This academic paper seeks to discuss how Globalisation affects national sovereignty.

The
genesis will highlight the concepts of Globalisation and national sovereignty before diving
deeper into the full discussion which will be wrapped up with a conclusion.

Conceptualizing Globalization

Globalization is the result of a convergence of economic, technology, socio -cultural, and

political factors. It refers to the global integration of mankind and the compression of both
the temporal and spatial aspects of global human interaction in general. Globalization has a
lengthy history; it began when European major economic powers conquered Asia, Africa, and
America. Globalization emerged in the twentieth century, but it was only around three decades
ago that it was recognized as a research study, as its political and economic implications
began to be explored (Odel, 2016).

According to the political realists, the core meaning of globalization entails an increase in the
volume, velocity, and importance of flows within and across borders of goods, services,
money, people, ideas, drugs, viruses, emails, weapons, and much more, calling into
question one of the sovereignty's fundamental principles: the ability to control what crosses
borders in either direction.

According to Eric (2010), globalization examines and assesses the influence of economic
globalization on sovereignty, the worldwide distribution of wealth, and global commerce.
It may also be anarchic national economies; it changes sovereignty and ownership rights in free
commerce. Finally, it blends economic policies, corporate relationships, and political
dissatisfaction. Globalization, according to Beeson (2003), is an essential component of national
rule, describing it as a process that signifies a conversion in a high-value group of public
relations and international trades. Globalization attempts to erase national borders,
economies, and societies between countries and territories, and it destroys barriers between
markets by connecting countries' geographical borders, disconnecting national and global trade,
and strengthening trade relations for assets, wealth, and quality service (Mostert, 2003).

National Sovereignty

Sovereignty is commonly characterized in political science as the most fundamental feature

of the state in the form of total self-sufficiency, that is, dominance in domestic policy and

1
independence in foreign policy (Held, 2003). Sovereignty is more precisely defined as the
right and authority to make the ultimate or last choice concerning the terms of the existence
of an entire territorially based polity.

It implies a central core of right and power of self-government, that is, the power to resolve the
basic problems of a country internally, rather than at the command of others. No foreign entity
has the authority to command or order a sovereign state to behave in a certain manner on issues
of fundamental importance to it. Sovereignty does not simply denote the level or quantity
of power, as though the extent to which a state is sovereign can be determined by
calculating its relative military and economic might. Sovereignty denotes both the right to act
and the authority to act (Mostert, 2003).

In certain circumstances, a state's authority to act is so constrained and limited that its sovereign
right to act is rendered practically useless. Similarly, there are occasions when a state's real
power is so immense that, even if its sovereign right to exercise this power is not formally
recognized by others, it is tacitly recognized. These are, however, severe examples.
Sovereignty is normally defined as the possession of a right and power.

According to Kegley (2007), sovereignty is frequently mistaken with independence, and the
definition is correct as long as it is not confused with absolute independence. This is because
the claim to sovereignty is predicated on recognition by other sovereigns, and so on some
type of interaction with other nations. Northern Cyprus, a self-proclaimed republic, is an
example of a state that is not sovereign since it is not widely recognized as such.

How globalization affects national sovereignty

Ibrahim & Ainuddin (2017) shows that globalization and modernity have a negative
influence on African culture and politics in areas such as its political system, economics,
education, religion, and cultural systems. To confront the problems of globalization, the study
recommends that Africans preserve their culture, customs, and values while strengthening
national boundaries and sovereignty.

According to Jotia (2011) ‘Globalization contributes to the transformation and narrowing of the
extent of national sovereignty.’ Due to international agreements such as global financial flows,
activities of international organizations and multinational corporations, information and

2
communication technology, and issues concerning human rights, as well as already formed
models and traditions of state behavior, the scope of inner sovereignty has been legally narrowed
to a large extent. At the same time, a rising number of governments willingly give up part of
their sovereign rights for a variety of reasons.

