Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 21
Beyond the Great Divide: Globalization and the Theory of International Relations Author(s): Ian Clark Source:

Beyond the Great Divide: Globalization and the Theory of International Relations Author(s): Ian Clark Source: Review of International Studies, Vol. 24, No. 4 (Oct., 1998), pp. 479-498 Published by: Cambridge University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20097546

Accessed: 18/12/2009 06:51

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Review of International Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

Review

of

International

Studies

(1998),

24,

479-498

Copyright

?

British

International

Beyond

the Great

Divide:

the

IAN

theory

CLARK

of

international

globalization

relations

Studies

Association

and

Abstract.

This

the

literature

which

affords

needs

into

globalization

on

article

assesses

globalization.

the

It

general

argues

significance

that

globalization

for

International

is

a

pervasively

Relations

unsettling

theory

process

to be explained

cognate

areas

not

of

only

theory.

itself can be understood

as an

In

issue in its own

short,

it

advances

right but for the insight which

an

analytical

model

whereby

and utilizes

this as a theoretical

scheme

that may

of

it

be

applied

more

generally.

 

The

predominant

 

conceptualization

 

of

the

globalization

issue

within

International

Relations

has

been

the

debate

between

 

the

proponents

of

state

redundancy

 

and

the

champions

of

continuing

 

state

potency.

In

turn,

these

arguments

rest

upon

an

image

of

state

capacities

being

eroded

by

external

forces,

or

alternatively

of

external

forces

being

generated

by

state

action.

 

In

either

case,

there

is

the

assumed

 

duality

of

the

state(s)

set

off

from,

and

ranged

against,

a

seemingly

external

environment.

Instead,

this

article

argues

that

the

state

occupies

a middle

ground

between

the

internal

 

and

external

and

is

itself

both

shaped

by

and

formative

of

the

process

of

globalization.

 

In

arrangements

reinforcing

the

same

way

and

that

a

set

sovereignty

of

represents

of

both

a

set

of

order

is not

domestic

which

political

principles

international

the

are mutually

environment

of

the

in

state

what

the

and

a

and mutually

argument

general

redefining,1

but

an

so globalization

element

within

with

respect

to

for

International

theorizing

within

Relations

the mere

which

itself.

might

states find

this

itsmore

If

themselves,

the discipline

Divide,

distinct

and

(shifting)

identity

is allowed

import

of

globalization

the field?

specifically,

be

Traditionally,

notion

economic

separate

of

has

tended

a field

needs

to be

analysis.

to reinforce

of

studied

political

within

these

a Great

forces

framework

that

the

'international'

from

the

'domestic'

and

by means

of

its own

tools

represents

hence

of

Typically,

have

included

anarchy,

states-as-actors,

balances

of

power

and

the

resort

to

war.

The

occasional

if anything,

appeals

served

to domestic

simply

to

'analogies',

reconfirm

to

it.2 Neorealism,

intended

soften

in

formidable

own

reassertion

structure.

the

to

political

writings

devoted

of

the

autonomy

of

Notwithstanding,

idea of

globalization.3

the

recent

international

years

have

While

much

of

this

turn,

as

separation,

amounted

have,

to

a

its

of

a domain

with

witnessed

a flurry

this

literature

concen

1

See A.

Giddens,

'rather

than

S. Sassen,

The Nation-state

and

Violence

inH.

Global

(Oxford,

1985),

pp.

263^1.

(New

be

Sassen

argues

transformed'.

also

that

Order

below.

sovereignty

Control?

analogy

summarize

are: M.

Jones,

eroding as a consequence

in an Age

of

globalization

it is being York,

Analogy

2 Losing

3

The

Proposals

validity

of

the

(Cambridge,

It

Standard

is impossible

to

1996); R.

Sovereignty

is discussed

1989).

the burgeoning

Albrow,

The

and

1995); R.

1996);

of Globalization

Suganami,

literature.

Age:

of

1996),

30.

p.

and World

The Domestic

Some

State

Drache

(eds.),

(ed.),

Finance

itwill

and Society

in the International

discussed

in detail

Markets:

Markets,

references

J. Barry

Rhetoric and Reality (London,

Limits of Globalization

beyond Modernity

States

and World

Political

against

Politics:

(Oxford,

Economy:

The

Globalisation

(London,

Interdependence

Boyer

P. G.

and D.

