Is the Age of Sovereignty Over
In order to fully examine the extent of any demise in state sovereignty, we need first to set definitions of key terms. Andrew Heywood, in his book "Key Concepts in Politics" offers the following as an outline of sovereignty: "The principle of absolute and unlimited power" (Heywood: 37). The context of this remark is that the state and its institutions hold legitimate authority over all organisations and individuals within the state territory. A core implication is that no man is above the law. The state, then, can be considered the sole purveyor of justice, and the only body with licence to employ force as means to achieve goals. This brings us to the distinction between legal and political sovereignty. Whilst the legal element relates to the situations described above, where the state uses law and legislation to control subjects, political sovereignty refers to the state as an agent that uses it's monopoly on force and coercion to gain obedience. An example could be the Chilean regime of the 1970's under General Pinochet, where "Legitimate violence" (Weber) was a tool frequently wielded. Both these are cases of internal sovereignty, involving the state's ability to control its own nationals. External sovereignty, however, look
"The long run trend toward integration seems to be for... authority and loyalty to be transferred ... from states to federations... to supranational unions... and to super-systems." (Etzioni) A sovereign nation-state is, by definition, a recognisable territory. A major factor in distinguishing between such territories is culture. These "particular social manners of a demographic group" (Dictionary) may include tastes towards the arts, views on family structure, religious inclinations, or other traditional behaviour. Historically there have been numerous distinct cultures across the world. However, in the last century it can be said that these cultures have been weakened, perhaps diluted by outside influence. Western society holds value in the concept of individualism. The East, in contrast, has nationalism as it's "supreme norm" (Wang). In China, for example, the state tops the social hierarchy - an individual is regarded as the lowest participant. The individual's obligations to the system make the sovereignty of state so strong. On the other hand, if we look at the United States of America, we see the opposite occurring. Each man and woman is regarded culturally as a part of the state, as opposed to a 'drone' contributing to the greater good of the motherland. As an aside to the debate about culture I wish to raise the issue of internal diversification as a threat to the sustenance of sovereignty. Take, as a case in point, the data provide by the 1991 census. In the London area, 21.4 % of residents are described as being of non-British ethnic origin. It is, of course, important to consider which nationality these people class themselves as - does, for instance, a second or third generation Indian youth regard himself as British? We also have the issue of 'native' demographic groups feeling diminished levels of nationalism, even lower loyalty. The situation in Ireland can be construed as an example - where many people, claiming their own nation-state, reject the British sovereignty. This is evident in other countries too - in France the Bretons, China the Tibetans, Australia the Aborigines. Sovereignty may be dissolved by outside influence, but it is also under threat from internal "tribal" mentalities - social groups who are less loyal or obedient to the state rule as they feel somehow overshadowed by it. This is, however, a hypothesis, there is no conclusive evidence to support it. s at a nation's standing on an international level. Heywood calls this the state's "Ability to act as an independent and autonomous entity" (Heywood: 38). Indeed, the United Nations defines a state as a body possessing "Independence and sovereignty" (Lechner & Boli: 205). Thus we can say that a sovereign nation-state is one which is able to keep legitimate control of its inhabitants, and is distinguishable in a global context. Through these criteria we are able to eliminate bodies with huge international standing (e.g. Microsoft), and organisations capable of influencing individuals (e.g. the church) from classification as states. In "Discord and Collaboration", Arnold Wolfers reminds us "No corporate actor... has been able to rob a nation of the loyalty... of it's people." (Wolf
Some common words found in the essay are:
Peace Westphalia, Implantation American, Monetary Fund, Bretton Woods, Concepts Politics, Trade Organisation, Mao Tse-Tung, World Bank, United America, CNN BBC, sovereign nation-state, bretton woods system, outside influence, world trade, internal diversification, legal political, political sovereignty, attitudes towards, woods system, world trade organisation, state's ability, mtv generation,
Approximate Word count = 2150
Approximate Pages = 9 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
