The Challenge &amp Complexities of Nation-State Sovereignty in The Era of 21st Century Internationalism

The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State
The Challenge & Complexities of Nation-State Sovereignty in the Era of 21st Century Internationalism Richard L. Dixon American Public University System/American Military University School of Security & Global Studies June 15, 2011
Notes: TNC (Trans National Corporation), FTA (Free Trade Acts), APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Corporation), IMF (International Monetary Fund), NAFTA (North American Free Trade Act), GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), NATO (North Atlanta Treaty Organization, WTO (World Trade Organization, EU (European Union).

Abstract
For hundreds of years since the enactment of the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, the nationstate has been the mainstay of the international system. The nation-state has witnessed the rise and fall of empires, wars, economic turmoil, and political chaos, yet through it all it has remained relatively stable. Nation-state also has a dark side in the guise of neo-colonialism and the subjection of millions of people through the invoking of political sovereignty as imperial legitimacy. However, nothing has challenged the core foundations of the nation-state then the emergence of globalization in the 21st century. In many respects, globalization has superseded the governmental ability of the nationstate by circumventing it through the integration of commerce, finance, trade, and technology. No longer is the nation-state the conduit by which TNCs (Trans National Corporation), Diplomats, NGOs (Non-Governmental Organization), and Supranational organizations must filter through in order to operate in and around its geographical sphere. The legitimacy of the state was its cloak of sovereignty which gave it card Blanche in the international system. The presence of globalization has had an evolutionary impact upon the way nations govern, communicate, negotiate, and interact with each other. These impacts are both positive and negative. In terms of positive attributes, the technological advancements due to globalization has improved commerce through increased FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) in economically challenged nations, targeted infrastructure development, advanced literacy, inspired democratic movements via social networks, and created emerging middle class in rising powerhouses such as India and China. The negative effects of globalization is that it has pulled and tugged at the local, social, and economical moral fabrics of a nation-state which in turn causes unrest, financial meltdown, poverty, hunger, dissension, and interstate wars between ethnic, tribal, and religious groups due
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State to the inability of the current structure of the nation-state to effectively harness its destructive
elements. In essence, the purpose of this research is to examine the challenges of globalization to the political validity of the nation-state in the 21st century and to create a new political construct of national sovereignty that recognizes the importance of the nation-state and its stability of the international order.
Keywords: political sovereignty, globalization, nation-state, international order, Treaty of
Westphalia, imperialism, neo-colonialism.
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State General Overview of the Nation-state and Political Sovereignty Since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the international system as we had known has been greatly transformed. The world was no longer divided between two superpowers that
carved up the international system into their sphere of influences. The international order was no longer bounded into two separate camps. Former Soviet states such as Lithuania, Estonia, Armenia, Latvia, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, and the Ukraine tested their legs of freedom by asserting their new found status as free sovereign independent nations (Fukuyama, 1992) characterized the old order as the end of history or universal thought because the forces of neo-liberalism and democracy had won out over the ideas of Marxism. The intellectual pursuit of ideas such as communism was no longer needed because liberal democracy served as an appropriate role model for emerging countries in the era of globalization. Many political pundits and theorists characterized globalization as Kryptonite for the nation-state in terms of hegemony, influence, and power in the international order and was in actuality melting away to be replaced with a NWO (New World Order) that marched to the beat of internationalism and a rule of law that superseded the governability of countries because they considered them old and antiquated. National sovereignty then was predicated on an institutional theory of sovereignty that was universal and could be transported from one nations capital to another with unifying results. The new global order was also influenced by the dot.com revolution whose technology ushered in extraordinary expansion of interaction between modern states and societies (Cooper, Kaiser, & Kosaka, 1977, p. 187). Both state and capital were meshed together to serve as a conduit to political power (Pinder, 2011).
States became interlinked through commerce, tourism, finance, trade, transportation, and the exchange of dialogue (Cooper, Kaiser, & Kosaka, 1977). Trade deals for the export and import of food, raw materials, and oil were made in the backrooms of TNCs (Transnational Corporations) which owed no allegiance to any nations flag. What many were witnessing was the birthing of the era of globalization. Globalization can best be characterized as a turbulent sea violently breaking against the rocks that needed to be harnessed in order to serve as a conductor for capital and commerce. (Freedman, 1999) coined the term electronic herd to denote globalization as a process that incorporated the nation-state, markets, and technologies into one system. It was the triumphant power of neo-liberalism economic and political power. The impact and relationship between globalization and the nation-state can be broken down into three spheres: 1. The first is the traditional balance between nation-states. The United States is now the sole and dominant superpower and all other nations are subordinate to it to one degree or another. 2. The second balance in the globalization system is between nation-states and global markets. These global markets are made up of millions of investors moving money around the world with the click of a mouse. 3. The balance between individuals and nation-states. Because globalization has brought down many of the walls that limited the movement and reach of people and because it has simultaneously wired the world into networks (Friedman, 1998, pp.7-9). Globalization is the fast shiny new car that can move from zero to 60 in three seconds. Globalization is liquidity that ebbed and flowed with the constant changes and transformation of the international system. (Bauman, 2000/2006) went further by classifying the constant changes
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State of globalization as liquid modernity (p. 6), meaning that the international order was solids constantly melting and changing and replaced with a new power structure. Globalization has enabled powerful nation-states such as the U.S. to control global
spheres of hegemony. The world as we know it can now be carved into three spheres of influence or a Triad. They are North America, European Union, and East Asia. (Escobar, 2007, p. 22). There are those who argue that globalization has a dark side, one that has become a tool of expansion, oppression, and economic exploitation of emerging countries and their citizens by a cryptocracy consisting of a coalition of TNCs, Western Governments, international financiers and international speculators that utilizes a litany of agencies and FTAs such as World Bank, the IMF, NAFTA, GATT, the World Trade Organization, APEC, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. This new economic imperialism preys on the economies of nation-states by stripping away the countrys ability to regulate their financial markets. In many instances, the breakdown of regulatory structures in a nation-state leads to the creation of a market-based economy where market-dominant minorities (Chua, 2003, p. 16) have amassed huge concentrations of wealth at the expense of the majority who live in adjacent poverty. In other instances governments struggling with debt are goaded and force to borrow money from the IMF with huge interest repayments that resulted in the imposition of harsh austerity measures by the leadership upon their citizenry. Governments thus are forced to make the difficult decision to either feed their people or have their loans default with more penalties slapped upon them or having their economies and governmental structures further manipulated by outside business and financial interest. Perkin, (2004) was a financial hit man whose very job was to keep emerging countries on a rollercoaster of bad loans with no chance to pay back so that they could be manipulated for their raw resources, oil, or the placement of military bases on their soil.
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State In essence, the afflicted countries were unable to provide for the General Welfare (Spannaus, 2000) of their citizens by not having an adequate safety net. In most cases, a countrys associations with either the IMF or World Bank spelled the death knell for their economy and political structure because their citizens became vulnerable to speculators, vulture capitalist, and money market managers who forced nations in potential default of their loans to privatize basic public services such as water, power, sanitation, and healthcare. Small farmers who barely could make ends through subsistence agriculture, found themselves competing with powerful agri-business concerns from the EU, Canada, and the U.S. because they were heavily subsided by their perspective governments.
In extreme other cases, agent provocateurs would move in after a natural disaster such as the 2010 Haitian earthquake or 2004 Tsunami in South East Asia would put the control of vital reconstruction of schools, roads, hospitals, and bridges not in the hands of government but rather in the vested interest of corporate capitalist. Klein (2007) characterized this business approach as the shock doctrine (p. 17). In the case of Haiti, the central government was too weak to effectively coordinate the reconstruction of the country after the 2010 earthquake. Haiti like other countries in similar circumstances forever lost their political sovereignty and the ability to influence circumstances and conditions for the betterment of their nation. There are those who would argue that the purpose of the nation-state is no longer needed and that sovereignty should be surrendered to an international order that would govern the affairs of the world. Needless to say the death knells for the eventual demise of the nation-state is premature or how Mark Twain would state the reports of my death are greatly exaggerated (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/368850.html). In fact the role of the nation-state is needed more than ever in light of the recent failures of deregulated globalization and the mounting
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State worldwide financial crisis. There is no doubt that globalization is an essential part of the human evolutionary process but it must be controlled and regulated. This can only come about by competent strong governments that have the means to control their own economy and governmental affairs by redefining its political and nationalistic objectives in the 21st century.
Therefore, where does nation-state political sovereignty fit into the era of globalization and what is its place in the nature order of the 21st century? In order to fully answer this pertinent question, one must have a thorough understanding of the role that the nation-state has had in shaping world history, transitions of republics, governments, and empires, and the modern emergence of the hybrid model that it is now. Classic Definition What is a nation-state? There are many definitions but they only construct an entity based strictly on a political and territorial foundation. A nation-state is much more that because it is a living and breathing embodiment of its people, government, and culture. A nation-state is an extension of the leaders, institutions, and people who form its identity. Moreover, nation state is a supporting wall that a republic relies on, supports its systematic and strengthens its resistance (Over, n.d). In the modern era of 21st globalization there are four criterions that further readily define the nation-state. 1. First duty of a nation state is to preserve national identity of people and to help the development of common points that make it nation. 2. Nation state is a structure which requires national interests to be optimized by harmonizing with regional and global processes and forces a cooperation keeping in mind mutual advantages and to give nobody a right to oppose to the state in line with its requirements.
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State 3. Nation is an entity which has political sovereignty, geographic unity and firm loyalty. 4. Nation state primarily produces security for society and security for territory (Over, n.d). These common attributes are the key building blocks that have let the nation-state play a prominent role in the laboratory of world history. History indeed has proven to be an accurate barometer for the rise, fall, and transition of civilizations, empires, and countries. In essence, civilization as we know goes through cycles or movements. It was Immanuel Wallerstein who first argued that a world-system is a social system, one that has boundaries, structures, member groups, rules of legitimation, and coherence (Wallerstein, 1976, p. 229). World system theory also predicates the evolution of sovereignty as being spatial instead of unipolar or multi-polar. Transition of Governments & Empire In ancient civilizations, open warfare was used as a tool in the expansion of a kingdoms geographical territory. Warfare was a tool that was exercised to give a warrior king absolute sovereignty through the marriage of religion, military, and political institutions. He was given
spiritual legitimacy through the ceremonial actions by a high priest. The ruler personified a godlike quality by effectively mobilizing the cultural, political, and economic institutions of the whole society in terms of the pursuit of warfare and hopefully eventual conquest (Hamblin, 2006). Civilizations and empires transcend from low influence and reaching the height of the power only to gradually decline and be dominated by another emerging power as was the case of Cyrus the Great of Persia who conquered the Babylonian Empire. Hegemony is measured by the conquering of territory, spoils of war, and the enslavement or assimilation of captured populations into their political and social customs. The leader or ruler of the empire is the one
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State who has pushed that civilization to greatness. However, the next series of successors after him did not necessary share the vision of the conqueror king and did not have the drive, ambition,
10
fortitude and overextended themselves through ill-prepared and planned military campaigns that further stagnated the expansion and growth of the empire (Dunn & Anderson, 2005). Empires were vast, their control of land and authority was regional, in order to be effective, empires in antiquity based their power on a hierarchy of vassals, tributaries, protectorates, and colonies-with those on the outside generally viewed as barbarians (Brzezinski, 1997, p. 7). There was a direct correlation between high density populations in the region which wielded absolute power over those that were low density populations. The concentration of power and economics depended on the size of the city or empire in the region. Empires rise and fall were contingent upon the increase and decrease of populations (Dunn, Alvarez, & Pasciuti, 2005). The imperial reach of these kingdoms was limited due to technology, personnel, equipment, and supplies. Take for example Alexander the Greats attempted conquest of Afghanistan which turned out to be a logistical nightmare because of the stubbornness of the warlords, lack of preparation of his army to fight in the rugged terrain, and the impossibility of ferrying much needed supplies to the area. The importance of examining ancient empires through the lens of world system movement is significant because one can see the early foundations of the evolution of the nationstate in the complex interconnection of hierarchy, power, monarchial sovereignty, and territorial legitimacy. The transformation of the rise and fall of empires is taking place in the 21st century. Currently the U.S. as the dominant superpower is finding itself pressed from all sides by the emergent economic powerhouses of (Goldman Sachs, October 2003) Brazil, Russia, China, and India (BRIC) as was the case with earlier empires and civilizations that had preceded them.
