The Nation-State: Of Declining Importance? Flashcards
arguments suggesting that the nation-state is of declining importance in international relations
the nation-state is of declining importance due to the existence of global and regional governance bodies that restrict state sovereignty
international law and courts restrict state sovereignty and therefore reduce the importance of the nation-state
TNCs have grown in importance and continue to dominate, signalling the declining importance of the nation-state
arguments suggesting that the nation-state is NOT of declining importance in international relations
global and regional governance bodies are dominated by individual states and do not take away from the primacy of the nation-state
the state is not declining in importance and international courts depend on cooperation from states and cannot compel states to act any certain way
regionalism allows states to control TNCs, which suggests that the state is not declining in importance
the nation-state is of declining importance due to the existence of global and regional governance bodies that restrict state sovereignty
GLOBAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNANCE BODIES
there is a growing realisation among states that they need to work together to achieve common goals and that common problems need common solutions
there has subsequently been an effort among states to pursue common approaches to global and regional problems through global and regional governance institutions like the UN, the IPCC, the EU and ASEAN
the existence of these institutions can be seen as an acknowledgement that states are no longer as sovereign as they once were
the EU has undermined state sovereignty
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
global and regional governance bodies are dominated by individual states and do not take away from the primacy of the nation state
GLOBAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNANCE BODIES
according to realists, states have always been and still are the most important actors in the global system. The world in anarchical, meaning that there is no authority higher than the state and no worldwide government that can compel states to act in a particular way, making the nation state the key actor on the international stage. As a result, states are able to act as they please as there is no higher power dictating what they can and cannot do. They act by themselves and for themselves as separate units and many realists claim that there is therefore no such thing as the ‘international community’. While it’s true that there has been a rise in non-state actors such as IGOs, NGOs and TNCs, this does not take away from the ultimate primacy of the nation state, as seen within numerous IGOs that continue to be dominated by individual states. For example, NATO, the IMF and the World Bank are all dominated by the USA and heavily reliant on its capabilities. The USA contributes the most to NATO and even wields a veto within the IMF, seeing as an 85% majority is needed for any decision and the USA has a 17% voting share. This demonstrates that even within IGOs, states are still the dominant forces and have the power to determine their agenda.
however, states choose whether to cooperate within such institutions and cannot be forced to do so, being able to leave at any time
states are sovereign and the most important actors in the international system, meaning that they are free to dismiss and undermine international bodies
the Iraq War of 2003 is an example of states ignoring and undermining global governance bodies
the USA had acted unilaterally, invading without UN approval, leading many to argue this intervention lacked legitimacy and undermined international law
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
President Trump unilaterally withdrew from the TPP and threatened to withdraw from NAFTA multiple times, only not doing so because he managed to secure a renegotiation of the deal
international law and courts restrict state sovereignty and therefore reduce the importance of the nation-state
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND COURTS
globalisation has led to the rise of international bodies designed to tackle common problems – e.g. courts
the growing role of international law around human rights and a growing global rights culture has seen the rise of bodies such as the ICC and of humanitarian intervention, which erodes state sovereignty
the ICC is the organisation that prosecutes individuals for crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes
by convicting human rights abuses before an international court, the ICC establishes precedents for the development of international human rights-based law
for example, the ICC successfully prosecuted the Congolese warlord Thomas Lubanga for recruiting and using child soldiers and he was eventually sentenced to 14 years imprisonment
moreover, its persecution of Laurent Gbagbo, former president of the Ivory Coast, has reinforced the principle that heads of state are morally responsible for their actions
the fact that a large number of states have accepted that these crimes can be tried at an international court suggests that there is a little less anarchy in the international system and that states are not as sovereign as they once were
states, more often than not, observe the decisions of the ICJ as these decisions have moral power, with a high cost to the reputation and legitimacy of states who defy the court
for instance, in 2002, the ICJ ruled on a border dispute between Cameroon and Nigeria which had sparked violent confrontation in the 1980s and 1990s
the ICJ awarded the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon and the dispute was resolved, with the Peninsula being handed over by Nigeria in 2008
the state is not declining in importance and international courts depend on cooperation from states and cannot compel states to act any certain way
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND COURTS
there is an abundance of examples where states have ignored ICC rulings (e.g. Sudan over Omar al-Bashir)
while many states have signed up to the Rome Statute, some countries, including the USA, China, India and Israel, are not bound by the full requirements of the court
similarly, in October 2016, South Africa, Burundi and Gambia announced that they were going to withdraw from the Rome Statute, and other African countries may follow
Russia also seems likely to withdraw from the Rome Statute, perhaps because it may face punishment over the annexation of Crimea and its actions in the Syrian Civil War
with so many powerful countries absent or threatening to withdraw, the ICC only provides partial justice and cannot claim to uphold international law
this demonstrates that sovereign states, who are free to withdraw from such organisations, are capable of severely undermining international law
the ICJ has no enforcement powers and states have to sign up to be bound by ICJ decisions, also having the option to withdraw their commitment at any time and therefore undermine its influence
state sovereignty also means that no states actually have to adhere to the rulings, even if they have signed up to the court
this can be seen in 1984, when Nicaragua brought a case arguing that the USA had violated international law by supporting the CONTRAs in the rebellion against the government
the ICJ ruled in Nicaragua’s favour but the USA said that the court had no jurisdiction and ignored the ruling
this is a clear example of international law being undermined by state sovereignty
TNCs have grown in importance and continue to dominate, signalling the declining importance of the nation-state
TNCs
liberals would argue that while nation states are still important, due to globalisation there has been a rise in non-state actors, which challenges the primacy and importance of the nation state. Liberals claim that the state is in decline as an actor in the international system and can no longer claim to be the most significant force. In particular, the number of TNCs have grown considerably, with there being around 7000 in 1970 and over 63,000 by 2013. They account for over 50% of production and over 70% of world trade, undoubtedly being key influences in the global economic system. In fact, due to TNCs, states often have to compete in a ‘race to the bottom’ in order to attract investment, which limits their own ability to dictate their laws and regulations, having to cater to TNCs by offering low corporation tax and minimal regulation in order to attract them to their countries. This seems to be evidence of the declining importance of the nation state, according to liberal theorists.
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
regionalism allows states to control TNCs, which suggests that the state is not declining in importance
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
