Global Politics
The study of international or rather global politics, seeks to provide
an account of politics in the broadest domain. The domain of
international politics in the twenty-first century is characterised by
the increasing number of actors pursuing common and personal
interests. It is largely due to the globalised, interdependent nature
of the current international political environment that the concepts
of sovereignty and power deserve further evaluation.
The exercise of authority and power are facts as old as time,
throughout the ages men have tried to explain and understand how and
why political authority is organised. Sovereignty is a concept used to
explain political power, to attempt to understand the complex
interactions that take place as man strives towards the most effective
and efficient form of societal organisation.
The purpose of this discussion is to attempt to provide a clearer
interpretation of the terms power and sovereignty and to gain an
insight into the relationship between these important concepts which
advance our understanding of the organisation of political authority.
2. The emergence of sovereignty
Porfessor Hinsley, in his book aptly titled Sovereignty (1986:1),
calls sovereignty a concept and not a fact, a theory or assumption
applied to political power. He says that the term originally expressed
the idea that there is a final and absolute authority in the political
community (Hinsley 1986:1). The concepts of sovereinty and state are
intertwined and "the concept of sovereignty emerges in the wake of the
rise of the state" (Hinsley 1986:17). While the emergence of the state
is a n...
... middle of paper ...
...d power are so closely tied to each other
and dependent upon one another, that a re-organisation of political
authority will in fact lead to a complete change in the language of
politics. The sovereign state has been a characteristic of the
international political order for the past three hundred years and has
evolved out of a necessity or propensity for order. A sovereign
excerises its power through the creation and maintenance of order and
the provision of security. The power of the state to act as a
sovereign is continually being challenged by forces such as
globalisation, terrorism and regionalism and the continued existence
of a sovereign nation-state lies in its effectiveness as an actor and
its ability to be an actor in the international community is dependent
upon the power structure of the international arena.
...ntric and sovereignty-focused set of rules. However, these implications should be handled carefully as sovereign equality of states is still, and it remains so in the foreseeable future, the dominant feature of international relations.
In his important article, “Abiding Sovereignty” Krasner attempts to throw light on the changing global scenarios and institutions and its effect on sovereignty and the international state system. Krasner says that the sovereign states are the building blocks of the modern state system which has territorial, judicial and economical autonomy and control within
It is not about “what you do”, “it is about who you are and who you know”. As employees, we have all heard sayings like this before when it comes to the business world. The “power and politic” mindset is a direct result of the type of tug of war experienced for millions of years; from prehistoric times through modern day. Ever since Ugha smashed Mugha in the head with a club back in prehistoric times, politics have been around in the workplace. Politics are a subliminal fight for survival and it actually happens in personal lives as much as it does in our work lives. Politics can go hand in hand with power, just as night follows the day. Many of the political situations that occur within a corporation are a result of growth and change. However, part of the task of becoming a viable asset to a corporation is to look beyond the surface and find out where the company is heading as a result of these changes. In this way, employees can position themselves to be a positive part of the growth and change.
In this essay I will contend that ‘shared sovereignty’—as outlined by Stephen Krasner—can overcome the main obstacles of statebuilding. However, to increase the likelihood of success, I posit it is necessary for this ‘shared sovereignty’ to be based in principles of republicanism. Statebuilding has been largely unsuccessful. This failure can be explained by two major, interrelated obstacles: statebuilding’s exogenous nature and prêt-à-porter tendencies. Both of these criticisms allude to the reality that external actors’ interests typically do not align with the host government’s. A ‘partnership’ where sovereignties are tied together for an indefinite period of time addresses these concerns by assuring that the weak or failed state and the external body have agreed sufficiently on their end goals to enter into this relationship. This shared sovereignty and statebuilding being bound to republican statebuilding assures that Western tendencies towards liberalism are appropriately moderated to merge with the sociopolitical customs of the specific state being built up.
In traditional and modern societies, politics tie into each other. In traditional societies politics were a different system. Some examples of this are: chiefs in tribal villages, pharaohs in ancient Egypt and kings, and queens in a number of other countries. These people who were in power at the time had complete control over everything. In a modern society, we still have a royal bloodline with kings and queens ruling, however, their powers are not as great as they once were. I agree with modern politics because it gives people more of a say in what happens to their city and country. Politics in modern societies have drastically changed because it has taken many different forms. The biggest change with politics is democracy. Democracy gives
...ty exclusive of external authorities. Second, in terms of domestic sovereignty, for fairly long time the political structures of states have been following the global trends, from monarchy, to republics, to democratic states most recently. From above we can see that both domestic sovereignty and Westphalian sovereignty are facing challenges all the time, which are not new, but characteristic from time to time. Since sovereignty is the core value of a state, it is reasonable to conclude that nation-state is challenged by globalization but its power is not undermined.