Cerny

479

480 Ian Clark

trates

been

on

little

the

implications

of

to address

globalization

explicitly

undergird

for

the potency

of

the

state,

for

article

the

there

has

attempt

the

import

of

the

t h e discipline.4

discipline.4

the Great it. It does

brings

globalization

Divide

This

and

the wider

presents

analytical

the

and

state

the

this way,

it

internal/

theoretical

globalization

schemes

as

national

be

the

will

assumptions

as

an

have

been

but

which

opportunity

to

to

rethink

legitimize

ground

the barrier

which

ismore

which

deployed

so by presenting

the

them

international

In

apart.

its erosion

of

the

common

together,

argued

contested

than

as

rather

which

significant

keeps

for

that

globalization

external

divide

than

for

its

erosion

shift,

about

issues

within

of

of

already

state

capacity.

apparent

of

viability

More

in some

directly,

the

economies,

of

state

been

to

the

it will

be

suggested

Political

that

such

Economy

E c o n o m y

an analytical

discussions

utility

for

normative,

normative,

rethinking

democratic

There

stantial

are

a number

repositioning

related

and

of

for

International

might

have

in

the

sub

more

the demise

about

national

of

which

have

related

the

as well.

theory

mostly

capacity

undergoing

seemingly

security

areas

spheres

IR

a number

years,

permeable nature of the territorial state. This has led to questioning

national

(within

of

the

idea of

a

security

IR

state

these

that

our

economy

security

of

(within

studies),

the

political

is to varying

we

in which

of

IPE),

of

the viability

identity

democratic

of

issue

of

of

the

the

state

state

as provider

(within

on

a

of

normative

the moral

of

The

degrees

these

theory)

basis

and

(within

problems,

and

the manner

sustainability

theory).

institutions

globalization

as

the

cause

of

is very much

territorial

all

It follows

upon

permeates

them.

dependent

portrayed

problems

debate

conception

of

a

substantive

starting

broad

of

globalization

are analysed

front.

they

itself. At

the

may

While

provide

the

share

these

article

systemic

will

and

in

of

an

spectrum

end

same

us with

time,

the way

areas

in which

carry

A

by

globalization

set out

is thought

the processes

forward

their

along

own

convenient

structural

for

the

in Kenneth

stage

to

to be

an

in a

globalization

amodel

issue

for moving

each

theoretical

agenda,

place

Accordingly,

division

writings,5

with

separate

review

areas

common

frameworks

analytical

explicit

the

frameworks.

is that

import

of

provided

theories

a

the

as

as

preliminary

state

for making

this

between

less

as

the wider

crisis.6

realism.

analytic

Waltz's

reductionist

itself

than

engagement

globalization-induced

inwhich

Regimes

and

States

Economy

(eds.),

E. Kofman

Limits

1994);

in the Post-hegemonic

Globalisation

and

Whose

Era

(Aldershot,

Featherstone

P. Gummett

Globalization

(Oxford,

and

Theory

1996); H.-H.

the End

of

and Practice

(London,

World

1992);

(Cambridge,

Global

(Oxford,

Society

1996);

and

Waters,

the State-Global

CO,

1994).

state/societal

As

1993); M.

1990);

(ed.),

(ed.),

Holm

Global

Culture: Nationalism,

and Public Policy (Cheltenham,

International

Sorensen

1995);

CO,

R. Robertson,

Domestic-Foreign

G

and Modernity

and M o d e r n i t y

1996);

P. Hirst

(London,

Globalization

The

and G

Thompson,

in Question:

and

the Cold War

(London,

J. Rosenau,

the Possibilities

World

Order?:

and G.

Youngs

Social

Exploring

Theory

of Governance

Uneven

Globalization

Culture

(Boulder,

1996);

Along

the

(eds.),Globalization:

and Global

Globalization:

Frontier:

T.

Governance

in a Turbulent

as

Shaw,

and M.

of

a

1997); A.

Scott

Relations

P.Wilkin

1995).

their

an

author.

same

attempt

to

(ed.),

(Oxford,

(eds.),

The

of Globalization

Spybey,

and

Palan

and

Agenda

global

other

processes

levels'

of

(London,

1997); M.

International

Thomas

and

(London,

Divide:

the

A

editors

transformation

suggest,

remains

within

by

the present

under

the

will

theorizing.

Globalization

the South

B. Gills

in International

and World

other

aspects.

a book

literature

Society

1997);

Transcending

C.

Globalization

Globalization

structuralist

'asks how

at many

structuralist

present

4 isR.

exception

(Houndmills,

interact

(eds.),

Relations

with

(p. 3). However,

not

the

all

of

Politics

these

as

One

Neo

(Boulder,

processes

its title

book

occurring

overall

implies,

of which

1979).

of

University

the volume

are

shared

project,

5 perspective

K.

Waltz,
6

assumptions

(Reading,

This

MA,

is part

by Oxford

upon

each

of

Esp.

