In the preceding module (economic

globalization) we discussed about the ten

flatteners of the world, reducible into two
major revolutions, namely: ideological
revolution (the decline of the communism as
an ideology and the triumph of capitalism
as an economic system of the world) and
information and communication revolution. 
 

In this module, we will attempt to discuss

the implications of these revolutions to
the existence of the state as a sovereign
political entity. Particularly, we will
discuss the various global forces that
undermine the sovereignty of the state and
the powers of the government. We end this
module by stating that the state has to
redefine itself in response to the various
forces that continue to challenge its
relevance in the age of globalization. 
 
 

*This module was prepared by Rommel Mazo,

Faculty of the Social Sciences Department.

 Before we can properly deduce the

implications of globalization for the
existence of the state, it is important
that we understand the concept of the state
itself. What, then, is a state?
 

THE IDEA OF THE STATE

     For the sociologist Max Weber, "[a]
compulsory political organization with
continuous operations will be called a
“state” if and in so far as
its administrative staff successfully
upholds a claim to the monopoly of the
legitimate use of physical force in the
enforcement of its order." (Quoted in
Schattle 2014: 106)
     Based on the given definition, state
has the following elements:
1. It is a political organization;
2. It is a compulsory political
organization;
3. It has continuous operation; and 
4. It has the exclusive legitimate use of
power in the enforcement of order
[within its territory].
 

POLITICAL ORGANIZATION
    The state is a group of people
organized for the purpose of promoting the
common good. As a political organization,
it has a formal structure of government; it
works according to declared principles and
policies; its powers are established,
defined, and limited; and people's rights
and obligations are declared and
enumerated.  
 

COMPULSORY ORGANIZATION
    As a compulsory political organization,
(a) the state is supreme and must be obeyed
by the people at all times; (b) membership
to it is conferred by the state according
to the requirements it prescribes; (c)
membership in the state entails
corresponding rights and obligations which
are demandable and obligatory; (d) and
obedience to its commands is obligatory,
which means that they must be complied with
to avoid punishment.  
 

CONTINUOUS OPERATION
The state is different from the government.
The government is the agency through which
the state expresses and carries out its
will. People may come and go, the
government may change its forms and powers,
and its territories may change its size,
but the state remains the same; it
continues to exist for as long as it
exercises its exclusive power to enforce
obedience within its territory.  
 

LEGITIMATE USE OF AUTHORITY

    That the state has an exclusive
legitimate use of force to enforce
obedience among the people within its
territory means that the state is
sovereign. Sovereignty is the power of of
the state  to effectively enforce obedience
from its people absent any power over and
above it. The state therefore exercises the
supreme power to govern its members within
its territory.   
    Another definition of state, to which
many of us may be familiar, is given by
James Garner. "A state," according to him,
"is a community of persons more or less
numerous, permanently occupying a definite
portion of territory, having a government
of their own to which the great body of
inhabitants render obedience and
enjoying freedom from external control.”
(Quoted in De Leon 2011, 6)
    The state, from the given definition,
has the following elements: people,
territory, government, and sovereignty. A
political organization, to be properly
considered a state, must have all of these
elements; absent any one of them renders it
a non-state. 
 

PEOPLE
    To constitute a state, there is no
minimum number of members required. It may
be composed of about a thousand people just
like the smallest state in the world,
Vatican, or it may be composed of a billion
people just like China, the biggest state
in the world. State does not also require
that its people should have common racial
origin or that they should share common
cultural traits, which is what a nation is.
Its people may come from different races
such as the United States of America or it
may be composed of people with common
racial origin and cultural traits such as
the Philippines. A state need not be a
nation and nation need not be a state.
 

TERRITORY
    Territory refers to the defined mass of
land and water, including the airspace
above it, in which its people cohabit and
within which the state exercises
sovereignty. 
 

GOVERNMENT
    The government is the administrative
body through which the state exercises its
sovereignty by enacting, implementing, and
applying laws for the promotion of the
common good. If the state refers to all the
people that compose the political
organization, the government refers to the
body of the people entrusted with the power
to express and carry out the wills of the
state. In short, the government governs and
the people that compose the state are
governed.  
 

