Political community, globalization and the state.
Exam content: cumulative, format the same as the midterm except an essay question.
Regional organizations are increasingly important as gate keepers for international
norms/community for outside peacekeeping. What we saw in Libya was Arab League approval,
now we see ‘unprecedented’ battle action.
The birth of the state (Westphalia) and the rise of nationalism in the first lecture. We started with
the birth of the modern national state, today we talk about the political community and the ways
the political community can get evolved in the international arena. Post-Cold War there was an
increase in civil war as well as waves of democratization with the fall of Berlin wall and demise
of Soviet Union. There was an emergence of new global norms for progress, for rights. But that
was balanced by wave of civil war, genocide, etc. how do we explain this duality? This evolution
in international relations?
The cold war essentially amassed the imperfections of the state; the notion that western and
European exist as the same as the rest of the world was changed that Africa and other countries
were not like us. In many places around the world there was no assemblance of a neat state, the
way with which political authority was handled in those states was different from the classical
‘Westphalian’ state. The other states were growing up, and once they grow up they will look like
classical Westphalian European state, this assumption also turned out as a fiction. The reality is
the other countries of the world do not look like classical Westphalian states. The affiliations, the
sources of political authority, and the power are very much different; this was ignored by IR
scholars. There was a lot of unknown of how to treat the other parts of the world which was not
nicely packaged in to these state entities.
Huntington’s Clash of civilization: source of political authority within the international
community was changing; it will no longer be rooted in the state. It will be rooted in the notion
of civilization. Looked at the map of the world, ‘clash of civilizations’ has two maps; first was of
the Cold War, the world was divided up in to two either you were with the USA or the Soviet
Union. In the post-Cold War map there was an increase of clash of civilization which will lead to
a conflict in the international community. How he divided the world and how he defined those
civilizations? Why did he give Japan its own civilization when for thousands of years they were
under Chinese authority and their characters come from Chinese too. When you talk about
division, you will have to talk about the divisions that exist between civilizations. The point to
emphasize is that scholars needed to look more closely in to the world and the state that wasn’t
fixed to the classical notion of state of what it should be.
Somalia: our problem was that we thought we could turn it in to a classical ‘Westphalian’ state.
Globalization: it is not a phenomenon that described the last few decades, it didn’t come just
because we have internet now. We can couch globalization in a broader context in terms of how widening and deepening these connections take place. It is the story of the evolution of the
international space. That is essentially what globalization is about. When political communities
and human population began to become increasingly connected, there are losers and winners,
there are political actors that win from the effects of globalization and losers from globalization.
From the winning side, actors