“Global governance” has increasingly become common sense within the political-economic sphere in the context of preaching for accountability and transparency. There is,however, a grey space that claims questions of what the end goal of such coherence is called for and who it seeks to serve. This paper shall descriptively delve into the need for Global Governance in today’s world and governance for the future while enumerating its corresponding challenges and criticisms.
“International solidarity is not an act of charity, it is an act of unity between allies fighting on different terrains towards the same objective. The foremost of these objectives is to aid the development of humanity to the highest level possible.” – Samora Machel
The international arena in the 21st century requires a catalyst to unify the world beyond borders and to build global institutions that can combat disparagement of the idea of globalisation. The resolution to this conundrum is the dilation and legitimisation of global governance. Global Governance is essentially a framework that proposes global relationship and a knit playing field integrating all spheres of a society including social, economic, political, cultural, and environmental sectors to revolve issues with a collective consciousness as liberalists would preach.
This is however unachievable without all actors in the system including, states, political figures and leaders, quasi state actors, corporate sector and institutions, NGO’s, MNC’s and the financial system collaborate to form a coherent structure that can vastly influence the grassroots of the system. This is parallel to the idea of mega diplomacy proposed by Parag Khana, a profound specialist in international relations. As Parag Khana stated, “We’re moving into a post Westphalian world, a world which is populated where the authoritative actors are not just governments. They are companies”. He explains how diplomacy has widened as a tool into diverse spheres such as private mercenary armies, AI and technology, humanitarian agencies and non-governmental organizations, the educational sector; schools and universities, religious institutions and organisations and much more. He believes that diplomacy stretches beyond multilateral institutions such as the United Nations and the World bank or bilateral relations between nation states themselves. This is more efficient as it uplifts the accountability held by state and non-state actors. It propagates a sense of global order and global citizenship in an interdependent world as an aftermath of proactively embracing globalisation.
While there is no universally accepted definition of ‘Governance’, The Commission of Global governance defines the same as ‘the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs’. It has posited that governance is ‘a continuing process through which conflicting and diverse interests may be accommodated and cooperative action may be taken’. The concept of Global Governance is viewed narrowly as a movement to address today’s issues while it is fundamentally much more. As Whitman (2009:8) stated, it is an instrument to help independent states reach out for help in the face of emerging international issues and come together to create the envisaged world of peace and harmony. This stems out of the inefficiency and the failure of global institutions. For instance, humanitarian relief having been sent to Rwanda in 1994 during the genocide by the UN enforcing the Tusi military could have deterred the massacre at its grassroots.
Globalisation backlash may be seen as a growing hindrance to the expansion of Global Governance as states are reluctant ant towards embracing the rapid interdependence often leading to circumstances and conflicts that arise out of intervention. Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations rightfully stated while addressing the assembly that “the Central challenge we face today is to ensure that globalization becomes a positive force for all the world’s people, instead of leaving billions of them in squalor”. While an ambitious concept, it may serve to be counterproductive in nature. The shift towards abandoning globalisation in neither desirable nor pragmatic. Revoking the systemic change, it has brought about for more than a decade now would bring along multifaceted problems hand in hand. It goes unrecognised, that the issue isn’t globalisation, but how we work around it and how it is managed. As rightly pointed out by Stiglitz, the macroscopic problem lies in the hands of the global financial institutions such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO), World Bank and The International Monetary Fund (IMF). They go beyond their mandates to ideally sere the best interest of the developed nations as opposed to the developing unindustrialised nations.
Need for Global Governance
Transnational policy challenges influencing nation states on an individual level see the need for cooperative global approaches within the contemporary world. This would require re-building of the mechanisms of global governance and its constant expansion to address global issues that are on the rise. Globalisation, being the epicentre of the framework, is array of opportunities alongside challenges. While the debate on pollution persists, issues such as terrorism, drugs abuse, arms proliferation, climate change, and data security have crossed national borders in search of global solutions. These while picked up within the domestic affairs of individual states within their political agendas, require integrated policy change in the international arena to be dealt with in an effective and constructive manner.
