Globalization and the Nation-State

Colorado Environmental Law Journal Colorado Environmental Law Journal

Volume 13Number 1

Article 5

Globalization and the Nation-State Globalization and the Nation-State

Jayantha Dhanapala

Jayantha Dhanapala*

I. INTRODUCTION

The future role of environmental nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) will be affected profoundly by the evolution of the complex process known as globalization, and by the ever-changing structure known as the nation-state. Yet these NGOs will also have the potential to mold these prominent features of our international landscape for the good of all and to ensure their harmonious coexistence for the common benefit of humankind.

II. SOVEREIGNTY, GLOBALIZATION, AND INTERDEPENDENCE

An essential link between globalization and the nation-state is the concept of sovereignty-a term dating back several centuries, well be-

fore the nation-state system was established in 1648.' Originally intended as a reference to the establishment of order within a state, sovereignty has since been interpreted by some as a legal quality that places the state above the authority of all external laws.

Yet, whenever a state exercises its sovereign right to sign a treaty, it also willfully limits its freedom of action by the very act of undertaking an international legal obligation. States are also bound by other rules, such as customary international law. With these formal legal limitations, sovereignty stubbornly persists even in an age of globalization, and is manifested in such functions as the coining of money, the gathering of taxes, the promulgation of domestic law, the conduct of foreign policy, the regulation of commerce, and the maintenance of domestic order. These are all functions that are reserved exclusively to the state, a condition that the European Union is challenging today on many dimensions of governance, but has by no means overcome.

Over the years, states have discovered that their interests are better advanced within a broader system of binding rules than without such a system. Rules help to define rights, including property rights, as well as duties, including duties to do and not do certain things. Precisely what these rights and obligations are depends on a complex web of political, In our current age, economic, cultural, and technological circumstances. globalization is having a profound effect upon national and international rules. For example, globalization is influencing the norms that govern world commerce, transportation, and environmental protection, to name only a few.

There is, however, no universally agreed upon definition of globalization. It made its debut in Western public policy circles in the mid1980s-replacing "interdependence"--and was at the time generally viewed in an economic context.3 Globalization simply referred to a largely commercial process involving rapid increases in the exchange of goods, capital, and services across national frontiers. Much of this literature relied heavily upon earlier work focusing on the role of multina-

tional corporations, with global networks of vertically integrated subsidiaries and affiliates.4

Expanded flows of commerce across borders, to be sure, had many benefits. Increased commerce provided profits, jobs, economies of scale, and lower unit costs, while increasing the variety of goods available for everyone to buy. This commerce was facilitated by important technological trends, like the increased speed and declining cost of longdistance transportation (both of passengers and of cargo) and similar developments in the field of telecommunications. Simply put, it was not just getting easier to do business across national borders, but it was highly desirable to the growing numbers of potential beneficiaries of this commerce.

Some observers over the ages have even implied that unfettered trade would be a key to world peace, since states-and the large economic interests within them-would be most reluctant to let wars interfere with the cool logic of mutual economic gain.5 Journalists, social scientists, and political leaders joined their economist friends in heralding a new age of interdependence--one that promised a more rational way of going about the world's business and one less influenced by unilateral actions of nation-states, including the use of force.

Yet, any fair assessment of interdependence must go back somewhat further in history than the last few decades or so, for the concept is actually much older. Several historians, economists, and political scientists throughout the twentieth century used the term extensively in their writings.6 They understood that the world economy was highly interdependent even well before World War I. A recent study by the International Monetary Fund found that "[b]y some measures, international economic integration increased just as much in the fifty years before World War I as in recent decades, and reached comparable levels."7

Many of these writers were also keenly aware of another dimension of interdependence-namely, its potential to make armed conflicts much more devastating. Distinguished observers like Norman Angell, Leonard Woolf, Francis Delaisi, and Ramsay Muir wrote extensively on this

theme, and questioned the adequacy of the nation-state to meet the economic and security challenges of the new century.8

In short, the close interdependence of the world's economies did not only offer great benefits, but also entailed great risks and great responsibilities for governmental reform. The capacity to generate wealth clearly did not come with any guarantee that this new wealth would be distributed equitably. Economic trends show that the gap between the rich and poor-both within and between nations-has generally widened, even in the prosperous decade of the 1990s.9 Inter-dependence also entails crossborder exchanges of negative externalities including environmental pollution, risks of international pandemics, and additional dangers arising from clandestine markets for arms, components of weapons of mass destruction, narcotics, and even illicit transfers of various forms of industrial wastes.

