State Sovereignty and Regional Organisations Flashcards
argument suggesting that state sovereignty has been eroded by different regional organisations
the EU has undermined state sovereignty
NAFTA has undermined state sovereignty
regional organisations do not give states the ability to control TNCs
argument suggesting that state sovereignty has NOT been eroded by different regional organisations
the EU has not undermined state sovereignty
NAFTA has not undermined state sovereignty
regional organisations give states the ability to control TNCs, thus increasing their sovereignty
the EU has undermined state sovereignty
THE EU
the EU has undermined state sovereignty
Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) - national governments can be outvoted and so the will of the electorate can be thwarted as they may be forced to adopt a measure despite opposing it
since 1983, through its Common Fisheries Policy, the EU has regulated the amount of deep sea fish that could be caught with a system of quotas and has allowed fishing boats from different member states to have equal access to each other’s fishing grounds
this was at the centre of the landmark ruling in the 1990 Factortame case, in which a Spanish fishing company called Factortame sued the UK government for restricting its access to UK waters
the law lords ruled that the 1988 Merchant Shipping Act, which the government was using to justify his actions, could not be allowed to stand because it violated EU law
this case established the primacy of EU law over an Act of Parliament, demonstrating that state sovereignty is often heavily undermined within the EU
HRA – EU law takes primacy over UK law, all UK law must be compatible with the ECHR
the EU has not undermined state sovereignty
THE EU
technically, although EU law takes primacy over UK law, the cornerstone of the international system is that states are sovereign, meaning that the UK can essentially ignore the EU and nothing can be done to stop this
parliament is also still sovereign as it can choose to leave at any time, which it is doing now (Brexit)
arguably, sovereignty has not been lost, it has merely been pooled – all member states voluntarily share some sovereignty for an agreed common purpose
UK parliament has gained influence through EU membership that it could not have done on its own
even in the EU, the most advanced example regionalism in the world, member states retain the right to veto on key issues that define a sovereign state, including foreign policy, defence, taxation and non-EU immigration
states may enter into relationships with other nationstates in regional organisations and IGOs, which limits their absolute freedom of action, but they are free to withdraw their involvement at any time
states can withdraw from regional organisations at any time — Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon provides a mechanism by which states may reclaim their sovereignty, as the UK is doing with Brexit
regional organisations give all states, big or small, the ability to control or shape the world they exist in
for example, environmental issues do not respect borders, climate change affects every state, sea and river pollution affects all countries, and air pollution does not stop at boundaries
so states have come together to try to halt the effects of climate change through the International Panel on Climate Change
they are co-operating to limit the impact of environmental change which they would not be able to do alone, thus increasing their influence
sovereignty is not lost through regional organisations, instead sovereignty can be pooled and individual states can grow in power and influence if they stand together
membership of regional organisations enables states to gain significant structural power
through regional organisations like the EU, states can become more powerful and exert more influence
this is also true with smaller states facing bigger states
small states do not have much leverage in trade negotiations with big states as they do not have many consumers to sell to and may not have much in the way of goods and services to sell
for example, a small country like Malta with only 330,000 inhabitants would be unlikely to negotiate a particularly equal trade deal with China and its 1.3 billion citizens
however, by negotiating as part of the EU, Malta can link itself to their 500 million consumers and their products and services, such as German cars and French cheese
demonstrating that through regional organisations like the EU, states can become more powerful and exert more influence
NAFTA has undermined state sovereignty
NAFTA
NAFTA has caused the states involved to lose some control and autonomy, thus undermining sovereignty
in the USA, NAFTA has been perceived as leading to the outsourcing of jobs to Mexico, resulting in industry closures and job losses in the US
people who have lost their jobs or feel alienated by the pace of change in a globalised era may blame regional organisations for exacerbating and deepening the process and causing changes beyond their control
US presidential candidate Ross Perot argued that trade liberalisation would lead to a “giant sucking sound” of US jobs fleeing across the border
President Donald Trump says that NAFTA has shifted US manufacturing production and jobs to Mexico and in 2017, his administration reopened negotiations with Canada and Mexico with the aim of reforming the deal
critics argue that NAFTA is to blame for job losses and wage stagnation in the US, which has been driven by low-wage competition, companies moving production to Mexico to lower costs and a widening trade deficit
the US-Mexico trade balance swung from a $1.7 billion US surplus in 1993 to a $54 billion deficit by 2014
