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. 

Globalization

Andrew Sandor

Poli480

Professor Shirk

Globalization Response

Since its inception, the sovereign state has been a creature of evolution. It has adapted and molded itself to the times, its people, technology, and international norms. As with survival of the fittest, states that have lacked savvy pragmatism and endurance, refusing to adapt and grow, have quickly become extinct. Globalization presents the modern state with unprecedented challenges; challenges that could threaten its sovereignty and its very survival. Still, the pragmatic sovereign state that is willing to adapt and grow, leaving behind archaic principles and ideals, will survive indefinitely in an evolved form of its former self.

The foundation of the sovereign state became solidified with the signing of the treaties, called the Peace of Westphalia, in 1648. It defined the sovereign state by regional borders, within which the state and its sovereign exercised: a monopoly over the use of force and the right to self-determination, and could not be interfered with by outside actors as all recognized states were now considered equal. The concept of the sovereign state and its purpose evolved over the following centuries. The idea of freedom and rights for states' citizens gained a strong momentum in places like England and saw state sovereigns give up power to their citizens and redefine their own identity. The forming of the United States took this concept even further through forming the modern democracy, which eventually became the world norm. The biggest force speeding along state evolution was technological innovation.

England's industrial revolution drastically transformed equality and the balance of power among states through its hegemonic control over world trade. It opened up markets all over the world, forced other states to conform to its ideals regarding international trade, and established the stabilizing Gold Standard. Technological innovation made the earth much smaller as it revolutionized transportation and communication through things like steam-powered ships and the telegraph. The international economy flourished from these advances, as well as England's hegemony. The international economy's integration reached its height during this period, and has not seen such a degree of integration since the kick off of WWI's shattering of the Golden Age.

Prior to and after WWI, empires began to die off across the globe, unable to compete with the age of the sovereign state. States too would face their own challenges, as WWI caused disillusionment among non-European peoples around the world. Demands for the right to self-determination abounded, creating civil unrest and disobedience against the European states that exercised their influence of these peoples. Meanwhile, states tried rebuild the economy that disintegrated during WWI. Protectionist practices, unfair peace treaties, a broken Gold Standard, and world disillusionment made this impossible. Again, here, one of the biggest problems came from technological innovation; chief among these innovations was the automobile. Companies like GE and Ford took advantage of tech innovations and began mass production under the umbrella of the corporation. The massive corporate entities allowed unions and workers to gain unprecedented power and influence and allowed workers to keep the cost of labor high. Corporations, technological innovations, and the state of the world economy bankrupted countless farmers and small business owners. Economic theories of the day were not designed to take into account multinational corporations that controlled a multitude of industries and capital, and that were able to manipulate and withstand traditional supply and demand theories. States were slow to adapt to this new world situation and plunged the globe into the Great Depression.

The rise of the worker lead to the Communist Revolution, and in states fearing the revolutions within their own borders, socialists were allowed a large influence in governmental affairs. This exacerbated the right-wing -- who gained numbers from those put out of work – and lead to extreme fascist ideologies such as the Nazis. The states inability to adapt to the new condition of the world economic system, handle new political ideologies, and seek to solutions to these and other problems through cooperation with one another, plunged the world back into war.

The United States suffered from many of these problems but adapted quicker than other states through FDR's New Deal, which sought to relieve the country's economic woes, and which moved to redefine the qualifications of a sovereign state in order to meet the demand for self-determination by non-European peoples via the Atlantic Charter. The United States' current status is the result of a sovereign state that is flexible and pragmatic, conforming itself to the will of people of the times, and resisting tyranny through rule of law and checks and balances. Its flexibility and pragmatism allowed it to emerge from both World Wars stronger and evolved.

In 1945 the U.S. led the world in the forming of the United Nations. This world organization facilitates the flow of information via the avenue of communication on the issues that dragged the world into war and economic depression. The issues include: security concerns, human rights, economic issues and policy, international palaver and discourse, mediation between sovereign states, qualifications for sovereign states, and much more. The United States help teach new states and old states the value and importance of adaptability and pragmatism. If the U.S. was the worlds poster child for a flexible state that can evolve and bend with the winds of change, then the Communist Soviet Union is an example of the strong unbending oak that breaks when the gale's onslaught comes.

