Nation State

Political Globalisation refers to the thickening and widening of political relations around the world.

These processes raise a range of questions.

- Principle of national sovereignty?
- Growing influence of intergovernmental organisations?
- Regional or global governance?

Until the end of the medieval period the political system was diverse and complex to the extreme. The political system
was called feudalism. Feudalism was a combination of legal & military customs in a medieval Europe. It was a way of
structuring society around relationships derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labour.

Due to a severe lack of technology, monarchs only effectively ruled the territories closest to the court. The rest of his
territories were divided and “lent” to the high aristocrats, which split their own territories up similarly by “lending”
these pieces of land to the low aristocrats, who “lent” their plots of land to the serfs for the sake of cultivation. The
borders between the various political entities were relatively blurry and undefined.

All these feudal entities boasted certain exclusive competences, although often entities technically on the same level
of the feudal system were marked by a totally different range of rights, duties and autonomy. No feudal level was
dominant in an absolute sense.
 Religious institutions also enjoyed a range of exclusive competences, as religious courts dealt with matters of
faith.
 Within the same geographic space one could also find “free cities”, with different degrees of autonomy,
some of which were united together in (con) federate leagues.
One can compare this situation, extremely intricate in its essence, to a “political mosaic” (Overlapping territories, since
there was no ruler or state that was sovereign).

Identities in these feudal kingdoms were mainly of a local nature: the majority of the population was rural, and most
peasants knew little about life further than another village away. As a result, most people identified only with their
own rural community. Only religious identification entailed greater geographic dimensions.

The world was divided in a continuum of dialects rather than languages like in the modern sense of the world.
Languages, in the modern sense of the word, were virtually inexistence, as well-nigh the whole population spoke some
or other local dialect, which changed from village to village, without clear linguistic borders between regions or
political entities: from Portugal up to Belgium, from Norway down to Northern Italy, there was a “continuum” of
dialects.

In light of rapid technological development at the end of the medieval period, monarchs attempted to concentrate
political power within their kingdoms in their own hands. They succeeded in convincing the aristocracy to evolve from
a warrior class residing in rural, military castles towards a governing class, which would provide ministers to the king,
while living in luxurious, urban palaces.

As such, feudalism was abolished and substituted by centralised states, in which political power was located in the
hands of a single “sovereign”. Sovereignty means the exclusive right to legitimately govern and use political force
within a certain space, which meant precise borders had to be fixed.
With time, the function of the sovereign needed to be legitimized (for instance, by dint of the ‘divine right’, the ‘social
contract’, or democracy).

In feudalism the system didn’t need legitimacy because the sovereign didn’t lie in one person’s hands. Legally the new
system distinguished itself from earlier forms of government by claiming correspondence between sovereignty,
territory and legitimacy. This new idea challenged the medieval mosaic, where political power was local and personal,
sub coordinated by imperial authority.
This system emerged during the Peace of Westphalia (1648) and as such the nation-state is also nicknamed the
Westphalian State. However, it would take until the 18th and 19th century before the modern nation-state system
would truly take root in Western Europe and its settlements elsewhere.

Together with the development of the concept of “sovereignty”, governments gradually started fostering national
identities which were to match the territories under their control. This process can be differentiated in the creation of:
1. national languages (which were based on a certain dialect or a mixture of several dialects)
 2. a “national history” (with a very subjective interpretation of the past, with an emphasis on the “common
roots” of the population)
3. a national culture (for instance, by adopting a dish or dance from a particular region as a national
characteristic; the invention of national holidays; the development of a national press etc.).

This process of “nation building” was carried out principally through the newly established general education system,
which, compulsory and free, taught the country’s youth the new national language and its “national history”. In
addition, the educational system expressed national identities in more subtle ways (think of flags, national holidays
etc.).
Example: As such, a few hundred years ago two Iberian farmers, one living on the Spanish side of the border and the other living on
the Portuguese side, spoke the same dialect and were raised in a similar cultural setting. Yet their great-grandchildren today belong
to two different nations, cannot no longer readily understand each other and live completely different daily realities.