SOVEREIGNTY    
    Sovereignty is the supreme power of the
state to command obedience from its people
within its territory. To be supreme means
to have an exclusive power over the people
within, and things found in, its territory.
Sovereignty has two elements: internal and
external. Internal sovereignty refers to
the supreme power of the state to command
obedience from its people (A state has
internal sovereignty if it is able to
effectively control and regulate people in
its territory). External sovereignty refers
to the power of the state to direct its
economic, political, social, and cultural
affairs, without the interference of any
external forces (A state has external
sovereignty if it is independent from other
foreign countries and institutions).  
     For an illustration of the concept of
the state, watch this video:
 To better appreciate the concept of the
state, it is important that we discuss how
it originated. The traditional idea
ofthe state has its origin in the Treaty of
Westphalia in 1648, a treaty which
effectively diminished the power of the
Roman Catholic Church and the Holy Roman
Empire and cemented the sovereignty of
the state.
 

The Idea of the State in Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 

 

  The Treaty of Westphalia, according to

Patton (2019), has resolved three
major issues, namely: (a) religious
freedom was officially recognized,
establishing the principle of the
separation of church and state; (b) the
principle of international diplomacy as a
mode of resolving conflicts (instead of
war) was laid down; and (c) third, which is
considered the most important, the
principle of the sovereignty of the state
was solidified.
 
 It is on this treaty that the idea of state
as a sovereign political entity was
established. (Suter 2003, 17) On the
one hand, Article LXIV of the said treaty
states: 
 
And to prevent for the future any Differences arising in
the Politick State,
all and every one of the Electors, Princes and States of
the Roman Empire, are
so establish'd and confirm'd in their antient Rights,
Prerogatives, Libertys,
Privileges,free exercise of Territorial Right, as well
Ecclesiastick, as
Politick Lordships, Regales, by virtue of this
present Transaction: that they
never can or ought to be molested therein by any
whomsoever upon any manner of
pretence.
(https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/westphal.asp)
 

Accordingly, the Treaty of Wesphalia in 1648

established the rights, prerogatives,
and liberties of the state including
the following: (a) territorial right, (b)
religious right, (c) political right, and (d)
the right against interference from the
church, the empire, and other state, in
short, the right to sovereignty.  
 

On the other hand, Article LXV of the same

treaty provides:
 
They shall enjoy without contradiction, the Right of
Suffrage in all
Deliberations touching the Affairs of the Empire;
but above all, when the
Business in hand shall be the making or interpreting
of Laws, the declaring of
Wars, imposing of Taxes, levying or quartering of
Soldiers, erecting new
Fortifications in the Territorys of the States, or
reinforcing the old
Garisons; as also when a Peace of Alliance is to be
concluded, and treated
about, or the like, none of these, or the like things
shall be acted for the
future, without the Suffrage and Consent of the Free
Assembly of all the States
of the Empire: Above all, it shall be free perpetually to
each of the States of
the Empire, to make Alliances with Strangers for their
Preservation and Safety;
provided, nevertheless, such Alliances be not against the
Emperor, and the
Empire, nor against the Publick Peace, and this Treaty,
and without prejudice to
the Oath by which every one is bound to the Emperor and
the Empire.
(https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/wes
tphal.asp)
 

Prior to the Treaty of Westphalia, states

belonging to the Roman Empire were simply
recipients of the decisions made by the
Empire; they did not have the right to
participate in the political decision-making
processes that affected the welfare of
the Empire including theirs. With the
conclusion of the treaty, the right of the
states to participate and vote
in all deliberations affecting the affairs
of the
Empire was recognized, including the
following: creation and implementation
of laws, declaration of wars, imposition of
taxes, discipline of soldier's
fortification of state defense, and forging
of peace alliances for their protection,
which are rights exercised by sovereign
political entities.       
 

Indeed, the Treaty of Wesphalia had

recognized the rights of the state as a
sovereign
political entity. It is this
recognition which solidified the
sovereignty of the
state and effectively diminished the power of
both the Roman Catholic Church
and the Holy Roman Empire.
 
While the sovereignty of the state was
formally recognized in the Treaty of
Westphalia, its strengthening is  a product
of deliberate efforts, which involved
five mutually reinforcing developments:
"national consolidation of power, creation
of
a national sense of loyalty, erosion of
natural law to which national rulers were
accountable, creation of a system of national
laws, and the creation of the concept
of national, sovereign equality of
all nation-states. (Suter 2003,20). From
power
being exercised over them by the Holy Roman
Empire, the states had to solidify its
exercise of sovereignty by requiring among
its people a national sense of identity
and loyalty by creating national symbols such
as national flag, national anthem, and
national holidays. (Kennedy in Suter
2003:20)  
 