The Soviets were innovative in their own way; if they had not been they would not have become the world superpower they were. Despite this, the state viewed capitalist individual freedom and free thinking as the source of Nazi fascism, and replaced the will of the individual with the will of the party. To question the party was heresy and meant death. The party became the religion and identity of the people. Even when faced with the undeniable facts of the party’s short comings and inevitable failure, people still clung hopelessly to its tenants. They were programed to believe that the party could never be flawed, and that any flaws came from themselves or others whom needed to be purged. Their life long struggle to bring party ideals into reality became their identity, as they gave up their own desires and pursuits for the good of the collective. Anything that sought to or would discredit the party or its ideals would not only mean that they were meaningless, but it would also mean that the entirety of ones life spent dedicated to those ideals was also meaningless. Because of this inability to challenge Soviet Communism's theology, there was no way for its acolytes to challenge it and allow it to evolve to meet modern demands. Thus survival of the fittest played out, and the Soviet state fell to the sands of time.

As technology and human innovation destabilized the global order of state sovereignty and economy post WWI, so too have innovations in communication and transaction ability via the World Wide Web and Transportation via the jet engine, threatened to destabilize the current global order of state sovereignty and economy. Technological advances have made trans-global transaction possible with the mere click of a button. Businesses and capital appear, disappear, and are traded at unprecedented speeds. The dissemination of information through things like social media have the ability to spark revolutions that overthrow decades old governments and regimes overnight. The speed at which things occur globally has caused the necessity for governments to adapt to keep up.

States like the U.S. have kept up with these speeds by exploiting the same technologies private industry and everyday citizens use. Government's spying programs, that collect large bundles of internet data and eavesdrop on foreign leaders, are one means states have used to adapt. They continue to find new innovations and technologies to gain an edge over other state rivals, and to keep ahead of the rest of the world. The ability to wage robotic war via drones from across the globe is another means states utilize the speed of networks, and bi-pass sovereignty restrictions. States also utilize electronic trading and free moving capital to increase profits and keep a healthy state economy.

Businesses have set up complex arrays of transnational strategic alliances in order to push past previous monetary limitations and foreign market barriers. Likewise, adaptive states have set up their own array of strategic alliances. These allow them to maintain regional presences across the globe, and provide economic advantages through treaties with other states. They also can put in place policies that bar competitors from those benefits; this includes private companies. States have even more complex strategic alliances than private industry. Furthermore, the contract between the people and its democratic government has seen the people give more power to the faster executive branch, while limiting the slow legislative branch.

Globalization has indeed presented new challenges to state sovereignty, and we have seen many states fall to those challenges. Still, despite the rise of different international organizations, trans-global businesses, and even threats provided by individual non-affiliated persons, states that continue to stay pragmatic and to adapt and grow, will be around indefinitely. This does not mean that it will exist in the exact form it is now. Instead it will evolve with the times, and grow into a superior organism that can keep the basic symmetry that exists between the political and economic organization of the sovereign state and state markets. The balance between states and the private industries will continue into the foreseeable future. The growth of international organizations does not show the weakening of the state, but instead show better communication between states. This communication insures the states survival, by staving off debilitating wars and economic integrity. The sovereign states of the future will not be denigrated to a small piece of some feudal pie, but will instead maintain their important prominent role in the future of the world.

Laura Webb
POLI 480

Research Paper Proposal

The current conflict in Syria has brought significant attention to the United Nations initiative known as The Responsibility to Protect (or R2P). This doctrine is based upon the principle that “sovereignty is not a right, but a responsibility (U.N. World Summit, 2005) .” To enact this duty, R2P suggests a 3 pillar strategy which addresses the following: ( U.N. World Summit, 2009)
1. The State carries the primary responsibility for protecting populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing, and their incitement;
2. The international community has a responsibility to encourage and assist States in fulfilling this responsibility;
3. The international community has a responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other means to protect populations from these crimes. If a State is manifestly failing to protect its populations, the international community must be prepared to take collective action to protect populations, in accordance with the UN Charter.

Since its establishment in 2005, R2P has proven to be controversial, igniting criticism on whether it has been previously effectively employed; or as other critics have concerned, the very nature of R2P is an overstep that violates a state’s national security. My research paper will examine this critique, in conjunction with the range of criticisms made toward R2P. I also will also study its past usage with the international community. I am curious to know the precise way in which R2P has been put into practice, and is so, what was the general consensus on its ability to be effective? Were any suggestions made towards improving its future use? Any interesting conclusions? I am interested to see if any significant points regarding its past usage perhaps could perhaps be used to predict its future role within the International community. The sources listed below will serve as a stepping block into my research on The Responsibility to Protect.
1.http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/about/bgresponsibility.shtml
2. http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/canada/130830/Obama-canadians-UN-responsibility-to-protect-Syria-strike
3. http://www.un.org/en http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/ICRtoPGAdebate.pdf/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/63/677
4. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/09/17/responsibility_to_protect
5. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mnp/gr2p/2011/00000003/00000004/art00006

Globalization: Class Disscusion Questions - Lead by Andrew, Jessica, and Carlos

Friedman, "While I Was Sleeping" reading questions:

1. What does the phrase "the world is flat" mean in the context of this reading and does globalization have to do with the meaning of this phrase?

