I believe that globalization, rather then harming the nation state is actually facilitating it; the existence of domestic associations can reject or accept any notion of globalization. Globalization has surely made an impact to both developing and developed nations, only causing them to adapt to these circumstances. In “The political economy of Globalization”, Layna Mosely exemplifies the various change and influences made by globalization. Globalization has lifted political boundaries; this is a result of “deliberate decisions by poli... ... middle of paper ... ...balization increases political associations among a wide mixture of corporations and nations. Mosely and Klien discuss the repercussions of globalization and its influence on the nation state; they figuratively agree on the pressure it inflicts.
In international politics today, soft power is favoured over hard power and hence, I would even argue that international law is a necessary tool in foreign policy. To better facilitate the discourse, I would like to establish certain perimeters. In this paper, soft power is defined as “the ability to get what you want by attracting and persuading others to adopt your goals” (Nye, 2003) while hard power is defined as “the ability to use the carrots and sticks of economic and military might to make others follow your will” (Nye, 2003). Hence, soft power concentrates on building positive relations with other states, whereas hard power can be said to be more antagonistic and hardhanded, which is counter to what international law stands for. In this sense, international law supports the expansion of soft power more than that of hard power.
This allows domestic governments to hold on to some authority over trade alongside policy-making space. Free-market trade going unchecked through hyper globalization would present a problem because people undermine the regulations that citizens are so used to being protected by. This would lead to a problem concerning legitimacy. One solution would be to impose a set of regulations among all countries, but that would be advantageous to some and disadvantageous to others, making it an unfair solution. Creating policy-making space provides governments with some ability to keep trade legitimate as globalization expands.
Globalization is the tendency of investment funds and businesses to move beyond domestic and national markets to other markets around the globe, thereby increasing the interconnectedness of different markets. (“Globalization,”) It also has had the effect of not only increasing the international trade but the cultural exchange. However, when it comes to globalization both its advantages and disadvantages have been greatly scrutinized and heavily debated in the past few years. People who believe in globalization say that it helps the developing nations “catch up” to the much faster industrialized nations. This happens through increased employment and a great amount of technical advances.
As Mearsheimer (1994:5) stated, ‘great powers will have more influence over international negotiations and their outcome’, but neoliberals have an interset in developing the rational design of institutions. The bilateral agreements following the Second World War served as stepping stones for the European trade via regional... ... middle of paper ... ... the institutions have the ability to control to a certain extent the cheating and well as unequal gain (free riding) through regulation and cooperation. THEORY COMPARISON – CASE STUDY Under neorealism it is concluded that the cause of state behaviour is due to the anarchic structure of the international system and not human nature (Alvarenga, 2007). The members of the South African National Defence force were sent to the Central African republic on the basis of a ‘government to government pact’ (bilateral) and not on a mandate from either the African Union or the United Nations as stated in the president’s message of condolence at the memorial service of the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) member who died in the Central African Republic. South Africa was acting unilaterally and therefore had no ability to request support from these institutions.
Both carry an ideological approach to what world commercial activity should be. But it is also flavoured by nationalism and politics because the issue directly stirs the potential economic power of its participants whether it is a developed or a third-world country. It is not surprising then that this debate is rife with vicious arguments from each side. In this paper, we would create a case for fair trade as better form of globalization with the rationale that free trade globalization has only made global markets become reckless and abusive. Proponents of free trade argue that trade between countries should be eliminated of barriers and preferential policies, particularly those that favour countries or specific industries.
I intend to establish conditions under which governments would and would not desire restrictions on specific domestic policies. My paper "Domestic Policies in Trade Agreements When Firms Matter" details a specific case in which governments do desire such restrictions, and the WTO rules do not lead to efficiency. But like Ossa (2009), this result relies though on exogenous restrictions on governments' use of export policies. I intend to investigate whether this result extends to the more relevant setting in which restrictions on export policies are endogenous.
His argument against free trade is sound, however through other readings, especially Moonhawk Kim’s on the GATT/WTO, it can be seen that the theory of free trade is still evolving at the international level and that by sticking with it and having States being willing to work with each other it will end up being able to accomplish all that it is theorized to do. The argument has been made that globalization in inevitable and free trade is the best option for States to employ for their economies. Fletcher, however, sees this as a great lie. In chapter one of his book Free trade doesn’t work: What should replace it and why, he begins with his argument against globalization and then finishes with the faults of free trade and what he calls lies that are told about to in an attempt to connive States this is the path to take. Fletcher begins his argument with globalization.
Imperialism and International Legal Theory Reaction Paper In this paper the author is presenting a new approach in international legal theorizing due to the modern re-conceptualization of the relationship between imperialism and international law that contributed to the understanding of very traditional issues and enriched the usage of international law rules to create a broader spectrum. The author is highlighting the overlooked experiences of the mast majority of mankind of people, the peoples of the third world. His argument is that the international law universal theories needs to be re-polished with the experience of the colonized to banish all the legal misinterpretation piled up throughout history by the European interest making mind back then to have a new understanding of an international vehicle that ensures the application of justice. The idea that colonialism is crucial to the formation of international law and that international law has always been enlivened by the mission of civilizing, governing and transforming non-European peoples. Was international law a creation of Europe and western theories to ease the occupation of sovereign societies throughout the history?
“Regional trading groups strengthen trade and the benefits thereof with groups but at the same time may serve to undermine free trade globally by implicitly and explicitly discriminating against trade with countries outside the groups (Colorado State University-Global Campus).” Carbaugh also notes this in his textbook, International Economics. He states that discrimination against other nations, not in the trade agreement, strays from the principles of normal trading relations, a major initiative of the World Trade Organization. On the flip side, there are numerous positives that outweigh the negatives found with regional trade agreements. In the article, Regional trade agreements versus global trade liberalization: implications for a small island developing state, by Asafu-Adjave and Mahadevan, found that full trade liberalization created the best outcomes when it comes to r... ... middle of paper ... ...posed against non-member nations. While her study was unable to give a definite answer as to whether preferential trade agreements help or hurt un-associated countries, she did determine that goods having large deductions in preferential tariffs to participating countries impose the highest tariffs to non-participating countries.