Globalization is an ongoing process, not a completed condition. Against the grand tapestry of history, it has arguably just started. It has grown from a purely economic or technological concept, and now implies evolutionary change on a cultural dimension as well. Information communicated through modem print and electronic media is not just affecting commerce, but shaping worldviews, relations inside families, and attitudes of citizens to the state. Globalization, however, has still not significantly touched an extraordinary proportion of humanity and hence has not yet truly earned its name.

United Nations (UN) Secretary-General Kofi Annan has spoken repeatedly about how unevenly the benefits of globalization have been distributed. He has noted the existence of a "digital divide," in which only five percent of the world is connected to the World Wide Web-eighty percent of which is published only in English.'0 He has repeatedly noted in his speeches that half of humanity has neither received nor made a simple telephone call." As for the economic benefits, he notes that almost half of humanity still lives on less than two dollars a day, and that

over a billion people earn less than one dollar a day.12 Whether one looks at the availability of drinking water, sanitation, educational opportunities, or other crucial facets of human development, one can see that globalization per se has offered no cure-all for humanity's welfare needs. In Nor has globalization ushered in a golden age of world peace. the decade since the end of the Cold War, over five million people have been killed in armed conflicts around the world 3-about a million more than the entire population of the state of Colorado. Today, the world is spending around $800 billion on military expenditures-approximately eighty-five percent of the level spent during the Cold War.'4 There are also an estimated 30,000 nuclear weapons remaining that, if used in a global conflict, could eliminate all the gains of globalization in just a few ' minutes.

III. THE NATION-STATE

Many of the brightest prospects, as well as the worst potential risks, of globalization stem from the fate of the nation, in particular its association with the administrative structure known as the "state." The idea that each nation should have, or coincide with, its own state goes back many years before the doctrine of national self-determination was enshrinedalbeit selectively-in the Versailles Treaty after World War I. Though there is considerable disagreement over the formal definition of the term, the communitarian nation differs from the administrative machinery of the state much as the human spirit differs from the bones and muscles of one's body. The nation is not an administrative contrivance, but a form of collective social identity, one that is based on a common historical, linguistic, and cultural heritage.

Historically, the leaders of states have relied upon nations as a base of support for official laws and policies, indeed as a basis for their own legitimacy. As the backbone of political power of the administrative state, the nation has rallied behind many great causes, including many of the progressive reforms in social, economic, and environmental policies of the twentieth century. Yet since Napoleonic times, the nation has also been associated with the age of total war, of horrific conflicts between the peoples of the world, rather than just their professional armies. This unfettered spirit of the nation, when combined with the revolutionary advances in military technology in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, has led to the bloodiest years in the history of humanity. Even today, the nation-along with its associated ideology, nationalism-continues to provide a formidable obstacle to constructive international cooperation on an enormous variety of common global problems.

In an age of total war, of instant global communications and fast, cheap travel, the nation-state has appeared to many observers as a quaint, even dangerous anachronism. Even a hard-core realist like Hans Morgenthau was drawn to declare thirty-five years ago that:

Modem technology has rendered the nation-state obsolete as a principle of political organization; the nation-state is no longer able to perform what is the elementary function of any political organization: to protect the lives of its members and their way of life....

The modern technologies of transportation, communications, and warfare, and the resultant feasibility of all-out atomic war, have completely destroyed this protective function of the nation-state. 16

Contemporary observers and leaders alike have devoted considerable effort throughout the postwar years in the pursuit of measures to go-in the popular parlance-"beyond the nation-state." The functionalist approach of Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman-the pioneers of the European Union-sought to tackle this problem by building habits of cooperation in relatively non-sensitive areas of economic and cultural activity in the belief that, in due course, these habits of cooperation would spill over into more sensitive areas. Habits can be powerful political forces indeed. As Samuel Johnson once said, "The chains of habit are too weak to be felt until they are too strong to be broken."'7

Obsolete though it may be in many ways, the nation-state nevertheIndeed, less persists, as do, quite obviously, a multitude of nations. many of the legal and political principles of exclusivity commonly associated with the nation-state are enshrined in the great treaty linking all countries, the Charter of the UN. Yet, at the start of the new millennium, we are also seeing the gradual emergence of an awareness throughout the world of our common humanity and the planet as a whole rather than simply the sum of its parts. This synthesis of the global community and the nation-state as the fundamental units of sustained political activity is but another way of thinking about the process of globalization. The idea here is not to replace the nation-state, but to adapt it to be more responsive to human needs under new global conditions.

Without a doubt, the best expression of the synthesis that is now underway can be found in a historic document issued in September 2000 after the Millennium Summit at the UN, the largest-ever gathering of world leaders. This document, called the UN Millennium Declaration, consists of a statement of common values and principles, as well as a list of specific common objectives.'8 Specific global initiatives are outlined in the areas of peace, security, and disarmament; development and poverty eradication; protecting the environment; human rights, democracy, and good governance; protecting the vulnerable; meeting the special needs of Africa; and strengthening the United Nations.' 9

It is noteworthy that the primary agent for pursuing these common,

global goals remains the state. The declaration itself, for example, wasunlike the Charter-a statement by "heads of State and Government," 0 In this document, these leaders emphatically renot by their peoples.2 dedicated themselves "to uphold the sovereign equality of all States," to respect their "territorial integrity and political independence," and to reaffirm their commitment to "non-interference in the internal affairs of It is hard to read this language and conclude that the state is States.' obsolete.

Yet, to read only those passages pertaining to the state would be to ignore other parts of the declaration that clearly seek to move the focus of political action to the betterment of all humanity. Hence, one finds listed among the key values of the new declaration a "collective responsibility to uphold the principles of human dignity, equality and equity at

the global level. The document declares the existence of a duty "to all the world's people," and refers throughout to "our common humanity.23 What makes this declaration so interesting is not only the solid consensus behind it, but its brilliant synthesis and redefinition of ends and means in the new millennium. The document puts forward clear global goals and relies upon states as key agents in pursuing those ends on behalf of all humanity. The Declaration offers states a road map of initiatives they should follow for the collective good of all.

In the area of protecting the environment, for example, the Declaration's language calls upon states to embrace and implement numerous international conventions and understandings, including the Kyoto Protocol and the principles of sustainable development enshrined in the Rio 24 Declaration. The actions needed to enforce such agreements do not materialize from nowhere; the declaration continues to depend heavily upon enlightened action by states.

IV. GLOBALIZATION AND THE NGOs

This begs the question: how is it possible to motivate structures of the state, which have for centuries sought to maximize the interest of specific local nationalities, to implement instead policies that serve the global common good? Even if it were possible to place an enlightened leader at the head of every government on Earth, there would be no guarantee that the complicated machinery of the state would respond to this solemn new responsibility. Global values simply cannot be imposed upon states from the outside; they must be embraced by states from within. The state is a neutral administrative structure that can be used for purposes both good and bad. It is neither inherently nor inevitably the enemy of globalization.

The central challenge of our time is not to achieve the end of the nation-state, but to rehabilitate its ends. Globalization must mean more than simply the sterile process of expanding markets. In presenting his Millennium Report to the General Assembly a year ago, SecretaryGeneral Kofi Annan offered the following observations:

To make a success of this great upheaval, we must learn how to govern better, and-above all-how to govern better together. We need to make our States stronger and more effective at the national level.

And we need to get them working together on global issues, all pulling their weight and all having their say.25

A few days later he described the following as needed for a wellfunctioning international system: "[u]ltimately, national action is the determining factor. If there is a single idea that embodies the sum total of national action, that idea is good governance.

The essence of good governance is popular participation, transparency, and public accountability. Strong laws to protect the environment, for example, are forged as a result of a sustained political process, a process involving persistent efforts throughout civil society. Enlightened leaders in government require popular participation to adopt laws and policies to meet genuine human needs, just as the groups in society that are advocating such reforms must also depend upon official authorities to promulgate and vigorously enforce such reforms.

In this light, NGOs can be a catalyst for what is truly good about globalization. Though they are elected by no one, and lack legal authority themselves to govern, they play a crucial role in helping the state to identify new goals. NGOs are also essential in educating the wider public of the need for action, and providing political support that government leaders need to enact new laws, to implement new policies, and to see that they are enforced. Additionally, NGOs will have a role in exposing inefficient and ineffective policies and in mobilizing demands for constructive change.

V. CONCLUSION

If it is true that the nation-state is likely to remain a prominent reference point in the "cartography of governance"-the subject of this publication-it is also true that the specific role of this administrative structure will be determined by more than structural or topographic features of a political system. To this extent, what might be called a "meteorology of governance" is needed as well, for it addresses the dynamic, though often unpredictable, processes that occur across the political land-

scape. If the winds of political change are to sweep into the dusty halls of government, they will originate from the same place from which they have always arisen-the voices of the people.

To overcome the numerous institutional obstacles to change, broadbased coalitions must be formed among the people. Environmental NGOs can accomplish much through their own hard work and focused efforts. They can accomplish much more, however, through networks of alliances with other groups throughout civil society that share a commitment to the common good. These are the kinds of networks that led to the conclusion of the Mine-Ban Convention and the campaign to create an International Criminal Court.27 Similarly, the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty owes much of its existence to sustained work by people around the world who were concerned about the health and environmental effects of atmospheric nuclear testing.28

This track record indicates that the nation-state and globalization are surely not mutually exclusive concepts. Working together, they have the potential to be among humanity's most effective means of improving life on this planet for all and on an equitable basis. This challenge is nowhere more important than in international peace and security, and nowhere more demanding than in the area of disarmament.

If the collective aim is inclusive, results-based globalization, clearly environmental NGOs have already made an excellent start in their combined efforts, not to eliminate the state, but to channel its significant resources toward achieving responsible, collective ends. This is the solemn task of environmental NGOs in the future-mobilizing a stubborn Its best partners in this grand defense of our common global heritage. endeavor will remain an informed public, like-minded groups, a state guided by enlightened laws and policies, and a common global forum to coordinate and integrate different pathways to our collective ends.

The fate of these collaborative efforts will profoundly shape both the cartography and meteorology of governance in the new millennium. They will determine whether humanity will find itself facing the dawn of a new millennium, or the encroaching darkness of its last sunset.

--- FOOTNOTES ---

Part of the Environmental Law Commons

* Jayantha Dhanapala is the Undersecretary-General for Disarmament for the United

Nations. Originally from Sri Lanka, Mr. Dhanapala is a leading authority in disarmament issues. Previously, Mr. Dhanapala served as Diplomat-in-Residence at the Center for Non-Proliferation Studies of the Monterey Institute of International Studies in California. Mr. Dhanapala has also served as a member of the Canberra Commission, a group of 17 international disarmament experts who published an influential report on nuclear disarmament in 1996. Prior positions include serving as president of the Review and Extension Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and serving as Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations from 1984-1987. In 1987, Mr. Dhanapala was appointed Director of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research. From 1995-1997, Mr. Dhanapala served as Sri Lanka's Ambassador to the United States. The author wishes to record his debt to Randy Rydell, who assisted in the preparation of this paper.

1. This is the date of the Peace of Westphalia, marking the end of the Thirty Years

War and the birth of the modern state system of international relations.

2. J. L. BRIERLY, THE LAW OF NATIONS 7-16, 45-49 (Humphrey Waldock ed., Ox-

ford Univ. Press 6th ed. 1963) (1928) (discussing these two dimensions of sovereignty).

3. See generally Alan M. Webber, Globalization and Its Discontents, HARV. Bus. REV., May-June 1985, at 38; Theodore Levitt, The Globalization of Markets, HARV. Bus. REV., May-June 1983, at 92 (explaining globalization as a relatively new and inherently economic concept).

20021

4. See, e.g., RICHARD J. BARNET & RONALD E. MOELLER, GLOBAL REACH: THE

POWER OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS (1974).

5. See ADAM SMITH, AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF

NATIONS (R. H. Campbell & A. S. Skinner, eds., Liberty Classics 1981) (1776).

6. An early example is RAMSAY MUIR, THE INTERDEPENDENT WORLD AND ITS PROBLEMS (1933). For a more recent exposition, see ROBERT 0. KEOHANE & JOSEPH S. NYE, POWER AND INTERDEPENDENCE: WORLD POLITICS IN TRANSITION (1977).

7. INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND, WORLD ECON. OUTLOOK, May 1997, at 112.

8. NORMAN ANGELL, THE GREAT ILLUSION (1913); L. S. WOOLF, INTERNATIONAL GOVERNMENT (1916); FRANCIS DELAISI, POLITICAL MYTHS AND ECONOMIC REALITIES (1925); MUIR, supra note 6.

9. UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME, HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT, at

16-17, 19 (2001).

10. Press Release, U.N. Secretary-General, Secretary-General Calls for Action to Accelerate Debt Relief for Poor Countries, U.N. Doc. SG/SM/7499, at http://www.un.org /News/Press/docs/2000/ 20000728.sgsm7499.doc.html (July 28, 2000).

11. Press Release, U.N. Secretary-General, Hailing World Space Week, SecretaryGeneral Says "Final Frontier" Means Bridging Divide Between Technology's Haves, Have-Nots, U.N. Doc. SG/SM/7573, at http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2000 /20001004.sgsm7573.doc.html (Oct. 4, 2000).

12. Press Release, U.N. Secretary-General, Secretary-General Stresses Global Responsibility to Work for More Equitable World Economy, U.N. Doc. SG/SM/7589, at (Oct. 13, 2000); http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2000/20001013.sgsm7589.doc.html Press Release, U.N. Secretary-General, Secretary-General, Receiving Honorary Degree in Yaounde, Cameroon Highlights Keys to Africa's Full Participation in Global Economy, U.N. Doc. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2000 at /20000502.sgsm7376.doc.html (May 2, 2000).

SG/SM/

7376,

13. Jeffrey Boutwell & Michael T. Klare, A Scourge of Small Arms, SCI. AM., June

2000, at 48, available at http://www.sciam.com/2000/0600issue/0600boutwell.html.

14. Elisabeth Skons et al., Military Expenditure and Arms Production, 2001 SIPRI

Y.B. (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) 223, 224-25.

15. Natural Resources Defense Council, NRDC Nuclear Notebook: Global Nuclear

Stockpiles, 1945-2000, BULL. ATOM. ScI., Mar.-Apr. 2000, at 79.

16. Hans J. Morgenthau, Introduction to DAVID MITRANY, A WORKING PEACE

SYSTEM 9 (Quadrangle Books 1966).

17. Quotation attributed to Samuel Johnson. Anncath-Roby Books, Quotations on

Habits, at http://www.wow4u.com/habits (last visited Oct. 13, 2001).

18. United Nations Millennium Declaration, G.A. Res. 55/2, U.N. GAOR, 55th

Sess., Supp. No. 49, at 4, U.N. Doc. A/55/49 (2000).

19. Id. at 5-9. 20. Id. at 4. 21. Id.

,,22

22. Id. 23. Id. 24. Id. at 7.

,,26

25. Press Release, U.N. Secretary-General, Addressing Inequities of Globalization "Overarching Challenge" of Times Says Secretary-General, Presenting Millennium Report to General Assembly, U.N. Doc. SG/SM/ 7343, at http://www.un.org/News /Pressldocsl2000/20000403.sgsm7343.doc.html (Apr. 3, 2000).

26. Press Release, U.N. Secretary-General, in Havana on Eve of First "Group of 77" Summit Meeting, Evokes Promises and Pitfalls of Globalization, U.N. Doc. SG/SM/7357, at http:/www.un.orglNews[Pressldocs/2000/20000412.sgsm7357.doc.html (Apr. 12, 2000).

27. For information on the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, which led to the Mine-Ban Convention, see http://www.icbl.org. For information on the Coalition for an International Criminal Court, which led to the campaign to create an international criminal court, see http://www.igc.org/icc.

28. Gunnar Jahr, Presentation Speech, The Nobel Peace Prize for 1962, at

http://www.nobel.se/peace/laureates/I962/press.html (last modified Mar. 1, 2001).