2. What are some examples the author provides to explain and to prove the world we now live in has become flattened?

3. What are the positive and negative aspects of having an interconnected and globalized society and economy?

4. Why is the main reason behind outsourcing jobs to places like Bangalore in India? What do multinational corporations gain in return?

5. Do you agree that the playing field is being leveled when it comes to competing between big American and European multinational corporations and companies such as Infosys and Mphasis?

Jackson, Chapter 6 Reading Questions:

1. Do you agree with Jackson that the globalization thesis does not pose a threat to the sovereign state system? Why or why not?

2. Is the state evolving in response to scientific, technological, economic and social changes?

3. Does the EU (imagine it fully integrated, like a United States of Europe) provide a new model for state sovereignty?

4. Do you think in the future we will see the number of sovereign states decline, only to create new super, regional states?

Korbin, "The Architecture of Globalization" Reading Questions:

1. How does today's integrated “global” economy compare to that of the Golden Age's “global”

economy: Differences, Similarities, or Incomparable?

2a. Based on Korbin's thesis and what we have learned in class, is Guehenno right when she says

emerging global networks are the death of the nation-state? p146

2b. Wolf thinks instead thinks that it is only the Cold War era's false belief in the state being all m

powerful that has ended, leading others (Hobsbawn, Freedman and the Federal Reserve's Vice

-Chair) to say that, having left the “age of extremes,” the world is seeking to return to the

interconnected normalcy of the Golden Age; is this true, or is it a red herring? p147

3. What then are the major qualitative structural differences of today's global network, from that

of the Golden Age's global economy? p147 [Only ask if there are major differing answers to the

last set of questions than there were to the first question]

4a. [Only ask if it seems unclear, or was not already stated] Can anyone quickly define 'globalization'

as laid out by Korbin? Others: International, World Wide Economies, Multinational Economies?

4b. What are the major substantive causes and parts of globalization? P148, 152-3

4c. How does technology contribute to globalization? P149, most of article

4d. How do Transnational Alliances contribute to globalization? P150, 160-1

4e. How has the Emerging Global Economy become integrated into globalization? P151-4

4f. Does globalization compromise the balance/symmetry of political and economic organization of

nation state and national markets? p155-61

5a. Is Geographic Space losing meaning as a basis for organized markets to Electronic Global Markets?

p159-60

5b. If the Will the state system survive globalization, and if so in what form; a world order, private armies and citizens unrestricted by boundaries, or some sort of holodeck/matrixesc virtual state confined to the network, while humans are confined to their cybernetic controlled pod prison? p161-3

Sasken, Chapter 7 and 8 Reading Questions:

1. What role does the Internet play in challenging or enhancing sovereignty?

2. Sasken thinks that the Internet can be used as a tool for further decentralization. Although there are limitations, such as private ownership of certain networks, in what ways do you think the internet enhances decentralization? Is this a good thing?

3a. In what areas and ways does digital media encompass a portion of social life and society that the

nation-state, cannot and does not?

3b. In what ways can one imagine digital media making up for its short comings, and strengthening

the areas that it is currently superior in?

4a. In what areas and ways does the nation-state encompass a portion of social life and society that

digital media cannot and does not?

4b. In the current age of fast moving digital media, how does the nation-state adapt to keep up?

5. In what areas of everyday life and in the world, do we see Sasken's, “Analytical Border Lands”

of intersecting parts, from both sides of the pie, made up of various speeds, intersecting and

interacting on a regular basis? p384

How to Rule

How to Rule

The definition that we have for: state of nature of man, is the first building block of a social contract and defines the need of what type of government a society needs. How you define ‘state of nature’ will directly affect the type of government you have. The state of nature will differ for every society. The definition of the state of nature of man reveals what humanity has or is lacking pertaining to social behavior between him and other individuals. Based on the definition of a man’s state of nature we develop a social contract that best suites his needs.

