Political Globalization

Learning Outcomes
At the end of this module, the students should be
able to:
1. Understand the Westphalian idea of the state.
2. Describe the fundamental principles of the
Westphalian global political order. 
3. Recognize the roles of United Nations and the
importance of international law in the global
political order.
4. Discuss the various global developments that
challenge the existence--and affects the
powers and functions--of the state.
5. Review the concept of the state vis-a-vis
technological, economic, political, social,
and cultural change.
6. Discuss the interplay between globalization
and regionalization.
7. Understand the dynamics of North-South Divide.
8. Describe Asian Regionalism.
9. Describe the basic structure, the
aims and objectives, and
the fundamental principles of the
ASEAN.
10.

Module Overview
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 will also
discuss the  political, economic, and social
integration of states which may be considered as one
of the dominant forces in the entire globalization
process.

Lesson: The Idea of the State

Before we examine 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:
https://youtu.be/GtcicQY49AQ

Lesson: The Westphalian Idea of the State

 The traditional idea of the 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 was on this treaty where the idea of state as a
sovereign political entity was established. (Suter
2003, 17)
 

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.  
 

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/westphal.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:
https://youtu.be/ppoKyDh4VK8

Lesson: Fundamental Doctrines of International Law based on the Westphalian System

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) 

Lesson: Fundamental Equality of States

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.    
 

Lesson: The State in the Globalized World

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.

Lesson: The State in the Globalized World

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/u
phold-international-law/index.htmlhttps://
www.un.org/en/sections/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/results/
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?

Lesson: The State in the Globalized World

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)

The North-South Divide

 What is the North-South Divide?
The North – South Divide  is described as the
socio – economic and political division that exist
between the wealthy developed countries, called
“the North”, and the underdeveloped/developing
countries known as “the South”.  It is
interchangeably called politics of development and
underdevelopment.. (Aja, 2001 cited by Ebaye,
2016). 
 
Thus, North-South divide, obviously, does not
refer to the geographical division of the globe
but socio-economic and political schism existing
in the world.
 
 
How do they differ from each other?
 
      North                            South
Economic Progress Economic Weakness
Heavily
Largely Consuming
Productive/Industrialized
Strong Market Economy Weak Market Economy
Stable Government Unstable Government
 
Colonialism and the North-South Divide
 
The North –South divide is said to be a ‘heritage
of colonialism.'  The colonial powers have become
the ‘North” and obviously, the ones colonized are
now known as the “South” (Brown, 2018).  
 
Brown (2018) explains that “[T]he history of
colonialism supports the paternal nature of the
relationship that is still present.  She agrees
with Dados and Connell  that the use of the
term  “Global South” references “an entire history
of colonialism,” with the South generally being
composed of former colonies that have been
stripped of resources by the North.
 
Neo-Colonialism and the North-South Divide
Ebaye and Ogbang (2016) maintained that “in the
1960s and the 70s when colonialism collapsed in
most part of the 3rd world, the international
economic system was structurally stacked against
the less developed countries of South”.  They also
said that “the MNCs and Bretton wood institutions
were part of the facilitators use by the
industrial North to exploit, subjugate, expand and
deepen their domination of post - colonial
economics." 
 
Neocolonialism created a hierarchical structure on
which the rich North were the center (core) of the
world economic system, while the South remained at
the periphery of the system (Bade 1983 cited by
Ebaye and Ogbay).
 
Indeed, political independence had already been
achieved by the former colonies.  However, it
cannot be denied that economic dependence of the
South (former colonies) to the North (the
colonizers) is still evident in today’s world.   
 
Industrial Revolution and the North-South Divide
Industrial revolution, according to Ebaye and
Ogbang (2016), occurred when earlier known
civilization in Africa, Asia and the 19th
century’s Latin America were capitalized (non-
industrialized) economies. Industrial revolution
soon became an export phenomenon itself. 
 
Accordingly,  industrialization has resulted to
acquisition of wealth and technology by the
North. Industrial revolution was not only about
the production of various goods; it has showcased
the application of technology in the production
process to achieve better goods and even
happiness.  Various firms were developed for the
manufacture of different goods and services. In
fact, some of them were for the production of
sophisticated navigation aids weapon that were
necessary for overpowering and subjugating the
more premature and unarmed south (Ebaye &Ogbang,
2016).
 
The Brandt Line and the North-South Divide
Conversely, the initial idea of the North and
South emerged from what was known as the “Brandt”
line, which separated the globe into the rich
North and poor South with some exceptions
(notably, Australia and New Zealand. The Brandt
line has fallen out of favor since it was never
updated in order to account for many markers of
both concepts co-existing in the same region
(Brown, V).
 
