GS101 Chapter Notes - Chapter 4: David Held, Global Governance, Deterritorialization
Orend Chapter 1, Steger Chapter 4
Steger Chapter 4
The Political Dimension of Globalization
● Political globalization: the intensification and expansion of political interrelations across
the globe
● Raise an important set of political issues → state sovereignty, growing impact of
intergovernmental organizations, future prospects for regional and global governance,
environmental policies affecting our planet
● Modern nation-state system rested on psychological foundations and cultural
assumptions that convey a sense of existential security and historical continuity, at the
same time demanding national loyalties
● Contemporary manifestations of globalization have led to partial permeation of old
territorial borders, softening hard conceptual boundaries and cultural lines
● Hyperglobalizers have suggested that the period since the late 1960’s has been marked
by radical deterritorialization of politics, rule, and governance
● Disagreements between global studies scholars… three fundamental questions
○ Is it really true that the power of the nation-state has been curtailed by massive
flows of capital, people, and technology across territorial boundaries?
○ Are the primary causes of these flows to be found in politics or in economics?
○ Are we witnessing the emergence of new global governance structures?
The Modern Nation-State System
● Traced back to 17th century political developments in Europe
● 1648 Peace of Westphalia concluded series of religious wars among main Europeans
powers following Protestant Reformation → ensuing model of self contained, impersonal
states, Westphalian model gradually strengthened a new conception of international law
based on principle that all states had equal right to self determination
● According to polisci David Held, Westphalian model contained following essential points:
1) The world consists of, and is divided into, sovereign territorial states which
recognize no superior authority.
2) The processes of lawmaking, the settlement of disputes, and law enforcement
are largely in the hands of individual states.
3) International law is oriented to the establishment of minimal rules of coexistence;
the creation of enduring relationships is an aim, but only to the extent that it
allows state objectives to be met.
4) Responsibility for cross-border wrongful acts is a ‘private matter’ concerning only
those affected.
5) All states are regarded as equal before the law, but legal rules do not take
account of asymmetries of power.
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
6) Differences among states are often settled by force; the principle of effective
power holds sway. Virtually no legal fetters exist to curb the resort to force;
international legal standards afford only minimal protection.
7) The collective priority of all states should be to minimize the impediments to state
freedom.
● Modern nation-state system found its mature expression at end of WWI in President
Woodrow Wilson’s famous Fourteen Points based on the principle of national self
determination → hard to enforce, lent legitimacy to radical ethno nationalist forces that
pushed world’s main powers into war of global proportions
● Founding of United Nations in 1945 → catalyst for gradual extension of political activities
across national boundaries
● 1970’s became clear that international society of separate states was turning into a
global web of political interdependencies
● 1990 at outset of Gulf War, George Bush announced birth of ‘new world order’ whose
leaders no longer respected the idea that cross-border wrongful acts were a matter
concerning only those states affected
The Demise of the Nation-State?
● Pronouncing rise of a ‘borderless world’, hyperglobalizers seek to convince public that
globalization inevitably involves the decline of bounded territory as a meaningful concept
for understanding political and social change… insist that minimalist political order of the
future will be determined by regional economies linked together in an almost seamless
global web of production and exchange
● Globalization skeptics disagree → highlight central role of politics in unleashing forces of
globalization especially through the successful mobilization of political power, in their
view, rapid expansion of global economic activity can be reduced neither to a natural law
of the market nor to the development of computer technology, rather it originated with
political decisions to lift international restrictions on capital made by neoliberal
governments (territory still matters)
Political Globalization and Global Governance
● Political globalization is most visible in the rise of supraterritorial institutions and
associations held together by common norms and interests
● In this early phase of global governance, these structures resemble an eclectic network
of interrelated power centres such as municipal and provincial authorities, regional blocs,
etc
● municipal/provincial level has had growth in number of policy initiatives and transborder
links between various sub state authorities
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Political globalization: the intensification and expansion of political interrelations across the globe. Raise an important set of political issues state sovereignty, growing impact of intergovernmental organizations, future prospects for regional and global governance, environmental policies affecting our planet. Modern nation-state system rested on psychological foundations and cultural assumptions that convey a sense of existential security and historical continuity, at the same time demanding national loyalties. Contemporary manifestations of globalization have led to partial permeation of old territorial borders, softening hard conceptual boundaries and cultural lines. Hyperglobalizers have suggested that the period since the late 1960"s has been marked by radical deterritorialization of politics, rule, and governance. Disagreements between global studies scholars three fundamental questions. Traced back to 17th century political developments in europe. Virtually no legal fetters exist to curb the resort to force; international legal standards afford only minimal protection: the collective priority of all states should be to minimize the impediments to state freedom.