While viewed as transnational, the effects of global governance have a direct influence within the domestic there of each individual state. As Halabi (2004:23) stated, that the framework of global governance is best suited to manipulate globalisation’s forces, control its detrimental negative effects and recognises that globalization cannot lead to global governance like cooperation correspondingly may not be facilitated by the anarchy that prevails in the international system. In the anarchic system, the challenge stands as states seek authority, power and control. While this collective consciousness is imperative for change, the thirst for power breaks down the cooperation and leads to violations in search for a state of hegemony. While offensive realists would argue that this is natural, this state of neutrality is least beneficial for the scale of change that meets the eye. A multilateral approach is therefore the only possible explanation which not only levels the playing field for all but also doesn’t compromising on valuing the voices of each of its stake holders from time to time.
While the framework sounds equitable, it is impossible to isolate domestic values in a multilateral setting. Deliberation and debate may still lead to decision making that isn’t convincingly adhered to by all states. Hence, policy development needs to be holistic in nature.
One of the main challenges to Global Governance is state sovereignty. Stemming from the widely accepted grassroots of the Westphalian system that today UN carries forward in its mandate stated, “the concept of nation-state sovereignty based on two principles: territoriality and the exclusion of external actors from domestic authority structures ”. Global Governance can be maximised in the state of absence of state governments and a collective sense of shared sovereignty to create a cohesive international community.
The ability for nations to contribute to change may diversely vary corresponding to their standing and their state capabilities. As Halabi (2004:24)recognises, while global governance seeks to resolve disputes and issues, it does not restrict states in continuing to pursue wealth within the created structure of their own. Hence, we need a global interface that can pool in these independent capabilities and empower international actors to foster change.
Domination and subordination of states hinders the process of global governance. As pointed out by Mehta (2007:4), the idea of ‘international’ is often perceived as the G8 or the G20. The G8, while primarily focusing on economic issues are seen to represent and speak for the entire international community as they guide the forces of response to global issues and challenges. From an economic lens, the G8 as one might multilateral institution concentrates the power to manipulate the procedures of world economics. This prevailing hierarchy in the system therefore deters the comprehensive bridge between the rich and poor states, further breaking down the cooperation.
Limits of Global Governance
Some of the fundamental limits to the idea go Global Governance includes the force’s ability to comply with international rules, to maintain transparency, to be able to create win-win resolutions that are mutually beneficial in interstate disputes, and its ability to empower international organisations to deliver required international aid in terms of services and public goods for all nations to thrive in an equitable system. All nations have an intrinsic need to join these international organisations and institutions to prove their international legitimacy within the global community.
These challenges have been witnessed prominently in many spheres of transnational issues. The United States’ non-cooperation in the environmental protect through the implementation of the targets to reduce CO2 emissions that would help curbing global warming in accordance to the Kyoto protocol is an apt example of the same. The target of global poverty reduction has prompted international economic institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to strengthen their policies through the launch of CDF (Comprehensive Development Framework) and PRSP’s (Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers). Yet, the need for radical reformation persists. A report by the IFIAC, also known as the Maltzer Commission deduces the inefficiency of the World Bank by pointing out the inconsistency in its assistance provided to the social programs for the rural as its administrative work overlaps significantly with the domestic and regional developmental banks hence leading to low performance of the institution as a unit. The commission called for a privatisation of the World Bank’s lending operations leading to its conversion into a World Development Agency.
The field of human rights has been widely debated due to the lack of coherence and inconsistencies in policies that are adapted to the domestic affairs of each state. Human rights for the moral compass for global governance as violation proliferate across the globe. The asymmetry of information enables institutions and states to exercise policies that impede several rights that individuals are fundamentally entitles to. The use of policing, coercion and torture violate rights including their rights to food, health care, housing and many more. The conundrum of capital punishment and its violation to the fundamental right to life has been debated for decades. The implementation and an ability to uphold and maintain this moral compass of human rights is a test of the potential of Global Governance.
