Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

The place of Globalisation in

International Relations.

An analysis of globalisation debate in International Relations.

By Emery Pacifique Igiraneza

I.

INTRODUCTION

In the last few years, there has been debate among political parties in the UK regarding the European
Constitution. The debate which once more high lightened the complex relation between the state and
globalisation. On one hand those who manifested the fear they had for a liberal Europe and for globalisation did
so because in their view, liberal Europe and globalisation would take over the role of the state as a major player
in global politics leaving it weakened and therefore leading to its decline. The state, conceived as the territory
limited by frontiers in which it exercises its sovereignty would therefore see its prerogatives weakened by the
progression of globalisation, understood as the process of international integration arising from the interchange
of world views, products, ideas, and other aspects of culture.(Al-Rodhan. 2006). On the other hand, those who
supported a liberal Europe and globalisation did so because they believed that the world was changing and that
states were no more the only actors in international affairs.
This kind of debate is not only a reality among playwrights or politicians. Globalisation is a subject of
discussion in many fields of social science studies including in International Relations. In International Relations,
the debate has been more about defining globalisation and the role of the state in a globalising world, the
globalists arguing that Globalisation might have replaced International Relations in signifying dramatic changes
in international relations(Kofman and Youngs, 2003) and that transnational institutions of global governance are
emerging while the sceptics like ,Justin Rosenberg, disapprove and argue instead that the age of globalization
is unexpectedly over (Ibid)and that there is still much to be gained from focusing on state as a key actor if not
the only actor.
The aim of this essay is to analyse critically this debate about globalisation in International Relations. It seeks
to expose the problem of definition in globalisation debate in international relations and determine whether the
states are still the major actors or whether the states are being replaced by transnational institutions of global
governance as major actors. In order to be able to do so, this paper will first seek to dig in the debate about
globalisation in order to explore what is at stake in the debate and prove how the state is still a major actor even
in the era of interconnected world.
II.

GLOBALISATION DEBATE: A PROBLEM OF DEFINITION AND TRADITIONS

There are two main issues in globalisation debate in International relations: One has to do with the problem of
definition while the other has to do with the anthological approach that the debate has taken. This chapter will
first expose the definition problem and then explore the problem related to the anthological approach
1. Definition Problem
Due to its complexity, globalisation has been one of the words defined differently by many contemporary scholars
in Social Sciences. I should mention here that even scholars in the same field of study do not tend to understand
globalisation in the same way. In international relations for instance, Jan Aart Scholte, one of the respected
scholar in the field , sees globalisation as representing a broad and deep change signifying the need for a
paradigm shift in the social sciences (Martin Shaw,1999).This view is not shared by Michael Nicholson, another
scholar in International Relations . For Him, the novelty of globalisation trends appears overstated.(Ibid)
This tendency of viewing globalisation in more than one way have affected the way it is defined by scholars.
Different groups of theorists choose carefully their definition of globalisation according to their schools of
thoughts. The sceptics prefer to adopt rather strictly defined conceptions of what globalization consists of,
whereas globalists tend to accept less discriminating definitional standards. Jan Aart Scholte, in his famous book
Globalizatical: a critical introduction recognises the complexity of defining globalisation. He enumerates five
different views of globalisation.

