Droit international
The End of National Sovereignty:
The Real Effect of Globalization and Global Trade
Par Jean-Philippe Fournier
Table of Contents
Abstract
Introduction
1.History of Nations
1.1 Formation of society
1.2 Development of society
1.4 Maturation of society
1.5 Result of History
2.Hierarchy of countries
2.1 Country Strength (Culture/diplomacy/military)
2.2 Country contribution and capability
2.3 Result of Hierarchy of Nations
3.Globalization
3.1 Globalized Trade
3.2 National vs. International Law
3.4 Free Trade (Graph)
Conclusion
Abstract
Ce document démontre comment les organisations internationales exercent une influence grandissante sur les états nations, et réduisent donc leur liberté d’agir indépendamment. Ce fait est démontré en montrant que trois aspects majeurs gèrent cette tendance globale : l’histoire des pays, qui les donnent une culture et une idéologie propre et soit compatible ou non avec les organisations internationales, leur hiérarchie au sein de la communauté internationale, grâce à leur pourvoir militaire, économique, culturelle et diplomatique, et finalement la globalisation, qui voit un monde qui rapetisse à vue d’œil grâce aux idéologies différentes, traités d’échange entres nationaux (NAFTA) et la place grandissante que les corporations multinationales occupent au sein du gouvernement et dans la vie de la population humaine.
Introduction
Globalization is a term loosely used since the late 19th century (HubPages.com, Web, October 10th, 2012 http://yourknowledge.hubpages.com/hub/Globalization-When-did-Globalization-Begin), and arguably even earlier than that, and has only grown in size and scope with the advancement of human technology and civilization. These inventions include the radio, television and the internet. Now, while this phenomenon has many opponents and proponents alike, it is a commonly accepted fact that the world is getting smaller, in the metaphorical sense. The reaction to globalization has been both positive and negative. Those positives include a more connected, faster, smarter world, while the negative points are, however, very grave. This includes loss of regional culture and regional originality. I believe that nation states as we know t hem have lost a considerable amount of their authority and sovereignty to world organizations, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), because of the history of the culture that make up the individual nations, the resulting hierarchy that exists between countries and globalization itself.
1. History of Nations
First of all, to begin to prove the intrusive presence of international organizations on the sovereignty of nation states, one must have context and background. The thing to then be discussed in this chapter is the history and evolution of the nation state and society itself that brought certain nations, in this day and age, to be more complacent with international organizations or downright hostile to them. A very brief summary of the history of the development of societies will thus be given to witness the fundamental differences separating certain nations and their ideologies.
1.1 Formation of society
- A very big difference in the early stages of the development of human societies is that of geography. What I am not going to look at is the fact that early civilizations were born near bodies of water, for example the Nil or the Euphrates. This look at geography is to determine how it affected the very precise nature of its ideologies. For example, early civilizations that found themselves on continents with longer longitudes than latitudes (Eurasia as opposed to Africa and the Americas) created a bigger area with minimal changes in temperature and flora and fauna were able to evolve and create a lasting civilization (European nations vs. Africans). This geographic positioning for the peoples of early human society is in fact a determining factor in the development stages of societies and ideology, because most, if not all primitive cultural practices originate from either agricultural or hunting practices, which are unique to the before mentioned geographical areas. These would then evolve into societal practices, which would then become the culture of said peoples. These cultures would then grow and evolve, to eventually spawn ideologies. (Diamond, Jared M. Guns, germs, and steel. New York: Spark Pub., 2003. Print.)
1.2 Development of society
These ideologies continue on to evolve to eventually fundamentally shape how society moves and changes across the millennia. For example, the culture that shaped east of the Ural Mountains in Eurasia gave birth to the nomadic Mongolians and the infamous Golden Horde. It is because of the geography of the Mongolian steppes, which bred in turn the culture native to its people, that gave these people their ideology and values which let them conquer the near entirety of Asia and, more importantly, pose a threat to the sedentary Europeans of the time, thus creating a duel, if you will, of the ways of life of both civilizations. To be more precise, the geography of Mongolia forced its inhabitants to constantly move for shelter and sustenance, forcing the ideology if said peoples to grow tougher, whilst Europe, with the docile weather and sedentary lifestyle made the people more docile, but their technology more advanced. In Mongolia, this bred a nomadic lifestyle, which is facilitated by the use of horses, which will eventually get deeply embedded in ancient Mongolian culture, as opposed to what was explained in the case for Europe in the previous sentence. The geography and lifestyle also influenced the society. It was based on the survival of the fittest, thus the strongest would become leader. The main reasons the Mongolians had such success in their conquests is because of two things: their warfare technology and tactics, both of which are bred by the geography and society from which they came, which in turn justifies my assumption(Diamond, Jared M.. "Part Two." Collapse: how societies choose to fail or succeed. New York: Viking, 2005. 137. Print.).
1.4 Maturation of society
The last thing to be covered in the History chapter is the era of ideological and societal convergence. Basically, after the extreme dispersion and creation of immense amount of small, regional cultures and values, which started to fuse as some gained an advantage of some sort over the other and conquered their neighbor, ended and started going into the same way, or converge. While regional or internal culture would stay, and continues to stay, unique and different, certain aspects started to resemble each other (once again because geographical proximity that reflected into cultural similarity which finally ended in ideological similarity) . These groups of societies would form geo-cultural blocs, such as the West as it known today, as opposed to Asia or the Middle East. These blocs would then share certain aspects that led to a melting pot and eventual identical views on certain issues. This led to a certain monotony in certain international (or inter-relation oriented views or values) values, which led to the creation of international organizations.
1.5 Result of History
The reason why this is of utmost importance to making my argument is because this history, geographical positioning and convergence are the reasons why some nations developed faster than others, why some were colonized and others the colonizer. It is the precursor of my two other arguments: that of hierarchy of nations and globalization. It answers the question why some nations are more prone to adhere, thus get controlled or control international organizations. In all, this entire chapter serves to prove, in light of my assertion that international organizations impede national sovereignty, that history plays a role in it because history is the reason certain nations developed a certain way, acquired certain cultures and values that make them more at risk to the grasp or more prone to be in the driver’s seat of international organizations.
2. Hierarchy of countries
After looking at the history of nations, and proving that it plays a major role in the formation and creation of culture and ideology that makes countries either more or less prone to the influence and control of international organization, another factor, which derives again from history, must be looked into. This is the hierarchy of nations. This factor greatly determines how they affect, and how international organizations affect nation states. It will mostly determine whether the IO’s are greatly influenced or even controlled by some nations because of their perceived power on the international level. Therefore, to prove that the hierarchy of nations are a very determining factor on why IO’s are stepping on national independence, the factors of human created perception of strength (economic and military) will be examined.
2.1 Country Strength (Culture/diplomacy/military)
In our world globalized world today, countries are ranked, both officially and unofficially, in many criteria that demonstrate their standing in the world. For example, military spending and army size are the two biggest factors determining, in world rankings, a country’s brute power. Conversely, the power that a country can wield at the negotiating table is sometimes equally or even more important than that of arms, although it is very hard to quantify this factor. Another area, which bears close ties with the diplomatic area, is that of the culture of a nation, whether it is dominant or widely used (English common law, English language and driving practices are common throughout the world).
These three factors together determine whether a country yields clout in an international arena. A country with high proficiency in all of them, for example the United States, will be able to exert its influence on international organizations, and not the opposite. The United States thus controls the World Bank, in a way, because its leader has always been American, while the International Monetary Fund, or IMF, has always been headed by an European. The US also has a permanent seat on the UN security council, making it one of the most powerful decision makers in arguable the most important international body. On the contrary, a country which yields little to no power in this regard can be seen as a ‘weak’ country. (Sigmarsson, Dadi Arnar, Globalization vs. State Sovereignty:Constitutional Rights in a Crisis?, (Law BA thesis), Akureyri, 2008)
2.2 Country contribution and capability
Another contributing factor to clout to international organizations and how nations react to influences is their wealth, otherwise calculated in GDP (Gross Domestic Product), GDP per capita or PPP (Purchasing Power Parity). Simply put, a country which dominates or contributes a regional or even the global economy has greater clout with not only the countries it deals with, but the international organizations. Indeed, the richest countries, thus those with the largest GDP, are those who contribute the most to said organizations. (Debroy, Bibek. Dumping: Global Abuse of Trade Policy Instrument. New Delhi: Academic Foundation, 2007. Print ) For example the United States is the largest contributor to the United Nations. This gives a lot of bargaining power and influence within the administration of the organization, which eases the influence exacted upon it because it can dictate to some point the decisions the UN may take, as opposed to smaller, less rich nations who barely, if at all donate to the UN, who have a virtually non-existent influence.