National governments were aware that standardised national identities were essential for two purposes:
I. National languages were a necessity for economic progress, as a multiplicity of local dialects is extremely
unpractical.
II. Nationalism was a powerful tool in creating “good soldiers”, who would be enthusiastically willing to put
their national loyalty to the ultimate test.
Of course, it is logical that nationalist citizens are indeed better citizens as far as the motherland is concerned.
However, this artificial division of the social space into a national and a foreign space purposefully created a collective
identity based on “us” on the one hand, and the unknown “them” on the other side. This usually entailed a belief in
the supremacy of one’s “own nation”, while demonising the “other”.

The Modern Nation State system

Over time, the political structure of the arising nation-state became increasingly non-personal.
In addition, many of these new nation-states would gradually democratise, transferring sovereignty from the monarch
to a democratically elected parliament, some early (e.g. the UK), some later (e.g. Prussia).

The modern nation system was based on psychological foundations and cultural assumptions that conveyed a sense of
existential security and historical continuity. Believing in the own superiority of their nation  fight of “total wars”.

This political system emerged first during the Peace of Westphalia (1648). These new developments broke new
conceptual ground. The Westphalian model strengthened a new conception of international law based on the
principle that all states had an equal right to self-determination.

Its core principles were:

I. Territorial sovereignty
II. Equality of states
III. Non-intervention in the internal affairs
IV. State consent as the foundation stone of international legal agreement

According to Held, the Westphalian model in its most modern guise included the following foundations:
1. The world consists of, and is divided into, sovereign territorial states which recognise no superior authority.
2. The processes of law-making, the settlement of disputes, and law enforcement are largely in the hands of
individual states.
3. International law is oriented to the establishment of minimal rules of co-existence; the creation of enduring
relationships is an aim, but only to the extent that it allows state objectives to be met.
4. Responsibility for cross-border wrongful acts is a ‘private matter’ concerning only those affected.
5. All states are regarded as equal before the law, and legal rules do not take account of asymmetries of power.
6. Differences among states are often settled by force; the principle of effective power holds sway. Virtually no
legal fetters exist to curb the resort to force; international legal standards afford only minimal protection.
7. The collective priority of all states should be to minimise the impediments to state freedom.

The period of the modern nation-state was characterised by:

- A set of universal rules within a demarcated territory
- The expansion of the state’s central administration
- Central systems of fiscal management and resource allocation
- The strengthening of the state’s monopoly over the means of enforcement
- The development of professional diplomacy
- The expansion of trade by the military means that were at the disposal of the state, and as such:
- The expansion of this European type of political governance to the rest of the world.
Even in the Golden Age of the Westphalian nation-state, the principle of sovereignty was not always obeyed devoutly.
For instance:
- There were cases of covert interference in, and military invasions into foreign territories
- States never fully controlled the movement of trade and money
- Colonial governments sometimes did not control peripheral areas
- Weak states were lacking the resources necessary to materialise their sovereignty.

However, in theory, the concept of sovereignty boasted unquestioned acceptance.

Moreover, in practice, a weak state could, by strengthening its capacities, move up from juridical sovereignty to full
sovereignty.
Strong states enjoyed full sovereignty in both respects, ruling their territory in an all-embracing, exclusive, and
unobstructed fashion.

In summary, the Westphalian agreement created a normative trajectory in the development of international law,
establishing the formal rules that sovereign and autonomous states were forced to accept in order to be admitted as
full and equal members to the international order.
Paradoxically, this model only spread to other continents when the European states that created it started their path
of decline, around the beginning of the process of decolonialisation.

The Disappearance of the Nation State?

After WWI US President Woodrow Wilson expressed the modern nation state based on the principle of national self-
determination (he wrote about this in his book; Fourteen points), and that all forms of national identity should be
given their territorial expression in a sovereign nation state.

Yet his commitment to the nation state should exist with his internationalist dream of establishing a global system of
collective security, under a new international organization the “League of Nations”  UN in 1945. However the
expansion of this model eventually undermined the principle of national sovereignty.

The International society of separate states was turning in a global web of political interdependencies that challenges
the sovereignty of nation states and therefore the Westphalian model. For example, in 1990 George W. Bush outset
the Gulf War, which meant that the Westphalian principle of; cross border wrongful acts, didn’t concern only states
affected anymore.