Dean Baker, an economist for the Centre for Economic and Policy Research, argues that the surge of imports caused the loss of up to 600,000 US jobs over two decades
many workers and labour leaders blame NAFTA for the decline in US manufacturing jobs — the US auto sector has lost around 350,000 jobs since 1994, a third of the industry, while Mexican auto sector employment spiked from 120,000 to 550,000 workers
NAFTA has not undermined state sovereignty
NAFTA
NAFTA has had many positive impacts which has improved state sovereignty by increasing their economic power
supporters of NAFTA like President Bush and Clinton argued that the agreement would create hundreds of thousands of new jobs each year
since NAFTA, US trade with its North America neighbours has more than tripled, growing more rapidly than US trade with the rest of the world — Canada and Mexico are now the two largest destinations for US exports, accounting for more than a third of the total
most estimates conclude that the deal had a modest but positive impact on US GDP — a total addition of up to $80 billion to the US economy upon full implementation, which is several billion dollars of added growth per year
it is estimated that some 14 million jobs rely on trade with Canada and Mexico, while the nearly 200,000 export related jobs created annually by the pact pay 15-20% more on average than the jobs that were lost
NAFTA helped the US auto sector compete with China — by contributing to the development of cross-border supply chains, NAFTA lowered costs, increased productivity and improved US competitiveness
as Mexico is so close, goods can go back and forth and the manufacturing industries in the three countries can be very integrated — these linkages have given US automakers an advantage in relation to China, which would be much more difficult to achieve without NAFTA’s tariff reductions and protections for intellectual property
regional organisations do not give states the ability to control TNCs
TNCs
regional organisations do not give states the ability to control TNCs
regional organisations are often seen to benefit ‘big corporations’ and transnational corporations (TNCs) such as Coca Cola, GlaxoSmithKline and Unilever, rather than ordinary people
as trade increases and is seen to benefit TNCs over local or national producers, critics argue that consumers are all purchasing the same goods, services and culture
big corporations with more competitive clout are pushing out smaller companies, leading to cultural homogenisation (the coming together of global cultures and development of a single, homogenous culture without diversity or dissent, also known as a monoculture)
states cannot protect their own industries or producers because the terms of economic regional organisations tend to limit their ability to do this
example of regionalism not being used to limit the power of TNCs (the EU) – currently, the countries of the EU do not harmonise corporation tax at an EU level
there are significant differences in rates around the EU, ranging from over 33% in Belgium and France to 10% in Bulgaria and Cyprus, meaning that TNCs are able to look for the best deal
the Republic of Ireland has been successful in attracting companies like Apple to Ireland due its low corporation tax rates (12.5% in 2016)
TNCs continue to dominate, thus undermining state sovereignty as states still cater to attract TNCs, which limits the choices and policies they can realistically make
regional organisations give states the ability to control TNCs, thus increasing their sovereignty
TNCs
regionalism allows states to limit the power of TNCs
regionalism gives states more control rather than taking it away, does not limit their sovereignty but ctually increases it
on a regional level, states have also come together to limit the power of TNCs and their economic mobility
this is important as some TNCs have more wealth than sovereign countries, which makes TNCs potentially very powerful
for example, Apple has $200 billion in cash reserves, slightly less than the GDP of the entire Republic of Ireland, a country of about four and a half million people
in 2012, Samsung had $196 billion of revenue, more than the GDP of Morocco, with 32 million citizens
TNCs aim to lower their production costs and their tax liabilities, they look to produce their goods in countries with low labour costs, lower tax obligations, less rigorous worker safety laws and more lenient environmental protection rules
in this situation, TNCs have huge power as states will compete to attract and keep its investment from these TNCs
but this can lead to a race to the bottom in tax rates, wage rates, health-and-safety laws and environmental and animal protection, it can also lead to huge amounts of state support to attract investment
by adopting a regional and co-operative approach to these issues, as the EU and NAFTA do, regional organisations can ensure that states do not undercut each other, giving TNCs no benefit from shopping around for the best deal
states within regional organisations may be able to stand firmer together against the pressures from TNCs
regionalism can control globalisation by pooling the power of states against TNCs – in particular, small countries may not feel they can stand up effectively against powerful international firms, but together, standing united, they can limit the impact of globalisation
example of regionalism being used to limit the power of TNCs - in Europe and North America, there are strong environmental protection laws that companies cannot avoid by looking at a neighbouring country as the protections are the same
the more a region adopts harmonised rules, the more level the playing field is in a region and the less power and influence TNCs wield
demonstrates that by working together and reaching consensus through regionalism, states can fight back against globalisation