The breakdown of trade agreements highlights the over reliance and dependance of developing nations on the export of commodities that carry the brunt of collapsing prices. Such disputes and inequities within investment and trade may also be seen among large and advanced nations that seek to uphold leverage against one another such as the persisting trade conflict between USA and China. The shift in focus is therefore now on the diversification of exports that may be facilitated if Global Governance can effectively manage the forces of globalisation and streamline it through new international agreements supporting the price of commodities.
Last but not the least, the uprise of civil society conflicts and revolutions are grossly mismanaged. The recent measures taken by the United Nation of disputes such as the ongoing Syrian Civil War and unrest have led to questioning the legitimacy of the proposals passed through the Security Council and the body itself. While funding for the institution is always constituted as a fundamental issue, no constructive measure to rectify the same has been collectively formed by the member states of the international organisation.
While Global Governance seeks to benefit all, it is over ambitious and idealistic. There are several reforms that are imperative to its efficient implementation. Firstly, it is important to modify how states perceive state sovereignty and dismiss the threat that global governance poses to it. It is crucial to sustain he representation of state governments to retain the democratisation of global institutions. With that said, the international community has a heavy reliance on national governments as opposed to weakening them. Weak states carrying a contrasting perception are not only a threat to themselves but also to the framework of Global governance. Weak legitimacy in nations that may categorised as rogue states, fake democracies or quasi authoritarian states have a high degree of threat on their efficiency and potential. This is however enhanced in states that exercise more liberty and freedom, where the civil society representation is high.
Secondly, global governance requires an accountable and moral structure. These two elements must be universally recognised as backbones of the framework that are essential and uncontested. Subsequently, regional governance and domestic affairs must be trusted and respected to maintain development and management of state infrastructure and the preservation of natural resources. Emerging regional powers must refrain from dominating the playing field and facilitate trade and regional agreements to foster global governance by mobilising people, boosting imports and exports, and effectively managing resources.
Correspondingly, the needs to be an urgent democratisation of international economic institutions such as the UN, World Bank, WTO and IMF to filter and check the viability of proposals and measures taken. There needs to be a reiterated call for conformity of these revolutionary and policy making bodies with the cause of strengthening global governance, enabling them to efficiently respond to current and emerging global challenges. There needs to be an expansion of the Security Council that restricts the veto power in the hand of a few elitist nations and a reformation of the mandate of the UN enabling it to target short term goals making it more effective.
Lastly, the legal structure require reform. The international judiciary and legal system need to be strengthened adhering to the globalised relationships between states that supersede domestic dynamics of legal frameworks within states. International courts such as the ICJ and the ICC must take cognizance of the changing world that the seek to serve.
community must in tandem minis the unilateral rule and isolate the quest for
hegemony to create a system of cooperation and enable the upliftment of
subordinated sections of societies such as women, children, indigenous people,
underprivileged, refugees and many more. The structure should encompass all
state and non-state actors to help developing nations in the society meet the
Millennium Developmental Goals to ensure peace, harmony, uphold human rights,
reduce the detrimental effect of global warning on climate change, combat
terrorism, curb migration and nuclear proliferation alongside fostering growth
in the international, regional and individual state level. Global Governance is
there a vital instrument that seeks to intertwine global interests and look
beyond domestic foreign policies to form a global knit community that envisages
a world of peace and harmony. Yet the question prevails, is global governance
an answer to the echoing anarchy or a mere euphemism of a global government?
(n.d.). Retrieved from http://csmt.uchicago.edu/glossary2004/collectiveconsciousness.htm.
Bigthinkeditor. (2018, October 5). Parag Khanna on the Rise of Mega Diplomacy. Retrieved from https://bigthink.com/big-think-edge/parag-khanna-on-the-rise-of-mega-diplomacy.
Hägel, P. (2011). Global Governance. Oxford Bibliographies Online Datasets. doi: 10.1093/obo/9780199743292-0015
Whitman, J. (2009). Conclusion: The global Governance Prospect. Palgrave Advances in Global Governance, 189–203.
Speeches. (2019, February 13). Retrieved from https://www.kofiannanfoundation.org/topics/speeches/.