In light of the above, three fundamental questions arise regarding the extent of political globalisation:
1. Is the power of the nation-state being damaged by movements of capital, people and technology across
territorial borders?
2. Are the essential factors for these movements economic or political?
3. Are we witnessing the rise of global governance?

The view of the Sceptics

The Sceptics don’t see the nation state disappearing. They see the ends of the 20iest century as the end of all great
empires. They see the 21th century however as the “age of the modern state”.
Sceptics affirmed the continued relevance of the nation-state as the setting of the political agenda in modern social
life but also point to the emergence of regional blossom as evidence for new forms of territorialisation. They
emphasise the central role of politics in unleashing the forces of globalisation.

Besides, the state still regulates and registers life from birth until death, from the policing of everyday activities to
education and health services. Actually, in quantitative terms the state is expanding: its budget is growing and the
fields of its jurisdiction are widening.
Today’s states, at least the wealthy ones, enjoy greater strength than their predecessors. For example, look at their
capacity to raise taxes and their capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction.
In fact, only at the end of the 20th century was the system of nation-states extended to encompass the whole word:
between 1945 and the present the number of states almost tripled from 71 to 196.

Many young countries persist in the development and improvement of:

- Systems of governance and enforcement, the army, tax collection, national symbols, national
communication infrastructure
- The educational system, as well as a welfare and health care system
- Macro-economic interference in order to provide growth and prosperity.
Not always do these efforts succeed. In fact, state-governance is often limited in practice, particularly in the Third
World, given weak bureaucratic capabilities, a lack of territorial control, and commitments to other governments,
foreign businesses and global institutions.

Yet Western nation-state policies are copied and applied around the world, in a quest to build strong state-
institutions, with states fiercely protecting their national sovereignty.
As such, from the sceptic angle, there are good reasons at the start of the 21st century to think that we are in the era
of the modern state, even in its golden age.

According to them, the accelerated development of global economic activity cannot be explained by a natural law of
the market or by the development of computer technology. Rather they see the source of global economic activity
residing in political decisions to eliminate the international limitations on capital that were still accepted by some
neo-liberal governments throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Only after these decisions were applied, were the global
market and new technologies recognised as important forces.

The main theoretical current among the sceptics is the realist current (real politik) within the field of international
relations. States are the primary elements of politics in international affairs, and its primary purpose is to promote
and defend its national interest. In a few words, given the absence of a supreme arbiter that can enforce international
agreements, the resulting anarchy forces all states to adopt a power-based policy for attaining their essential goals. All
games are zero-sum.
The great powers (currently only the US) have to act in order to preserve their status and to defend their national
interest, thus determining the nature of “the international order”. Therefore the powerful state is a hegemonic power,
it will defend its national interest and international order is produces by the most powerful states.
Global cooperation and long-term effective, stable international agreements are very unlikely within the system of
sovereign states. International institutions are ineffective and do not have their own capacities and power.

That is to say, all influence of other players on global political and economic conditions will only be possible within a
framework made up of, and shaped by, states.

The view of the Globalists

In contrast, the globalists believe that indeed the modern nation-state system no longer exists. They refer to
deterritorialisation of politic rule and governance since the late 1960ies. Contemporary manifestations of
globalization have led to the partial permeation of these old territorial borders, in the process softening hard
conceptual boundaries and cultural lines of borders.

Political power in their eyes is located in global social formations and expressed through territorially based states.
Social, economic and environmental problems (for example: pollution, drugs, human rights and terror) cross borders
and can only be successfully dealt with by international cooperation. As a result, global politics have come about,
based on rules written by non-state actors. There are boundaries between domestic and foreign policies and there is a
fostering growth of supra-territorial social spaces and institutions that unsettle traditional political arrangements.

