Globalization and the Transformation of National Sovereignty

Systemic Development: Local Solutions in a Global Environment"/ Published by ISCE Publishing,: Goodyear

Edited by: Jim Sheffield Kay Fielden

Leonid E. Grinin

Volgograd Center for Social Research

Globalization and the Transformation of National Sovereignty

Abstract

The process of globalization undoubtedly contributes to the changes and reduction of nomenclature and scope of state sovereign powers. At the same time this is a bilateral process: On the one side, the factors are strengthening that fairly undermine the countries` sovereignty, on the other – most states voluntarily limit the scope of their sovereignty including the right to use the capital punishment, nomenclature and size of taxation, the size of emission and borrowings etc. We believe that among the range of factors influencing the process of change of national sovereignty (including the technological and economical changes and the necessity to solve jointly a great number of issues), the factor of voluntary reducing of scope of sovereign powers to obtain an additional prestige and benefit appears to be of the utmost importance. At the same time the limiting of sovereignty inevitably leads to great changes in the policy patterns of states as well as of common people masses. So the problems of changes of functions and role of the modern state, in our view, must be among those of currant importance.

Can the started 21st century be already called the age of globalization? Will it be of the kind? It is quite probable. But what will happen in the future with national states` sovereign rights? And whether these latter remain as before the leading players at the political scene or they will give this place to some new formations?

At the end of the 20th –beginning of the 21st century in the political science especially in connection with the problems of globalization and new world order there started to be raised also the issue of national sovereignty change, “diffusion”, “disappearing” etc. (see e.g. Giddens, 1990; Held, et al. 1999, Russian translation – 2004; Gilpin, 2001; Held, and McGrew, 2003b, Ilyin, 1993b; Ilyin, Inozemtsev, 201, Tsimbursky, 1993 etc.). Nevertheless, in comparison with an avalanche of works on globalization the publications dedicated to the transformation of sovereignty in modern world unfortunately are scarce, and above all, the problem itself is not studied thoroughly and profoundly enough as one would like it to be. Meanwhile in our view, the processes of change of sovereignty appear to be among the most important for the present.

In the present paper we tried to prove that on the whole globalization contributes to the change and reduction of nomenclature and scope of state sovereign powers and besides it is a bilateral process: on the one hand, the factors are strengthening that fairly undermine the countries` sovereignty, on the other – most states voluntarily limit the scope of their sovereignty. And since the tendency to change and reduce the sovereign prerogatives (with some fluctuations) most likely will strengthen, and it will inevitably and fundamentally influence all spheres of life including the change of ideology and public psychology. However, the last point is evidently underestimated by analytics. We think that to give an appropriate estimation of these changes one needs some new approaches to the problems of national sovereignty and the role of national states in the process of globalization. In the present paper we suggest and partially develop some of such approaches.

In political science sovereignty is usually defined as the most essential attribute of a state in the form of its complete self-sufficiency, i.e. its supremacy in the domestic policy and independence in the foreign one (see e.g. Jerry and Jerry 1999: 311; Averyanov 1993: 367; Held 2003: 162-163). This notion became widespread in the 19th century. But already at the beginning of the New Age it got quite a definite interpretation on the works by N. Machiavelli, J, Bodin, T, Hobbes and others (see e.g. Held, 2003: 162–163). In the system of international affairs which appeared after Peace Treaties of Westphalia of 1648 after the Thirty Years` War the principles of state sovereignty gradually obtained the all-European appreciation (see on these principle Held et al., 1999: 37–38). However, it is important to note that this “normative trajectory” of international law was fully described only by the end of 18th – early 19th century (ibid.: 37). At present in the UNO Charter and in some other international agreements there are regulations on sovereign equality of states and nations` right to self-determination which together with the increasing degree of external security of most countries, in our view has sufficiently contributed to the consolidation of the idea of national sovereignty in international affairs in the second half of the 20th century. Indeed as we will see further the tendency of recognizing the sovereign rights combined with the tendency of their voluntarily constraint by the sovereigns themselves. However the notion of sovereignty is one of the most difficult and ambiguous (see e.g. Stankiewicz, 1969: 291) and its content has constantly changed and continues to change in connection with changes of international affairs and characteristics of the states themselves (see e.g. Grinin, 2006a, 2007a; Grinin, Korotayev, 2006) and also depending on who was the supreme sovereign: a feudal monarch having right to “grant or split states when sharing the inheritance”; an enlightened absolute monarch who already acted on behalf of people or a nation itself (see e.g. Yan, 1996). Besides, absolute in theory sovereignty of states as well of nations is always strongly and even fatally limited by different factors. Sovereignty can be regarded in different aspects (e.g. as a positive and a negative one) and variants. In other words the notion of sovereignty is not univocal and indisputable but provokes numerous debates and thus demands a considerable elaboration.

Globalization is an exceptionally many-sided process. Practically all spheres of life experience its impact (see e.g. the analysis of its different aspects or “dimensions” [Giddens, 1990]). It is the result of a very difficult allegation of political, social, economic, civilizational and many other processes in modern world. But among these numerous factors one should especially mark out the huge changes in modern productive forces, media, world trade and specialization. Technology and trade entangle the world with new network connections and make national boundaries transparent. Together with other factors this harshly complicates the conditions external for a society. As a result globalization strongly reduces and changes the scope of national sovereignty, undermines the position of a state as of a major subject of international affairs (see Grinin, 1999; 2005; 2007). Thus the changes in production forces in this or that way lead to the changes of all other spheres of life including the political one.

Any progress always means that a certain part of changes makes the situation worse in comparison with what there has been before. Respectively, globalization does not always give a positive effect and this is constantly emphasized by its critics. In particular they point to the disparity in benefiting from globalization and the increasing gap in life rate of different countries. Indeed this is quite an ambiguous conclusion. That is why it is rather natural that reducing of national sovereignty has not only positive side. Like any other radical turn this one also brings many negative consequences, e.g. weakening of such features as patriotism. And also the openness of boundaries is good in some way and wrong in another, e.g. in the field of terrorism and drugs spreading.

Undoubtedly, in reality the state sovereignty has always been limited by different factors. But it is important to mention that today the idea of states' complete freedom of action even in mere theory looks false. The matter is that the scope of internal sovereignty has greatly narrowed de jure due to the international agreements including the issues of human rights (see Averyanov, 1993: 368) and actually to a greater degree – in connection with already prevalent traditions.

As it has been already said there are quite few works dedicated to the transformation of the position and role of a state in modern world. At that in most cases, as Michael Many correctly observes, there is going on a one-sided debate on the issue whether the state system becomes stronger or weaker, meanwhile the process appears to be quite complicated and ambiguous; in some way these positions are weakening but in some way they become stronger (Mann, 1997)[1]. Thus Susanne Strange insists that under the influence of powerful economic processes the state power becomes weaker and at the same time she notes with surprise that the state has started to regulate the issues which before people solved themselves, in particular how to build their own house, how to arrange family relations, so that in her point of view there is almost no sphere where the state bureaucracy would not intervene (Strange, 2003: 128). She calls it a paradox though these are quite natural things as the processes never go unilinearly and only in one direction. The general trajectory is always a complicated balance of alternate changes, at the same time the system’s weakening usually combines with strengthening of some its aspects although it occurs at the expense of its components conversion and changes in hierarchy levels.

The problem of state fortune and the significance of its influence on the regulation of different processes in globalizing world is even more seldom analyzed in the aspect of transformation of state sovereignty. Moreover we would like especially emphasize the narrowness of the approaches even in these investigations. There is an impression that authors study the issue only from the angle that powerful world economic powers – supranational and to a great degree anonymous – influence the transformation of national sovereignty, changing it on the whole as if in spite of or even contrary to the will of the states themselves (see e.g. [Clark, 1999; Held, 2003; Keohane, 1995; Slaughter, 2000; Strange, 2003])[2] At the same time another aspect of the problem is almost unnoticed (or it is not attached a sufficient importance) which we consider exactly an exceptionally important one: sovereignty to a large (probably, prevalent) degree is reduced voluntary by national states themselves.

It appears that it is not completely comprehended that since the after-war time there is going on the most important process as a result of which many countries deliberately start to limit themselves in seemingly most sovereign things. We marked out and analyzed these aspects of globalization in a number of our works [see Grinin, 1999; 2005; 2007]

To agree with the above-said it is enough to cast a brief glance at the spheres where sovereignty has reduced. The right to impose duties and taxation and define their rate; to forbid and reward import and export of goods (capitals) and some types of activity; to issue currency; to borrow; to set the rules of keeping the imprisoned and usage of their labour; to use the capital punishment; to proclaim these or those politic liberties or restrict them; to define fundamental rules of elections (and to hold them proper) and electoral qualification and also a great number of other important things have stopped to be defined only by the wishes of a state itself. Not so long ago the Europeans refused the sanctum sanctorum – their own national currencies that had been gained for centuries for the sake of a common currency (euro). Finally, what has always been regarded the main thing in sovereignty – the right of war and peace – is under international control. World wars and totalitarianism showed that absolute sovereignty including also the right to unleash wars and repressions is dangerous. Hence it is possible to make an important though on the whole obvious conclusion: the domestic affairs of a state where nobody intervenes and which are regulated only by national law and traditions, are getting narrow and international law or law of a definite community (of collective participation) is expanding (Grinin, 1999; 2005; 2007).

Of course, the processes of internationalization have started not today but have been already going on for centuries increasing all the time. But as we have already mentioned (Grinin, 1999; 2005: 16–17), the prevalence and power of these processes yesterday and today are incomparable, in other words at present they have obtained a qualitatively different level in comparison with past epochs. First, they have involved the whole world. Second, the economic alliances were uncommon before and now they have become the most typical form of associations. And some of the economic organizations (such as WTO, IMF) encompass the majority of countries of the world. The scale and aims of political associations have also changed. Third, enormously grew the intensity and consistency of country leaders` contacts. And the problems they solve have changed greatly. Fourth, only a few countries are able today to carry out an isolationist policy and avoid any associations.