It is my belief that in determining what type of governing, or what social contract works better for us we must first look at what makes up our surroundings; our environment, our political history, and our past experiences. I argue that Hobbs, and Locke were both correct in their political philosophy. I believe that Scott’s and Simmons experimentation in different governing systems is beneficial as well. I argue that for a particular group of people the type of governing that works, will be different, and will depend on the historical and social material of that group. It is difficult to recommend Hobbs, rule of monarchy to a country that already had monarchy. Neither would you preach Locke or taunt with Scott’s ‘cooperative anarchy’ the people of Egypt or Syria. I argue that we cannot prescribe ‘Democracy’ as a solution for everyone, because everyone has different social, cultural, ethical, and moral condition. There are many choices to choose from including monarchy, aristocracy, democracy, tyranny, oligarchy, or anarchy. How can we decide which one works best for a particular country? I argue that we must not be too quick to recommend democracy, for democracy is the rule of the poor by the poor, and in countries that don’t have a well-educated poor that can rule, bringing democracy is same as bringing anarchy.   

            In order to better understand how a cultural state of a country will affect the type of government it should have we can look closer at definitions of state of nature from Hobbs and Locke. Hobbs explains that a man’s state of nature is a state of war, where every man is on his own and is solely responsible for his wellbeing. This shows us that men in his natural state is selfish and is unable to form a mutual contract with another unless he gives up the liberty to preserve his own life and transfers that right to the government. Hobbs latter uses the idea of a “transferring right” to solidify the ruler’s right to rule. He writes “and when a man hath in either manner abandoned or granted away his right, then is he said to be obligated or bound not to hinder those to whom such right is granted or abandoned from the benefit of it.” (Leviathan, Ch 14, Sec 7) Hobbs states that if man does not want to return to the poor and violent state of nature but instead wants to remain part of civil society he must uphold his decision to give up his rights by not interfering with functions of the government. Here we see that Hobbes unlike Locke does not put much confidence in men. Were Hobbs states that man are egoists, Locke claims that men in the state of nature are good, calm, and have strong morals because of the law of nature which is reason. This law of nature or reason ensures that men have a mutual respect for “another’s in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” (Locke, Ch 2, Sec 6)  Locke believed that men live in the state of nature when there is no government to interpret and uphold the law, but reason is enough to allow them to live in peace. Lock writes “Men living according to reason, without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them, is properly the state of nature.” (Locke, Ch 3, Sec 19)  Locke goes on to say that the state of nature is supported by the law of nature which is given by God, and reason given by God to allow man to realize those rights.  Law of Nature does not need government to enforce it, hence, men can live in a civil society without the need for government and that these natural rights can’t be taken away by government. In comparing the two philosophers we see that in the matters of life, liberty, and property Locke limited these rights to the law of nature, whereas Hobbs placed no limits on men in his state of nature by saying that he doesn’t have to respect others property and liberty if those actions harm his wellbeing.

            In having looked at different options for the state of nature is it possible to say that countries exist today that can fall into one of the two definitions? Are there countries that fall in to a constant state of war without a central government, and are there countries that continue to be sufficient and stable without a stable central government? Countries with a different state of nature, (different social, cultural, ethical, and moral conditions) developed over a long period of time, would each need a distinctly different political system. I would like to note that even though each country would need a different political systems, it would definitely need one. One topic that both Locke and Hobbs agreed on was that men are naturally prone to come together and form political societies.

Locke states that people are social creatures and despite having complete freedom give up some of their rights to obtain security. Locke writes that in a society criminals and thieves will ignore the natural rights and not respect the property of others. In this case the people will create the government and grant it political power. In doing so, the people will grant the government “a right of making laws with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties, for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community, in the execution of such laws…all only for the public good.”(Locke, Ch 1, Sec 3)  The people will form a social contract with the government and by doing so give up some power in exchange for security of their property.

      The government is the one that is responsible for saving the people from their violent nature by defining wrong/right, and enforcing those laws any way possible for continued protection of the people’s lives. Choosing what type of government a country should have to carry out this tasks depends on its current state of affairs, its current state of nature.     

Government and the State of Nature

Hannah Whalen

Professor Shirk

November 3, 2013

Government vs. the State of Nature

            The existence of the sovereign state as we know it developed from a time when no concept of government or greater power reigned over world citizens.  This absence of government and organization, known as anarchy, is also referred to as the state of nature by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke.  According to Hobbes the state of nature is “solitary, poor, nasty brutish and short,” (Hobbes, chapter 13).  For Hobbes the state of nature was a constant state of war, where every man protected his own life against every other man, there was no cooperation or community, and man’s only goal was survival.  This dim outlook on mankind paints a dismal picture in the absence of government, pegging mankind as barbaric and violent, with no sense of reason or rationality.  However, Locke takes a slightly more optimistic view of mankind in the state of nature.  Locke believes some sense of community and cooperation is possible between men in the state of nature, and mankind’s goals reach further than mere survival.

Out of these political philosophers’ work developed two different views regarding the role of the state.  Hobbes believed the state should serve to protect its people, providing security both internally and externally.  Thus, meeting the human instinctual desire for security and shielding a man from death.  The best form of government to provide this protection, according to Hobbes, was a single monarchy, where people would give up their rights in exchange for protection from the monarch tasked with the protection of his people. 

Locke, similar to his view of the state of nature, took a more complex view for the role of the state.  As mankind desires more than protection from death, property rights and other social needs must be protected by the government.  Government should serve to resolve conflict between its citizens.  Locke theorizes about a social contract, where man relinquishes some of his rights to the government in exchange for the ability to pursue life, liberty and property rights. 

Discussion about the state of nature and the role government should play in ensuring certain rights for its people, brings to light the question: Is government and political society as we know it necessary?  Hobbes would argue, people must have incentive not to kill each other.  Therefore, government and a clear hierarchy of power are necessary to prevent the state of nature from catapulting society into a state of war and violence.  Locke would disagree with Hobbes, seeing fault in oppressive regimes, “political philosophers since (and famously including) Locke have generally allowed that without substantial institutional safeguards designed to secure justice in the state and protect subjects form their rulers, the state of nature might in fact be preferable to the state,” (Simmons, 19). Like Locke, I believe humans are more complex, and the state of nature does not always yield chaos.  Humans seek more than survival from life, and will form communities and cooperate to enrich their lives, even without a ruling authority. 

This inherent characteristic of man leads to cooperation even in an anarchic world.  For example, we can look at the world structure and see a state of anarchy, as there is no authoritative ruler or agreed upon hierarchy, yet there is cooperation.  Although not comprehensive, for the most part nations are able to form treaties and trade agreements that they adhere to without an authority to compel them.  States find common interests that lead them to cooperation, rather than using violence against each other to gain what the other has.  This is not to say that war and violence does not exist, but the mere fact that the anarchic world system avoids a constant state of war suggests that people are capable of living without an authoritative ruler or hierarchy of power. 

Scott also shares this more optimistic view on human nature and anarchy.  People have reason and the ability for rational thought, this characteristic aids them in the state of nature.  Scott writes, “most villages and neighborhoods function precisely because of the informal, transient networks of coordination that do not require formal organization, let alone hierarchy,”(Scott, xxi).  Scott’s perspective is called a cooperative anarchist.  In order for his cooperative anarchy to work, one must have a generally positive outlook on human nature.  It assumes people want to work together and cooperate even in the absence of law, authority and a hierarchy of power.  His cooperative anarchist view even claims that states are more likely to yield an authoritative violent situation than a cooperative anarchy.  For example Nazi Germany was produced from a state with law, authority and a hierarchy of power.  For Scott the world can function without government and political society as we know it.

Simmons also argues for the possibility of an alternative form of the state.  He offers different forms of organization, which stray from the modern concept of the state that evokes both political and territorial sovereignty.  He recalls from history different forms of organization writing, “there have been in human history good examples of rather different kinds of political orders. . . that differed in a variety of significant ways from our current political organizations,” (Simmons, 17).  From feudalism to tribal and migratory orders, history has already proven multiple versions of organization can dominate, and that the nature of humans allows for the development of organization even without an authoritative figure driving the order.

In conclusion the development of the sovereign state and political society as we know it is not inevitable from the state of nature.  Many forms of state that derive their power from cooperation and lack a hierarchy of power have and could exist.  Human nature allows for cooperation and community.  In the absence of authority members of society would not begin killing each other; rather, they would develop an organizational scheme that would not necessarily derive it authority from a hierarchy of power and territorial sovereignty.

Gabriel Fridegotto Discussion response for week 10

Gabriel Fridegotto

Professor Shirk

International Organization

Short Paper

Discussion

Ethical and moral evaluations of state and sovereignty

In this weeks discussion, the class began to think about the different theories of various political philosophers. Thomas Hobbs and John Locke are the two who spoke of the idea of the “state of nature,” where human beings acted a certain way when there was no formal governance or political organization. Hobbs believed that the humans in the “state of nature,” where inertly prudish and always were at perpetual war. The only real concern that they had was to stay alive, under whatever means possible. So if that mean they needed to kill others around them they would just to stay alive. Locke's theory was less pessimistic, he believed that humans were more capable of working together and form smaller groups that would cooperate to stay alive. This was a big step forward from Hobbs theory because Locke did not believe that all humans in the state of nature we just trying to stay alive.

I believe its important to understand why both of these philosophers thought that there needed to be any form of government at all, and how their views were shaped by the state of nature. Hobbs, believing that humans only wanted to stay alive, thought that the form of government needed should be a complete monarchy, in which all humans gave their rights meaning the right to stay alive and do as they please without having to answer to anyone, and give that to the figure he called the leviathan. In return this entity would provide all with protection and humans would not have to worry about being killed or war.

Locke thought differently, his view of the state of nature led him to believe that since humans had other things to worry about, besides war and being killed, they would need a government system to only intervene when a dispute broke out between two humans. A form of a third party that would act to solve disputes. Therefore Locke believed in humans property rights more. The phrase, life, Liberty and the pursuit of freedom was founded on Locke's social contract theory. It was originally the pursuit of life, liberty and property. The social contract theory was an extremely new idea in political philosophy. Humans instead of being In the state of nature would give up some of their rights, once again to do as they please to gain rights of property and protection.

I believe this would be a modern day interpretation of what many in the libertarian party. Although, referring to the more conservative base, that believes any government system should only intervene for protection, such as police and fire departments but stay out of every other aspects of human life.

This brings up another question of then what do anarchist believe? According to the other two readings that were discussed in class, the theories that anarchist believe, although seen as extreme by many, is simply a counter system of the modern social political societies we have today. The Simmons reading gave explanation of the various concepts of the modern state and the difference it would have to any sort of anarchic way of human life. First the questions, that weren't asked in class are, Are states the right way to go? And what are the alternatives according to the Simmons article? Are political societies best and acceptable? Why have states? These are seemingly simple questions to answer, but I believe are much more complicated to explain. First, one must define both the modern state system and then answer why it is needed. Then we can begin to discuss alternatives, as in the anarchist views.

Simmons states that there are two specific criterion to be categorized as a modern state. One, claim to sovereignty, and two is claim to geographical sovereignty. Meaning being an independent state and being recognizing that very state is within specific boundaries. There are many modern day examples of this, one being Palestine. It technically has some territoriality sovereignty, but does not have claim to full sovereignty in the international community. This bring us to the next point, in the modern state system there is this idea of international and domestic, meaning there are many states within an anarchical world. No one absolute power over anyone. So if this can happen in a world system why would it not work in human societies. I believe that most people living within the modern system have been conditioned to believe that there is no other way to live.

This is the point that is made in the Scott readings, as mentioned in class. The Scott reading is interesting because it tries to see the modern state system through an anarchist viewpoint. That viewpoint is very different than some of the conceptions that many people have about anarchy today. Not all people associate a state of anarchy as looting and rioting and the absence of law. Scott states, although not completely endorsing anarchist theory to the fullest, that anarchy can work. The absence of all government can only work, if the view of the state of nature is inherently good. That people want to cooperate and work together without having a political society telling them how to do things through laws.

This is also the point that Simmons makes when he discusses that humans were at one point living without the modern states system we have today. Instead they were living in city leagues, city-states and empires. Roman Empire, Feudal relations of the middle ages, Many only claimed the right of use rather than the right to complete and permanent control of land. Which brings up a counter argument to the anarchist viewpoint. If everyone lived in an anarchical world with no nations having governments, would states even exist?

Using an extreme example, there are people living in Antarctica, which is only categorized as a continent and not a state, would these people be living in total anarchy? It is possible, since there are very little people having to live in this society. This is some regards as I mentioned in class reminds me of some communist theories that state that communities would exist with people would live self subsistence lives. This would still entail some sort of political society and government.

In conclusion I believe, no matter what the state of nature is, the current modern world system is needed to keep order. Yes, there are many wars that have occurred in history, but out of that history the system we have today emerged. Humans by nature in my opinion need structure and quoting back to John Locke's theory of the social contract, all humans live under one right now. In the United States we sign a piece of paper that elects our leaders and if we don't like them we can vote them out every four years for president and every two for senate and every 6 for house of representatives. If this social contract did not exist, I believe in the end would lead way for one or only few to gain power and not let it go, so anarchy in would lead to some sort of authoritarian form of government, which is political society.