With the decline of the power of the church

over the state, the divine law theory
(which states that political power emanates
from God) and the natural law theory
(stating that positive laws should be
patterned to natural laws) had also
eroded giving rise to positivistic view of
the society. As a result, "[p]ositive law
was created by the national sovereign whether
king, president, parliament, or
congress. The nation-state was bound only by
the laws it created or international
treaties it agreed to accept. In theological
terms, then, positivism ended the idea
that rulers were ultimately accountable to
God. Rulers themselves were at liberty to
do what they decided was best for their
countries. In international law terms,
states
could not be forced to accept any
international treaty they did not like."
(Suter
2003: 22)
 

The Treaty of Westphalia had then paved the

way to the secularization of the states,
the effective transfer of the seat
of political power from the divine to the
human,
from the church to the sovereign chosen by
the people. Thomas Hobbes' book Leviathan
(1651), published three years after the
Treaty of Westphalia, envisions of the
political society in which the powers of the
sovereign emanate from the social
contract they have voluntarily entered into
and not from the God as was believed
prior to the conclusion of the said treaty.
John Locke's Second Treatise of
Government (1690) also provides that the
powers of the government--legislative,
executive, and judicial--emanate from the
people exercised by their representatives
for the protection of their lives, liberties,
and properties. For John Locke,
sovereignty resides in the people and all
powers exercised by the government are just
entrusted to it. The government, then, is
accountable to the people and not to a
divine entity as the divine right theory
states.     
 

Exercising sovereignty, the state has the

power to enact laws which are enforceable
and demandable among its members within its
territory. These laws are enacted  and
implemented by the sovereign to whom the
powers are entrusted by the people. The
sovereign is accountable only to the people
and not to any external entities. The
sovereign exercises the right to determine
and implement policies and laws deemed
wise for the observance of its people.
The sovereign, in its exercise of the
powers
of the state, has the right
against interference from any foreign
institutions and
states.       
 

Learn more about the Treaty of Westphalia in

this short video:

Based on the Westphalian idea of the state,

international law adopts the following
fundamental principles which shall govern the
relations of all states in the world:
(1) States have exclusive domestic jurisdiction.
  States are supreme in matters affecting its
internal affairs. So as long as the   state
policy or decision does not affect others,
they must be left alone to decide what they
think is best for them. 
(2) States are equal. [See next section]
(3) States have diplomatic immunity.
This means that heads of states and
governments, including their official
representatives such as the ambassadors,
cannot be sued for violating laws in
other states in recognition of the
sovereignty of the states they represent.]
(4) States enjoy nonintervention.
States are independent; they must be left
alone to decide what is good for
them. 
(5) New states and governments are entitled to
recognition. (Suter 2003, 23) 
 
 

The Treaty of Westphalia  has also

established the equality of states, which,
according to UN Secretary General Javier
Perez de Cuellar, has the following
essential elements: 
 

      1. "States are juridical equals;

      2. “Each state enjoys the rights
inherent in full sovereignty.
      3. “Each state has the duty to
respect the personality of other states.
4. “The territorial integrity and political
independence of the state are              
inviolable.
5. “Each state has the right to freely
choose and develop its political, social,
economic and cultural systems.
6. “Each state has the right to comply
fully and in good faith with its      
international obligations and to live in
peace with other states.” ( Suter 2003, 22-
23)
 

EQUALITY
Juridically, states are equals. This means
that, under the law or in the eyes of the
law, states are equal. Some states  may be
politically and economically powerful than
others but they do not have special rights
and privileges before the law. Regardless
of their political and economic stature,
states are equal before the law.  
 

SOVEREIGNTY
All states are sovereign. As such, they all
enjoy all the rights inherent to the
exercise of their sovereignty such as the
right to determine their domestic and
international policies and the right to
enact and implement laws deemed imperative
for their national interests.   
 

PERSONALITY 
States are juridical persons. They all
enjoy certain rights and privileges,
sovereignty being the most important. All
states are duty-bound to recognize and
respect these rights. As such, no state has
the right to dominate any other states.
 

INVIOLABILITY
All states are independent from
one another. As independent
political entities, they have
the right to determine their
domestic and international
policies. Consequently, no state
has the right to intervene in
the affairs of another.
 

All states have their own

respective territories. Their
economic and political rights
over these territories--land,
water, air--are inviolable. 
 