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State These BRIC countries are building regional alliances with countries that have a similar ideological mindset which gives them availability to other markets in pursuit of raw materials, establishment of military bases and outpost, ratification of favorable trade treaties, cultural
11
exchanges and dialogues, and the opportunity to play a pivotal role for peace as a nontraditional state actor. Out of the four, both China and Russia have been the most active in pursuing an aggressive agenda to challenge the predominance of the U.S. technologically, politically, militarily, and economically. Red China has adapted a string of pearls strategy in order to leverage global geopolitical hegemony (Pehrson, 2006, p. 3). The blueprint of Chinas string of pearls strategy is build, establish, or execute treaties with nations favorable to them from the oil rich nation of Sudan to the Chinese mainland. The Chinese have built naval and military facilities in Vietnam, Sudan, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Myanmar. They have committed themselves to a blue water navy with the plans to build up to six Nimitz Class aircraft carriers within the next decade (Mohan, 2009). In addition, the Chinese have bought into companies such as Rio Tinto in Australia, signing of a treaty for unconditional rights to the natural gas fields of Iran, and restricted the mining and exporting of REE (Rare Earth Elements-Technology Metals) (Pure Asset Trader), to Americas Defense Industry. The ultimate objective of the Chinese is to encircle the United States internationally and to maximize their new found power and political influence to globally neutralize their reach. Since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the ascension of Vladimir Putin as Prime Minister and now President, the Russian Republic has found itself surrounded and pressed against its borders with the inroads made by NATO in bringing former Soviet Satellite states as
12
Poland, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia (NATO, 2009). As well partner countries consisting of Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Georgia, and Uzbekistan. NATO begin to flex its military and political muscles by taking advantage of what was perceived as a weakened Russian Republic which did not have the technological or governmental capacity to exercise worldwide hegemony or even sovereignty within its own sphere of influence. This culminated in the decision made the Bush Administration to gut the START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) treaty and to build a comprehensive missile shield in the former Soviet Satellite States. The Russians balked at the ideal of a missile shield because they viewed it as an infringement upon their geographical sovereignty which extended through much of Eastern Europe and the Caucasus Mountains (Bush Putin Trade Barbs Right before Big Summit, 2007). When Putin was elected as the President of Russia March 26, 2000 and the heir successor to Boris Yelstin, he sought to slow the NATO expansion into the Russian Federation by pursuing an aggressive foreign policy initiative emphasized Russian sovereignty economic modernization, political stability, and enhancement of security (Tsygankov, 2010, p. 225). Putin implemented programs to reinvigorate the Russian economy (Gelb, 2006). Their primary vehicle of sovereignty was the huge nationalized natural gas reserves through the state enterprise called Gazpom and the extensive networks of pipelines that run through Bulgaria, Ukraine, and Georgia and all parts Western Europe. The Black Sea port in the Ukraine was the apex for this pipeline and was of strategic interest to the viability and security of the Russians because it was the home of their Naval Fleet. The Russians used its huge nature gas reserves as a formidable weapon. That came into play when they cut off natural gas supplies to all of Ukraine, Poland, Hungary, and Western Europe (Pan 2009). This was done in retaliation for the NATO trained and backed
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State Georgian Army that did an incursion into South Ossetia on August 8, 2008 which has easily defeated by a combined Russian military campaign (Nicol, 2008). A resilient Russian Federation came as a shock and surprise to the NATO military and political officials who had underestimated its resolve and ability to project itself on both a regional and worldwide basis. The primary success of a resurgent Russia was that it did not
13
utilize military might to recapture its sovereignty, but rather the existing complex web of mazes that forms the international market of the Global economy. It sent a message to NATO and other outside actors that it controlled the affairs of the Caucasus region. As an additional counterweight against the incursion of NATO into its former Asian Soviet States, the Russian Federation formed a security chokepoint called the Shanghai Cooperative. To the Russians, the objectives of the Bush Doctrine were imperialistic whose move into Central Asia is to prevent the emergence of a force capable of checking the U.S. Empire (Israel, 2002). Both Russia and Chinas ability to project their power influence, and hegemony in the face of a dominant like the U.S. is a classic modern day analogy of the continuous liquidity of the World-System movement in the transformation of empire. This radical transformation of empire in the era of globalization can cause a ripple effect that has a profound influence on financial emergent markets, food supply, manufacturing, and the stability and well-being of other nation-states. Pre-Wespthalian Origins Sovereignty in the empire of Egypt, Rome, Greece, Persia, and Babylon were clearly vested in the image of the ruler. It was his face that projected the political legitimacy and power of the empires. Even they did not view themselves as nation-states in the Westphalia tradition; they still played a contributing factor to the formation of sovereignty in the nation-state. How
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State then was sovereignty viewed in the eons of antiquity? What factors influenced democratic thought at the height of Greek civilization during the Hellenistic period? Greek & Roman Republicanism
14
Many consider the Greeks as the originators of the nation-state with the formation of the Greek city states. However the path to Greek democracy was an evolutionary process. Greek political thought, sovereignty, and government institutions were driven by the tribe and ethnic groups because of the immigration of the Peninsula came in tribal stages (Ehrenberg, 1960). This was an important development because the structure of the tribe in Greek civilization gave anthropologist, historians, and political science of how tribe and ethnic groups come into place in the formation or destruction of a nation-state as in the case of the former Yugoslavian Republic. Several centuries later Greek political structure then made a transition into the Politeia. The Greek word for city state is Politeia, which means the ways and reasons of a people to live together, in friendship creating the institutions of their city (George, 2004,). It was the Greeks who created a Utopian Republicanism (Nelson, 2004, p. 22), which consisted of a loose federation of cities with its own sovereignty. Each city-state or polis was governed by a council of Elders who crafted their own laws (Payne, 2007). Finally it was the concept of demos the idea that political power belongs to the people (William, 2005, p. 11) which was the foundation of both Athenian and Attica and governmental rule. Athenian democracy was the example that other Greek city-states aspired to become (Thorley, 2004). Even though each Greek city-state was splintered as a loose confederation, they identified themselves as Greek. Over time though, the process of political power and selfrule evolved into the hands of a vested oligarchy, aristocracy, or king (Payne, 2007).
15
At the time Athens along with Sparta were the dominant city-states in Greece. Yet it was Athens that exerted the most influence in terms of true political and military power. It was the Athenians who soon realized that the profound influence of sea commerce upon the wealth and strength of countries was clearly seen long before the true principles which governed its growth and prosperity were detected (Mahan, 1890). It should be noted that it was sea power that propelled the British, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish, and Venetians into major colonial powers. It was sea power that legitimized their geographical sovereignty over the indigenous populations of the continents of Africa and Asia. It was sea power that enabled the United States to Island hop and beat the Japanese during the Pacific campaign of WWII. The Spartans may have had a dominant army, but it was the Athenian Navy that made them and their armies mobile as a lethal striking force. It was Plato who gives us a general understanding on the concept of ancient Greek sovereignty. In his treatise the Republic, Plato is concerned with the ethics and principles of the ideal Greek society. He views all government as corrupt and believes that the only vindication for society is in the pursuit of true philosophy. Plato had an admiration for the philosopher as king because it is only he who can direct society on the right path through a tyrannical totalitarian rule. Indeed true sovereignty through the philosopher king was the path for political legitimacy of a nation-state. Therefore we can readily assume that the implied teaching of the Republic is that the desirability of bringing philosophy into political life outweighs the dangers implicit in the frankness that such an effort entails (Rosen, 2005, p. 6). It is by no accident that Plato had a strong dislike for Athenian democracy because he considered it weak (Monoson, 2000) and instead became an avid admirer of Spartan oligarchical rule. There are no doubt that
16
Platos theories about government and philosophy formed an important link in the understanding of the nature of sovereignty, nation-states, and the pursuit of true political power. . The Greek democratic experiment soon shattered with the onset of the Peloponnesian War, 431 to 404 B.C. between Athens and Sparta. Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War was the first scholarly account of nations using the instruments of war and political power in order to achieve the ultimate advance fighting over geographical territories (Tritle, 2010). It was also the first documented civil war between opposing groups based on the division of politics, ethnicity, and economics. In todays global economy, interstate war between tribes, religious and political entities are both directly and indirectly affected by external factors such as trade, the availability of food, capital, and political maneuvering. Unequal distribution processes in terms of trade, goods, and investments are the rudimentary causes of destabilization. As it had been earlier in this thesis, FTA are notorious in reducing a nations ability to control its economy because it cannot protect its domestic market from predatory speculation and the process of financialization of key basic services to the population such as water, power, sanitation, and healthcare (Barbieri & Reuveny, 2005). Often the policies of supranational organizations as the EU or the WTO are antidevelopment and strain an already fragile situation of citizens of LDC (Low Developing Countries) that are virtually on the brink of starvation. In recent years, the EU has pushed forward EPA (Economic Partnership Agreements) (Keat, 2007, p. 9), which are supposed to level the trading field between themselves and the Third World. Instead they are designed to disarm an emerging country by raising tariffs in EU countries making it prohibitively expense for a struggling country to export products, imposing stiff fines, the destruction of small subsistence farmers due to the subsiding of agro-business
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State interest dumping products onto the market, the imposition of intellectual property rights on pharmaceutical drugs treat diseases as HIV, Malaria, and Dysentery which can manufactured cheaply aboard. The conflict between Athens and Sparta was strictly military; however the EU
17
has utilized the rules and regulations of the WTO and EPA to make war upon the economies of lesser nation-states. A weakened Greek democracy paved the way for its eventual raising of the Macedonia Empire of King Phillip II and his successor Alexander the Great (Dell & Skelton, 2005). The influence that Alexander the Great as conqueror had on Greece and the rest of the ancient world was profound. By conquering the Persian Empire and unifying the Greek city-states under one banner, he was able to bridge the cultural, economic, and political gap between the east and he west through the introduction of the Hellenistic period by creating a globalizing Hellenism can be considered the worlds first great economic boom (p. 12). The ascension of the Macedonian Empire absolute hegemony by opening up the known world to the flow of trade, technology, the arts, philosophy, architecture, political thought, and the sciences. It can be said that it was the neo-liberalism philosophy of its time by combining sovereignty and economics as an effective instrument of empire building and territorial geographical expansion. Unfortunately Alexanders untimely death as both conqueror and leader was never able to come to full fruition and left a leadership vacuum that the Macedonian Empire was never able to fulfill. In essence, they became sitting ducks for their eventual conquest by the surging Roman Empire. To say that the Romans were profoundly influenced by Greek culture and democratic tradition is an understatement. In the Roman Republic, the Greek model of democracy found a structure that it gave it centralized authority. Hence history witnessed for the first time the
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State birthing of Republicanism. Indeed Republicanism the early Romans believed was the path to freedom for all free men (Nelson, 2004). The Latin term for Republic was called res publica, literally the public thing (North,
18
2006, p. 257). The Romans inherited two opposing systems of government called populous and plebs (p. 259). These conflicting ideologies formed the nucleus of the later class system that would become an integral part of the Roman political landscape. The Roman Republic in actuality was a constitutional dictatorship with a rudimentary feature of a weak democracy. The Romans prided themselves in the constitutional dictator whose only allegiance was to the Republic. They cite L. Quinctius Cincinnatus (a small farmer) as the exemplary example of a dictator who was called upon to lead the Republic in a time of crisis only to relinquish the title when it was over (Gross, 2005). This is not to say that Tyrants and dictators werent evil because in many cases they were and history is replete with their nature of cruelties, injustice, and abuses of both the people and the political institutions that they held. In retrospect, dictatorship and tyranny have to be looked upon in the context of the history, maturity, and circumstances of the particular country or nation-state. The Roman dictatorship is often used a model by which modern nation-states emulate. The United States has had two periods when the use of the constitutional dictatorship was necessary to save its fledgling democracy, Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War who suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus and Franklin D. Roosevelt who passed through the New Deal legislation to stabilize a floundering U.S. economy. The 20th century also saw witness to Winston Churchills heroic rule as Prime Minister of England WWII and Charles De Gaulle of France coming to power in the chaotic world of French politics to lead its transition into the 5th Republic, Jomo Kenyatta leading Kenya to its independence, and Nelson Mandela inheriting the
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State presidency of South Africa after the dismantling of the Apartheid system. Each individual in their own way espoused the principle and spirit of Cincinnatus. There is no doubt that each
19