He says that one common notion has conceived of globalisation in terms of internationalisation.(Scholte,
2005.p16) For this view, globalisation is nothing new since global is just another adjective to describe what was
before referred to as cross-border relations between countries. According to Scholte, this represents the first
conception of globalisation.
Another concept of globalisation is the one that sees is a liberalisation. In this concept, globalisation refers to a
process of removing state-imposed restrictions on movement between countries in order to create an open
borderless world economy (Scholte, 2005.p16). The increasing abolition of regulatory trade barriers, free
movement of capitals and people in certain regions are evidences that are referred to by supporters of this
concept to prove their point.
Scholte continues by saying that the third concept has equated globalisation with universalization. (ibid) Here,
global will mean worldwide. Globalisation will therefore be the process of spreading various objects and
experiences to people at all corners of the earth. We could therefore have globalisation of electronic devices
such as South Korean Mobile phone or globalisation of Indian Restaurants, decolonisation, and much more.
Another group of scholars have defined globalisation as Westernisation in American form (Americanisation).
According to this view, globalisation is a dynamic where by the social structures of modernity (capitalism,
rationalism, industrialism, bureaucratism, individualism, and so on) are spread the world over, normally
destroying pre-existing cultures and local self-determination in the process. (Ibid). This concept sees company
such as McDonald, Shell or Total as promoting a new form of imperialism. In fact, this has led scholars like Khor
to declare that globalisation is what we in the Third Wold have for several centuries called colonisation.(Scholte,
2000)
The last, not the least concept of globalisation is referred by Scholte as Respatialisation. This means that
globalisation entails a reconfiguration of social geography with increased trans- planetary connections between
people.(Ibid) This seems to be the moderate and inclusive concept of globalisation. This is the concept that
scholars like David Held and Anthony McGrew have chosen to opt for.
The above five concepts of one word globalisation proves how it has become one of the complex word to
define. The fact that it has more than one concept and that it very contested makes it hard to have one common
definition. Even Jacques Derrida, a French postmodern philosopher who developed a form of semiotic analysis
known as deconstruction agrees that globalisation is a complex concept and doubt whether it can define
everything it claims to signify:
It (globalisation) is a confused concept and its the screen for a number of non concepts and sometimes of
political tricks and political strategies. Of course something like globalisation is happening-not only today of
course, it started along ago-but today there is an acceleration of this mondialisation, but as you know, using this
word , this key word, allows a number of political appropriations in the name if free market for instance. People
try to have us swallow the idea that globalisation means the free market or that the concentrations of teletechnological communication beyond the states are what makes globalisation possible, and should be supported
or simply accepted. (Martin Shaw, 2000)
Derridas postmodernist view of globalisation is shared by many in International Relations as it is also contested
by many as I am going to demonstrate it in the later part of this chapter. But in order to have a working ground for
this essay, I will use the most common definition found in most text book for globalisation. It is the definition build
based on the concept which takes globalisation as respatialisation. With this concept, Held defines globalisation
as: a process or set of process that embodies a transformation in the spacial organisation of social relations and
transactions, generating transcontinental and inter-regional flows and networks of activity, interaction and power.
(Held, 1999)

I will be using this last concept of globalisation throughout this essay because of the following reasons:

It is the only definition which echoes all other concept of globalisation already mentioned.
It is the most used definition in international relations
It brings in the debate the issue of territoriality and the nation-state.
It does not overstate globalisation, neither does it understate it.

Since the next sub-topic will attempt to explore the ontological problem of the debate, a debate which is mainly
about the role of nation-state in a globalising world, it is the only definition that I have found to be more
appropriate for this essay. However, due to the broadness of this definition, this paper digs deeper into it and tries
to distinguish the three forms of globalisations that are expressed in it. The last part of that definition refers to
the flows and networks of activity, interaction and power. All these three elements happen in an economic,
cultural or political context. Globalisation, according to this definition will have cultural, economic and political
dimension. This essay focuses on the political form of globalisation only since this is mostly the one at stake in
the globalisation debate in International Relations. However, it is important to mention the other two forms of
globalisation so that it becomes clear how the political form of globalisation differs from the others.
2.

An anthological Problem

A close look at the debate will quickly notice an anthological approach of the debate. This means that the debate
has essentially been a dispute between state centric and non-state centric approach.
This is seen even in the contemporary literature about globalisation. For example Justin Rosenberg in his
Globalization Theory: A Post Mortem argues that the age of globalization is unexpectedly over (Justin,R. 2005)
emphasizing on the role of states in world affairs while Eleonore Kofman in Globalisation: Theory and Practice
suggests that globalisation might have replaced International Relations in signifying dramatic changes in
international relations, arguing that other actors have replaced states in world affairs. This debate is therefore
first and foremost between the globalists who can be divided in two groups: optimist globalists and pessimistic
globalists on one hand and the Sceptics who are mainly Inter-nationalists and Transformationalists on the other
hand.
For the Globalists, globalisation seems to be a real and tangible phenomenon. They see globalisation as an
inevitable development which cannot be resisted or significantly influenced by human intervention, particularly
through traditional political institutions, such as nation-states.(Held, 2004) The positive globalists focus on the
benefits of globalisation such as improvement of quality of life and bringing people together whereas the
pessimistic globalists see the world as becoming less diverse and more homogeneous. They put emphasis on
the dominance of western countries and Japan.
The sceptics dont see thing in the same way. They see globalisation as an old phenomenon with no major
impact in the world affairs. They believe that globalisation is a myth exaggerated by globalists. Their argument is
that nation-states remain militarily, economically and politically powerful.(Ibid,p23)
III.