LIBERTY
As sovereign political entities, all states
have the right to adopt economic,
political, social and cultural
systems deemed to effectively
advance their national
interests. No states, no
international institutions, and
no international organizations
can dictate any state to adopt
a particular system or policy.
 

DUTY
States co-exist with other
states. As such they are
obligated to observe generally
accepted principles of
international relations in order
to promote peaceful co-existence
among them. Since all states
are sovereign, no particular
state can exercise absolute
sovereignty for by doing so it
may violate the sovereignty of
other states.    
In the article Governments and Citizens in
the Globally Interconnected World of
States, Hans Schattle (2014) identifies
five global forces that challenge the
Westphalian concept of the state, namely:
global economic interdependence, political
and economic integration, the rise of
international law and universal principles,
the development in communication network,
and the rise of transnational activism.
 
GLOBAL ECONOMIC INTERDEPENDENCE
 
Global economic interdependence is a state
of affairs wherein countries in the world
are economically dependent with one
another. It constitutes a global web of
supply and demand wherein states,
corporations, and private individuals
engage in free trade. This economic
interdependence is the necessary effect of
economic globalization or the integration
of the world economy, which abolishes
national economic barriers. Behind the
prevailing form of economic globalization
is neoliberalism, an economic philosophy
that advocates deregulation, privatization,
and free trade as global economic policies.
These economic policies, according to
Schattle (2014: 108), “[impose] a forced
choice upon states: either conform to free-
market principles or run the risk of being
left behind.” These policies effectively
undermine the economic sovereignty of the
states in the sense that they are forced to
conform to the global economic system by
joining what Thomas Friedman calls
the Electronic Herd if they want to remain
globally competitive. Friedman states: 
 
“This herd has grown exponentially thanks
to the democratizations of finance,
technology and information – so much so
that today it is beginning to replace
governments as the primary source of
capital for both companies and countries to
grow. Indeed, as countries increasingly
have to run balanced budgets to fit into
the Golden Straitjacket, their economies
become ever more dependent on the
Electronic Herd for growth capital. So to
thrive in today’s globalization system a
country not only has to put on the Golden
Straitjacket, it has to join this
Electronic Herd.” (Friedman quoted in
Schattle 2014: 108)
 
As the neoliberal ideology advocates
deregulation, privatization, and free
trade, economic globalization effectively
emasculates the state as it is being
sidelined in economic policy-making
processes dominated by global economic
institutions (World Treaty Organization,
World Bank, and International Monetary
Fund). Furthermore, as economic
globalization promotes free competition
which privileges transnational companies,
the state find itself constantly yielding
to their demands in exchange for their
investment promises.
  
ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL INTEGRATION
 
Economic interdependence has given rise to
political and economic partnerships among
neighboring states such as the European
Union, African Union, Association of
Southeast Asian Nations  (ASEAN). (Schattle
2014: 110) These organizations have created
political and economic rights and duties
among their members, one of which is
conformity to rules and standards they have
mutually agreed upon. These rules and
standards shape the domestic policies and
laws of the member states, thereby
affecting their political and economic
sovereignty.

THE RISE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND

UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES
 
Globalization has created an “increasingly
complex, multi-layered interrelationships
between states, international institutions,
local and international non-state actors,
and of course, ordinary people.” (Battersby
2014: 481) And this has given rise to the
adoption of international law and universal
principles (i.e. Universal Declaration of
Human Rights), the creation of
international institutions, and the
emergence of transnational networks and
global non-governmental organizations. 
(Schattle 2014)
 

International Institutions
 
Foremost of these international
institutions is the United Nations (UN)
presently composed of 193 state-members.
The UN is an international organization
created in 1945 after the World War II for
the following purposes:
  "To maintain international peace
and security, and to that end: to
take effective collective measures
for the prevention and removal of
threats to the peace, and for the
suppression of acts of aggression
or other breaches of the peace,
and to bring about by peaceful
means, and in conformity with the
principles of justice and
international law, adjustment or
settlement of international
disputes or situations which might
lead to a breach of the peace;
 To develop friendly relations
among nations based on respect for
the principle of equal rights and
self-determination of peoples, and
to take other appropriate measures
to strengthen universal peace;
 To achieve international co-
operation in solving international
problems of an economic, social,
cultural, or humanitarian
character, and in promoting and
encouraging respect for human
rights and for fundamental
freedoms for all without
distinction as to race, sex,
language, or religion; and
  To be a centre for harmonizing the
actions of nations in the
attainment of these common ends."
(Article 1, UN Charter,
https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-
charter/chapter-i/index.html)
To fulfill these purposes, the UN is
empowered to enforce the international law,
which is defined as:
 