The

working

explore

Theory

article

International

cannot

will

all

be published

cover

of

the

globalization

larger

Press

bodies

title, which

the

impact

and which

IR

of

these

Beyond

the Great Divide

481

According

to one

definition,

globalization

formations

'refers broadly to the process whereby

through global networks

power

rather

antinomy

dichotomized state-versus-external-forces

can

of

territorially-based

is located

than

in global

social

and

states'.7

Rather

expressed

Such

than

a

through

rendition

emphasizes

issues

that

the

a

between

forces

'little

sign

is avoided

state

and

globalization.

and

approach

this

of

Indeed,

article

the

argues

very

state within

the

When

state

Sch?lte

form

to be

of

added

the

state

in

any

globalization

these

from

they

perspective,

a reconstitution

suffuse

it.

at work.

and

the

be better

social

understood

that

as denoting

surround

this

that

are

the vortex

progress

contends

of

that

globalization

there

and

is

every

demonstrates

indication

that

they

by

the

dynamic

This

transformation

transborder

capital

be made

claim

a contradiction,

that

the contra

itself,

and

it

is

theorizing 'is a domestic

about

as

complementary',8

wrought

to

Cerny's

it needs in the nature

explicit

that

diction

this

globalization.

change

that

needs

core

of

political

is the

well

as a transnational

and

international

process'.9

If

this

t h i n k i n g

thinking

can

about

issues

structured

within

and

normative

categories

be

understood

other

domains

normative

such

The

is that

and

in relation

of

state

that

of

to

globalization,

For

to

it should

are

also

assist

in

of

activity.

continue

and

instance,

be

there

within

or

globalization

notion

a number

theory

as particularism

addressed

familiar

polarities,

as

fixed

to what

of

Rather,

the

the

state

the

thick

universalism,

analysis

away

that

of

from

they

communitarianism

the

to

of

these

these

themselves

in time

become

in its

is fluid

the

two

constantly

forces

interaction

'latest

that

such

systems

bundle

of

of

definition'.12

illustration.

forms

In

to

cosmopolitanism.

concerns

relevance

it begins

and

the above

to move

the

us

static

towards

theory

in

the

idea

mutually constituting: what is particularistic

relationship might then argue that normative

at any

state)

one moment

and

the

is universalistic.10

(embedded

are

Adapting

is not

Walzer's

a dialogue

recent terminology,11 we

settled

from

between

'thin'

by

been

and

and

the

the ultimate

a telling

categories

outside).

redefines

'thick'

the

two

itself.

so

and

'thick'

the

(challenging

that

external

engaged

as

thin.

the

in endless

mutual

adjustment

internal

Just

the normative

state

state

is recreated

is pushed

and

by

of globalization,

between

quintessentially rights, are in process that came with

rights

pulled

it has

remarks,

of

provide

spread

the fluid

suggested

national

Symptomatically,

as

those

of

As

not

conceptions

of

citizenship,

Sassen

transformation.

the welfare

discussions

democratization

political

be

state does

of

constitute

within

The

common

individual

the much

contemporary

parlance,

'national'

more

democratization

refers

However,

is about

to

the

democratic

of

systems.

question

seen

the context

for

the

that

globalization,

of

into

depicted

interesting

that might

the potential

of

democratization

individual

states

is commonly

these

the non-territorial

capacities

to have

out

leaked

the contradiction

sphere. Accordingly,

7 'Globalization

C.

Thomas,

J.A.

Sch?lte,

P. G. Cerny, Globalization

'International

and Public

and

the South',

and

the

and

91.

argument

come

and

in Thomas

State',

the Erosion

about

to be

separateness

de Si?cle:

and Wilkin

(eds.),

73:3

Globalization,

p.

(1997),

p. 441.

in Gummett

'Too

one

little

another

Linklater,

Century

IN,

1994).

6.

(ed.),

is known

and

too

(London,

8 'Global

9 Capitalism

International

of

State

Affairs,

Policy

the fluidity

bounded

and

change

of

Finance

Policy,

p.

Capacity',

community:

distinct

from

over

of

time'.

the Twentieth

A.

(Notre

pp.

Dame,

96-7.

10 This is akin to Andrew Linklater's

about

the ways

in which

communities

little

'Community',

1995),

Walzer,

is known

p.

183.

about

inA.

how

boundedness

(ed.),

Fin

Danchev

and

Control?,

11 M.

12

Thick

Thin: Moral

p. xiii.

See

Sassen,

Losing

The Meaning

Argument

also

the

at Home

comments

and Abroad

on

citizenship,

482 Ian Clark

is that between

rights-impinging

veillance.

capital

democracy'.13

cannot

activities,

This

systems

of

g l o b a l i z e d

globalized

is

a

But

the

nub

challenge

any

by

as

simply

of

because

or

seem

is not

authority

activities

Scholte's

not

to

number

extending

many

remote

in the

has

governed

which

by

operate

observation

o b s e r v a t i o n

the

of

survival

commentators

of

areas

from

fitting

the existing

but

rather

same way

attacked

that

that we

of

the

democratic

outwith

that

states,

procedures

any

and

those

sur

democratic

'contemporary

globalizing

but

to

the

realization

of

have

testified,

the

problem

presents

be

solved

not

'domestic' democratic practices to multilateral

of

any

globalized

political

activity

control.14

lack

The

any

observable

then

into

problem

state

off-the-peg

democratic

conceptualizing

have

the

changed

to

rethink