Halabi, Y. (2004). The Expansion of Global Governance into the Third World: Altruism, Realism, or Constructivism? International Studies Review, 6(1), 21–48.
Timberman, T., & Timberman, T. (n.d.). The Peace of Westphalia and its 4 Principles for Interstate Relations Isn’t Failing. Retrieved from https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/the-peace-of-westphalia-and-its-4-principles-for-interstate-relations-isnt-failing.
Halabi, Y. (2004). The Expansion of Global Governance into the Third World: Altruism, Realism, or Constructivism? International Studies Review, 6(1), 21–48.
Mehta, M. D. (2007). Good Governance. Encyclopedia of Governance.
Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia (suspended), the United Kingdom and the United States.
International Financial Institution Advisory Commission. (2016, December 23). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Financial_Institution_Advisory_Commission.
Why states undermined their sovereignty by signing NPT?
Nuclear weapons are known as brawny and cataclysmic weapons. The source of the energy of such weapons is fission and fusion of atoms. Such weapons release huge amount of radiation which can cause “radiation sickness”. Nuclear weapons were used once in a history in 1945. 80000 people were killed in Hiroshima and 70000 in Nagasaki. Due to the evidence of catastrophic impact, they have not been used in any war till today. The proliferation of nuclear weapons is a subject of concern in the international system. There are nine states which possess nuclear weapons: United States, United Kingdom, Russia, France and china. Proliferation is a spread of nuclear weapons both horizontally and vertically. In order to deal with the proliferation, NPT was introduced and still working globally.
NPT is known as “treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons”. It thwarts the states from acquiring nuclear weapons’ technology or developing fissile material for nuclear weapons. The NPT is a multilateral treaty which was opened for signature on July 1st 1968 and entered into effect on March 5th 1970. Its signatory parties are 186 which joined it either by ratification or accession. Russia, UK and US are its depositaries. According to this treaty the states which have manufactured nuclear explosives prior to January 1st 1967 are legal nuclear states which include US, UK, Russia, France and china also known as de-jure states whereas Pakistan, India, North Korea and Israel are de-facto nuclear states. There three main pillar of NPT:
- “Prevention of spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear technology.
- Promotion of co-operation in peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
- Achievement of nuclear as well as general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control”.
Since the formation of these contraptions, a lot of gloomy predictions were made like in 21st century 20 states would acquire nuclear weapons but only nine states have been observed as nuclear weapon states till today. However, 65 years ago almost 39 states were engaged in nuclear program but sooner or later they gave up their ambition. From the second half of the 1980, the states which were indulge in the nuclear activities were relatively low. This is because of the 186states have signed NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state and condemned proliferation. The question arises here is what motivate states to not acquire nuclear weapons. There are many theories from the past decade to answer this question are grouped into four overarching groups:
- International norms and perception
- Domestic political context
These are elaborated below:
The capability of any state regarding formation of nuclear weapons comprises on:
- Technological capability
- Economic capability
Development of nuclear weapon is not facile. Production of facile material is the most challenging and expensive, scientifically and technologically both. The transformation of that material into a deliveryweapon and development of the delivery system require technological and financial capabilities and which has become an effective obstacle for the less developed countries. As those countries don’t have advanced scientific and technological infrastructure and are not financially strong to afford the investment needed to start its own nuclear program. So, capabilities became a stumbling block for less developed states due to which they sign NPT as a non-nuclear state. But this is not only the decisive factor in taking decision whether to forgo nuclear weapons or not. Political willingness also play a crucial role in it because it devote a considerable share of states’ resources to military sector or public sector e.g. Pakistan and north Korea are poor states with less capabilities but they have developed nuclear weapons. So, it also depends upon the psychology of the leaders too. This point is concluded by saying:
“More highly developed countries proliferate more readily, less highly developed counters do so less readily”.
Security is the dominant theory to explain both questions: why states go nuclear and why not? Security is very appealing factor for the states to acquire nuclear weapons but acquiring nuclear weapons is not always the best way to ensure security. As this world is anarchic and states are rational unitary actor, so for the security, states go for self-help. But sometimes, acquiring nuclear weapons poses a greater threat than to forgo them because it may cause more distrust and tension among the adversaries. Due to the distrust one state may attempt pre-emptive strikewhich can cause nuclear war and end of the both states. So, to avoid this situation, state opted to go non-nuclear because in this condition it has not that’s much adversaries and can focuses on the other public sectors. According to the “prudential realism: “nations under certaincircumstances mayprudently forgo military capabilities that is threatening because states and security-conscious entities”. States which are involve in low intensity conflict would likely to go non-nuclear by signing NPT. Alliances also play an important role in security according to neo-liberalism. States are likely to go in alliance with any nuclear state in order to avoid the risk, cost and difficulties of nuclear weapon programs e.g. NATO countries are in alliance with US. But that nuclear state must give a guarantee of “positive and negative assurance security” so those states chose to sign NPT as a non-nuclear states.
International norms and perceptions also assist states in deciding whether to sign NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state or not. The norms of international system highly influence the perceptions of the states especially norms in the international treaties like NPT. States have a lust of prestige and status in international system. On the basis of non-proliferation norms, states perceive that their status and prestige would be increased by forgoing nuclear weapons. According to Jacques Hymans: “ most states think of themselves as, and want to be seen as , good international citizens and good international citizens don’t build nuclear arsenals”. Due to this reason, majority of thestates don’t acquire nuclear weapons. Constructivism is the basis of international norms and perceptions which have made normative situation for the states in general. NPT have changed the normative environment and situation got changed due to which many states forgo nuclear weapons. Cost-benefit analysis got changed by the non-proliferation norms. It has made nuclear weapon program technically, financially and politically expensive. It has also change the assumption of appropriate state behavior. So to maintain the good self-image in international system states have signed NPT as a non-nuclear weapon states.
The factors of domestic political context have many dimensions. In this cluster, types of governmental systemplay a crucial role for the states to sign NPT as a non-nuclear states. According to some researchers, democracies are less likely to engage in conflicts than autocracies. Democracies obey international laws at greater level to become a good citizen of internal system due to which the chances of democracies to become nuclear states are less. From the lens of political-ideology if a system aims for the economic growth that it would not go for nuclear weapons. According to Solingen “the nuclear programs are less likely to emerge in countries where the political culture is in general sympathetic to economic openness, trade liberalization, foreign investments, and international economic integration” e.g. Saudi Arabia. Psychology of domestic actor also play a crucial role in influencing the decision regarding nuclear weapons and societal groups too. In short, it depends upon the national political circumstances and dynamics that effect the decision of perusing or forgoing nuclear weapons.
Nuclear free zone or weapons of mass destruction free zone is a great disincentive for the states if combined with the credible pledges by the US and other nuclear states to provide positive and negative assurance security to the non-nuclear weapon states. Like in Middle East only Israel has acquired nuclear weapons which can be equalized by the security given by US or other nuclear state in order to make Middle East nuclear-free zone. As NPT is known as bargaining treaty which offer economic incentives to the states and compel other states to sign NPT. All the above factors showed the reasons of the will of states but some states sign NPTbecause of the fear of the sanction because none of the state survive if it becomes isolated from the whole world e.g. economic sanctions upon Iran. Many under developed countries are unable to resist the pressure of the developed stays and for their survival, they need their support. So, in return, they obey the orders of developed states and don’t go for nuclear weapons. Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus dismantle their nuclear arsenals because of the incentive of the positive assured security. Whereas, the nuclear programs of Brazil and Argentina were dissuaded by the regional security arrangement. South Africa gave its nuclear weapons for the sake of its development. Under developed countries focus on the development of health, education sectors etc. due to which they dismantle their nuclear weapons and got economic assistance. In a nutshell, NPT played a crucial role in resisting nuclear proliferation but at the same time it is monopolizing the power of nuclear states.
Why Did States Sign NPT Treaty As Non-Nuclear Weapon States
Following the inception of the “Treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons NPT” in 1967, about 186 states signed NPT as non-nuclear weapon states (NNWS) which are obliged to refrain from acquiring or manufacturing nuclear weapons nor these states are allowed to seek or receive assistance from nuclear weapon states in this regard, and have to comply with the prerequisites defined by IAEA. The reasons due to which these states decided to give up their sovereign right of acquiring nuclear weapons (despite the fact that some of these states are actually capable to develop nuclear weapons) are driven by motivations that vary according to the states’ regional and domestic security dynamics, combined with the international normative values. Hence, in order to identify and understand the relevant reasons, case studies and an analysis have been presented.
UKRAINE: After exploring the official statements related to the nuclear policy, issued by Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), following reasons were observed due to which Ukraine signed NPT: international pressure, technical incapability, unstable economic affairs, incentive given by NPT in terms of civil nuclear technology (membership of MCTR “Missile Technology Control Regime” saved the space industry of Ukraine), pursuit for the stability of the newly established state in the region etc. At first, Ukraine tried to hold the rights over a nuclear arsenal (that it inherited after the disintegration of USSR). However, it seemed unable to handle international pressure. Moreover, MFA of Ukraine acknoweldged that Ukrain didn’t want to offend the IAEA prerequisites as doing so would result in unstable economic relations with other states, especially Russia; the halted supply of nuclear fuel from Russia would cause the Ukranian nuclear power plants to shut down which might have result in energy crisis.
EGYPT:Previously interested in the procurement of nuclear weapons (due to perceived threat from “nuclear activity of Israel”), Egypt signed NPT in 1981 as it perceived (constructivism) that the benefits of signing NPT were impeccable in terms of diplomatic ties with US and aid of approximately two billion dollars provided by US every year. Moreover, Egypt had the chance to be “good international citizen” as per the international norms and to criticize the Israel’s ambigous nuclear aims.
BRAZIL AND ARGENTINA: Brazil and Argentina faced security dilemma due to the “long-standing rivalry” between them. Later on, due to the adoption of the “democratic regimes”, their rivalry was mitigated. Later on, Argentina and Brazil states became party to the NPT as NNWS in the years 1995 and 1998 respectively. Hence, the security dilemma was over and these states, being democratic states and as per the international normative values, had no reason to stay out of NPT. So the “low security threat” is the main reason due to which these states signed NPT as NNWS.
SOUTH KOREA:Despite having the advanced nuclear reactors manufacturing industry, South Korea chose to sign NPT as NNWS, partly because of its capitalist approach and international norms, and partly because of nuclear umbrella sought by South Korea from USA (though the influence of extended nuclear deterrence remains debatable between scholars).Moreover,according to some scholars, a few states are able to develop and manufacture the final product (nuclear weapons) but have not done it yet, either due to diplomatic reasons or simply because they do not have the reason to rush towards the development of nuclear weapons as they can manufacture nukes any time by withdrawing from NPT in case they perceived potential threat. However, the personal opinion is that it is highly unlikely of South Korea to withdraw from NPT.
JAPAN:Japan signed NPT as NNWS due to the international condemnation it faced which resulted from its aggressive historical background, and due to article 9 (renounced its right to keep armed forces except for defensive purposes) in its constitution. Moreover, like South Korea it has nuclear umbrella from US. However, scholars debate over the future of Japan (Whether it would remain non-nuclear state or not).
Although, multiple scholars gave multiple sets of “proliferation motives” yet an attempt has been made in this article to identify the most relevant motives and reasons due to which states signed NPT as NNWS, after studying the cases of the few states ( elaborated above).
First of all, The expense of the enrichment of fissile material (uranium or plutonium) and the development of stable nuclear arsenals, could be a disincentive for developing states to procure nuclear weapons. Therefore, such states might have signed NPT in order to be benefited by prohibitive international laws (for the use of force) in terms of security.