individual arose to save their perspective governments and the institution of democracy that they were founded upon. Yet like any system of government, there are times that a constitutional republic is not strong enough to maintain both its integrity and existence and requires an individual with a strong hand to return it back to functionality in order to preserve the liberty for all that was meant to uphold and maintain (Rossiter, 1948). As one can see the role of the constitutional dictator has played an integral part in the maturing and developing of the political institutions that formed the nucleus of the nation-state. Able bodied- leaders and rulers such as Roosevelt, Churchill, Lincoln, and Kenyatta exclusively used sovereignty as a tool of convenience in order to a country on the path of stability, restore order, and the reinforcement of the rule of law. In the modern age of the 21st century globalization, neo-liberal theorist would look upon the utilization of constitutional dictatorship with healthy skepticism, scorn, and indifference and adhere to the one size fits all neo-liberalism model of economy and democracy. They based their skepticism on the abuse of power that numerous dictators have exhibited throughout history. Names like Nero, Caligula, Nicolae Ceausescu, Joseph Stalin, and Adolf Hitler are well remembered for the oppression, murder, torture, and false imprisonment of millions. This individualistic quest for power often came at the expense of weakened or corrupt governmental institutions which paved the way for them to gain absolute control. Therefore it quite understandable that both the institution of dictatorship and liberal democracy has an unseedy side that has presented itself throughout history and still plays a very prominent role in the former Soviet Republics of Belarus, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State Turkmenistan as well as Burma. Globalization has and continues to play a role in determining what actor grabs hold of the reigns of leadership in weak democracies that have not fully
20
developed or matured into viable governmental entities. Weak democracies can either transcend into governments with either totalitarian or authoritarian attributes (Barbu, 1956, p. 5). Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes that have arisen out of the ashes of failed democracies are often dominated by uncanny individuals such as Joseph Stalin who were master manipulators in developing a cult-like leadership personality (Davies, 2004). Sovereignty was espoused in a shroud of political theocracy. The nation-state was a mirror image of that individuals political make-up in the governmentality of the country. It was Hitler who used the failings of the Weimar Republic to protect the integrity of the father-land from enemies both domestic and external. He urged every German to exhibit the virtues Duty, loyalty, honesty, hard work, orderliness, and cleanliness (Weikart, 2009, p. 18), as demonstration of their patriotic nationalism. Francisco, Franco took Spain through a painful civil war before wrestling control from the democratically elected government in 1936. Similar patterns in the imposition of authoritarian or totalitarian dictatorships of weak democracies happened in the countries of Portugal and Greece. Most dictators and totalitarian rulers are cold, calculating, and ruthless as evident in the case of the political purges that took place in Stalins purge in the former Soviet Union, Mao Zedongs Cultural Revolution in China, and Po Pots Killing Fields. Regardless of the label authoritarian or totalitarian attached to them, dictators feel that their sovereignty to rule is a mandate and authority to restore the preconstitutional will of the people, even if it means altering the constitution itself (Gandhi, 2008, p. 6). In most cases morally and politically corrupt dictators have employed oppressive measures such as murder, torture, kidnapping, false imprisonment, beatings, pogroms, and
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State continuous harassment of political opponents and the population at large to maximize their tyrannical rule (Sharp, 2002). To what extent a peculiar nation-state under dictator rule has in
21
terms of hegemony or political influence regionally or globally, depends on how that individual has shaped the various governmental institutions. How then do such countries fare in the global economy of today? Do the actions of Kim Jong il of Korea and the ruling military junta in Burma intentionally expose their weakened governmental structures to the constant fluid and changes of globalization? It is quite evident that the actions of dictators on the internal structure of nationstates whether they be in-stage authoritarian rule or post-stage authoritarian rule does have an enormous impact whether it be negative or positive on their ability to maintain national sovereignty in the era of globalization. The countries of Brazil, Chile, and Argentina in Latin America are strong democratic powerhouses that have arisen out of the ashes of dictatorial tyrannical rule. These countries were unique in that the establishment of dictator rule was predicated on the ideology of corporatism. Corporatism was a concept originated by Benito Mussolini of Italy by which the market economy and the interest of the state were merged together. In other words corporatism emphasized the positive role of the state in guaranteeing social justice and suppressing the moral and social chaos of the population pursuing their own self-interest, and above all else, as a political economic philosophy corporatism was flexible. It could tolerate private enterprise within limits and justify major projects of the state (San Jose State University, n.d.). The imposition of corporatism on the governmental infrastructures through the 1964 Military Coup in Brazil (GlobalSecurity.org, 2000), the March 24, 1976 Argentine Military Coup which led to the dirty war (Osorio, 2006), and September 11, 1973 Chilean military coup led by General Augusto Pinochet against the democratically elected government of Salvador
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State Allende (Bhuta, 1999), were rightwing reactions to the economic system of structuralism that had been pursued and incorporated into their perspective governmental structures. Originally
22
structuralism was pursued by countries in both Central and South America in the 1950s and 60s to change their economies from a group of free-trading economies to one of highly protected economies (Rojas, 1992). The principal agency behind this change was the "Comision Economica para America Latina de las Naciones Unidas" (CEPAL) (United Nations Economic Comission for Latin America, ECLA, today known as Economic Comission for Latin America and the Caribbean, ECLAC) (Rojas, 1992). The strategy was to break up the monopoly of power that existed with wealthy landowners and corrupt government officials who practiced a crude form of peasantry feudalism. Indeed it was a coalition of wealthy landowners, rightwing militia groups, and the military that were behind the military coups and purges that killed hundreds of thousands of journalists, trade unionist, human rights activists, and clergy. Coup leaders such as General Pinochet and the Argentina Military Junta sought to decentralize the economy and privatize state-owned industries and governmental agencies such as social security. It was Pinochet who vastly transformed the Chilean Economy to one market-based that were rested on the theories of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics (Ruh, n.d.). The currencies and economies of Brazil, Argentina, and Chile were highly leveraged and integrated into the global economy through a system of FDI (Foreign Direct Investments), Free Trade Agreements with the United States, and the creation of tax havens for wealthy elites. Unfortunately when these countries returned to democratic rule, the governmental institutions, laws, and regulations that were responsible for protecting the country from unwarranted manipulation of the economy had been severely weakened. This manifested itself in the currency crises that had destabilized the Asian economies. The late 1990s and the beginning
23
of the 21st century witnessed hyper-inflation, negative economic growth, increasing debt, and the further impoverishment of thousands in both Central and South America (Goldstein, 2003). Just as it had been with their Asian counterparts, the Brazilian, Argentinian, & Chilean economies had experienced double digit growth only to hit a stonewall which caused an economic free-fall (Perry & Servn, 2003). As much as globalization played a detrimental role of their unprotected economies, each nation took measures to protect them by instituting key reforms which transformed them into global powerhouses. 1. Brazil-The countrys leadership took a cue from the past and combined neo-liberal economic policies and structuralism to stabilize the economy. This process was called neo-structuralism (Strum, n.d.). Neo-structuralism main component is that the state can be a conductor in the fostering of growth in the market sector while at the same providing safeguards and providing for the welfare of its citizens. Brazil named its plan to stabilize its economy Real Plan stabilization (Hamaguchi, Ferraz, & Rocha, 2003, p. 9). The plan accomplished several successes in putting Brazils economy back on track: a. It reduced inflation from double digit to single digits. b. It spurred foreign investment into its economy. c. The country implemented trade liberalization which substantially increased the share of imports and increased competitive pressure in the domestic market. d. Secondly, ownership structure has been internationalized to a large extent, as a result of acquisitions of local firms by multinational firms including privatizations. (p. 9) e. The country provided aid, training, and unemployment insurance to workers displaced by the ongoing changes of globalization (Polaski, Filho, Berg, et. al., 2001).
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State 2. Argentina-Argentinas exit from military dictatorship and transition to democratic rule
24
left its currency as well as its economy in shambles. The government in conjunction with the IMF (International Monetary Fund) enacted harsh austerity policies in order to rectify the economy which caused hyperinflation, food shortages, closing of businesses, unemployment, and rioting in the streets which caused the collapse of the government and led to a constitutional crisis (Weisbort & Sandoval, 2007). The Argentina legislative appointed Eduardo Alberto Duhalde as President. Under his short tenure as President he implemented several measures that helped to stabilize the economy and led to the eventual road to recovery. a. The peso was devaluated against the dollar in a one to one exchange rate in order to open the market for exporting of key manufacturing and agricultural products (Weisbort & Sandoval, 2007). b. Steps were taken to restructure public and private domestic debts through pesification (Setser & Gelpern, 2005, p. 6). c. The economy was structured to become open making it attractive for FDI (Foreign Direct Investments) and the owning of Argentinian by outside investors (Maletta, H. E., 2007). 3. Chile-The state of economic and governmental affairs in Chile differed than Argentina and Brazil because it had made a transition to an open economy during the brutal rule of Augusto Pinochet. Its revolutionary pension reform when it privatized its Social security system has become a model for other governments to learn from. It has raised growth, productivity, and revenue through the adaptation of changes in the global economy. In essence, The Chilean PMP (Policy Making Process) was successful at implementing
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State first-generation and some second-generation reforms, but as the country developed it grew increasingly less adept at generating efficiency-enhancing policies necessary to
25
maintain high productivity growth (Aninat, C., Benavente, J. M., Briones, et. al., 2010, p. 3). The upheaval, turmoil, and chaos that Brazil, Chile, & Argentina experienced transitioning from weak democracies, to authoritarian dictatorship, to market-based democracies are pertinent examples in the inability of nation-states to protect their economies, government, and citizens from the changing forces of globalization. Unpredictability, instability, and inconsistency were the hallmarks of political sovereignty during the time periods of dictatorship. The political oppression, arrest, torture, and killing of key governmental, union, business, and public officials by the military juntas robbed each country the expertise, experience, intellectual capital, and political savvy to avert economic crises in the first place. Nation-state hegemony in Latin America was about the paradox of state power (Phillips, 1998, p. 5), within the region for Chile, Brazil, and Argentina. A nations capacity to project state power in essence creates an economic vanguard to protect sovereignty, project hegemony, and to exert influence on its behalf in the global order. The paradox of state power falls under several criteria: 1. State power is formulated principally in terms of the capacity of national governments to implement their policy preferences (p. 6). 2. State power is conceptualised in terms of the degree of centralization of political power (p. 6).
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State 3. Governments have very deliberately used international constraints to overcome domestic constraints (p. 5). 4. The strength or power of the state is enhanced as a result of engagement with processes of international change and its specific manifestations (p. 7). Of the three Latin American countries that had been affected by regime change, political purges, and the rebuilding of state institutions, Chile was best able to manage, govern,
26
and prosper through the pending economic global crisis for the simple fact that Pinochet rebuilt key institutions during his reign. In a parting note, Chile took the opportunity to exert its influence in the current Global financial crisis when former president Michelle Bachelet rebuked then British Prime Minister Gordon Brown for not adhering to sound budgetary constraints (Huchinson, 2009). However any realist would understand that democracy like its dictatorial counterpart has a dark side as well because it is like an uncontrolled beast that needs to have a firm hand to guide it back into its shell of Republicanism. Yet neo-liberal theorist are so fixated in exporting democracy that they fail to adhere to the consequences of their actions and actually add to the agents of chaos and self-destruction to a country that has not properly implemented the necessary governmental structure to facilitate its political legitimacy as an integral part of its society (Pangle, 2009). This was the one fatal flaw and weakness of the Bush doctrine in exporting democracy that had not developed the mature institutions. Many believe that the Bush Administrations push for democratization in Iraq after the ouster of Saddam Hussein destabilized the country because the interim government was not strong enough to contain sectarian violence involving Sunni & Shiites religious sects and ancient tribal rivalries (Carothers, 2007).
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State The lack of developing strong democratic governmental institutions enabled Hamas to
27
win the elections in the West Bank (Carothers, 2007). What was needed was strongman in guise of Kenyatta who could handle the responsibilities of sovereignty who could properly guide their nation through the transition stage of democratic rule. It is interesting to note that both former presidents Muhammad Hosni Sayyid Mubarak of Egypt and Zine El Abidine Ben Ali keep the lid on the expansion of major radical Islam groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood. Even though they forced out of office because of governmental protest, their countries did not disintegrate into full civil war as is the case of what is transpiring now in Libya. Their authoritarian rule did allow for the formation of key opposition parties, trade unions, and a limited free press that led to a transfer of power after their ouster. Current Libyan dictator Colonel Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi has not. It was Mustafa Kemal Atatrk founder of the modern Turkish Republic who truly understood this process and transition to democracy very well. Shortly after WWI, he played an important role in building a modern Turkish state from the rubble of the old Ottoman Empire. Through his guidance, reforms were implemented in the areas of womens rights, freedom of religion, assembly, the arts, universal education, and economic development (Ataturk.com, n.d.). To achieve a thoroughly modern Turkish state, Mustafa Kemal Atatrk articulated a philosophy called Kemalism the principle that Turkey should be secular and Western, (Zahedi, & Bacik, 2010), as a safeguard against creeping Islamism. The pursuit of Kemalism by Ataturk was to achieve a unique Turkish identity, regional hegemony (Vanderlippe, 2005), and western or European values (Zahedi, & Bacik, 2010). Therefore it is quite easy to understand how tyranny and dictatorship went hand and hand because of the corrupt nature of republicanism in the early Roman Republic. Traditions of
28
