Globalization have created a new situation in world politics, one of them in the sphere of state sovereignty. State sovereignty, based on Westphalian nation-state formation, featured an state autonomy in the absence of higher authority above the states; alongside with territorial integrity, claiming exclusive authority within their own geographic boundaries.[i] Sovereignty: In order for the state to work, it must be sovereign. The internal side of sovereignty is the complete, comprehensive and exclusive rule over a given territory and those residing within that territory, it entails the claim that the state has final legal authority within its borders. The external side of sovereignty rejects any authority higher or other than the state. Furthermore, a sovereign state has to be recognized by other states. There is a juridical or legal sovereignty which assumes a system of states with a set of rules. There is also an empirical sovereignty which entails the ability to make an effective internal claim to sovereign control.
Nevertheless, Due to accelerated interconnectedness driven by technological development and market economy that deterritorialized social space, government seem to have lost the authority over national societies and economics they used to have, to the power of impersonal forces of world markets.[ii] In the other hand, others see that state power is not declining instead increasing in respond to globalization. Others see the interplay of market and state reconfigured the state power. As Doyle stated that state respond the globalization by reducing interdependence to fit national jurisdiction either by protectionism or promoting national champions.[iii] Others see the interplay of market and state reconfigured the state power, or as Sassen said that partial embeddednes of the global in the national had occurred.[iv] This challenged state sovereignty corresponds with the deterroterialized vulnerabilities.
Eriksen[v] said that the increased interconnectedness suggest globalization makes people more vulnerable because the conditions of their existence is no longer locally produced and cannot be controlled. Globalization difused the threats from the former traditional threats for the state is usually abroad and identified as other states. However the current threat seemed to be neither outside nor inside, it is deterroterialized and globalized. To name a few threats are, epidemic disease (SARS, H1N1), economic crises, climate change, terrorism, or natural disaster.
For illustration of how the threats is complex, let take climate change as an example. Climate change is a complex global threats that was caused by the massive emission of ‘greenhouse gases’ from industry, private appliances and traffic. A fascinating yet horrible aspect is a small changes in climate change can led to enormous consequences. If the Arctic temperature rise thus the ice will melt causing sea level rise, drowning cities and islands in Europe and even the pacifics. It is to say that the climate, temperature, and the consequences are not simply bounded by state boundaries.
The threats facing societies and/or states have changed that require a new approach to security. One of the hardest shifts will be away from the belief that the national government and military are the sole actors able to guarantee a society’s security. It will become necessary for other groups to be incorporated into the structures that work to maintain the health and security of a society. While internal and external threats will at times require a response from the national government and military, and while both will have a role to play in dealing with new types of threats, the burden of providing security will fall on others too.[vi] This is to say that any single government’s efforts to curb the deterroterialized threats is insufficient to secure itself.
The problems is global so the solution need to be global as well. Thus groups that might provide security for society will include international organizations and multinational coalitions, regional organizations and coalitions, local governments, and civil society. State governments and the military will still have a crucial role in this new broad security scheme. There will continue to be the need to protect a state’s territory and interests against other state and rogue internal elements.
Furthermore, cosmopolitanism endorsed by David Held[vii] argues that a world society can answer global questions and mediate global issues. Accordingly, a part of the solution, we need to start lifting decision-making from the state to a supranational entity of global governance. To conclude, Globalization have a negative side, proliferation of global challenges that need to be addressed globally. The partial global solution is by transferring a certain rights of the state to the global governance, it implies we reconfigured the sovereignty of the state, in order to address global challenges. Currently the global governance arrangement is available through intergovernmental organization cooperation such as United Nations, WTO, World Bank. Available also informal global governance such as the world trade fair organization, and also new form of cross sectoral global governance that includes multi stakeholder type regime. In addition, still, state capacity need to be strengthened as well.
[i] Krasner, Stephen, “Compromising Westphalia”, p.124-125, in David Held & Anthony Mcgrew (eds.), 2000, The Global Transformations reader; an introduction to the globalization debate. Cambridge, Polity press.
[ii] Strange, Susan, “The Declining Authority of States”, p.124-125, in David Held & Anthony Mcgrew (eds.), 2000, The Global Transformations reader; an introduction to the globalization debate. Cambridge, Polity press.
[iii] Doyle, Michael W., “The Liberal Peace, Democratic Accountability, and the Challenge of Globalization”, pp.198-199 in David Held & Anthony Mcgrew (eds.), 2007, Globalization Theory: Approaches and Controversies. Cambridge, Polity press.
[iv] Sassen, Saskia, ”The Places and Spaces of the Global: An Expanded Analytical Terrain”,p.99, in David Held & Anthony Mcgrew (eds.),2007, Globalization Theory: Approaches and Controversies. Cambridge, Polity press.
[v] Eriksen, Thomas Hylland, 2007, “Vulnerabilities”, p.124, in Globalization: The Key Concepts. Berg.
[vi] Boye, Catherine,2005, “Non Traditional Security Threats” available at http://www.isis.org.my/files/apr/23rd%20APR/PS9%20-%20Catherine%20Boye.pdf [accessed at 27 okt 2009]
[vii] Held, David, ”Global Governance: Apocalypse Soon or Reform!”,p.246, in David Held & Anthony Mcgrew (eds.), 2007, Globalization Theory: Approaches and Controversies. Cambridge, Polity press.