Second reason is theRegional Security Dynamics; whether a state is facing security dilemma with its adversary or not. If a state is not facing any security dilemma then there is no reason for the state to stay out of NPT. Otherwise, procurement of nuclear weapons would pose potential threat to the security of the state as compared to the disarmament. The initiative for the development of nuclear weapons taken by a state would insecure its adversary and may lead to arms race in the region that would ultimately, contribute to the instability of that region. Another reason could be drived from the perceived “Nuclear Umbrella”; state such as South Korea and Japan may not develop nuclear weapons as in case of conflict, they would seek help, in the form of the deployment of nuclear weapons, from the USA; a phenomeon known as extended deterrence.
Thirdly, International Normative values based contructivism could also be considered a reason due to which states signed NPT as NNWS. The term nuclear taboo became the part of the scholarly text which emphasized the constructivist perception that the making and the use of nuclear weapons is immoral and the (perceived) legitimate initiatives related to he non-proliferation and disarmament would increase their prestige (which might also be beneficial for inter-state relations of a state with others and for the trade). This norm has been institutionalized in Non-proliferation Treaty. In other words, “states prefer to be good international citizens; the ones which do not develop nuclear weapons” (Jacques Hymans). Hence, the states overwhelmed (international pressure) by the international norms signed NPT as non-nuclear weapon states. Many states (which possessed the capability of developing nuclear weapons) started nuclear programs before NPT entered into force. Later on, these states terminated their nuclear programs and signed NPT due to the altered norms of cost and benefit analysis; favorable trade agreements and the changed definition of appropriate state behavior. Another factor that contributes to this topic is the history of the states (e.g Japan’ case).
Fourthly,the behavior of the states influenced by intra-state political and economic affairs could also be a reason; political structure and type of government along with the state’s priorities (military security prioritized over economic security and vice versa). Democratic states tend to be the protagonist of NPT and prefer to obey the international laws (However, this opinion remains debatable). Moreover, the “willingness” of the state leaders to prefer the economic growth (through international trade and cooperation; a liberal perspective) could also be a “non-proliferation motive”, since doing otherwise (prefering to develop nuclear weapons) would result in economic sanctions and disintergration.
Fifth reason is the most common and widely understood reason that is the incentive (bargain) offered by NPT to the non-nuclear weapons states; the providence of civil nuclear technology for the peaceful purposes (e.g generating electricity or for medical purposes etc.).
Other reasons have also been assumed after observing the state of world affairs, for example: the monopoly of P5, that is, not to let other states acquire nuclear weapons could also be the reason; the small weak states or the states that are newly established may have signed NPT after being pressurized by these countries on political and economical level. Moreover,some states might have signed NPT to simply support the cause of this treaty. For example, New Zealand signed NPT because it is a great protagonist of the non-proliferation and disarmament cause. In addition to that, these states, at the time of signing the treaty, expected P5 to disarm as per the treaty’s articles. The matter that the P5 haven’t done it yet, has been raised at NPT meetings many times, by NNWS.
Since there are 186 states party to the NPT as Non-Nuclear Weapon States (NNWS), the reasons for them signing as NNWS are numerous. However these reasons could be narrowed down to the few major reasons; security dynamics of the regions where these states are situated, their intra-state matters, the prevailing norms in the international system, cost and beneft analysis over the incentives offered by NPT etc. However, the effect of NPT is uncertain since the states that have signed NPT do not have immediate security threats. In case, they face threats from adversary, the decisive role of NPT over such potential security issues remains debatable.
How nations states are limited
After the World War II, the establishment of the United Nations and the beginning of cooperation between the states was considered by many governments as a positive step. It was a useful step for all governments to start cooperating with European states that had been at war with each other for many years and failed in European history, and for other states to join this process and maintain positive political and diplomatic relations. However, after the recent two world wars, the desire of states to sit at the table of peace has made them forget something. These were the influences of the global government (UN) that would affect the sovereignty of states. Therefore, as liberal relations and the process of globalization develop in international relations, nation-states have begun to move away from the status of individual states to the management of global power. Today, global governance has become a reality. When national states decide on an act in international politics, they are forced to act and implement acts not only in the national interests of the state, but also in the opinion of international organizations. Today, it is not as easy as in the past to seriously change the geopolitical situation and violate international law without the opinion of international political organizations. Because today in the system of international relations there is a control and power through global governance, which will influence the sovereign decisions of states. Therefore, today I will share my views on how global governance, which is a reality today, has brought nation-states closer to decline.
