CC BY
88
&
Murad ESENOV
Doctor of Political Science, Editor-in-Chief of the journal Central Asia and the Caucasus, Executive Director of the CA&CC Press Publishing House (Sweden).
GLOBALIZATION AND THE PROBLEMS OF NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY
Abstract
Since the appearance of the Westphalian system of world order, national sovereignty has been recognized as one of the key factors of each state’s independent and equitable existence as an entity of the international relations system. But the globalization processes currently encompassing an ever-growing area of social, political, and international life are significantly changing the content of this
concept. Increasingly distinct contradictions are appearing between the economic and political interdependence of states and nations, on the one hand, and the principles of national sovereignty, on the other. These contradictions are devaluating the concept of “national sovereignty” in its traditional sense. This article is based on the author’s thoughts about the problems of national sovereignty under globalization conditions.
It is worth noting that nation-building and the strengthening of sovereignty in the Central Asian and South Caucasian states has essentially coincided with the evolution of the role and significance of the state as a sociopolitical institution in general, and of state sovereignty, in particular. To put it
another way, the acquisition and strengthening of sovereignty in the Central Asian and South Caucasian states has coincided with a time in which the concept of “sovereignty” in its traditional understanding is losing its meaning.
Just recently, the state was unequivocally viewed as an insular territorial entity. This insulation was enforced by the principles of the Westphalian Peace Treaty, on which the U.N. Charter and other important international documents were based. The world system was viewed as a system of states which respected each other’s sovereignty and were essentially equal to each other, states which determined their domestic policy independently, without external interference, and were free to conduct their foreign affairs as they chose. Even the weakest states, which had only just acquired independence, could unequivocally count on their territorial integrity, non-interference in their internal affairs, and freedom in decision-making regarding their foreign policy affairs. But nowadays, in the era of globalization, things are very different.
Of course, no one has done away with the traditional conception of state sovereignty. Technically, all actions on the international arena are based on the principles of inviolability of state sovereignty. But we cannot help but notice the increasingly distinct contradiction between the economic and political interdependence of states and nations, on the one hand, and the principles of national sovereignty, on the other. Nor can we fail to notice that this contradiction is more and more frequently resolved to the detriment of state sovereignty.
The world economy today is already functioning as a single and integrated system, in which the rules of the game are not being made so much by the governments of individual countries, as by transnational corporations. Commodity quoting on the world stock exchanges, national currency exchange rates, and the price of energy resources largely depend on the action or inaction of transnational corporations. If we keep in mind that national currency exchange rates, the number ofjobs, the level of personal income, and the quality of particular social benefits depend on stock exchange commodity quotations and the price of energy resources and other raw material, it is not hard to understand that the sociopolitical situation in a particular country depends not so much on the state as such, as on transnational corporations.
The role and significance of the state as a sovereign entity are also declining within the framework of another trend in world development, that is, interstate and interregional integration processes. Taking the example of one of the most successful integration projects, in my opinion, called the European Union, we can see that the Union’s member states are gradually delegating some of their sovereign rights to supranational management structures. This used to apply only to economic issues, but now it also encompasses currency and finance issues, law-making issues, and, in the future, also foreign policy and defense issues. Although it is believed that supranational management structures are operating strictly in compliance with the mandate issued by sovereign states, we cannot help but notice that within the framework of a Union, the state as a sovereign entity, as a sociopolitical institution, loses its clout in favor of suprastate entities.
At present the most serious factor undermining the traditional principle of the inviolability of state sovereignty is the humanitarian factor. By the humanitarian factor I mean such values as human rights, citizen rights, the rights of individual ethnic groups and nations as a whole, as well as migration of the population.
Over the past ten years, the U.N. Security Council has been adopting many decisions aimed at protecting human rights and protecting the rights of certain ethnic groups in a particular state. In most cases, these decisions ended in humanitarian intervention in the country in question. We were witnesses to how humanitarian interventions were carried out on the basis of mutual accord among a group of leading countries of the world, without the sanction of the U.N.
Whether we like it or not, collective interference under the auspices of the U.N., or without it, in the internal affairs of sovereign states in the form of peacekeeping or humanitarian intervention for protecting systematically violated human rights is gradually becoming standard international policy.
If humanitarian intervention, even under the auspices of the U.N., is considered from the viewpoint of the Westphalian sovereignty system, it is obvious that we are talking about interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state, that is, about the violation of the rights of a sovereign state. But nowadays it is difficult to find a person, organization, or state that would consider a human rights issue the strictly internal affair of a particular state. This is occurring, as I have said, because collective interference under the auspices of the U.N. in the internal affairs of sovereign states in the form of peacekeeping or humanitarian intervention to protect human rights is gradually becoming a standard international policy. Whether this is good or bad is another matter, but today it is a reality which, I believe, is a direct consequence of globalization.
It is important to note that globalization not only means the integration of sovereign states, the merging of their economies into a single system, and the erosion of borders between different civilizations, but also fragmentation of the state and nation into smaller structures. In many countries, stable trends are being clearly seen toward a split in terms of ethnic, religious, and cultural characteristics. Regionalization is being observed, which encompasses parts of two or more states and, most important, the border line between civilizations is becoming all the more distinct.
As a result of ethnic fragmentation of the nation, we are seeing separatism not only in the new states that have recently gained their independence, but also in the more prosperous countries of the world. Religious and cultural fragmentation is resulting in one of the most threatening banes of our times—international terrorism. Fragmentation is becoming just as destructive to the sovereignty of individual states as economic and political integration or humanitarian intervention.
The factors listed above, which are characteristic of globalization, are significantly undermining the sovereignty of any individual state. The state as a sociopolitical institution is losing its value, both in the functional respect, and as an actor in international policy.
It is hardly worth dramatizing devaluation of the concept of “state sovereignty.” As I see it, “sovereignty” is not a static concept, but a dynamic one. Each era should have its own ideas about sovereignty. The Westphalian sovereignty system can hardly be efficacious in the age of globalization, where entirely different measurement parameters come into play. The state as a sociopolitical institution will be forced to adapt to the new conditions. And we are already seeing this in the horizontal and vertical delegation of some of our sovereignty rights to local regional entities, nongovernmental and intergovernmental formations, and supranational structures. In other words, part of a state’s sovereignty is being delegated to that level where it can most effectively respond to the challenges of the new global phenomena.
Judging by everything, the new independent states of Central Asia and the Caucasus will have to adapt to these trends in particular, that is, transfer some of their sovereignty rights to regional and supranational structures, retaining the most favorable and vital in the hands of the state.
I would like to end with a quote from an article by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan published in the newspaper Financial Times of 31 December, 1999. Talking about state sovereignty in the globalization age, Kofi Annan noted that “globalization and international cooperation are changing our understanding of state sovereignty: states are now widely understood to be the servants of their peoples, and not vice versa. At the same time, individual sovereignty—and by this I mean the human rights and fundamental freedoms enshrined in our charter—has been enhanced by a renewed consciousness of the right of every individual to control his or her own destiny.”1
1 Kofi Annan, “The Legitimacy to Intervene International Action to Uphold Human Rights Requires a New Understanding of State and Individual Sovereignty,” Financial Times, 31 December, 1999.
