony Smith, one of the most influential scholars of nation-states and nationalism,
argued that a state is a nation-state only if and when a single ethnic and cultural population
inhabits the boundaries of a state, and the boundaries of that state are coextensive with the
boundaries of that ethnic and cultural population. This is a very narrow definition that
presumes the existence of the “one nation, one state” model. Consequently, less than 10% of
states in the world meet its criteria.

The most obvious deviation from this largely ideal model is the presence of
minorities, especially ethnic minorities, which ethnic and cultural nationalists exclude from
the majority nation. The most illustrative historical examples of groups that have been
specifically singled out as outsiders are the Roma and Jews in Europe. In legal terms, many
nation-states today accept specific minorities as being part of the nation, which generally
implies that members of minorities are citizens of a given nation-state and enjoy the same
rights and liberties as members of the majority nation. However, nationalists and,
consequently, symbolic narratives of the origins and history of nation-states often continue
to exclude minorities from the nation-state and the nation.
 According to a wider working definition, a nation-state is a type of state that conjoins
the political entity of a state to the cultural entity of a nation, from which it aims to derive its
political legitimacy to rule and potentially its status as a sovereign state if one accepts the
declarative theory of statehood as opposed to the constitutive theory. A state is specifically a
political and geopolitical entity, while a nation is a cultural and ethnic one. The term “nation-
state” implies that the two coincide, in that a state has chosen to adopt and endorse a specific
cultural group as associated with it. The concept of a nation-state can be compared and
contrasted with that of the multinational state, city-state, empire, confederation, and other
state formations with which it may overlap. The key distinction is the identification of a
people with a polity in the nation-state.

Origins

The origins and early history of nation-states are disputed. Two major theoretical
questions have been debated. First, “Which came first, the nation or the nation-state?”
Second, “Is nation-state a modern or an ancient idea?” Some scholars have advanced the
hypothesis that the nation-state was an inadvertent byproduct of 15th century intellectual
discoveries in political economy, capitalism, mercantilism, political geography, and
geography combined together with cartography and advances in map-making technologies.
For others, the nation existed first, then nationalist movements arose for sovereignty, and
the nation-state was created to meet that demand. Some “modernization theories” of
nationalism see it as a product of government policies to unify and modernize an already
existing state. Most theories see the nation-state as a modern European phenomenon,
facilitated by developments such as state-mandated education, mass literacy, and mass
media (including print). However, others look for the roots of nation-states in ancient times.

Most commonly, the idea of a nation-state was and is associated with the rise of the
modern system of states, often called the “Westphalian system” in reference to the Treaty of
Westphalia (1648). The balance of power that characterized that system depended on its
effectiveness upon clearly defined, centrally controlled, independent entities, whether
empires or nation-states, that recognized each other’s sovereignty and territory. The
Westphalian system did not create the nation-state, but the nation-state meets the criteria
for its component states.

Characteristics

Nation-states have their own characteristics that today may be taken-for-granted

factors shaping a modern state, but that all developed in contrast to pre-national states.
Their territory is considered semi-sacred and nontransferable. Nation-states use the state as
an instrument of national unity, in economic, social, and cultural life. Nation-states typically
have a more centralized and uniform public administration than their imperial predecessors
because they are smaller and less diverse. After the 19th-century triumph of the nation-state
in Europe, regional identity was usually subordinate to national identity. In many cases, the
regional administration was also subordinate to central (national) government. This process
has been partially reversed from the 1970s onward, with the introduction of various forms of
regional autonomy in formerly centralized states (e.g., France).

The most obvious impact of the nation-state, as compared to its non-national

predecessors, is the creation of a uniform national culture through state policy. The model of
the nation-state implies that its population constitutes a nation, united by a common
descent, a common language, and many forms of shared culture. When the implied unity was
absent, the nation-state often tried to create it. The creation of national systems of
compulsory primary education is usually linked with the popularization of nationalist
narratives. Even today, primary and secondary schools around the world often teach a
mythologized version of national history.

While some European nation-states emerged throughout the 19th century, the end of
World War I meant the end of empires on the continent. They all broke down into a number
of smaller states. However, not until the tragedy of World War II and the post-war shifts of
borders and population resettlement did many European states become more ethnically and
culturally homogeneous and thus closer to the ideal nation-state.

The process of globalization, it can be argued, is now the most important

development in world affairs. It marks the end of the world order dominated by nation states
(or countries) and the beginning of an era in which national governments have to share their
power with other entities, most notably transnational corporations, intergovernmental
organizations and nongovernmental organizations.

The term “globalization” has been used to indicate challenges for traditional nation
state based models of democracy. Free trade challenges the welfare state model of tempered
capitalism. Social globalisation brings about a fragmentation of social groups and identities.
New political institutions, some authors claim, are needed to address the greatly diminished
power of nation states and changing forms of political communities.

ACTIVITY. Brainstorm !

Write down what you have understood about the picture below.
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
 LESSON 3 THE GLOBAL INTERSTATE

ABSTRACTION
World politics today has four key attributes. First, there are countries or states that
are independent and govern themselves. Second, these countries interact with each through
diplomacy. Third, there are international organizations, like the United Nations (UN), that
facilitate these interactions. Fourth, beyond simply facilitating meetings between states,
international organizations also take on lives on their own.

ATTRIBUTES OF TODAY’S GLOBAL SYSTEM

What are the origins of this system? A good start is by unpacking what one means
when he says a “country”, or what academics also called the nation-state. This concept is not
as simple as it seems. The nation-state is a relatively modern phenomenon in human history,
and people did not always organize themselves as countries. At different parts in the history
of humanity, people in various regions of the world have identified exclusively with units as
small as their village or their tribe, and other times, they see themselves as members of
larger political categories like “Christendom” (the entire Christian world).

The nation-state is composed of two interchangeable terms. Not all states are nations
and not all nations are states. What then is the difference between nation and state? This
term is explained in layman’s term as follows:
 STATE – refers to a country and its government. It has four attributes.
FOUR ATTRIBUTES:
i. It exercises authority over a specific population, called citizens.
ii. It governs a specific territory.
iii. A state has a structure of government that crafts various rules that
people follow.
iv. The state has sovereignty over its territory. Sovereignty refers to
internal and external authority.
 NATION – is an “imagined community” and does not go beyond a given
“official boundary”, according to Benedict Anderson.
 Nation and state are closely related because it is nationalism that facilitates state
formation. In the modern and contemporary era, it has been the nationalist movements that
have allowed for the creation of nation-states. States become independent and sovereign
because of nationalist sentiment that clamors for this independence.

THE INTERSTATE SYSTEM

International System (excerpt)

[An international system] are “groups of independent states held together by a web
of economic and strategic interests and pressures so that they are forced to take account of
each other and those which make a conscious social contract by instituting rules and
machinery to make their relations more orderly and predictable and to further certain
shared principles and values.” – Hedley Ball and Adam Watson – The Expansion of
International Society

THE CONCEPT OF SYSTEM

In studies of international politics, the conception of “system” has been used mainly
in two ways, international system, and world system(s). First, the term “international
system” is a concept for analysis or description of international politics or relations, but
therein lays a sense of prescription for diplomatic or military action too. Used as an
analytical term, it is predicated upon a definite notion of system. But it is not necessarily so
when it is used to describe situations of international relations at a given time. Second, the
term “world system(s)” is a concept with which to analyze or describe mainly politico-
economic global situations, while its implications for political action are derived but only
indirectly. Third, “international system” came to be accepted as an academic term in the late
1950s, soon becoming fashionable, but more or less obsolete in the late 1990s. “World
system(s)” began to be discussed in the 1970s, still maintaining popularity in the academe.
Terms such as “international regimes” and “global governance” seem to have taken the place
of “international system” as an academic keyword in the 1990s, although the latter still holds
validity. The new terms are more normative and descriptive than analytic, having explicit
implications for promoting international cooperation.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines “system” to be (a) a set or assemblage of

things connected, associated, or interdependent, so as to form a complex unity, or (b) a
whole composed of parts in an orderly arrangement according to some scheme or plan. This
is a well-conceived definition, but when we apply this to these systemic approaches, we find
it insufficient. As a basic definition, it is fairly useful and satisfying, but it is not fully
sufficient, in that it does not take into consideration what powers, military, economic,
political or cultural, circulate among the parts so as to connect or disconnect them. Besides,
it greatly matters how deeply a structure exerts influences on its constitutive units. Here the
problem is whether the influences reach just the surface only to change the behavior patterns
of the units, or whether they penetrate deeply enough to transform even the inner structures.
Within the framework of international system, they are assumed to impose restraints on the
freedom of action of states, and in terms of world system(s), to change the nature of the
units. The conception of system in the former is, so to speak, mechanical or of the modern
Western origin, but that in the latter can be said to be organic, and of the classical Asian
origin.
INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM AND SOCIETY

While the first part of OED definition is more extensive in usage, the second is
limited to such cases as can be related to a preconceived scheme or plan. When we
extrapolate this contrast to international relations, we reach the argument developed by
Hedley Bull in elaborating on the distinction between international system and society. As to
the former, he defines: a system of states (or international system) is formed when two or
more states have sufficient contact between them, and have sufficient impact on one
another’s decisions, to cause them to behave—at least in some measure—as parts of a whole.
This corresponds very well to the first definition of system noted in the above. Turning to
international society, he defines: a society of states (or international society) exists when a
group of states, conscious of certain common interests and common values, form a society,
in the sense that they conceive themselves to be bound by a common set of rules in their
relations with one another, and share in the working of common institutions. Thus he notes
that an international society in this sense presupposes an international system, but an
international system may exist that is not an international society. This usage is quite similar
to the second definition of system cited from the OED in the above. His distinction between
the two is more persuasive in the light of the change in international relations since the end
of the Cold War (1989).

The term “international system” in Bull’s sense was very popular among the
academics of all nations during the Cold War period. But it has increasingly lost popularity in
the 1990s, the role of which is beginning to be taken over by such terms as international
regimes or global governance, reflective of formative changes in international society. We see
international schemes or plans more activated in the post-Cold War world than ever before.
If we borrow Bull’s concepts, international relations have been rapidly changing from
international system to international society. However, we should not forget that the notion
“international system” still holds some validity, regardless of changes in real politics and
academic fashions, because interstate relations compose an integral part of the current
international relations. So, to analyze or depict them, we need both the terms of
international system and international society in Bull’s sense. (Hatsuse 2004)

HISTORY OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM

States engage with one another in an environment known as the International
System. All states are considered to be sovereign, and some states are more powerful than
others. The system has a number of informal rules about how things should be done, but
these rules are not binding. International relations have existed as long as states themselves.
But the modern international system under which we live today is only a few centuries old.
Significant events have marked the milestones in the development of the international
system.

I. The Peace of Westphalia (1648)

In 1648, the Peace of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years’ War between
Catholic states and Protestant states in western and central Europe, established our modern
international system. It declared that the sovereign leader of each nation-state could do as
she or he wished within its borders and established the state as the main actor in global
politics. From that point forward, the international system has consisted primarily of
relations among nation-states.
 II. Shifting Balances of Power (1600–1800)
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the nation-state emerged as the dominant
political unit of the international system. A series of powerful states dominated Europe, with
the great powers rising and falling. Weaker states often banded together to prevent the
dominant power from becoming too strong, a practice known as preserving the Balance Of
Power. Frequent wars and economic competition marked this era. Some nations—notably
France and England—were powerful through most of the modern age, but some—such as
Spain and the Ottoman Empire—shrank in power over time.

III. Emergence of Nationalism (1800–1945)

The nineteenth century brought two major changes to the international system:
 Nationalism emerged as a strong force, allowing nation-states to grow even
more powerful.
 Italy and Germany became unified countries, which altered the balance of
military and economic power in Europe.

The problems raised by the unification of Germany contributed to World War I

(1914– 1918). In the aftermath of the war, the international system changed dramatically
again. The major powers of Europe had suffered greatly, whereas the United States began to
come out of its isolation and transform into a global power. At the same time, the end of the
Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires created a series of new nations, and the rise of
communism in Russia presented problems for other nations. These factors contributed to
the Treaty of Versailles, the rise of Nazism and communism, and World War II (1939–1945).

IV. New World Orders (1945–Present)

The end of World War II marked a decisive shift in the global system. After the war, only
two great world powers remained: the United States and the Soviet Union. Although some
other important states existed, almost all states were understood within the context of their
relations with the two superpowers. This global system was called Bipolar because the
system centered on two great powers.
Since the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Soviet Union, the nature of the world has
changed again. Only one superpower remains, leading some scholars to label the new
international system Unipolar. Others point to the increasing economic power of some
European and Asian states and label the new system Multipolar. To some extent, both terms
are accurate. The United States has the world’s most powerful military, which supports the
unipolar view, but the U.S. economy is not as powerful, relative to the rest of the world,
lending credence to the multipolar view.
 V. Contemporary International Systems
Number Of Nations
System Nations With Power Dates
With Power
Unipolar One United States Post-1989
United States and the
Bipolar Two 1945–1989
Soviet Union
United States, United
Kingdom, France,
Multi-Polar Several Russia, Germany, Pre–World War I
Italy,
Japan
United States,
European Union, Post-1989
China, India

VI. A Plethora of Politics

Political scientists usually use the terms international politics and global politics
synonymously, but technically the terms have different meanings. International Politics,
strictly speaking, refers to relationships between states. Global Politics, in contrast, refers to
relationships among states and other interest groups, such as global institutions,
corporations, and political activists. Comparative Politics seeks to understand how states
work by comparing them to one another. While international relations studies how states
relate to one another, comparative politics compare the internal workings of a state, its
political institutions, its political culture, and the political behavior of its citizens.
(sparknotes.com “International System,” 2018)

HISTORY OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM

An international organization is an organization created either by a treaty or other

instrument governed by international law and possessing its own international legal
personality. There are two types of international organizations:
 International Governmental Organizations (IGOs); and
 International Nongovernmental Organizations (INGOs or, more commonly,
NGOs).

IGOs are formed when governments make an agreement or band together. Only
governments or nation-states belong to IGOs. On the other hand, INGOs are made up of
individuals and are not affiliated with governments. IGOs and INGOs exist for a variety of
reasons, such as controlling the proliferation of conventional and nuclear weapons,
supervising trade, maintaining military alliances, ending world hunger, and fostering the
spread of democracy and peace, etc.
 Below are some examples of important international organizations:

Name Type Date Members As Of 2006

Founded
Amnesty INGO 1961 1.8 million members in 150
International countries
European Union IGO 1992 25 states, including the United
(EU) Kingdom, Sweden, and Estonia
International INGO 1894 115 individuals, who represent
Olympic Committee the
(IOC) IOC in their home countries
Organization of IGO 1960 11 states, including Venezuela,
Petroleum Exporting Qatar, and Indonesia
Countries (OPEC)
Salvation Army INGO 1878 Runs programs in more than 100
countries; has 3.5 million
volunteers
Save the Children INGO 1932 Helps children in poverty around
the world, including the United
States and Nepal
United Nations (UN) IGO 1946 191 states, including Burkina
Faso,
Denmark, the Philippines, and
Jamaica
World Bank IGO 1945 Offers loans to more than 100
states, including Cameroon and
Senegal
(sparknotes.com “International Organizations,” 2018)

 Types of NGOs
Below is a variety of acronyms to define specific types of NGOs:

 INGO: International Nongovernmental Organization

 BINGO: Business-Oriented Nongovernmental Organization
 RINGO: Religious-Oriented Nongovernmental Organization
 ENGO: Environmental Nongovernmental Organization
 GONGO: Government-Operated Nongovernmental Organization
 QUANGO: Quasi-Autonomous Nongovernmental Organization
 ACTIVITY. Compare and Contrast!

Research about Neo-colonialism, Internationalism and Globalism. Then, compare

and contrast them using the Venn Diagram below.