“International law defines the legal
responsibilities of States in their conduct
with each other, and their treatment of
individuals within State boundaries. Its
domain encompasses a wide range of issues
of international concern, such as human
rights, disarmament, international crime,
refugees, migration, problems of
nationality, the treatment of prisoners,
the use of force, and the conduct of war,
among others. It also regulates the global
commons, such as the environment and
sustainable development, international
waters, outer space, global communications
and world
trade. https://www.un.org/en/sections/what-
we-do/uphold-international-
law/index.htmlhttps://www.un.org/en/section
s/what-we-do/uphold-international-
law/index.html
 
To apply the international law, the UN
created the International Court of Justice
which “settles legal disputes submitted to
it by States in accordance with
international law.  It also gives advisory
opinions on legal questions referred to it
from authorized UN organs and specialized
agencies..” https://www.un.org/en/sections/
what-we-do/uphold-international-
law/index.html
 

So, what does the existence of the UN mean

to the sovereignty of states?
 
“[T]he mere existence of institutions such
as the United Nations and the International
Criminal Court and the ever-widening public
validation of key international human
rights declarations relate in important
ways with global governance in a world of
states. As the number of states worldwide
has risen steadily, national leaders of
these fledgling states have turned to the
UN and European rights declarations for
inspiration when drafting constitutions and
have often signed human rights conventions
quickly – sometimes more quickly than they
can properly implement and uphold them – as
a way of building up global respectability
for their new political and legal systems.
(Schattle 2014: 112-113)
 
Transgovernmental Networks
 
If there are vertical lines that connect
the states to international institutions,
there are also horizontal linkages that
bind governmental agencies. It is through
these networks that the different branches
of the governments in the world, including
their various agencies, exchange
information, coordinate governmental
actions, uphold common standards,   and
enforce domestic and international laws to
“smooth out more productive and efficient
working relationships among themselves.”
(Schattle 2014: 113)
 
According to Anne Marie Slaughter, the
establishment of transnational networks is
the mechanism by which nation-states “solve
collective problems that can only be
addressed on a global scale” (quoted in
Schattle 2014: 113) without resorting to
the creation of a global government.
Slaughter observes:
 “The state is not disappearing; it is
disaggregating. Its component institutions
– regulators, judges, and even legislators
– are all reaching out beyond national
borders in various ways, finding that their
once “domestic” jobs have an international
dimension’ (quoted in Schattle 2014: 113)
 
 
Non-governmental actors
 
Aside from the inter-governmental linkages,
another horizontal linkages emerged: that
which bind the states with numerous
transnational non-governmental
organizations. Transnational non-
governmental organizations are private
entities voluntarily formed to advance
universal principles. These organizations
constitute the global civil society which
seeks to ensure that states and their
governments uphold generally accepted
principles of international law. They serve
as the moral vanguards of the states in the
world, evaluating and raking the latter’s
performances according to international
standards, which lends moral credibility to
their existence. (Schattle 2014: 114)
Transparency International is one example
of this non-governmental organization whose
mission is “to stop corruption and promote
transparency, accountability and integrity
at all levels and across all sectors of
society.”
(https://www.transparency.org/en/about) One
way by which it accomplishes this mission
is through their Corruption Perception
Index (CPI) which “scores and ranks
countries/territories based on how corrupt
a country’s public sector is perceived to
be by experts and business executives.”
(https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi). In
its 2019 CPI, for example, the Philippines
scored 34/100 and ranked 113 out of 198
countries surveyed , which means that the
Philippines was perceived as highly corrupt
in 2019.
(https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2019/r
esults/phl)
 
When states and governments are subjected
to evaluation and ranking by transnational
non-governmental organizations, which
publicize their findings worldwide, the
former initiate and implement measures in
accordance with the standards in order to
gain moral credibility. In effect, states
and their governments tend to comply to the
demands of organizations which have no
legal power over them.    
 