Although it already existed long before through primitive trade and migration, globalization has become a major factor in the world organization since the twentieth century. With the creation of transnational companies, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, political and economic associations appeared new powerful actors that cannot be left apart in states’ decisions and whose influence may, according to some, threaten the authority of nation-states. Indeed it can be thought that globalization is causing the end of borders between countries and what is more that it is creating a sort of universal society in which states’ sovereignty is not the main authority anymore. However this essay will try to demonstrate that globalization is not undermining state sovereignty but that it is in fact leading to its transformation and to a new variety of nations. In order to prove it I will first define the main key words and will then focus on the different arguments about the effects of globalization and finally I will demonstrate that globalization has led to a transformation of the concept of state sovereignty.
...ates’ control over its own boarders. To answer the thesis statement “Is Sovereignty of declining significance in International Relations?” these dynamics only transform, rather than annihilate Sovereignty. Still the basis of maintaining international order, Sovereignty prevents a state from bombing or pilfering other states’ natural resources. Certainly, it has been challenged but so has all other ideologies of International Relations e.g.: Realism has been challenged by Liberalism but this does not mean that Realism today is of less significance than it was centuries ago. The environment is constantly evolving, new ideas arise, technology advances, and moral perspectives keep changing. Sovereignty has changed however it is still valid. As Emerich de Vattel (1883) asserted, ‘Of all the rights that can belong to a nation, sovereignty is doubtless the most precious’
Aristotle, Locke, and Hobbes all place a great deal of importance on the state of nature and how it relates to the origin of political bodies. Each one, however, has a different conception of what a natural state is, and ultimately, this leads to a different conception of what a government should be, based on this natural state. Aristotle’s feelings on the natural state of man is much different than that of modern philosophers and leads to a construction of government in and of itself; government for Hobbes and Locke is a departure from the natural state of man.
State sovereignty implies a state’s ability to govern its own internal affairs without outside interference, while protecting its claim to equality in the society of states. Enshrined in Art 2 of the UN Charter, sovereignty provides the basis and remains at the heart of all state interaction in the modern world. The nature of international law is very different to domestic legal structures. Considering how this impacts international human rights, sovereignty does not always become an issue. If human rights abuses occur within a particular state that is governed by laws that protect human rights, the victims are given recourse through domestic institutions. The incorporation of international law is the process by international agreements which become part of the municipal law of a sovereign state. A country incorporates a treaty by passing domestic legislation that gives effect to the treaty in the national legal system. Whether incorporation is necessary depends on a country's domestic law.
ABSTRACT: National sovereignty presents a puzzle. On the one hand, this notion continues to figure importantly in our descriptions of global political change. On the other hand, factors such as the accelerating pace of international economic integration seem to have made the notion anachronistic. This paper is an attempt to resolve this puzzle. Distinguishing between internal sovereignty or supremacy and external sovereignty or independence, I investigate whether some insights from the discussion of the former can be applied to our puzzle concerning the latter. One response to the objection that the notion of internal sovereignty is inapplicable because no group in society holds unlimited political power is to distinguish between different types of internal sovereignty, such as legal and electoral sovereignty. The resolution of the puzzle lies in applying this response strategy to the objection that the notion of external sovereignty is inapplicable because no state is completely independent.
The Earth of the turn of the 23rd century has a tri-polar global power arrangement. The traditional balance of power has been upset by the decline of oil; this was an eventuality everyone knew was coming but no one did anything about. The tremendous growth of China and India, among other places, created a supply shortage worse than anyone predicted. The subsequent and fairly sudden loss of petroleum as an affordable and, later, existent energy source led to international economic collapse and opened the door for a new international paradigm.
Modern system of international relations is changing and becoming more and more complex, that is why the power cannot be understood as an indivisible concept. It directly affects foreign policies of the countries and makes them develop new efficient methods and instruments to succeed on the world arena, some of which have not been examined to the full extent yet.
Sovereignty and legitimacy appear to be the same thing, but through careful inspection, it is shown that they are positively correlated. By definition, the sovereignty of a state is a state that has the right and freedom to rule independently. Sovereignty is shown to be positively correlated to its legitimacy. By definition, the legitimacy of a government is the acceptance of the government by the people. When sovereignty is achieved, the people in a state accept the authority of their government; therefore, by being sovereign, a country should naturally achieve legitimacy.
Before we delve deeper into this topic, it is imperative to properly provide a definition of sovereignty and lay down some foundation on this topic. There are four different definitions of sovereignty – international legal sovereignty, Westphalia sovereignty, domestic sovereignty and interdependence sovereignty. International legal sovereignty deals with “the practices associated with mutual recognition, usually between territorial entities that have formal juridical independence” (Krasner 4). The main definition of sovereignty that this paper will use is the ...