CONCLUSION

A close look at these arguments from both theorists will detect on element of controversy. The nation-state! Is it
still a major if not a sole actor in contemporary world affairs as claims the sceptics or has it been replaced
considerably by other major players as the globalists claim it? My argument is somewhere in between the two
controversial statements. I argue that it is true that some other actors are emerging in the world affairs but they
emerge and act if and only if they are allowed and facilitated by the nation-states. Therefore, where the nation
states have lost their influence, they lost it voluntarily. My argument is based on the following facts:

First, globalisation has been accelerated by nation-states who not only opened the door for it but also promoted it
according to their own political and economic interests. For example, at the end of the second world war, America
proclaimed a new era in which it was going to expand its technological mighty to the rest of the world, support the
UN, strengthen freedom loving nations and continue the worlds economic recovery. (Truman inaugural
speech,1949) With USA proclaiming the expansion of technology which globalists praises for making
globalisation possible, it is quite clear that the USA as a state-nation was leading the agenda of globalisation,
therefore globalisation becomes an immediate result of a nation-states agenda.
Secondly, globalisation, at least its economic form, was made possible by the politic of deregulations and
adjustment policies of late 1980s which facilitated privatisation and therefore the movement of capitals. There is
no doubt that these policies were not only promoted but also implemented by nation-states. Here we can mention
for instance the Regan-Thatcher neo-liberal policies of free market, free trade, decentralised governments. If
these were statesmen initiatives, there is no way we can deny the obvious reality that the nation-states (in this
case USA and UK) were behind the promotion of globalisation as Giovanni and Beverly recall in their book chaos
and governance in the modern world system. (Giovanni and Beverly, 1999)
Thirdly, the world is still without a world government. This leaves the global governance vulnerable as global
conflicts and global security issues are still in the hands of nation-states to solve or stop. Even the so called UN
peace keeping is not allowed to fight a war. This task is still reserved to nation-states or alliances of nations.
Fourthly, nation -states can still choose to keep away from a globalising world (example of Iran and North Korea)
with some consequences of course.
With all those point enumerated above, there is a good ground of argument to suggest that even in a fast
globalising world, there is still significant scope for nation-states to be major actors in the world affairs. If nationstates have lost their influence to the benefit of new emerging world governance bodies, they did so voluntarily.
And as long as politics will be about who get what, when and how, global politics will always be dominated by
(powerful) nation-states.

Biography
Al-Rodhan, N.R.F. (2006). Definitions of Globalization: A Comprehensive Overview and a Proposed
Definition. Sustainable history. p 1-6.
David,H.. (1999). What is Globalisation. Available:
http://www.polity.co.uk/global/whatisglobalization.asp. Last accessed 5th Dec 2012.
David,H. (2004). A globalizing World? Culture, Economics, Politics. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. 22.
Eleonore ,K. and Gillian, Y. (2003). Globalization:Theory and Practice. 3rd ed.
3.

London: continuum.

Harry S. Truman. (1949). Harry S. Truman's 1949 inaugural address.Available:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman's_1949_inaugural_address. Last accessed 5th Dec 2012.
Giovanni,A. and Beverly,J.S. (1999). Chaos and Governance in the Modern World System.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 7.
Jan,A.S (2005). Globalization:a critical introduction. 2nd ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 16.
Justin,R. (2005). Globalization Theory: A Post Mortem. Palgrave Journals. 42 (1), 1-2.
Martin, S. (1999). Politics and Globalisation: Knowledge, Ethics and Agency. London: Routledge. 4.
Martin,S (2000). Theory of the Global State:Globality as an Unfinished Revolution. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. 4-5.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen