The Contemporary World Lesson 4 for 7

and 8 Weeks

Political Globalization
The Nation-State
• “Sovereign authority in a specified territory, with the right to use
force both to maintain internal order and defend its territory
against aggression. Sovereignty, in turn implies that the state is
the ultimate authority in its territory, exercising legal jurisdiction
over its citizens and the groups and organizations they form in the
conduct of daily life.” (Lechner & Boli, p. 219)
• Nation-state, a territorially bounded sovereign polity—i.e.,
a state—that is ruled in the name of a community of citizens who
identify themselves as a nation.
• The legitimacy of a nation-state’s rule over a territory and over
the population inhabiting it stems from the right of a core
national group within the state (which may include all or only
some of its citizens) to self-determination.

Members of the core national group see the state as belonging to them
and consider the approximate territory of the state to be
their homeland. Accordingly, they demand that other groups, both
within and outside the state, recognize and respect their control over
the state.
As a political model, the nation-state fuses two principles: the
principle of state sovereignty, first articulated in the Peace of
Westphalia (1648), which recognizes the right of states to govern
their territories without external interference; and the principle of
national sovereignty, which recognizes the right of
national communities to govern themselves.
As a political model, the nation-state fuses two principles: the principle
of state sovereignty, first articulated in the Peace of Westphalia (1648),
which recognizes the right of states to govern their territories without
external interference; and the principle of national sovereignty, which
recognizes the right of national communities to govern themselves.

National sovereignty in turn is based on the moral-philosophical

principle of popular sovereignty, according to which states belong to
their peoples. The latter principle implies that legitimate rule of a state
requires some sort of consent by the people.

That requirement does not mean, however, that all nation-states are
democratic. Indeed, many authoritarian rulers have presented
themselves—both to the outside world of states and internally to the
people under their rule—as ruling in the name of a sovereign nation.

Political Globalization?
 Almost all of the world is organized by a single type of unit: the
nation-state.
 Decolonization in the 20th century: 130 colonies became
independent nation-states.
 State sovereignty a central part of global society (and the
sovereign state is the most desirable way to structure political life.
 Similarities in the goals, structures, programs and internal
operations.
 For example…what do most nation-states have in common in
terms of structuring and organizing societies…?
 What do NS have in Common?
1. Education, Heath Care, Economy & Finance, Welfare, Retirement,
Environment, Poverty, Unemployment, Foreign Policy, Military &
Defense. (Others? Arts & Culture? Language?)
2. Bureaucracy to take care of all of these things.
3. Formalized structures (legal and governmental) to ensure
democratic participation.

 So, the basic model is in place, and global in nature. But, exactly
how this model is implemented can differ quite broadly from
country to country.
 Examples…?

More Aspects of Political Globalization

 The emergence of intergovernmental organizations (IGOs).
 E.g. UN (UNESCO, WHO), World Trade Organization (WTO),
International Monetary Fund (IMF), International
Telecommunications Union (ITU)

Decline of the Nation-State

 The rise of the Transnational Corporation (TNC)
 Corporate power over state power
 Where do national interests end and state interests begin. (In
whose interests was/is the Occupation of Iraq? Who benefits?)
 Religious & ethnic divisions within nation-states (Kurds in Turkey;
Chechens in Russia; Uighurs in China; French-Canadians in
Canada/Quebec)
 The Beginning of the End of the Nation State?
- An article written in 2019 by Mark Lyall Grant, a former British
ambassador of the UN to the United States.

The article from Forbes’ magazine states that:

There are deeper – and less well documented - threats to the Nation
State itself. We have become used to the concept of sovereign states
and to the idea of Governments being all powerful.
But the current system of international governance dates back less than
400 years to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, a relatively short period
in human history.
It is true that the number of countries in the world has grown rapidly,
from 70 in 1945 to 193 today. But that is as much a sign of weakness of
the Nation State as its strength. The new countries (South Sudan,
Montenegro, East Timor) are all breakaways from previously
sovereign countries.
When I worked in the United States as British Ambassador to the UN, I
often asked American friends ‘do you think the US will exist within its
current borders in 100 years’ time?’.
The answer was invariably ‘yes, of course’. But historians would argue
that this is most unlikely. The US is less than 250 years old,
and has already undergone 13 major territorial changes. Alaska only
became part of the USA 150 years ago and Hawaii 60 years ago. And,
as recently as 2009, America ceded 6 small islands in the Rio Grande to
Mexico – hardly a massive change of territory, but it does demonstrate
that borders are not immutable.

But this is not a US issue, it is a wider one. Consider the pressures on

today’s Nation States:
Regionalism: Countries are increasingly banding together to increase
their influence or to solve cross-border problems. The European
Union is the most developed example of this, having drawn
 sovereignty away from individual European states in a wide range of
policy areas - one of the reasons why a majority of British people
voted for Brexit in 2016). But every region of the world is following the
EU example to some degree. Another example: ASEAN

Localism: At the same time, there is a strong popular demand for

decisions to be taken at lower levels than central government. At the
extreme, this has fuelled independence movements in eg Scotland,
Quebec, Catalonia and Western Sahara, not to mention Palestine and
Kosovo. Less dramatically, we see an increasing devolution of powers in
most countries, and regular tension between the centre and
outlying areas – California has sued the US federal Government 44
times in the last 2 years! Another example: Bangsamoro

Multinational corporations: They operate globally, unrestricted by

borders. The biggest tech companies are now richer than most
countries, and foreign Governments find it very difficult to tax
them properly on the profits they make. Example: Apple, Microsoft,
McDonald’s, and Starbucks

The Internet: By definition, the Internet does not respect

borders. Governments that try to control the flow of information into
their territory find it virtually impossible to do so. There was a time
when Governments were the ‘first to know’. No longer – social media
has become a powerful factor in all democracies. Examples: Facebook
and Twitter are banned in China.
Google Street view has no content from Germany and Austria.

Religion: all religions are transnational, but recent events have

emphasised how some streams of Islam in particular prioritise the
Muslim Ummah over the Nation State.
 Ummah
Muslim community. A fundamental concept in Islam, expressing the
essential unity and theoretical equality of Muslims from diverse cultural
and geographical settings. In the Quran, designates people to whom
God has sent a prophet or people who are objects of a divine plan of
salvation.
Examples: In countries where the majority of the populace are Muslims,
Muslim law overrules the freedom and rights given by the Nation-State.

Migration: we are in an age of mass movements across borders as

people flee conflict or persecution, or simply look for a better life. With
population growth now almost entirely in the global South, this trend
will only increase.

Example:The 2015 Rohingya refugee crisis refers to the

forcible displacement of Muslim Myanmar nationals from the
Arrakkan & Rakhine state of Myanmar to neighboring Bangladesh,
Malaysia, Indonesia, Cambodia, Laos and Thailand in 2015,
collectively dubbed "boat people" by international media.

There are other pressures too, such as crypto-currencies and non-state

militias that challenge the State’s traditional monopoly of currency and
force; or artificial intelligence, whose decision-making role will increase
significantly in the next few years.

Some of these pressures have been around for hundreds of years,

but others are new and more difficult to predict. I find it helpful to think
of the Nation State as an egg – surprisingly resilient against symmetrical
pressures, but very vulnerable to asymmetric shocks.

If the Nation State system of governance were to come to an end, what

would take its place? That takes us into the realm of even greater
speculation. Fiction offers some ideas – a World Government depicted in
much science fiction; huge competing blocs, as in George Orwell’s
1984; the return of empires or the city state system of medieval
Europe; or post- apocalyptic tribal units beloved of film writers. None of
these alternatives currently looks at all likely, but I think it unwise
to assume that the current Nation State system will inevitably exist in
100 years time.

Death of the NS: Exaggerated?

 States are larger than ever, and more organized and efficient
 Tax revenues are up
 Effective in national health care, transportation, welfare,
education, postal services.
 Other areas where the nation-state continues to hold great
power?
 Military power
 Police
 Prisons
 Legal system/Legislation (trade, international agreements,
taxation, immigration, border control)
 Others?
 Media….

Media & The Nation-State

 How do nation-states continue to exercise power in relation

to issues of media?
 Public Service Broadcasting
 Content regulation (sex, violence, origin, language)
 Market Regulation (e.g. ownership)
 Advertising (e.g. amount per hour)
 Infrastructure (“universal service” rules)
 Free speech laws, libel
 How are Nation-States “losing” control over media?
 Privatization of media
 Profit motive more power than political or social factors
 Media companies are themselves becoming political actors, thus
influencing policy and politics
 Infrastructure responsibility of the private sector (service not
always “universal”)
 Cost of Research & Development means that states “need” large
corporations in order to keep ahead, which gives these
corporations a great deal of power.
 Many media no longer bound to nation-state in production and
distribution (like national newspapers or TV), so national laws no
longer apply (e.g. internet, satellite television), or become
extremely difficult to enforce/control…
 If a German newspaper runs an article on the internet that
violates a law in Peru, where should the case be heard?
 If a user from Japan illegally uploads episodes of “Lost” on to
YouTube, who is responsible (YouTube? The User? The internet
host in Japan?)
 If copyright laws in Russia allow for file-sharing, can I download
songs for free from a Russian site if I am in Sweden?

ASSIGNMENT: Look for the definitions of the following terms:

 Nation
 State
 Nationality
 Citizenship
 Ethnicity