Blog Post 2, Jessica Guerrero

Globalization & The Sovereign State System 

By Jessica Guerrero

          

          Globalization generates the feeling that all beings are connected; the world is ‘flat.’ The existential phrase ‘no man is an island’ reoccurred as a theme for this week’s readings and through the course of the semester. Throughout history, trade has shifted from regional to continental, to overseas, from mercantilism to capitalism, from the gold standard to floating exchange rates all accounting for the creative measures man has taken to create an integrated world system that shares goods, ideas, and information. Central to the progression of trade has always been the issue of sovereignty. The ‘rules’ by which the players interact shifts to always protect the state in the midst of market transactions. This holds true for why institutions arose to protect contracts and intellectual property rights; while these institution benefited the individual, the state sees the benefit in trade as its own potential for stability and prosperity and possible expansion. The focus of this paper is to fortify Jackson’s argument: the sovereign state system will not be contested in the expansion of globalization. Although technology, terrorism, and growing discontent of the modern state structure among the ‘bottom billion’ all pose threats to the state, the sovereign state system is resilient.

            Technology has an interesting relationship with state authority. On the one hand, it has the capacity to enhance democracy and strengthen markets. On the other hand, the digital realm of the Internet is not tangible; therefore, no universal jurisdiction exists over access to information and censorship (Sassen Ch.7). Information is free to migrate, transactions occur in seconds, and issues become less localized. These advancements allow the common man access to ‘virtual mobility,’ information on almost anything, cross-border communication, and market expansion of goods and services as never before, which account to the ordinary person having more ‘power.’ This digital age is revolutionary for government structures as well because it makes keeping track of residents’ information easier, facilitates the spread of information, and makes forms and other legal procedures more accessible to the public. In this light, decentralization of the state works smoothly and efficiently. The problem is, with so much ‘power’ available to the common man, the public becomes more independent of the state, including with its attitudes towards politics and economics. Information hacked or unfiltered poses a threat to national security, as was the case with the WikiLeak scandal in 2010. Still, as the state invests in firewall technology this problem of intangibility becomes more secure (Sassen Ch. 7). Another thing to consider is that even with all the global interaction through the internet the state determines how much power is allocated to the public because most electronic networks are privately owned and inaccessible to non-members (Sassen Ch. 7). This is most evident in China’s company, Tencent- the world’s third largest Internet company. Therefore, while it appears that anarchy is scaled down to the individual level through the access of Internet, the state remains sovereign by dictating regional rules to access. After all, not everybody becomes a hacker and obtains restricted domestic information or cross-border information, and those exceptions are few.

            For Jackson the sovereign state system has been and always will be resilient towards terrorism. Originally coined during the French Revolution, terrorism is the act of targeting the state system through its subjects and citizens through unlawful violence to address clashing ideologies, be they religious or not (Jackson 2007). Although these acts play a role in weakening the moral of the people and cause damage to infrastructure, the power of the state to retaliate is unprecedented and unchallenged. However, fighting asymmetric warfare can put the state at a disadvantage, like US involvement in Iraq. Fighting a ghost enemy that hides and scatters its forces can be difficult to finance, and the politics behind the ethics of war of this nature can produce disunity in the homeland and further weaken the cause. Therefore, the state appears to be unequipped with efficient methods for fighting guerilla like warfare. Despite the disadvantages of engaging in war with terrorists, the sovereign state system persists. Although it can be a lengthy, costly endeavor, the state still has access to better technology on a grader scale, more foot soldiers, and more military experience. Terrorists’ “actual capacity to threaten and harm citizens is small if not miniscule…” compared to the threat the state can pose to retaliate against those terrorists, to other states, and to its own people, “…when government falls into the hands of tyrants and despots” (Jackson 2007). While terrorist seek to take political matters into their own hands, the sovereign state system, acknowledged for its legitimacy, will always have more capacity to respond and address opposing political systems than any reign of terror could. 

            Globalization has allowed for non-state actors to ‘fill in the gaps’ where the state fails. This is why international aid groups, humanitarian groups, religious groups, environmental groups, volunteers, doctors and teachers without borders all work to provide relief and assistance and to advocate for conditions around the globe that the state cannot seem to protect or care-for, particularly in the developing world (Jackson 2007). At the peak of what appears to be a ‘global associational revolution’ is it possible that the state is no longer the best module? Jackson would say no, because globalization has always existed. While it is true that non-state actors and volunteers link people to basic resources, the private sector of society and transnational groups are but an extension and servant of the state system, not an authority above them. They work to better the conditions within the state system, and it is the state system that provides the resources to make these missions possible. Though not in all cases, a political agenda usually drives the support and funding of certain groups, such as the notion of democratization. The state may have its flaws, but global stewardship on behalf of individuals and groups do not pose a threat to the stability of the state sovereign system.

            Globalization has given much more attention to the individual. Through technology, the masses have access to information and communication as never before, terrorism demonstrates the capacity of people taking political matters into their own hands, and international support groups strengthens this idea of being a ‘global citizen’ that helps one another. This integrated world would suggest that the state might no longer be the ideal form of government. Yet, the state proves resilient. While technology and terrorism pose a threat to security, the sovereign state has the capacity to address these threats. While global aid groups address the lack of access to resources, they do so in service of strengthening the state. The state is not perfect, but “any other qualified form of state authority short of independence is illegitimate” and lacks the capacity to do more than address an immediate goal (Jackson 2007). The Internet may give people new freedoms, but this is only one realm of what constitutes reality. A terrorist group may “liberate” people to combat an ideology, but the state system will still be necessary to rule the masses. Globalization, therefore, evolves the state, not debilitates it.