The ‘Brandt Line’ is said to refer to “a
visualisation created to illustrate international
inequalities and the socioeconomic gulf that
separates regions of the world, popularised in
North-South: A Programme for Survival – also known
as the Brandt report” (Lees, 2020).
 
Note: Willy Brandt was a German Chancellor who
chaired Independent Commission that published the
Brandt Report.
 
The New International Economic Order
Houari Boumedienne, the  former President of
Algeria and Chair of the Organisation of Non-
Aligned States (ONAS), initiated a campaign to
modify the established institutions and structures
of the global economy. At the Fourth Summit
Conference of the ONAS in Algeria, held in
December 1973, Boumedienne announced a Declaration
and Plan of Action for the Establishment of a New
International Economic Order (NIEO), which called
for protection of the real value of commodities,
the right of developing states to expropriate
foreign enterprises, and the international
regulation of multinational corporations (Davis,
2012).
 
The Declaration built on the establishment of the
North-South Conference on
International Economic Cooperation a month earlier
by the UN, which included
Saudi Arabia and Algeria on its panel. The
Declaration’s key terms were reiterated
in the Sixth Special Session of the UN General
Assembly in 1974. This was given
more formal expression later in the UN Charter of
Economic Rights and Duties of
States of the same year, proposed by Mexico
(Jones, 1983 cited by Davis).
 
Other Events which have Implications on the North-
South Divide 
 Decolonisation of Asia and African States and

the moves of Latin American States to free

themselves from US domination
 Cold War

 The Oil Crisis of the 1970’s

 The major institutional changes in the

international realm (Davis,  2012)
 
The Current Face of the North-South Divide
The following salient points are obtained from the
talk given by Dr. Enrique Iglesias in 2014, former
Foreign Minister of Uruguay which depict the
transformation in the role of the south in the
global political economy:


The rise of the South is unprecedented in

o

speed and scale;

o The rise of the South provides

opportunities to the North;

o The South is becoming a major engine in

keeping afloat the situation of the world

economy through trade, exchange of
technology, and others.
o South contribute more to global economic
growth of developed countries (The Rise of the
Global South: Towards an Agenda for the New
Century). Watch the video here:

https://youtu.be/EDDGYv3gqEY

Asian Regionalism
Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN)
The Formation of the ASEAN
One of the notable regional blocks that has been
formed in Asia is the Association of Southeast
Asian Nations. In line with our objective to
understand the different facets of the ASEAN
Integration, it is vital to first look into its
inception and get to know the rationale behind its
establishment and the fundamental principles that
they adhere in relation with one another.
 
The Establishment and the Members
 ASEAN was founded on August 8, 1967 in
Bangkok, Thailand
 The first members include the Philippines,

Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and

Singapore.
 They signed the so-called ASEAN
DECLARATION, otherwise known as the BANGKOK
DECLARATION.
 Brunei Darussalam  joined in  1984, Viet
Nam in 1995, Lao PDR and Myanmar in 1997,
and Cambodia in 1999, making up what is
today the ten Member States of ASEAN.
 
Aims and Purposes of ASEAN


o "To accelerate the economic growth, social

progress and cultural development in the
region through joint endeavours in the
spirit of equality and partnership in order
to strengthen the foundation for a
prosperous and peaceful community of
Southeast Asian Nations;
o To promote regional peace and stability
through abiding respect for justice and the
rule of law in the relationship among
countries of the region and adherence to
the principles of the United Nations
Charter;
o To promote active collaboration and mutual
assistance on matters of common interest in
the economic, social, cultural, technical,
scientific and administrative fields;
o To provide assistance to each other in the
form of training and research facilities in
the educational, professional, technical
and administrative spheres;
o To collaborate more effectively for the
greater utilization of their agriculture
and industries, the expansion of their
trade, including the study of the problems
 of international commodity trade, the
improvement of their transportation and
communications facilities and the raising
of the living standards of their peoples;
o To promote Southeast Asian studies; and
o To maintain close and beneficial
cooperation with existing international and
regional organisations with similar aims
and purposes, and explore all avenues for
even closer cooperation among
themselves."(https://asean.org/what-we-
do#fundamental-principles)
 
Fundamental Principles


o "Mutual respect for the independence,

sovereignty, equality, territorial
integrity, and national identity of all
nations;
o The right of every State to lead its
national existence free from external
interference, subversion or coercion;
o Non-interference in the internal affairs of
one another;
o Settlement of differences or disputes by
peaceful manner;
o Renunciation of the threat or use of force;
and
o Effective cooperation among
themselves." (https://asean.org/what-we-
do#fundamental-principles)
 
The ASEAN Econonomic Integration
  
Several Summits have been held to form an ASEAN
Economic Community.  It was on the 12th ASEAN
Summit in 2007 when the leaders of the member
states agreed to transform ASEAN into a region
with free movement of goods, services, investment,
skilled labour, and freer flow of capital
(www.asean.org/.../asean.../asean-economic-
community-blueprint).
 
At this juncture, it is imperative to allude to
some of the focal points discussed by of Dr.
Rebecca Fatima Sta. Maria , a Senior Policy
Fellow, Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and
East Asia.

https://youtu.be/QD7TNPkeaRY

References
Aja, A.A (2001).   Selected Themes in
International Economic Relations.
Enugu: RhyceKerex publishers.
 Battersby, Paul (2014). The Globalization

of Governance. In  The Sage Handbookof

Globalization. Eds:  Manfred Steger, Paul
Battersby & Joseph  Siracusa. London: Sage
Publications Ltd.
 Boutin, K (2011), ‘Balancing Act: Competition
and Cooperation in American Asia-Pacific
Regionalism’, Japanese Journal of Political
Science, 12(2), 179–194.
 Brown, V ( 2018).  Rendering Reliance:

Consuming Coloniality in the Global

North.  Proquest 10752019
 Chen, L & De Lombaerde (2019).  ASEAN between
Globalization and Regionalization.  Asia
Pacific Business Review 2019 Vol. 25 No. 5 729-75
 Davis, T (2012).  Globalization and the North-
South Divide in Handbook on International
Political Economy edited by Pettman.  Singapore: 
World Scientific Publishing (retrieved from z-
lib.org).
 De Leon, H.S. and De Leon Jr., H.M.(2011).

Textbook on the Philippine Constitution.

Manila: Rex Book Store.
 Ebaye, S. & Ogbang (2016). The Politics of the

North-SOUTECONOMIC DIVIDE & THE 21ST CENTURY

3RD WORLD ECONOMIES. North American Open
Politics and International Relation Research
Journal 1 Vol. 1, No. 1, March 2016, pp. 1-10
http://narpub.com/Journals.php
  Esenov, Murad (2006). Globalization and the
Problems of National Sovereignty. The Caucasus
& Globalization Vol. 1(1), 38-40.
 He , B (2004). ‘East Asian Ideas of
Regionalism: A Normative Critique’, Australian
Journal of International Affairs, 58(1): 105–25.
 He, B & Inoguchi (2011).  Introduction to
Ideas of Asian Regionalism retrieved from
www.researchgate.net publication259410659
 Hurrell A (1995). “Regionalism in Theoretical
Perspective” in Louise Fawcett and Andrew Hurrell,
eds., Regionalism in World Politics (Oxford:
Oxford University Press), 250–82.
 Kakowicz, A (1998).  Regionalization,
Globalization, and Nationalism: Convergent,
Divergent, or Overlapping? Retrieved from 
https://kellogg.nd.edu/sites/default/files/old_fil
es/documents/262.pdf
 Lees, N. (2020) The Brandt Line After 40
Years: The More North-South Relations Change, the
more they stay the same.  Cambridge University
Press
 Lyotard, Jean-Francois. 1984. The Postmodern

Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Manchester

University
Press. https://www.marxists.org/reference/subj
ect/philosophy/works/fr/lyotard.htm
 Oba, M. (2019).   Further development of Asian
regionalism: institutional hedging in an uncertain
era, Journal of Contemporary East Asia Studies,
8:2, 125-140, DOI: 10.1080/24761028.2019.1688905 
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/
10.1080/24761028.2019.1688905?needAccess=true
 Parker, A (nd). THE ASEAN WAY:ASEAN has played
a huge role in Australia’s fortune and is an
antidote to growing world
protectionism. https://www.pwc.com.au/publications
/the-press/the-asean-way.html
 Schattle, Hans (2014). Governments and
Citizens in a Globally Interconnected World of
States. In The Sage Handbook of Globalization.
Eds: Manfred Steger, Paul Battersby & Joseph
Siracusa. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
 Strange, Susan (2015). The Declining Authority
of States. In The Globalization Reader. Edited by
Frank Lechner & John Boli. UK: Wiley Blackwell.
 Suter, Keith (2003). Global Order and Global
Disorder. Connecticut: Praeger.


 Whiting, V (1993). “The Dynamics of
Regionalization: Road Map to an Open Future?” in
Peter H. Smith, ed., The Challenge of Integration:
Europe and the Americas (Miami, FL: North-South
Center), 17–49.