In the world political system, globalization does not benefit poor nations. It is a contemporary
colonialism strategy designed to keep certain countries underdeveloped. The writer recommends
that sophisticated technologically developed countries should aid emerging governments in
eliminating global poverty, which is a major global security concern. He also recommends
that the new states' political leaders work hard to secure a significant reduction in bad
governance and corruption to aid development (Chaturvedi, 2012).

While conceding some of the gains of globalization, the write sees the link between the state
and globalization as a type of entrapment for Africa, resulting in reliance, vulnerability,
manipulation, and, eventually, the undermining of the State's power. This unwholesome
growth has generated a legitimacy dilemma for most African administrations, transforming
them into states that are always in need of direction. It begins by examining globalization
and the African state; violations of state sovereignty are investigated through the
interaction between African nations with important components of economic globalization
such as production, commerce, and finance. The writer therefore concludes that globalization
in Africa has resulted in denationalization and the partial erosion of components of state
sovereignty through international, regional, and other sub-national institutions (Leander, 2004).

Globalization and National Sovereignty

The write thinks that the growing importance of non-state organizations such as international
NGOs and multinational companies has sparked debate over the role of the state and whether
it can function in the face of a broad set of forces. As a result of globalization, the state
and its institutions are increasingly under pressure from both the domestic and global sectors.

Several scholars in the fields of Political Science, Economics, International Relations, and
Development Studies, among others, have conducted successful research on the effects of
globalization and concluded that: globalization has become an important theme of the post-
Cold War debate about the nature of the international order. Even though it is rarely linked

3
to a well-established philosophy. Globalization has become a potent metaphor in the sense that
a variety of universal forces are at work, resulting in growing interconnectedness and
interdependence between nations and communities. As a result, territorial boundaries are
becoming less significant, old notions of sovereignty are being challenged, and local areas
must be evaluated within a larger global perspective (IMF, 2002).

In addition, liberal scholars regard globalization as a process of liberating economies so that

commerce between nations may take place more readily. In this perspective, freedom implies
creating unrestricted chances for enterprises to grow between and among states while minimizing
the state's role in the market. As a result, globalization is an ongoing massive trend launched
and pushed forward by developed capitalist and industrial western nations (Ejikeme &
Ugwueze, 2014).

The writer notes that as the world continue to evolve and develop, international
organizations often rise as stakeholders in the international system with significant influence
over state activities. As a result, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) became a component
of global affairs. International organizations, comprise intergovernmental organizations
(IGOs) such as the United Nations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as the
International Committee of the Red Cross. There are two sorts of non-state actors:
intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) with state members and non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) with private persons and groups as members (Bush, 2008).

These organizations are, in some ways, products of state sovereignty because they were
formed through voluntary agreements among their member states. In another sense,
however, it profoundly defies traditional notions of sovereignty since these same agreements
have weakened the legal autonomy of its members. The agreement to delegate sovereign powers
to international organizations is not always durable. Nobody can prohibit member nations from
rescinding their participation in international organizations to reclaim the sovereign power they
have given up (Raustiala, 2003).

International organizations make decisions that were previously thought to be within the
purview of states. Inequality among members of international organizations has become the
norm. Globalization has led to the rejection of normative principles of universal and equal
sovereignty. Unanimity is no longer required for decision making, and veto is also
4
uncommon. Although consensus is frequently utilized, more often than not, proportional
voting or a specifically defined functional majority is used, and certain international
organizations have the authority to enforce their judgments on nations.' The operation of
international economic institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World
Bank, and World Trade Organization, is highly contentious in terms of putting requirements on
nations; even governments, with limited scope for national economic policy, want involvement
(Held, 1997).

Globalisation as an External Challenge of New States’ Sovereignty

Bush (2008) notes that states' position in the modern world is primarily influenced by their
power, which can be defined in terms of economic resources, military capabilities, or both.
Although several African nations such as Egypt, Nigeria, and South Africa satisfy this condition
in their respective sub-regions, on a global scale, they like several other new states have
become progressively marginalized, particularly with the rapid advancement of science
and technology. This trend has various political and economic repercussions that political
scientists should consider when considering the issues of emerging nations in global politics.
Against this backdrop, the new states, particularly those of Africa, Asia, and Latin America,
have been subjected to unrestricted political and economic exploitations cloaked in a slew of
international diplomatic ties that are frequently antagonistic to both people and the
environment.

