There is an argument in international relations that state sovereignty is being undermined by globalisation. Scholars argue new global powers are bringing about the end of state sovereignty as states are losing the ability to effectively govern their own societies and economies. (Ohmae 1995, Scholte 2000 in McGrew 2014: 16) This essay however will attempt to reaffirm the importance of the sovereign state despite globalisation, initially through examining some arguments for the proposed idea, and secondly through adopting a realist perspective on the issue.
Sovereignty is defined by Heywood (2014: 4) as the “supreme and unquestioned authority” and, he says, what gives a state sovereignty, is its ability to govern itself and make its own laws. …show more content…
This essentially supports the realist view that states are self-interested. Hobbes (1651/2009) argues that humans are programmed to pursue their own self-interest, and that states operate in the same way, just on a larger scale. Russia’s reasons for siding with al-Assad’s regime seem to fit this idea, and if Hobbes’ theory, often attributed to the realist school of thought, is to be believed, it successfully explains why state sovereignty remains important after globalisation. As was established in an earlier point, states remain sovereign over their own laws. State sovereignty continues to be important because it is against human, and state nature for this to change. If Hobbes is correct, state sovereignty is natural because if states wish to act within their own interest, it is within their own interest to make their own laws. In order to make their own laws, and pursue their own interests, they must be independent, with authority over themselves. Therefore using the Hobbesian argument it can be surmised that state sovereignty remains important after the effects of globalisation as states continue to be naturally independent and pursuant to their own interests despite globalisation promoting interdependence and co-operation. In addition to the example of Russia, the 2003 US invasion of Iraq can also be used as an example of a state pursuing its own interest in this way. Vaughn and Keller (2006: 79) note the invasion was “Lacking UN approval or credible evidence of imminent danger necessitating immediate preemptive action…” while scholars such as Scholte
Sovereignty is defined by Heywood (2014: 4) as the “supreme and unquestioned authority” and, he says, what gives a state sovereignty, is its ability to govern itself and make its own laws. …show more content…
This essentially supports the realist view that states are self-interested. Hobbes (1651/2009) argues that humans are programmed to pursue their own self-interest, and that states operate in the same way, just on a larger scale. Russia’s reasons for siding with al-Assad’s regime seem to fit this idea, and if Hobbes’ theory, often attributed to the realist school of thought, is to be believed, it successfully explains why state sovereignty remains important after globalisation. As was established in an earlier point, states remain sovereign over their own laws. State sovereignty continues to be important because it is against human, and state nature for this to change. If Hobbes is correct, state sovereignty is natural because if states wish to act within their own interest, it is within their own interest to make their own laws. In order to make their own laws, and pursue their own interests, they must be independent, with authority over themselves. Therefore using the Hobbesian argument it can be surmised that state sovereignty remains important after the effects of globalisation as states continue to be naturally independent and pursuant to their own interests despite globalisation promoting interdependence and co-operation. In addition to the example of Russia, the 2003 US invasion of Iraq can also be used as an example of a state pursuing its own interest in this way. Vaughn and Keller (2006: 79) note the invasion was “Lacking UN approval or credible evidence of imminent danger necessitating immediate preemptive action…” while scholars such as Scholte