would-be tyrants persist throughout the history of the Republic, and hence the contemporary use of tyranny to explain the nature of Sullan or Caesarian rule can be seen to be more than simple rhetoric, since it allowed Romans to name and conceptualise what was going on in their society in the face of the competing discourse of republicanism (Lewis, 2006, p. 10.). Niccolo Machiavelli was an admirer of Roman rule and believed that the Republic had two ends one internal, centered around the classical concept of liberty (libertas), and one external, aspiring to acquisition of dominion (imperium), material goods, greatness, and glory (Hornqvist, 2004, p. 38). In many instances the population clamored for the emergence of a benevolent dictator who would maintain law & order, peace, and prosperity. This is exactly the circumstances of events after the murder of Julius Caesar that led to Gainus Julius Caesar Augustus, Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, and Marcus Antonius to form the tresviri rei publicae constituendae, a
triumvirate for constituting the state (Eck, 1998, p. 16). Yet that cohesiveness did not last long
between Anthony, Augustus, and Lepidus because of treachery between them and the quest for ultimate power. Ultimately though, young Augustus did achieve total and absolute power and the world at the time did witness a republican system of government that did come to a final end (Flower, 2010, p. 17) and the beginning of empire that we so readily identify with today. Sovereignty in the Roman Empire was associated with the emperor. In young Augustuss situation, one can honestly say that the state was Caesar and Caesar was the state. Roman Government was unique in that it was the ultimate blending of empire and hegemony. Roman territorial expansion into Africa, Britannica, Western Europe, Asia Minor, and the Middle East was justification of it hegemony and keeping the peace. Indeed Rome achieved a legacy of peace called Pax Romana Roman peace (The Roman World, 2002), that extended past the rule of
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State Augustus for 200 hundred years. It is interesting to note that the primary objective of the Bush
29
Doctrine was to achieve global hegemony by pursuing an ideology of Pax Americana (Barry, 2003, p. 1) where the United States as the only global superpower would exert dominance politically, economically, and culturally. This was called American Exceptionalism. Unfortunately the path to American Exceptionalism was a flawed Neo-conservative philosophy that pushed the U.S. on a failed militaristic path of unilateralism (Froese, 2007). It is due to the fact that the international system in the 21st century differed than the world of antiquity. In the 21st century that is too many quarks, contradictions, and unpredictability factors to try to goad the world into ones sphere of influence. For decades prior to the Bush Doctrine, U.S foreign policy objectives were hinged on multilateralism in the arena of negotiating treaties, building diplomatic partnerships, and implementing international laws (Ikenberry, 2003). The aftereffects of the failed Bush Doctrine, tarnished American political legitimacy which was a cornerstone of U.S. hegemony and the pursuit of nationalistic interest objectives with the consent of allies and those nations that we did not see eye to eye with. In terms of reality, America as Empire in the 21st century has come to past. Just as with its Roman predecessor, the United States as a noble intention see itself as a transitional empire, one that uses its power to build mechanisms that will institutionalize America as partner rather than as empire (Garrison, 2004). It was that belief of self-indulgence, hypocrisy, corruption, and incompetent rulers that led to the fall of the Roman Empire. In the scheme of things, the U.S. pursuit of unilateralism foreign policy objectives in the 21st century instead of multilateralism initiatives with other nation-states could possibly make it a footnote in the annals of history as well. 1648 Treaty of Westphalia
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State The path to the emergence of the nation-state during the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia
30
cannot be completed without looking at the influence that the concept of commonwealth has had on its development. The ideal of the commonwealth is a part of the three-legged Tirade of the governmental foundation of the nation-state. The first two which has already been covered extensively in this thesis are the Greek concept of demos and the Roman political philosophy of Les Republica. In Leviathan (Hobbes, 1651) defines the concept of common as when a Multitude of men do Agree, and Covenant, Every One With Every One, that to whatsoever Man, or Assembly Of Men, shall be given by the major part, the Right to Present the Person of them all, (that is to say, to be their Representative;) every one, as well he that Voted For It, as he that Voted Against It, shall Authorise all the Actions and Judgements, of that Man, or Assembly of men, in the same manner, as if they were his own, to the end, to live peaceably amongst themselves, and be protected against other men (Chapter XVIII). In a practical 21st century understanding, commonwealth is defined as the will of the sovereign entity of the citizens who comprise the cultural, national, and ethnic make-up of a nation-state. A commonwealth is the living embodiment of representative constitutional government. In The Political Works on Marcus Tullius Cicero (Cicero, 51 B.C.) the ideology of commonwealth is given political legs with the belief that the power of the state did not derive its legitimacy from the emperor or aristocracy, but rather from the common citizen himself. To Cicero, the commonwealth was the noblest form of government because citizens were duty bound by a sense of patriotism to protect its entity. A commonwealth is a constitution of the entire people.The people, however, is not every association of men, however congregated, but the association of the entire number, bound together by the compact of justice, and the communication of utility (p.78). Ciceros treatise differed from Platos Republic in that the
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State nature and purpose of the state was viewed from a philosophical perspective, whereas he analyzed its inner-workings from a stoic viewpoint. To Cicero, the commonwealth was the
31
noblest form of government because the ruler was from the consent of the governed. The citizen was the best line of defense against the abuses of a corrupt ruler or dictator. The citizen was the one who provided checks and balances as well determined the scope of the sovereignty of rulers. Only in a republic were the ideals of God, country, freedom of ideas, and patriotism allowed to thrive. The purpose of the ruler then was to provide for the welfare of his people. The strength of the nation-state was determined by the condition of its people. The individual who embodied all of these qualities as a ruler was Pericles of Athens (Cicero, 51 B.C.). The belief by Cicero that a nation-state provides for the welfare of its citizens was the prevalent theme and feature of preamble of the U.S. Constitution in providing for the general welfare (Spannaus, 2000) of its citizens regardless of class or background. However, it was King Louis XI of France who combined the two entities of commonwealth and providing for the general welfare of the citizen into an ideology that molded his country into a nation-state during his reign (Beaudry, 1995). King Louis approach to providing for the General Welfare meant taking an active part in improving the lives of a population that had been impoverished due to Frances disastrous defeat by the England during the hundred years old which had destroy most of the country and made the living conditions of the peasantry appalling. This meant providing for the physical needs of the population with the construction of roads, bridges, and the implementation of a universal education system. In essence, he dismantled the institution of feudalism in his country by conquering the nobility and forcing them to swear allegiance to the monarchy. He became the face of sovereignty in all matters domestic and foreign. He used the power of persuasion, threats, and bribery to advance the nationalistic interest of his country.
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State Globalization in many ways runs counter to the general welfare and commonwealth ideology because it has served as a roadblock and dividing line between a nation-state and the
32
needs of its people because of the pressing external influences on its economy and governmental structures by those who dont have their best interest in mind. Developing nations that have gotten massive loans from the IMF and World Bank are often saddled with huge debts that cannot be repaid without driving their citizens to the brink starvation. Often countries such as Zambia will reenter into a repayment agreement with these global financial supranational organizations with clauses that levy substantial penalties in case of a default. To clear their books in order to loan out more money to countries with fragile economies, the IMF or World Bank will allow Hedge Companies called Vulture Funds, (Jubilee Debt Campaign, 2009, p. 1) to buy up bad debts. These companies are secretive in nature and serve as tax havens. They often hold a country hostage when they cant pay back their loans by suing them a court in order to recover (pp. 1-2). They further take advantage of loopholes in the global financial order in capitals of western economies to gain favorable rulings. The courts the majority of the time will rule in their favor, and force poor countries to give their aid money which was meant for development and improving the welfare and livelihood of their people back into the financial coffers of these funds. Sovereignty in this respect is at the mercy of the global order. In recent years governments in wealthy nations have sought to negate the poisonous effects of vulture funds on the general wellbeing of a Low Development Country (LDC) by implementing a debt cancellation program called HIPC (Heavily Indebted Poor Countries) (p. 4). Unless a nation has a leader that has political savvy to safeguard its sovereignty, provide for the general welfare of its people, and protect its economy from the predatory practices of money speculators, they will fall through the cracks of the international system. Time and time
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State ago, history has demonstrated the actions of strong leaders who put the best interest of their country in front of their own private desires. To illustrate this point, one has only to revisit the
33
pro-active measures that former Malaysian Prime Minister Tun Mahathir Mohamed (in spite of international condemnation from the international community) implemented to protect his countrys currency and fledging economy from the influence of money speculators such as George Soros (Khor, 2004), that engineered and triggered the Asian Financial Crisis in the late 1990s. Among the measures he implemented. In order to limit the damage done to his countrys currency and Malaysias fledging economy, Prime Minister Tun Mahathir Mohamed 1. Pegged the riggit at 3.80 to the US dollar, (Khor, 1998), and only allowed it to be traded within his nations financial market. 2. Malaysian stock could only be traded in the countrys major exchanges (Poon, 1999).
3. Declined and refused to implement IMF punitive austerity measures. 4. Refused to allow nonresidents to participate in riggit currency transactions (Mohamed, 1998). 5. Increased the amount of public finance and investment in infrastructure development in order to create a cushion from the ill-effects of currency traders. At the time, Asia was the fastest growing region economically during the onset of globalization (Glick & Ramon, 1997). The national economies of Thailand, Indonesia, Hong Kong, South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, and Taiwan were experiencing double or triple growth. That changed when the government of Thailand devalued its national currency called the Baht (Shalendra, 2003, p. 2) in order to satisfy the repayment requirements of the IMF. The devaluation caused a panic that set off a domino effect of the currencies of the miracle Asian economics. Hedge Fund Managers and speculators sensing weakness on these currencies like
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State sharks attracted to blood in the water, started to manipulate these currencies in order to make a quick and easy profit (Shalendra, 2003, p. 3). These countries suddenly found that they were unable to control the economies and protect their financial markets. FDI (Foreign Direct Investments) in capital markets, real estate, and financial institutions were artificially inflated
34
and then devaluated by hedge managers in order to make a quick profit (Poon, 1999). The hedge fund managers had in excess of US $29.5 billion (p. 8), invested in the financial markets of these countries. In effect, in the surging global economy, the Asian countries were unwilling participants of casino economics (Billington, 1997) The lessons to be learned from the Asian financial crisis, is that in the era of globalization nations-states can indeed protect their sovereignty as well as the general welfare of their citizens by initiating countermeasures to thaw the efforts of TNCs, financial speculators, hedge funds, and other uncanny individuals from subverting their national economies. The process of getting a full understanding of the development, evolution, and importance of the nation-state in the era of globalization is like linking the pieces of a complex puzzle together. The analogy of world systems movement comes into play because it was necessary for the concept of the modern nation-state to come to fruition. This further clarifies on this point by explaining All states were the same, insofar as they went through identical stages for identical reasons (Wallerstein, 1997). In fact, neo-classic realist would readily agree as well that the development, role, and importance of the nation-state as the most important actors in international politics (Lobell, Ripsman, & Taliaferro, 2009, p. 24). Hence it was these processes that governed the state of events leading up to the eventual ratification of the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia by a war-weary and exhausted medieval Europe. Prior to the peace of Westphalia, much of Europe was in the throes of political, religious, and
35
cultural changes. Decades before a renegade priest in Germany called Martin Luther had nailed his treatise called the ninety theses on the faith of man on the door of the Castle Church October 17, 1517 challenging the dominance of the papacy as moral absolute over the souls of men (Smith, 1920, p. 67). This was the beginning of the Protestant Reformation. As an institution, the papacy claimed supreme spiritual and natural hegemony over the German vassal states. The Princes that felt for the first time had moral justification determining the affairs of their individual principalities. As rulers, they themselves dictated sovereignty and hegemony over their subjects and not the Pope himself. Thus the church was forced to recognize Lutheranism as a legitimate political and religious entity through the Peace of Augsburg in 1555. Unfortunately the Peace of Augsburg was an unstable agreement between the Pontiff and the German Princes because had converted to Calvinism which was not officially recognized by the church (The Thirty Years War Homepage, 1999). The period also marked the dramatic decline of power and influence of feudal lords and the consolidation of power by monarchs. Kings now had the power to levy taxes, raise armies, imposed laws, created governmental bureaucracies, and have allegiance of the Lords to the political legitimacy of his rule (Opello, & Rosow, 1999). Sovereignty as a concept had taken whole because political power and hegemony was centrally concentrated in the power of the monarchy. In other words, the King was recognized as the head of the state, (p.39), and exercised sole authority to implement and execute laws. The king also claimed secular authority over state lands that had been in the hands of the papacy for centuries (Straumann, 2007). Furthermore, the position of the monarchy became secular in nature plus the failure of the Peace of Augsburg to settle and resolved ecclesiastical differences (Straumann, 2007) setting the stage for a religious holy war.
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State The Thirty years war in actuality was a series of war that transition in stages with
36