As such, the traditional view of the state, which takes its supremacy within its territory as a given, is no longer
accurate. The present epoch of global politics is characterised by the move to regional and global multi-level
governance, as the state has difficulty in implementing some of its basic functions. This incapacity can be observed,
amongst others, in: As regards international cooperation:
1. The growth of multi-lateral organisations and treaties
2. Policy making within a crowded active network of international forums
3. A substantial thickening of regional relations, even outside of Europe
4. A significant expansion in the contents and the incidence of international law
5. The increasing scope of private regulation
On a more practical level:
6. A change in the global military order:
a) The state no longer has a monopoly on the use of force, as is shown by the growth in international
terrorist networks and the role of private armies, military companies and mercenaries in many areas
in the world.
b) Countries no longer have an absolutely autonomous capacity of military production. For instance,
there are important civil technologies – e.g. electronics – that play a central role in sophisticated
arms production, but that are produced by multi-national corporations.
c) In a context marked by the proliferation of weapons of mass-destruction, the distinction between
enemies and allies is becoming blurred. War can destroy one’s ally and one’s enemy at once.
 d) The importance of global and regional security institutions is increasing along with the
collectivisation of national security. Few states, except perhaps the US and China, can consider
unilateral acts or neutrality as a credible defence strategy.
7. Growing difficulties in implementing effective border controls, for instance concerning goods, services,
production factors, technology, ideas and cultural exchange.

In view of all these expressions of globalisation, states are no longer the adequate political units to solve certain basic
problems or even to manage a wide range of social functions.
If the state can no longer “supply the goods” to the citizen, it is likely to lose its last fortress: its political legitimacy.

The majority of globalists see in political globalisation a secondary phenomenon propelled by more basic economic
and technological forces, preventing governments from re-establishing limiting policies. Politics is helpless.
What is left for governments to do is to serve global capitalism: governments’ role in regulating the international
economy (setting exchange rates, creating basic norms and standards, limiting international trade and FDI to protect
local industry) has been cancelled by stronger, footloose economic forces.

Nation states already lost their role in the global economy. Nation states are vulnerable to the discipline imposed by
economic choices made elsewhere, on which states have no practical control therefore states are less capable of
determining the direction of social life within their borders.
Far-away actions shape local social conditions, as well as the local conscience. As such, it is difficult nowadays to
distinguish between the local and the international, a distinction rooted in the traditional vision of inter-state politics.
Globalists see political globalisation as secondary driven by more fundamental economic and technological forces.
Politics is powerless by an unstoppable techno economic force  borderless world.
Future will know a political order of regional economies linked together in an almost seamless global web of
production and exchange.

Globalists claim that globalisation inevitably erodes the importance of territorial demarcation to social and political
change, with states less able to influence the development of society within their boundaries.

CONCLUSION
On one hand, economic forms of interdependence are set into motion by political decisions but these are made in
certain economic context. Economic and political aspects of globalization are interconnected. For example; it is much
easier for capital to escape taxation because of trade liberalization and deregulation, this did constrain the set of
political options open to states. Global markets do in fact undermine the capacity of local governments.
Hence, we ought to acknowledge the decline of the nation state as a sovereign entity and the decentralisation
following to state power to regional and local governments, as well to supranational institutions.

However governments are not simply bystanders, governments still take measures to make their economies more or
less attractive to global investors. Therefore this acknowledgement does not necessarily mean that nation-states have
become helpless witnesses of the acts of global forces: nation states have retained control over education,
infrastructure, and population movements; immigration control, population registration and monitoring. The last
three are the most notable exceptions towards global integration.

Indeed, immigration control is the main exception to the trend of global integration.
Although only 3.1% of the world population lives outside of its country of origin, immigration control has become an
important topic in the majority of developed countries: many governments aspire to limit population movements, and
in particular those that originate in poor countries.
Even in the US, immigration in the first decade of the 21st century (as a percentage of total population) was roughly
one-third of the flow of immigration that was registered in the first decade of the 20th century.
If so, we have to reject early declarations of the disappearance of the nation-state, but to acknowledge its growing
difficulties in implementing part of its traditional functions.

Contemporary globalisation has weakened some of the accepted limits between domestic and foreign politics and has
encouraged the growth of supra-territorial social spaces and institutions that have shaken traditional political
arrangements.
At the start of the 21st century, the world finds itself in a transitional phase between a system based on the modern
nation-state and post-modern types of global governance.