Question: Considering the existence of
these vertical and horizontal linkages, can
the state still function in the same way
it  was conceived under the Treaty of
Westphalia in 1648? Or do you think the
state has long ceased to exist as the
sovereign political entity envisioned by
the Treaty of Westphalia due to the
globalization of politics?
COMMUNICATION NETWORKS AND SOCIAL MEDIA
 
In the last module (economic globalization)
we discussed about the flattening of the
world because of the development in
information and communication technology.
The invention of the internet has made the
world smaller as virtual global
communication and interaction is made
possible. Revolution in the information and
communication technology, according to
Friedman has opened a lot of economic
opportunities to peoples all over the
world. Aside from economic opportunities,
however, social and political interactions
have also been made intense. Filipinos, for
example, may now be aware of what is going
in virtually any part in the world made
possible through the internet especially
with the emergence of social media—
Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Viber, etc.
Foreign news, written or broadcast, which
were available only to a few subscribers
are now accessible via smartphones. Indeed,
the revolution in information and
communication has brought about by
technological developments has democratized
data, information, and knowledge, which may
give rise to intense consciousness of the
various global concerns and issues across
the world. This consciousness gives rise to
people empowerment which enables them to
demand accountability from the
states/governments, global institutions,
and transnational corporations. Because of
the emergence of the digital platforms for
communication, interaction and advocacy,
the netizens of the world may form domestic
and global networks to demand
accountability from states/governments and
other actors in the world. Digital
globalization has then created “new kinds
of communities [that] coalesce via networks
and create new arenas for political
interaction, identity and belonging.
(Schattle 2014: 117)
 
THE RISE OF TRANSNATIONAL ACTIVISM
 
With the flattening of the world partly
caused by the revolution in information and
communication, a new form of power that
challenges the sovereignty of the state has
emerged—that is the rise of transnational
activists, a group of people from different
countries inspired by the common hope for a
better future actively advocating for
social and global transformation. Schattle
explains their emergence:
 
“[T]he surge in public consciousness of
globalization and all its implications led
growing numbers of everyday people during
this period to begin thinking of themselves
as ‘global citizens’ and to link this idea
substantially with concepts of awareness,
responsibility, participation and cross-
cultural empathy.” (Schattle 2014: 115)
 
With the democratization of information
brought about by social media revolution
has led to the intensification of what
Robert Roberson calls the intensification
of global consciousness, that is the
awareness of the fact that people dwell in
the same planet facing common challenges.
This intensified consciousness has led
people of diverse nationalities to coalesce
in order to demand change from the
states/governments, international
institutions, transnational corporations,
and other global actors. The global
movements for justice, global movements
against climate change, global movements
against poverty, and the anti-globalization
movements are only some of the examples of
transnational activism, made possible
through social media revolution as Schattle
explains:
 
“Social media platforms have also eased the
way for citizens groups across the ‘global
south’ to build network partners. Facebook,
Twitter and their localized counterparts
around the world now figure heavily in much
of the new scholarship in transnational
advocacy movements…. Political elites and
everyday citizens everywhere are using new
media to navigate and renegotiate their
relationships in the global age – and this
leads us to another important development
in global studies: the growing interaction
between the fields of international
relations and political communication.
(Schattle 2014: 117)
 
In conclusion, Schattle states:
 
“[G]lobalization has dispersed political
and economic power well beyond the state.
Governments now jockey for competitive
advantage alongside international political
and economic institutions, transnational
civil society organizations and
multinational corporations. States now hold
themselves accountable to a host of
international norms and standards, often
with the express purpose of gaining
legitimacy at home and respectability
abroad. States frequently find themselves
in subordinate positions, particularly in
the pecking order of global capitalism,
with diminished capacities to protect the
economic well-being of their populations.
And states now face new kinds of pressures,
with advances toward supranational
integration on the one hand met with forces
of local fragmentation on the other.
(Schattle 2014: 105)”
 
While states remain to be powerful agents
that transform societies and the world, it
can no longer be denied that the
ideological and communication revolutions—
the so-called flatteners of the world—have
transformed the nature and functions of
states. With all the changes happening in
the world—technological, social, cultural,
and economic—the state cannot remain the
all-powerful political entity envisioned by
the Westphalian Treaty.
 
Furthermore, with the common challenges all
the states in the world are confronting, a
state defined by its territorial concerns
is already obsolete. From domestic
governance, states now have to embrace the
idea and reality of global governance as
Battersby states, citing UN Secretary-
General, Kofi Annan (1996–2006):
 
[T]he new century demanded a new method of
global problem solving, one which placed
emphasis upon ‘integration’, ‘policy
coherence’, ‘flexibility’ and
‘informational capacity’ across government,
non-government, and intergovernmental
sectors to address multi-dimensional and
multi-sector security issues: poverty,
education, health, environmental
degradation, and human rights. (Battersby
2014: 483)