The concept of globalization is a big plan to “villages” the world to the point that one may
access the whole world from the comfort of one's room. Indeed, it seeks to undermine if
not eliminate conventional and jurisdictional borders and barriers of particular states, to
the detriment of new ones. However, while trade liberalization is the engine that propels
globalization, information and communication technology (ICT) is the gasoline that keeps it
running (Goldstein, 2003).

As a result, the writer discovers that new states, particularly those that are severely undeveloped
or developing, suffer the most from this globalization initiative; this is because they are
primarily technologically inferior and so oriented to consuming rather than producing.
Given this, and the monopolization of the international economy by the developed
countries who produce, the trade policies favor the producing countries, and the efforts of

5
some developing new states are frequently sabotaged by the old states. Globalization is
one of the great sabotage techniques employed by the industrialized old powers against the
less-industrialized emerging states. Indeed, globalization encapsulates all of the nemeses of
enslavement, imperialism, naked colonialism and neocolonialism. The conclusion is that
international politics is still characterized by high-level injustices and exploitations carried out
with complete impunity where might is right.

Areas of Globalisation’s Implications on the New States

As discussed earlier, globalization is simply the internationalization of most issues that affect
humans and states. Below are the areas in which globalization has affected the autonomy of new
states:

Economic Perspective: The internationalization of financial markets, technology, and

some industries and services impose additional constraints on the freedom of action of
nations. Furthermore, the creation of institutions such as the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund introduces additional limits and imperatives (IMF, 2002).

According to Bush (2008), globalization brought poverty and inequality to Africa as a result of
the continent’s participation in the global capitalist economic system. Local industries
deteriorated significantly, giving place to multinational corporations. Besides, the elimination of
indigenous industries prepared the door for multinational corporations from the developed
world to invest in Africa's less developed countries. The interdependence of markets, money,
products, and services, as well as the networks established by transnational businesses, are the
most visible expressions of economic globalization.

What information technology has done to the movement of money has expedited economic
globalization. It is frequently asserted that the market's capacity to move money from one
region of the world to another with the click of a button has altered the norms of policy-
making, leaving economic decisions considerably more at the mercy of market forces than
previously (IMF, 2002).

Political Impact: There is clear evidence that the influence of globalization is most
visible in the extent to which politics throughout the world are now mostly market-driven.
Governments are no longer unable to run their states; rather, to remain in power, they must

6
progressively "manage" national politics to adapt them to the pressures of transnational
commercial forces. Globalization has reduced national governments' ability to command
and influence their economies particularly in terms of macroeconomic management and to
establish their political systems (Oji & Ozoiko, 2011). .

Political globalization has resulted from the institutionalization of international political systems,
a phenomenon known as "global governance." The League of Nations, which has now been
supplanted by the United Nations, is regarded as the most powerful of the general and
global organizations that had developed. Regional organizations include the African Union
(AU), European Union (EU), Organization of American States (OAS), Arab League, and others.
The impact of these organizations is to generate a process of institution-building in which
the organizations may control and command what transpires in member states' governance.
This is the political globalization trend. Non-member nations are considered deviants since
they are not a part of this collaboration. In the future, more states will be compelled to
adhere to the standards established by these organizations (Chase-Dunn, 1999).

The impact is already being noticed in the field of human rights. Because of the globalization of
human rights, a state is no longer free to treat its people and foreigners however it deems
appropriate. It must adhere to international norms outlined in several human rights
treaties, the majority of which are now considered customary law. The persistent
concentration of sovereignty in international organizations will eventually result in political
sovereignty being subjugated to the mandates of the institutions. Globalization contributes
to the formation of weak states, which cripples democracy; in the absence of a robust
democracy, we may be certain that civil society will stay in shambles and doomed (Oji &
Ozoiko, 2011).