differing case of characters. The war had a Catholic coalition that was pitted against a Protestant alliance. The Catholic side consisted of the House of Hapsburg Prince Ferdinand II (who eventually become Holy Roman Emperor), Maximillian the Catholic Monarch of Bavaria, and Phillip III King of Spain. The Protestant alliance was comprised of Christian IV of Denmark, Gustavus II King of Sweden, Catholic France (who wanted to check the expanding power of the Hapsburg Empire) in league with the German Princes (MacroHistory & World Report, 2001). The war world was significant in several ways: 1. It was the first historical account of a total war that involved most of the European Continent (HitEleven, 2010). Wars beforehand had been fought on regional basis which were territorial driven. The Thirty Years War changed the rules of the game by bringing in deep seated resentment based on class, religion, and war. 2. The War changed the geographic territorial boundaries among the population that shared common characteristics of religion, culture, and ethnicity. Some German historians have defined the Thirty Years World as the watershed mark that launched the drive for German unification as a nation-state (Cramer, 2007). 3. The war was the modern day equivalent of a clash of civilizations (Huntington, 1993), which civilization or nations would be defined by the tensions between religious and ethnic groups that would eventually lead to civil war or interstate conflicts. Eventually after a series of defeats, victories, stalemates, and virtual exhaustion, both sides made overtures for peace that culminated in the 1648 Peace of Westphalia.
37
The Treaty of Westphalia as had been the case of the Thirty Years War was a serious of treaties. The essential theme of the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia that was agreed upon by all parties was forgiving the sins of the past (Beaudry, 2003). The treaty was a watershed mark in that was a convenient marriage of sovereignty and statehood (Kelly, 2005). According to the political theorist Carl Schmitt, the precise historical achievement of the state was to achieve the unity of auctoritas (traditionally claimed by the emperor) and the potestas that had been the preserve of the Papacy throughout the Middle Ages (Hooker, 2005, p. 18). It was the master of its own house and could determine, define, protect, and project its own territorial geographic boundaries. It perfected sovereignty (p. 18) by making decisions that were in the best interest of the nation, its people, ruler, and its governmental institutions. Political legitimacy was achieved in that the various German Princes of the vassal states respected each others boundaries and internal affairs. No longer did one have to answer to the authority of the papacy which at the time was considered moral absolute and the ruler of the Holy Roman Empire as the protector of that ultimate authority. The approach to the creation of the nation-state through the Wespthalian tradition was that the citizens were bound to a patriotic brand of nationalism and loyalty which was homogeneous in nature regardless of the ethnicity, religions, and traditions that was characteristic of the population. This approach to the concept of the nation-state was its strength as well as its weakness. As a model it was not accommodating to these various attributes of population demographics. Primacy of the International System In the era of neo-colonialism, sovereignty and empire become synonymous with exploitation, control, iron rule, and the interference into the affairs of weaker states and territories. The European nation-states of Spain, England, France Portugal, Belgium, and the
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State Netherlands justified their annexation of vast amounts of territory on the continents of Africa, Asia, and South America by spread European 'civilisation' to native peoples in exchange for
38
cheap labour and natural resources (British Broadcasting Company [BBC], 2005). The varying degrees of treatment that the indigenous populations extended at the hands of their occupiers, determined have successful that the colonist were able to maintain order and civility in the empires that they ruled. Kipling (1899) the white mans burden gave them moral justification to civilize, domestic, and subject non-Europeans to imperial rule. Neo-colonialism and empire was a brutal affair. European Nation-states filled their coffers off the blood and sweat of the African slave trade, exploitation labor of Indian & Chinese workers, and the extraction and stealing of vital resources by gunpoint. Often Christian Missionaries were used in conjunction with the Colonial governments to break down and dismantle the customs and traditions of the local population and replace it with a Euro-centric Homogeny. It is not hard then to understand the treatment that the indigenous population received at the hands of their European occupiers varied from country to country. Perhaps the cruelest example of colonial inhumane treatment of the indigenous population was the Belgian Congo that was the personal fiefdom of King Leopold II. During the early stages of colonization, the European powers concentrated their efforts in annexing the outer coastal areas of Africa especially when it came to the lucrative slave trade. None dared ventured into the interior part of the continent. The nickname the Dark Continent was coined. It was Leopold who employed the explorer H.M. Stanley as his agent to establish a settlement in the area called Elizabethtown. Under Leopolds watch, the local inhabitants were routinely beaten, mutilated, and murdered in order to work under slave-like conditions for the production of rubber, ivory, and cooper. It was (Morel, 1904; Doyle, 1909; & Conrad, 1902) that
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State provide an accurate and historical account of the various atrocities that had been allowed to be committed in Leopolds dominion. The evidence was so overwhelming that the Europeans became abhorrent and forced King Leopold to transfer control of the Congo to the Belgium.
39
The European power grab and the annexation of vast amounts territory was to carve out spheres of influence to create hegemonic empires which each nation utilized as a system of checks and balances. Although European colonialists represented only 2% of the worlds population and landmass, the eventual accumulation of land, indigenous people, and vital resources accounted for control of over 90% of the earths surface (Benjamin, 2007 p. 13). The possession of vast amounts of territory by the Europeans was used as tool to sow the seeds of nationalistic pride among the inhabitants as a well to further consolidate power within their boundaries and the reinforcement of the King as the sovereign and divine ruler. As it had been stated before in this thesis, the countries that controlled the sea were able to project their sovereignty and hegemony globally. It was of no coincidence that the British understood that very well (Amitage, 2004), and expanded their hegemony through the unique partnership of government and private enterprise through the creation of the East Indian Trading Company. The age of neo-colonialism and imperialism of the Western powers over indigenous people, their vital resources, and land can be classified into four different categories: 1. In the first phase, European oceanic expansion led to the possession of a significant portion of the Americas (and claims to the entire hemisphere) through conquest and colonization, as well as the establishment of coastal enclaves and trading-post settlement on the coasts of West and East Africa, Arabia, India, China, the Spice Islands, and Japan.
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State 2. During the third phase, what is often called the age of modern imperialism, a new period of European expansion took off in Africa, Asia, and the Pacific. Europeans had long been established in trading factories and castles on the coasts of Africa and Asia but in the nineteenth century they used these enclaves as bases to move into the interior of these great continents and seize political control. 3. During the fourth phase, World War I (19141918) and the Great Depression of the 1930s weakened Western Europe and European colonial power and legitimacy. 4. World War II (19391945) abruptly began the last phase of Western colonialism. The war dramatically assaulted the key European imperial powers, France, the Netherlands and Great Britain, at home and overseas (pp. 15-17). Often it was the introduction of a Wespthalian version of neo-liberalism ideology and economics would upset the balance of power within the region that had existed for centuries before, and caused inter-tribal, religious, and ethnic conflicts to flare. As a concept, it was legalized fire tender. The British often used the practice of importing cheap labor in their colonial possession that was not indigenous to the local area in order to maximize profit and to
40
keep the population subjected under the power of the crown (Lange, 2010). The civil unrest that now exists in the former British Possessions of Sri Lanka, Sierra Leone, and Guyana can be directly attributed to British economic and exploitation policies. As much as the British have been criticized in implementing Euro-centric Wespthalian policies that many said led to chaos, they did have overriding success in the countries of Mauritius and India in creating key economic and governmental institutions which have become thriving and vibrant democracies. Unlike the other colonial empires during that era, the British did work on building up their imperial possessions to become self-governing territorial entities (Muir, 1917, p. 9-10).
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State In many respects, the past and current economic, military, diplomatic, and political
41
policies of the U.S. in the 21st century has designated this country as the new imperial power of the era of globalization. We share many of the same visions of both the European Colonist and Romans in establishing global hegemony through the predominance of culture, politics, economics, and military power (Nijjer, n.d.). America as Empire in the era of globalization has crafted a dominant hegemony that is multi-dimensional and readily emphasizes its economic, military, diplomatic, and political superiority in order to leverage political sovereignty for its own nationalistic interest. U.S. global hegemony and the maintaining of its supremacy are predicated on several factors: 1. The U.S wants the world to see it as the benevolent uncle whose only ambition is to secure the personal well-being of its neighbors (Kagan, 1998). History has shown being an empire in some instances is advantageous to the stability and peace within a region. Rome under Augustus Caesar achieved an uneasy peace with the projection of Imperial sovereignty over much of the Mediterranean, Western Europe, Middle East, and Asian Minor Regions. In recent years, the U.S. has participated with international organizations through the State Department and the USAID (United States Agency for International Development) in disaster relief for the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and Tsunami, 2005 Pakistani Earthquake, 2008 Burma Cyclone, and the 2010 Haitian Earthquake. The humanitarian assistance offered by the U.S. is both precise and calculated to help strengthen its political clout with allies and non-allies alike. 2. America as the facilitator of post-war reconstruction in fragile societies. The American record of reconstruction in war-torn countries has had an inconsistent and
42
dismal track record (Faguet, 2004). Unlike its European predecessors, the U.S. does not possess the intellectual infrastructure, bureaucracy, technocrats, and funds to dedicate itself to the long-term task of nation-building. This was true for Grenada, Panama, or present day military operations in Iraq or Afghanistan. The Iraqi Coalition Provisional Authority under the leadership of Paul Bremer was ineffective in assuming the Post-war reconstruction of Iraqi infrastructure, rebuilding the army, police, and leading a successful transition of the newly formed government to democratic rule because of corruption, cronyism, cost overruns, and budget shortfalls. Current U.S hegemonic objective does not see post-war reconstruction as being relevant to its in maintaining the status quo in terms of exerting its sovereignty because it based on a false illusion that America's post-WW II dominance rests on two pillars and one commodity - unchallengeable military power and the dollar as the world's reserve currency along with the quest to control global oil and other energy resources (Ledman, 2009). As we have seen, the turmoil of the financial market lately has dictated on whether the U.S. dollar will continue on as the worlds reserve currency is hanging on a thin thread (Barnes, 2011). Indeed U.S. financial hegemony as the worlds dominant economy will descend into economic Armageddon if the dollar collapses in conjunction with a deficit default. 3. By virtual default, the U.S. has unilaterally designated itself the protector of global collective security. By being the only dominant superpower after the fall of the Soviet Union the U.S. looked upon its presence in the world through a unipolar perspective in the 21st century (Calleo, 2009, p. 4). It was decided that the best way to capitalize on its dominance was to leverage its hegemony by pursuing a foreign policy objective
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State that was unilateral and offensive oriented in its approach in dealing with would-be-
43
aggressors, the crafted a policy called full spectrum dominance (Ackerman, 2009). Full spectrum dominance is the U.S. strategy for domination of the entire planet, a goal no earlier great power had ever achieved, though many had tried. Its agenda was to control everything everywhere including the high seas air, space and even outer space and cyberspace (Engdahl, 2009, p. vii). The ideology was the driving force, cornerstone, and foundation of the Bush Doctrine which pre-emptive strikes would be used to neutralize an enemy that was a threat to U.S. and world security (Shah, 2004). The Bush Doctrine had an uncanny similarly to the Gun Diplomacy of the British Empire (Levine, 2007). Therefore it was of coincidence when both the Americans and British invaded Iraqi to overthrow the corrupt dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and his cronies of the Baath Party. In both analogies, the Bush Doctrine and British Ideology of spreading Wespthalian economic and political policies to non-free nations had almost a religious tone about its nature. In fact both the Bush Doctrine and the British Empire emphasized that countries had a divine destiny to expand a hegemonic empire over subjected people. In his Inaugural Address in January 2001, George W. Bush clearly articulated his belief in his own and Americas divine calling to lead the world in an apocalyptic struggle between the forces of good and evil, and to shape the world after the American values of liberty, democracy and the free market (Northcott, 2004, p. 3). Such fervent beliefs did not stray off the beaten path of British Imperialism that saw British law and governance as the finest and noblest expression of humanity (Levine, 2007, p. 104). However, the false illusions of perfected statecraft, dominant political sovereignty, and hegemony did not sit well with the
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State international community during the era of heightened British Power or the 21st century American Empire. Both countries underestimated the discontent, ethnic tensions, and surging religious and political movements. In the case of the United
44
States it manifested itself in an unforeseen insurgency in Iraqi (Abedin, 2005). With the British Empire, it was the anti-colonial movements taking place in Africa and Asia which taxed its ability to maintain control because it had overextended its reach. It can be readily seen that the U.S. does not have complete controlled in channeling, directing, and controlling the forces of 21st century globalization because such a task is an impossibility given the unpredictable nature of the transpiring of world events. The Era of Globalization The overriding theme throughout this essay has been the effects that globalization has had on the sovereignty and governability of the nation-state. The world has become so interconnected through the avenues of technology, media, social networks, communication, finance, the environment, and trade that one small glitch in the stock market, rising food and fuel prices can have a detrimental effective on the internal social fabric of a country (Bell, 2008). These shifts are like a domino effect that can lead to ethnic tension, religious unrest, instability, and unpredictable violence that can quickly escalate into a full-scale civil war in fragile states. The driving factors behind the increases of state collapse are political, ethnic, environmental, social, and economical (Kasfir, 2004). The litany of fragile and failed states are numerous and include Yugoslavia, Sudan, Chechnya, Rwanda, Haiti, Liberia, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Chad, and Afghanistan. Conditions in fragile states are further exacerbated by extreme ethnic violence, black markets, armed gangs, raping and killing of innocent noncombatants for decades, and involuntary prostitution. These
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State ethnic and religious tensions are driven by patterns of animosity, hatred, and stereotypical
45
portrayals (Hagos, 2006). The evolution of dehumanization is called objectification, a process

through which the human subject becomes an object of contempt or hatred because he or she fails to meet certain established norms or criteria, of whatever nature (Hagos, 2006, p. 5). In fragile states that are being torn apart internally, seemingly normal citizens are driven into killing frenzies by dissident and opposing factions that capitalize on unstable situations for
maximum gains (Mueller, 2000). This cycle of violence and mayhem has constantly repeated itself with dire consequences in Rwanda, Yugoslavia, and Somalia. Unstable nation-states can threaten the peace and stability within a region if left unchecked. Often the security architect of the international system turns a blind eye to these conflicts because mediating an end to them offers no political or economic value to sovereign interest. These interstate crises evolve into intractable conflicts (Crocker, Hampson, & Aall, 2004) have designated these wars as neglect conflicts-conflicts that fail to appear on the radar screens of major states and are, to all intents and purposes, invisible to the eyes of the international community (p. 48). One has only to look to the huge economic cost of commerce vessels being increasingly hijacked by Somali Pirates in the Gulf of Aden (Sterio, 2009), because the failure of the international community to mediate an end to the Somali civil war.
Attempts by the United Nations, NATO, and other regional organizations and agencies to mediate, rebuild, and establish law and order in broken societies have been inconsistent at best. Originally peacekeeping was based on a Cold War. Peacekeeping during that era concentrated on being a buffer zone between the U.S. and USSR spheres of influence (Ghoniem, 2003). The efforts of Peacekeeping into the internal affairs of failed and fragile states have been besieged with operational and security problems. Among these are:

1. Underfunding, provision of equipment, and technical assistance by members of the UN
46
Security Council (Jones, Gowan, & Sherman, 2009). Usually the securing of funding,
equipment, supplies, and troops from member states amounted to political jockeying of influence and determining how a political countrys national interest would benefit. In addition, other countries objected to sending troops and supplies on Peacekeeping missions because they felt it violated their sovereignty. They were uncomfortable of having their troops under the commander of a foreign flag.
2. Troops that were provided were poorly trained for the objectives of the mission. Most
of the troops provided for UN Peacekeeping missions came from poor countries which lack the resources to properly train, instill discipline, and equip their soldiers. This was the case in the Sierra Leone Civil War when a UN force was outnumbered -- 8,700 against 45,000 rebels -- outgunned, and in all ways no match for the hardened rebels they are being asked to police (Maren, 2000).
3. Peacekeeping operations by NATO, EU, and the UN lacked a clear operative
objective. The nature of warfare and conflict had changed in the 21st century because both NATO and the continued to treat these missions in the same manner as it had the Cold War missions of the preceding forty years. The peacekeepers received missions with ambiguous mandates, limited authority, minimal combat capabilities, and convoluted chains of command (Masten, 2002, p. 9). Warfare in strife-torn states such as Yugoslavia, Somalia, and the Sudan had descended to low level intensity conflicts, hybrid wars, and asymmetrical warfare (Masten, 2002; McGuen, 2008). These wars are driven by political and religious ideologies such as Islamism. The technological evolution of the 21st century such as internets, satellite phones, and social media as
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State enabled insurgents to become faceless entities that readily blend in with the population. Past attempts by military planners within NATO, the European Union, and the United Nation to
47
combat and counteract the growing influence and capabilities of these groups in providing sector security in war-torn societies have met with mixed results. In many instances, poorly planned peacekeeping missions in Somalia and Yugoslavia have resulted in collateral damage, reckless warfare, destruction, and the killing of noncombatants (Raskin, & West, 2008; Mandel 2004). The use of the military in counterinsurgency operations in failed states has been ineffective because they had not been properly trained in counterinsurgency operations within a peacekeeping framework or command structure. The industrial army (Mulloy, 2007, p. 7) of the Cold War era of Western nations are the visible faces in the nation-states projection of power, leveraged hegemony, and sovereignty. Therefore in order to effectively combat the forces of insurgency in fragile states that they have a peacekeeping presence in, the international system must come to the realization and understanding that it is the post-industrial or post-modern
ST
military forces that must take the strain in the 21 century, and be equipped and trained to cover a massive spectrum of tasks, and expect neither a clean and simple outcome, nor a necessarily popular outcome (Mulloy, 2007, p. 7). In order to rectify the short-comings of the peacekeeping process and help to stabilize faltering countries, the UN and the drafted a document called Responsibility to Protect (Evans & Sahnoun, 2001). The document served as a political litmus test for conditions authoring the International Community to utilize the use of force in interfering into the affairs of a sovereign state. The report dubbed this humanitarian military intervention (p. 9). At least four objectives had to be met in order for intervention to take place:
48
1. to establish clearer rules, procedures and criteria for determining whether, when and how to intervene; 2. to establish the legitimacy of military intervention when necessary and after all other approaches have failed; 3. to ensure that military intervention, when it occurs, is carried out only for the purposes proposed, is effective, and is undertaken with proper concern to minimize the human costs and institutional damage that will result; and 4. to help eliminate, where possible, the causes of conflict while enhancing the prospects for durable and sustainable peace (p. 11). Yet even though the purpose of the document was to determine ground rules for all good intentions purposes because it was flawed because the international community felt bound by an antiquated Wespthalian System in which sovereignty is recognized as existing in the head of the state. In other words, sovereign in the sense that it was exclusivist: no other states or governments could or were allowed to exercise competitive jurisdiction over the territory and people of another state (The African Studies Centre, 2003, p. 3). The problem in viewing sovereignty in this context is that members of the Wespthalian system located in the former Third World relapsed or now threaten to relapse into what might be deemed a premodern phase of state evolution in which there is no question of sovereign control or an effective monopoly of violence but many parallel and competitive manifestations of exercising power over people and territory (p. 4). By adhering to this regimented straitjacket concept of sovereignty, the international system has elected to turn a blind eye to the abuses that heads of state perpetuate against their people amidst a sea of totalitarian or authoritarian rule. This situation came into play when the ICC (International Criminal Court) issued a warrant for
49
the arrest of Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir (International Criminal Court [ICC], 2009). The warrant represented charging a sitting head of state of crimes against humanity (p. 1). Among the charges leveled against President Al-Bashir included murder, extermination, forcible transfer of population, torture, rape, intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population and pillaging (p. 1). It was one thing to charge President Al-Bashir of major human rights abuses, but it was another to gather the cooperation of other nation-states to bring him to the seat of justice which was the ICCs headquarters in The Hague, Netherlands. To the international community particularly the UN, enforcing the warrant for Al-Bashirs arrest represented a clash of commitment (Ginsburg, 2008). And other governments did not recognize the authority of the ICC to override the affairs of a sovereign state. This was particularly true if a government was fighting an insurgency and its actions might be misconstrued as human rights abuses. It is the precise reason that the U.S. did not sign the Roman Statute on July 14, 1998 authorizing the creation of the ICC and went into existence July 1, 2002 as a viable legal entity. The Bush administration at the time believed that the GWOT (Global War on Terror) (Rogers, 2009), would become victimized by the ICC and hold individual commanders responsible for their battlefield decisions and action. The creation of the ICC was but one part of the process of the establishment of International Law through a series of ratified treaties. This has been the core principle of the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia where individual recognition of the sovereignty of nation-states based on the belief the benefit of the other (Beaudry, 2003). In actuality, the Wespthalian Mode of the nation-state flies into the face of the international community trying to erect and forge a new emphasis on global human security (Battersby & Siracusa, 2009). In order for the international
50
community to arrive at that destination, the time has come now for a new political construct that recognizes and redefines the sovereignty of the nation-state while at the same upholding the importance of security in the global community in the 21st century. Reinterpretation of Political Sovereignty in the 21st Century The Wespthalian concept of the nation-state has been the foundation for the conducting of affairs of states between nations for over four hundred years. Its existence was predicated on the concept that nation-state absolute sovereignty trumped the international system because geographic territorial boundaries were viewed by each competing country as hegemonic exceptionalism. Therefore the premise was that many states (particularly the weaker) value that under international law all are seen and treated as equally sovereign (Thomas, 2004, p. 4). In practical terms though, absolute sovereignty was used as a pretext for intrusions by other nations into the internal affairs of other countries for opportunistic ventures in the name of national interest. The construction of the international system by various states was meant to afford protection to lesser states in the recognition of their political sovereignty. Thus that flawed premise of nation-state sovereignty remained virtually intact despite two world wars, a depression, natural disasters, coups, and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Globalization has though has dramatically changed the outlook, complexity, and purpose of the nation-state. It is the character and conduct of nations that shape and harness the forces of globalization for the projection of sovereignty, hegemony, and influence in the global community today. In The Character of Nations, (Codevilla, 2009) writes that as nations we choose for ourselves what we think and how we live (p. 29). Nation-states are at a pivotal point where cooperative hegemony (Keohone, 1984, p. 10), is needed for the survival and integrity of the international system and the countries themselves. That means the respect of cultural
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State boundaries, governmental institutions, customs, and religious doctrines of individual nations while at the same time holding governments accountable for the treatment of their citizens. It means protecting the infrastructure, governmental institutions, and economies of nation-states from the ravages of unregulated globalization through the implementation and ratification of prudent international laws and treaties that governs its conduct but allows commerce and trade between countries. There needs to be a dramatic shift from a unilateral focus such as the Bush Doctrine to one that is multipolar and dimensional. Nations can no longer be Empire oriented such as the Romans or British but instead must gravitate to an earth community where the
51
emphasis is concentrated on the processes of mutual empowerment that encourage every person to recognize and express their capacities for leadership on behalf of the whole (Korten, 2006, p. 316.). Thus sovereignty is not only multipolar but also dimensional. All of these attributes of fostering in a new earth community can be defined as dimensional political sovereignty. Looking through the glass of dimensional political sovereignty, its core principle is that the nation-state serves as the central nerve of the international order. It act as a solar conductor of the various forces of globalization whether it be political, economic, or commerce. It filters out the harmful effectives of globalization such as trade speculation, pre-emptive war, fringe transnational religious and political movements, and geographical territorial ambitions through hegemonic cooperation that serves in the best interest of individual nation-states. The path to the concept of multi-dimensional political sovereignty has been an evolutionary process through the stages of demos, res publica, commonwealth, nation-state, and nationalistic global community. Its tenets are peace, prosperity, security, and liberty for individual nations and their citizens. That is the
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State path that the global community must pursue in order to preserve the future for generations of mankind.
52
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State References Abedin, M. (2005, July 15). Anbar province and emerging trends in the Iraqi insurgency. Terrorism Monitor. The Jamestown Foundation, 111, 4. Ackerman, S. (2009, April 6). Full spectrum dominance and a triumph for counterinsurgents. The Washington Independent. Retrieved from http://washingtonindependent.com/37453/full-spectrum-dominance-and-a-triumph-forcounterinsurgents. Amitage, D. (2004). The ideological origins of the British Empire. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Aninat, C., Benavente, J. M., Briones, I., Eyzaguirre, N., Navia, P. & Olivari, J. (2010, April). The political economy of productivity: the case of Chile. IDB Working Paper No. 22. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1807607. Ataturk.com. (n.d.). Mustafa Kemal Alaturk. Retrieved from
53
http://www.ataturk.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=26. Barbieri, K., & Reuveny, R. (2005, November). Economic globalization and civil war. The Journal of Politics, 67, 4, 1228-1247. Barbu, Z. (1956). Democracy & dictatorship: their psychology & patterns of life. New York, NY: Grove Press. Barnes, J. (2011, May 13). U.S. dollar rebound: Infection points the dollar into a winner. Money Morning. Retrieved from http://moneymorning.com/2011/05/13/u-s-dollarrebound-inflection-point-turns-the-dollar-into-a-winner/. Barry, T. (2003, February 17). Our backyard Pax Americana. Americas Program Discussion Paper. Retrieved from http://www.americaspolicy.org/reports/2003/0302paxam.html.
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State Battersby, P., & Siracusa, J.M. (2009). Globalization and human security. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Bauman, Zygmunt. (2000/2006). Liquid modernity. Cambridge, England: Polity Press. Beaudry, P. (1995, July 3). The commonwealth of Frances Louis XI: Foundations of the nation-state. Readings from the American Almanac. Retrieved from http://american_almanac.tripod.com/louisxi.htm. Beaudry, P. (2003, May). The economic policy that made the peace of Westphalia. The benefit of the other. The Schiller Institute. Retrieved from http://www.schillerinstitute.org/strategic/treaty_of_westphalia.html. Bell, E. (2008, May). The world bank in fragile and conflicted-affected countries: How, not, how much. International Alert. Benjamin, T. (2007). (Ed). Encyclopedia of western colonialism since 1450. (1st Ed), 1. Detroit, MI.: Thomson Gale. Besson, Samantha. (2004, September 9). Sovereignty in conflict. European Integration Online Papers (EIOP), 8, 15. Retrieved from http://eiop/texe/2004-015a.htm. Bhuta, N. (1999). Justice without borders: prosecuting General Pinochet (1999). Melbourne University Law Review, Vol. 23, No. 2. Retrieved from SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1143490. Billington, G. (1997, April 7). Why the Asian Tiger miracle is an endangered species. Readings from the American Almanac. Retrieved from http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/tigers.htm. Brenner, N., Jessop, B., Jones, M., & Gordon, M. (2003). (Eds.). State/Space: A reader. Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishing.
54
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State British Broadcasting Company. (2005, August 9). King Leopold II and the Belgian Congo. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A4429064. Brzezinski, Z. (1997). The grand chessboard: American primacy and its geostrategic imperatives. New York, NY: Basic Books. Bush put in trade barbs right before big summit. (2007, June 6). The Seattle Times. Retrieved from http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003736025_bush06.html. Calleo, D.P. (2009). Follies of power: Americas unipolar fantasy. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Carother, T. (2007). U.S. democracy promotion during and after Bush. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Choudhry, S. (2005). Old imperial dilemmas and the new nation-building: Constitutive constitutional politics in multinational polities. Connecticut Law Review, 37. Retrieved from SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1624064. Chua, A. (2003). World on fire: How exporting free market democracy breeds ethnic hatred & global instability. New York, NY: Doubleday. Cicero, M.T. (1841/1842). The political works on Marcus Tullius Cicero: Comprising his treatise on the commonwealth and treatise on the laws. (vol 1.). (F. Barham, Trans.) London, England: Edmund Spettigue. Retrieved from http://files.libertyfund.org/files/546/Cicero_0044-01_EBk_v5.pdf. Codevilla, A.M. (2009). The character of nations: How politics, makes and breaks prosperity, family, & civility. New York, NY: Basic Books.
55
Conrad, J. (1902). Heart of darkness. Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/2073186/Heartof-darkness.
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State Cooper, R.N., Kaiser, K. & Kosaka, M. (1977). Towards a renovated international system. triangle papers: 14. New York, NY: Trilateral Commission. Retrieved from http://www.trilateral.org/go.cfm?do=file.showdirectory&list-Triangle-Papers. Cramer, K. (2007). The thirty years war & German memory in the ninetenth century. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Crocker, C.A., Hampson, F.O., & Aall, P. (2004). Taming intractable conflicts: Meditations in the hardest cases. Washington, D.C.: United State Institute of Peace Press. Bhuta, N. (1999). Justice without borders: prosecuting General Pinochet (1999). Melbourne University Law Review, Vol. 23, No. 2. Retrieved from SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1143490. Davies, S. (2004). Stalin and the making of the leader cult in the 1930s. In Apor, B., Behrends,
56
J.C., Jones, P., and Rees, E.A. (Eds.). The leader cult in communist dictatorships: Stalin & the Eastern Bloc. Hampshire, England Palgrave MacMillan. Dell, P. & Skelton, D. (2005). Great empires of the past: Empires of Alexander the Great. New York, NY: Infobase Publishing. Doyle, C. (1909). The crime of the Congo. (4th ed.) London, England: Hutchinson & Co. Dunn, C.C., Alvarez, A. & Pasciuti, D. (2005). Power and size: urbanization and empire formation. In Dunn, C.C. & Anderson, E.N. (Eds.). The historical evaluations of worldsystems. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillian. Dunn, C.C. & Anderson, E.N. (2005). (Eds.). The historical evaluations of world-systems. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillian. Eck, W. (1998/2007). The Age of Augustus. (2nd ed.). (D.L. Schneider, Trans.). Munich, Germany: Blackwell Publishing.
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State Engdahl, F.W. (2009). Spectrum dominance: Totalitarian democracy in the new world order. Baton Rouge, LA: Third Millennium Press. Evans, G. & Sahnoun, M. (2001). The responsibility to protect. Report of the international commission on intervention and state sovereignty. Otttawa, CA: Published by the International Development Research Centre. Faguet, J.P. (2004, May-June). Building democracy in quicksand: Altruism, empire, and the United States. Challenge, Magazine of Economic Affairs, 47, 3, pp. 73-93. Flower, H. I. (2010). Roman republics. Princeton, N.J. Princeton University Press. Friedman, T. (1999/2000). The Lexus and the Olive Tree. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux. Retrieved from www.thomasfriedman.com/bookshelf/the-lexus-and-the-olivetree. Froese, M. D. (2007, November 9). The myth of American exceptionalism and the tragedy of neoconservative foreign policy. Retrieved from SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1028658. Fukuyama, F. (1992). The end of history and the last man. New York, NY: The Free Press. Fulcher, J. (2000, November). Globalistan, the nation-state and global society. The Sociological Review, 48(4), 522-543. Gandhi, J. (2008). Political institutions under dictatorship. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Garrison, J. (2004). America as empire: Global leader or rogue power. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. Gelb, B. A. (2006, January 3). Russian oil & gas challenges. Washington, D.C. Congressional Research Service.
