POL 1046 Order and Disorder The Shaping of the 2 Essays - Culture

POL 1046: Order and Disorder: The Shaping of the 21st Century When compared to the 20th century in what ways, if at all, is state sovereignty different in the 21st century? Pierson outlines in his common features of the modern state that sovereignty is integral to what can can be defined as a state (Pierson: 2004). Sovereignty is commonly understood as concept of a state being the highest political authority over a given population, corroborated with Max Weber's academically durable definition of a state as a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory' (Weber: 2009). The 20th century saw the proliferation of sovereign states directly resulting from the end of colonialism and peace building in the aftermath of World War II (Tokar: 2009) and as such marks somewhat of a high point' in the trajectory of global state sovereignty. However, challenges of a globalised world and the rollback of the traditional powers of a state means that such sovereignty is compromised, and as such the question arises - are durable enough to survive adjustment, or does the 21st century prove to be a f undamental challenge to the concept of tradition of sovereignty? In considering a comparison of state sovereignty between the two centuries we must first look to globalisation as a defining characteristic of 21st century national politics. In comparison to the 20th century which was dominated post-1945 by the proliferation of the nation-state (Tokar: 2001) globalisation has in recent years created a world that is ever-increasingly interconnected and interdependent, and as such the role of the state as definitive, sovereign authority has decline (Held and McGrew: 2003). In particular, globalists point to the recent, yet rapid, rise of transnational corporations which operate across territorial boundaries, and are thus almost beyond the control of any single state. Barber notes that in the modern age corporations are more central players in global affairs than nations We call them multinational but they are more accurately understood as post national' (Barber: 2003) and what we are able to understand from this is that the power an influence of successful companies that have a global reach have created a world where nation-state are no longer the main actors - the political and economic scope of companies now far outreaches that of states. With the expansion of the welfare state in the 20th century, one of the key areas from which the state derived its sovereignty was its ability to raise revenue, as this meant the state had resources to be able to exercise complete power (Spuryt: 2002). However, in a globalised world where the investment of large co rporations is invaluable, even financially stable economies are put under immense pressure to cut corporate taxes to appeal to such organisations - Ireland famously cut corporate tax by up to 12.5% to attract investment from companies such as Google, which would in turn create jobs and promote inward investment (Knight: 2012). If we are to refer to Hinsley's assertion that a state can only be truly sovereign if no final and absolute authority exists elsewhere' (Hinsley: 1986) then the rise in influence of transnational corporations certainly detracts from the idea of states as sovereign, as they are no longer the sole authority of their own political or economic landscapes. Technological advancement is considered to be one of the main drivers of globalisation, and with the 21st century digitisation of business and finance, we are able to see the eradication of territoriality in terms of the flow of capital, ideas and information (Ohmae: 1990, Sassen: 1996). This diminishes the idea of state sovereignty as the main source of security against internal and external threats. Whereas in the 20th century, nation-states and their associative militaries were the main actors in conflicts, the 21st century has seen a rise in perpetrators of violence below state level. Transnational groups such as rogue militias and terrorist groups that do not operate within a given territory are now able to organise through improvements in communications, whilst states struggle to monitor their activity (Falkenrath: 2001). The transnational nature of 21st century crime and terrorism means that states must ask collectively to develop counter terrorism measures,