Cultural Imperialism: Culture separates one human group from another. A people's culture
encompasses their beliefs, behavioral standards, language, rituals, art, technology, clothing
styles, food production and cooking methods, religion, and political and economic systems. The
world today has always been and continues to be multicultural, with the rising popularity and
acceptance of western values such as rationality, individualism, equality, and efficiency
being an important trend of the twentieth century; a trend that has accelerated in both speed

7
and nature. The compression of time and space by new information technologies is essentially
an extension and acceleration of a long -term trend toward acculturation (Meyer, 1999).

The dialectical linkages that exist between globalization parameters have a significant influence
not just on the global economy, but also on the ethnic, national, and religious
characteristics of the world's many cultures. Although globalization is meant to encourage
the establishment of diverse communities, the reality on the ground shows that cultural
assimilation is more prevalent than cultural pluralism (Oji & Ozoiko, 2011). The less powerful
are absorbed by the most powerful, culminating in sophisticated power-based cultural
uniformity. As a result, there is a dizzying assortment of "competing and dying" cultures, which
raises significant questions about which culture should define the global socialization map (Jotia,
2011).

Since the European Enlightenment, the acceptance of originally Western institutional

systems, bureaucratic organization, and rationality; belief in a law-like natural universe,
economic efficiency, and political democracy has expanded throughout the world (Ejikeme &
Ugwueze, 2014).

Educational System: Africans are pushed into menial jobs as a result of the Western educational
system. The impact of western education with an emphasis on literacy was to deter Africans
from manual labour (Mazru , 1986). Meanwhile, the curriculum embraced by Africans was a
western product that, except in rare instances, did not take into account their cultural
values. Instead of allowing Africans to build their indigenous social sciences, they taught
them to follow their social sciences.

The writer bemoans that "western powers' imperialism is our social sciences," even though
no standard literature validated or contained African social sciences. This problem prevented
Africans from developing curricula that reflected their habits, languages, and traditions. This
circumstance contributed to brainwashing Africans into accepting Western beliefs.

Conclusion

Globalization is a complex result of a combination of political, social, economic, and

civilizational forces, among many others, that characterizes the modern world. However, it
is important to remember that globalization plays an important role in the relationship

8
between nation-states. As noted in this academic paper, state sovereignty particularly that of
the Third World is undermined and challenged by the products of globalization such as human
rights, multinational enterprises, non-governmental organizations, supranational organizations,
and so on.

References

Beeson, M. (2003) Sovereignty under globalisation and southeast siege: The state in
southeast Asia. Third World Quarterly, 24(2). 357–374.

Bush, R. (2008). Africa and globalisation. Leeds African Studies Bulletin. Retrieved from:
https://lucas.leeds.ac.uk/article/africa-and-globalisation-ray-bush/

Chase-Dunn, C. (1999). Globalisation: A world systems perspective. Journal of World

Systems Research, 2, 187–215.

Chaturvedi, I. (2012) Globalization and its impact on state sovereignty. Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/46e2/b9ff7b8adbc31b62a7f406d8ca5605a8a22c.pdf

Ejikeme, J. N., & Ugwueze, M. I. (2014). New states in world politics: Prospects and
challenges. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-JHSS) 19(10), 01-11

Goldstein, J. S. (2003). International Relations (Fifth Edition). Delhi: Pearson Education Ltd.

Held, D. (2003) The changing structure of international law: sovereignty transformed? In He

ld and McGrew. The changing structure of international law, 162-174

Ibrahim, K. M. & Ainuddin, I. L. A. (2017). The impact of globalization on African culture

and politics. Journal of International Studies, 13, 1-14.

International Monetary Fund (2002). Globalisation: Threat or Opportunity? Retrieved from

http://imf.org/external/np/exr/ib/2000/041200..htm

Jotia, A. L. (2011). Globalization and the nation-state: Sovereignty and state welfare in
jeopardy. US-China Education Review 2, 243-250.

9
Kegley, C. W. (2007). World Politics: Trend and Transformation. Belmont: Thomson
Wadsworth.

Kingsbury, B., (1998.), Sovereignty and inequality. European Journal of International Law, 9,
599-625

Leander, A (2004). Globalisation and the State monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
Political Science Publications, 2004(7).

10