2.3 Result of Hierarchy of Nations
In all, the wealth, culture, military power and diplomatic clout are what define the hierarchy of nations in our world. Those who fare higher on it, are less influenced by international organizations before they either partly control them, have the keys to their bank account or simply are too strong to even take heed seriously to what the international body says.
3. Globalization
Globalization is probably the single biggest contributor to the loss of national sovereignty of nation states to international organizations. This is because globalization is a very broad term that includes the use of said international bodies, international treaties and, most importantly, international trade (massive free trade agreements, i.e. NAFTA) (Haass, Richard N.. "Sovereignty and globalisation." Council on Foreign Relations. N.p., 17 Apr. 2006. Web. 31 Oct. 2012<www.cfr.org/sovereignty/sovereignty-globalisation/p9903>.) . The following points will explain why and how these affect national sovereignty.
3.1 Globalized Trade
The single biggest point used to prove my thesis has to do with globalized trade. Globalization is most easily demonstrated through trade, because, for example, many of our goods are made out of our borders. However, these realities are made true by free trade agreements, among others, which are, in turn, overseen, in its legality, by the World Trade Organization and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (Mitchell, Andrew D.. Legal principles in WTO disputes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Print). There are many fears that these organizations have too much clout and power for undemocratically elected officials and that they are deemed dangerous, however these ideas are mostly held by the fringe of the nation (if in a culturally and ideologically receptive country to IO’s) or held by the media and general consensus of the state. (Campbell Petrie, Murray, ‘’JURISDICTIONAL INTEGRATION: How Economic Globalisation is Changing State Sovereignty’’, (thesis), Wellington, 2009)
3.2 National vs. International Law
Another aspect of sovereignty that gets impeded on by International Organizations is the national laws, normally the product of an attempt to control the security of a region, versus the international laws that bound every man and woman in it (Carreau, Dominique, and Patrick Juillard.Droit international économique. 4eme éd. refondue et augm. ed. Paris: Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence, 1998. Print.). For example, a law that oversees poultry production, an example would be Canadian supply and demand protectionist policy against dairy and poultry, and imposes a tariff upon its exportation would get overridden by the IO’s demands (Lewis, Meredith Kolsky, and Susy Frankel. International economic law and national autonomy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Print pg. 156)
3.4 Free Trade (Graph)
(Graph – continued) - This graph explains the importance of Free trade, which is synonymous to globalization. It is rather clear that not only the number, but magnitude of free trade deals are increasing dramatically. To say that free trade is gaining importance would be an understatement, for while the number of free trade agreements instated per year fluctuates greatly, their cumulative total, or number of implemented FTA’s in the world is ballooning rather rapidly. In fact, it is said that FTA’s are a new economic paradigm that after protectionism, total deregulation and socialism, comes the free trade ideology. (Prujiner, Alain. Treaties and international documents used in international trade law. Montréal: Wilson & Lafleur, 1992. Print.)
Conclusion
To conclude, a summary of the given arguments and final verdict is in order. Throughout the paper it was established that History was a very key factor in the development of societies, thanks to geographical positioning, the formation and then development and maturing of society, the hierarchy of nations, which is defined by economic, military and diplomatic terms, and globalization, which basically defines loss of sovereignty all on its own.
Therefore, to actually formulate my argument, it would be the following: nation states have been losing their sovereignty because of their history, which gave them a certain culture and ideology, which in part defined their place in the hierarchy of nations in the world throughout the future, and, finally, globalization, with their international laws and forced adherence to certain articles for every country in order to facilitate cooperation between nations.
Although nation states do indeed lose their sovereignty to international organizations, a question must be asked: is it for the better? Is this loss, just a gain in disguise? Or are our personal freedoms at risk at being curbed or controlled by undemocratic bureaucratic machines?
One could say that the conspiracy theory that this trend brings, that of a one world government, is not far from reality thanks to the loss of sovereignty (Jones, Kent Albert. Who’s Afraid of the WTO? . Oxford: Oxford University Press,, 2004. Print.). It is another question one must ask himself: is it a good or bad thing? (George, Susan. "Susan George, State sovereignty under threat: Globalising designs of the WTO." Hartford Web Publishing. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Nov. 2012. http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27/041.html) Will we look back on this turn of events in 100, 200 or 300 years and have the historians of the day tell us it was ultimately good or bad for society? Only time will tell.