Intro

“Nations have lost the sovereignty they once had, and politicians have lost their capability to
influence events…. The era of the nation-state is over.”

-Anthony Giddens

INTRODUCTION:

Under globalization condition, the rise of non-state political actors, and the proliferation of human
rights norms suggest that sovereignty is in decline. Some believe that economic and technological
trends are taking critical decisions out of the hands of national governments, placing them at the
mercy of supranational forces, actors, and institutions. Economic actors such as multinational
corporations are increasingly able to escape the power of national governments. Others, particularly
realists, believe that these arguments are wildly exaggerated: National boundaries, communities,
and governments are still paramount, and the world remains fundamentally a collection of national
communities rather than a truly global society or economy. The fear is that nations are gradually
losing the ability to determine their own fate as the forces of globalization shift power and decision
making to other entities. According to this constrained state thesis, “changes in the international
political economy have radically restricted policy choice and forced policy shifts that play to the
preferences of global investors and mobile corporations, rather than to the needs of the domestic
political economy and its citizenry.”

TERRITORY:
Territory is the portion of geographic space under the state over which it exercises power. Boarders
are the recognised boundaries, appear as neat lines on the global political map.

SOVEREIGNTY:
Sovereignty refers to the authority of a state to rule over its territory and the people within its
borders, without external interference.

This political debate of the impact of globalisation on political territory and sovereignty exists
between GLOBALISTS and sceptics:

ARGUENMENTS PRESENTED BY GLOBALISTS:

Borderless world

Kenichi Ohmae in his boldly titled books The Borderless World and The End of the Nation State,
argues that economic and technological trends are rendering the nation-state increasingly irrelevant
and impotent. In the global economy: “On the political map, the boundaries between countries are
as clear as ever. But on the competitive map, a map showing the real flows of financial and industrial
activity, those boundaries have largely disappeared.”

-Global economy

Globalists argue that traditional divisions and boundaries that used to mark global society are no
longer what they once were. In clichéd terms, the world is becoming a smaller place or ‘global
village’. The creation of a liberal trading order after World War II provided the political foundation
for the emergence of a global economy.
 -Ending the Tyranny of Location

Globalisation has allowed people to overcome previous obstacles to long-distance commerce.

Before the Industrial Revolution, transporting goods across great distances was either extremely
expensive or impossible. The advent of the internal combustion engine, the railroad, the steamship,
and the telegraph helped overcome many of these obstacles.

SKEPTICS:

The myth of Borderless world

Kenichi Ohmae argued that if we look at a map of the world indicating flows of trade, investment,
and production, we would not be able to redraw the political map because economic movements no
longer conform to political boundaries. Again, there is no denying that the relative importance of
trade across national borders is on the rise. So while national borders are indeed becoming more
porous, they have hardly disappeared.

Location Still Matter

There is no denying that advances in transportation and communications have helped overcome the
obstacles of distance. But skeptics argues that the most accounts of globalization focus on
companies and plants that relocate production in order to illustrate the irrelevance of location. They
argue that globalists do selection bias—that is, focusing on firms that relocate while ignoring those
that stay put inevitably biases analysis in favor of the declining significance of location.

SOVEREINGNITY
HYPERGLOBALISTS

The exclusive link between territory and political power has been broken. The contemporary era has
witnessed layers of governance spreading within and across political boundaries.

EROSION OF LEGITIMACY AND AUTHORITY OF NATIONAL GOVERNMENT

The hyperglobalist claim that globalisation has eroded the autonomy and authority of national
government states. The presence of non state actors and the global spread of neoliberal doctrines
has undermined the legitimacy and authority of the national government.

DECLINE OF POWER TO TAKE DOMESTIC SOCIO-ECONOMIC DECISIONS:

Internationalization of production has eroded the state’s capacity to control its own economic
future. The international organizations such as IMF and World Bank directed the national elected
leaders, especially economically weaker nations about economic policies, strategies and decisions.
This compromised both the sovereignty and democracy of a nation. For example : in 1991 IMF and
WORLD Bank has suggested India to liberalize its economy in order to get loan.

CHALLENGE TO THE SOVEREIGNTY OF STATES:

Sovereignty is challenged because the political authority of states is displaced and compromised by
regional and global power systems, political, economic and cultural. State legitimacy is at issue
because with greater regional and global interdependence, states cannot deliver fundamental goods
and services to their citizens without international cooperation, and even the latter can be quite
inadequate in the face of global problems - from global warming to the volatile movements of the
financial markets - which can escape political regulation altogether.

GLOBAL GOVERNANCE:

State sovereignty is also undermined by the emergence ‘global governance’. New international and
transnational institutions such as IMF, WB, UNESCO, NATO, WHO etc. have formed a complex
network of global governance which is not centred in one central authority but which together have
significant authority over individual nation stated and transformed sovereignty into the shared
exercise of power. National government is increasingly locked into a multi-layered system of
governance - local, national, regional and global - and can barely monitor it, let alone stay in
command.

GLOBALISATION HAS NOT REDUCED THE STATE SOVEREIGNTY

INCREASED THE ROLE OF STATES:

Sceptics argues that no doubt the role of states is changing as a result of globalisation. But the states
are themselves the actors of globalisation by promoting and shaping the nature and pace of the
globalisation. States are now more concerned about their role as actors in global markets to protect
national economic well being.

INEVITABILITY OF STATES

Hirst and Thompson in their book: ‘Globalization in Question’ argue that

 The present international economy is not unique in history.

 Genuinely transnational corporation appear rarely
 Capital mobility is highly exaggerated. FDI is highly concentrated among advance
industrial countries.

POSITIVE STATE SUPPORT:

In spite of global integration of the economy, the fact remains that the state as an institution is not
so much subordinated or sidelined. The state still holds on legal and administrative power. It is the
state which protects the marginalized group from the unregulated flow of capital, labour and
information from outside national territory. The encouragement and support of govt. for
technological innovation and economic development is important.

David held argues that the states has central role in the growth and institutionalization of regional
and global governance.