57
58
George. (2004, October 8). Definition of politeia. (Discussion Group Comment). Retrieved from Elpenor: http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/koinonia/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=19. Ghoniem, A.A. (2003, Winter). United Nations peacekeeping operations: Improvements for mission success. Ginsburg, T. (2008, November 18). The clash of commitments at the international criminal court. Chicago Journal of International Law, Forthcoming; U of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper No. 251; Center on Law and Globalization Research Paper No. 09-03. Retrieved from SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1303849. Glick, R. & Ramon, M. (1997). The East Asian miracle: Growth because of government intervention and protectionism. Money Watch.com. Retrieved from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1094/is_n2_v32/ai_19545596/. GlobalSecurity.org. (2000/2011). Brazil generals coup (1964). Retrieved form http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/brazil.htm. Goldstein, M. (2003, February). Debt sustainability, Brazil, and the IMF. Institute for International Economics. Number WP 03-1. Gross, Oren. (2005, May 20). 17th International conference, Italy. Retrieved from The Concept of 'Crisis': What can We Learn from the Two Dictatorships of L. Quinctius Cincinnatus. Retrieved from SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=742506 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.742506. Hagos, M. (2006/2007/2008). Enemy images and cultural racist discourse: How and why the West creates enemy images and the social consequences thereof. Hamaguchi, N, Ferraz, J.C., & Rocha, C.F.L. (2003, March). A study on the impact of economic
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State liberalization in Brazil. 1995-2002. Institute of Developing Economies-Japan External Trade Organization (IDE-JETRO). Harvey, D. (2003). The new imperialism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. HitEleven. (2010, March). The thirty years war-the first total war? (Discussion Group Comment). Retrieved from Historum, The History Discussion Forum: http://www.historum.com/war-military-history/12638-thirty-years-war-first-totalwar.html.
59
Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan or the matter, forme, & power of a common-wealth ecclesiastical and civil. Retrieved from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm. Hoffman, F.G. (2007, December). Conflict in the 21st century: The rise of hybrid wars. Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. Hooker, W. (2009). Carl Schmitts international thought: Order and orientation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Hornqvist, M. (2004). Machiavelli & empire. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Huntington, S. (1993, Summer). The clash of civilizations. Foreign Affairs, 72, 3, p. 22. Hutchinson, M. (2009, April 12). Chile: the one country that was prepared for the financial crisis. Money Morning. Retrieved from http://moneymorning.com/2009/04/02/chile-economy/. Ikenberry, G. J. (2003). Is American multilateralism in decline. Perspective on Politics, 1, 3, pp. 533-550. Retrieved from http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=174775 DOI: 10.1017.S1537592703000380. International Criminal Court. (2009, March 4). Sudan-Darfur/ICC. The international criminal
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State court issues and arrest warrant for President Al-Bashir. Israel, J. (2002, January 29). Whats the target of the U.S. move into central Asia. (Blog Message). Retrieved from the Emperors New Clothes: http://emperorsclothes.com/news/sco.htm.
60
Jones, B., Gowan, R., & Sherman, J. (2009, April). Building on Brahimi. Peacekeeping in an era of strategic uncertainity. Center on International Cooperation. A Report by the NYU Center on International Cooperation. Submitted to the UN Departments of Peacekeeping Operations & Field Support for the New Horizons Project. Jubilee Debt Campaign. (2009, January). Time to tame the vultures. Retrieved from www.jubileedebtcampaign.org.uk/vultures. Kagan, R. (Summer, 1998). The benevolent empire. Foreign Policy. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/pqdweb?index=16&did=30106246&SrchMo de=3&sid=1&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=13 06279916&clientId=62546&aid=1. Kasfir, N. (2004). Domestic anarchy, security dilemmas and violent predation. Causes of failure. In Rotberg, R. I. (Ed). When states fail: Causes & consequences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Keat, D. (2007, May). Economic partnership agreements: Responses to the EU offensive against developmental regions. Amsterdam, Holland: Transnational Institute. Kelly, M. J. (2005). Pulling at the threads of Westphalia: Involuntary sovereignty waiver revolutionary international legal theory or return to rule by the great powers? UCLA Journal of International Law & Foreign Affairs, 10, 2, 361, Retrieved from SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=960581
61
Keohone, R.O. (1984). After hegemony: cooperation & discord in the world political economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Khor, Martin. (1998, September 1-15). Malaysia institutes radical exchanges and capital control. Third World Network. Retrieved from http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/radical-cn.htm. Khor, Martin. (2004, January 18). Revisiting how Malaysia overcome the financial crisis. Third World Network. Retrieved from: http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/gtrends1.htmhttp://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/gtrends1.h tm. Kiely, R. (2005). Empire in the age of globalistan: U.S. hegemony and neoliberal disorder. Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto Press. Kipling, Rudyard. (1899). The white mans burden. UCLA Asia Institute. (Originally published in McClures Magazine). Retrieved from http://www.international.ucla.edu/eas/documents/kipling1899.htm. Klein, N. (2007). The shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books. Korten, D.C. (2006). The great turning: From empire to earth community. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. Lange, M. (2010). Democracy and British plantation colonialism. APSA 2010 Annual Meeting Paper. Retrieved form SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1642831. Larner, W., & Walter, W. (2004). (Eds.). Global governmentality: Governing international spaces. London, England: Routledge, Taylor, & Francis Group. Lendman, S. (2009, June 22). Full spectrum dominance: Totalitarian democracy in the new
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State world order: Review of F. William Engdahls book. Centre for Research on Globalization. Retrieved from http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14046. Levine, P. (2007). The British empire: Sunrise to sunset. London, England: Pearson Longman. Lewis, A. (Ed). (2006). Ancient tyranny. Edinburgh, England: Edinburgh University Press.
62
Lobell, S.E., Ripsman, N.M., & Taliaferro, J.W. (2009). (Eds.). Neoclassical realism, the state, and foreign policy. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. McCuen, J.J. (2008, March-April). Hybrid wars. Military Review, pp. 107-113 MacroHistory & World Report. (2001/2011). The thirty years war. Retrieved from http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h25-war.html. Maletta, H. E. (2007, September). A catastrophe foretold: Economic reform, crisis, recovery and employment in Argentina. Retrieved from SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=903124. Mahan, A.T. (1890). The influence of sea power upon history, 1660-1783. (12th ed.). Boston, MA: Little Brown, & Company. Retrieved from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13529/13529-h/13529-h.htm. Mandel, M. (2004). How America gets away with murder: Illegal wars, collateral damage and crimes against humanity. London, England: Pluto Press. Maren, M. (2000, May 9). Outmanned, outgunned in Sierra Leone. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/09/opinion/outmanned-outgunned-insierra-leone.html. Masten, R.G. (2002). The path to Srebrenica: United Nations peacekeeping missions of the 1990S: Failures of the maxim of neutrality, international political will, legitimacy, and
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State unity of effort. Mohamed, D. M. (1998, October 4). Measure for economic recovery. International Monetary Fund World Bank Group. Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org/html/extdr/pos98/dmm100498.htm. Mohan, C.R. (2009, April 22). China may build up to six aircraft carriers. Indian Express.
63
Retrieved from http://www.indianexpress.com/news/china-may-build-up-to-six-aircraftcarriers/450000/. Morel, E. D. (1904). King Leopolds rule in Africa. London, England: William Heinemann. Mueller, J. (2000, Summer). The banality of ethnic war. International Security, 25, 1. Muir, R. (1917). The character of the British Empire. London, England: Constable & Company Limited. Mulloy, G. (2007, October 4-6). Adapting militaries to peacekeeping and policing rules: The effectives on peacekeeping on militaries and the stresses & strains of operations. In proceedings of the second annual conference of human security, terrorism, and organized crime in the Western Balkan Region. Organized by the HUMSEC project in Sarajevo. Nelson, E. (2004). The Greek tradition in republican thought. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Nicol, J. (2008, September 8). Russia-Georgia conflict in South Ossetia: Context & implications for U.S. interests. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service. Nijjer, A.S. (n.d.). Post-cold America: Hegemony or empire. North Atlantic Treaty Organization. (2009, March 10). NATO member countries. Retrieved from http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/nato_countries.htm. Northcott, M. (2004). An angel directs the storm: Apocalyptic religion and American empire.
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State London, England: I.B. Taurus & Co. Ltd. Opello, Walter C. Jr. & Rosow, L.R. (1999). The nation-state and global order: A historical
64
introduction to contemporary politics. (2nd Ed.). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Osorio, C. (2006, March 23). (Ed.). On 30th anniversary of Argentine coup. new classified details on repression and U.S. support for military dictatorship. The National Security Archives. Retrieved from http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB185/index.htm. Payne, M. (2007). Ancient Greece. Great Britain: Pocket Essentials. Pan, P.P. (2009, January 4). Russian gas embargo on Ukraine is felt in East Europe. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/01/03/AR2009010301738.html Pelaez, C.M. & Pelaez, C.A. (2008). Globalization and the state: International institutions, finance, the theory of the state, and international trade. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillian. Perry, G. E. & Servn, L. (2003, June 12). The anatomy of a multiple crisis: Why was Argentina special and what can we learn from it? (June 12, 2003). World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 3081. Retrieved from SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=636443. Phillips, N. (1998, November). Globalisation and the 'paradox of state power': perspectives from Latin America. Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation. WP No. 16/98. Retrieved from SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=146960 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.146960. Polaski, S., Filho, J.B. de S., Berg, J., McDonald, S., Thierfelder, K., Willenbockel, D., & Zepeda, E. (2009). Brazil in the global economy: measuring the gains from trade. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Pinder, S.O. (2011, February). The nation state in the era of globalization: Some challenges.
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1, 2, 139-148. Retrieved from http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol._1_No._2;_February_2011/19.pdf. Poon, S. H. (1999, October). Malaysia and the Asian financial crisis: A view from the finance Perspective. Lancaster University Management School, Accounting and Finance Working Paper No. 99016. Retrieved from SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=187349 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.187349. Polaski, S., Filho, J.B. de S., Berg, J., McDonald, S., Thierfelder, K., Willenbockel, D., & Zepeda, E. (2009). Brazil in the global economy: measuring the gains from trade. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Pure Asset Trader (Video Podcast). (2011, May 5). Greenlands giant-killer: The worlds most valuable piece of land just slipped chinas fingers. (With Brian Hicks). Retrieved from www. Angelnexus.com/o/web/26486.
65
Raskin, M. & West D. (2008, October 10). Collateral damage: A U.S. strategy in war. Paths for reconstruction in the 21st century. A Project of the Institute for Policy Studies. Rogers, P. (2009, November). Global security after the war on terror. Oxford, England: Oxford Research Group. Rojas, R. (1992). Notes on ECLAs structuralism and dependency Theory. The Robinson Rojas Archive. Retrieved from http://www.rrojasdatabank.info/ecla1.htm. Rosen, S. (2005). Platos republic: A study. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Rotberg, R. I. (2004). (Ed). When states fail: Causes & consequences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Ruh, M. (n.d.). Privatization under Pinochet. Neoliberalism-Neostructuralism Seminar. Retrieved from http://tiss.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de/webroot/sp/barrios/themeC1e.htm.
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State San Jose State University Department of Economics. (n.d.). The economic system of corporatism. Retrieved from http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/corporatism.htm. Setser, B. & Gelpern, A. (2005, September 15). Argentina's pathway through financial crisis. Rutgers School of Law-Newark Research Papers No. 016; GEG Working Paper No. 2004/02. Retrieved from SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=884225. Shah, Anup. (2004, April 24). The Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strikes: A global Pax Americana. Global Issues. Retrieved from http://www.globalissues.org/article/450/thebush-doctrine-of-pre-emptive-strikes-a-global-pax-americana. Sharma, Shalendra. (2003). The Asian financial crisis: Crisis, reform, and recovery. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.
66
Sharp, G. (20022003/2008/2010). From dictatorship to democracy: a conceptual framework for liberation. (4th Ed.). Boston, MA: The Albert Einstein Institution. Smith, P. (1920/1936). The age of the reformation. New York, NY: Henry Holt & Company. Spannaus, Edward. (2000, May 15). What is the general welfare. Readings from the American Almanac. Retrieved from http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/welfare.htm. Sterio, M. (2009, September 4). Fighting piracy in Somalia (and Elsewhere): Why more is needed. Fordham International Law Journal, Forthcoming; Cleveland-Marshall Legal Studies Paper No. 09-178. Retrieved from SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1468021. Straumann, B. (2007, September). The peace of Westphalia (1648) as a secular constitution. Constellations, 15, 2; IILJ Working Paper No. 2007/07. Retrieved from SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1018731. Strum, L. (n.d.). Similarities and differences between neostructuralism and neoliberalism.
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State Neoliberalism-Neostructuralism Seminar. Retrieved from http://tiss.zdv.unituebingen.de/webroot/sp/barrios/themeA3c.html. The African Studies Centre, Leiden, The transnational institute, Amsterdam, the center of social studies, Coimbra University, the peace research center-CIP-FUHEM, Madrid. (2003, December). Failed & Collapsed States in the International Systems. The Thirty Years War Homepage. (1999/2005). The thirty years war. Retrieved from http://www.pipeline.com/~cwa/TYWHome.htm.
67
Thomas, H. (2004, September 29-October 1). Cosmopolitan sovereignty. Institute for Citizenship & Globalisation. Referred paper to Australasian Political Studies Association Conference. University of Adelaide. Thorley, J. (2004). Athenian democracy. New York: Routledge, Taylor, and Francis Group. Tritle, L. A. (2010). A new history of the Peloponnesian war. West Sussex, United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell Tsygankov, A.P. (2010). Russias foreign policy. In Wegren, S.K. & Herspring, D. R. (Eds). After Putins Russia: Past imperfect, future uncertain. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Twain, M. (n.d.). The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated. The Phrase Finder. Retrieved from http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/368850.html. Vanderlippe, J. (2005). The Politics of Turkish Democracy: Ismet Inonu and the formation of the multi-party system, 1938-1950. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Wallerstein, I. (1976). The modern world-system: Capitalist agriculture and the origins of the European world-economy in the sixteenth century. New York, NY: Academic Press.
The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State Wallerstein, I. (1997). The rise and future demise of world-system analysis. Retrieved from fbc.binghamton.edu/iwwsa-r&.htm. Weikart, R. (2009). Hitlers ethic: the Nazi pursuit of evolutionary progress. Hampshire, England: Palgrave MacMillan.
68
Weisbrot, M. & Sandoval, L. (2007, October). Argentinas Economy Recovery: Policy Choices & Implications. Center for Economic & Policy Research. Williams, J.K. (2005). Great empires of the past: Empires of Ancient Greece. New York, NY: Infobase Publishing. Zahedi, D. & Bacik, G. (2010, April 23). Kemalism is dead, long live Kemalism. Foreign i. Retrieved from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66391/dariush-zahedi-andgokhan-bacik/kemalism-is-dead-long-live-kemalism

The Challenge &amp Complexities of Nation-State Sovereignty in The Era of 21st Century Internationalism

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

The Challenge &amp Complexities of Nation-State Sovereignty in The Era of 21st Century Internationalism

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State

The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State

Keywords: political sovereignty, globalization, nation-state, international order, Treaty of

Westphalia, imperialism, neo-colonialism.

The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State

The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State

The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State

The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State

The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State

The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State

The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State

The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State

The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State

portrayals (Hagos, 2006). The evolution of dehumanization is called objectification, a process

The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State

The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State

The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State

The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State

Conrad, J. (1902). Heart of darkness. Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/2073186/Heartof-darkness.

The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State

The Challenges & Complexities of Nation-State

Вам также может понравиться