Although the emergence and functioning of international organizations dates back to the 19th century, the formation of global governance is largely thought of as the history of the United Nations and some of the political organizations that have emerged since then. As I said, the emergence of global governance is associated with the end of World War II in 1945 and the establishment of the United Nations. As we know, after the Second World War, the world began to move on different realities. With the establishment of the United Nations, a mechanism of global governance has already begun to emerge. However, due to the geopolitical consequences of World War II and the transfer of Eastern Europe to the USSR, global governance through the UN could not cover the whole world, but simply led to the emergence of international organizations with its roots and the division of the world into two poles. As we know, the signing of the North Atlantic Pact in 1949, the emergence of NATO and the formation of the Western bloc, and later the signing of the Warsaw Pact and the establishment of the Eastern bloc in the same year divided the world into two poles. On the one hand, there was the capitalist West in global governance. On the other hand, there was the communist-ruled USSR. This continued until the 1990s.
Then, in 1991, with the collapse of the USSR and the end of the Cold War, global governance began to take over the world and the world came to global power, and liberal relations began to take over the world. Even Fukuyama, when he said the end of history, in fact meant that global governance would cover the world and that the world’s states would operate in the process of globalization based on a liberal tradition. All of this was a small history of how global governance came into being and when it covered the whole world. After the end of the Cold War in 1991, the Eastern European states that had already seceded from the USSR began to integrate into the West. In short, they have joined global governance. Later, some countries in the region, such as Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Ukraine, which gained independence from the USSR, entered the global system of governance, maintaining ties with the West. However, states such as Russia and Iran, in order to further protect their sovereignty, did not allow the influence of this administration to influence them and began to sever ties with the West over time.
However, the process of globalization did not move much with its positive aspects. Not only did global governance influence the decisions of states to control them, but it also had to create hierarchical control over them by creating global hegemony. The ideal option for this was the hegemonic equator. In this hegemonic equator, states are legally and formally equal, but over time they have become economically, politically and militarily unequal. Thus, after a while, this unequal situation began to form a hierarchy of power between states. States with weaker economic resources and militaries are already under constant pressure from powerful states and under the influence of powerful states.
For example, we can see an example of this in our country today. We are all equal in the South Caucasus region. Although Georgia, Iran, Russia and Azerbaijan are formally equal, there is a hierarchy in terms of global hegemony. For example, Russia comes first in this hierarchy. Because Russia is much luckier than others in military, economic and geopolitical terms. The second is Iran. Because the possibility of Iran becoming a nuclear weapon results in its military superiority over other countries in the region. The third is Azerbaijan. Because Azerbaijan’s oil economy, such as oil and gas, makes it more economically viable and stronger than Armenia. Therefore, such differences created by global governance and the limits imposed on sovereign decisions by states have formed a critique of globalization over time, leading to criticism and debate by various academics. This criticism has long focused on the question of whether globalization can lead to the decline of nation-states.
As we know, the long-term impact of the globalization process on states has led to serious criticism about whether globalization has transformed states. While some academics believe that global governance destroys and degrades nation-states, others argue that globalization serves the national interests of nations.
The first critical approach is that the process of globalization is very powerful in a globalized world. In this case, we have already moved to a system of non-sovereign states. Today, states are no longer able to make independent political decisions in the long run for their national interests and to act accordingly. This process also weakens the power of states in the world and in international relations, and transnational companies gain a dominant position.
However, in the second critical approach, academics think differently and contradict the first criticism. Academics believe that although globalization affects the independent acts of states, the superpowers of their regions are still the most important entities in global politics. Because both international organizations and economic transnational organizations, which are the concepts of the globalization process, were created by these countries themselves. Therefore, globalization does not harm these countries, but serves their national interests. They can violate international law and the rules of global governance at any time, and even the geopolitical situation can change despite global governance. (For example, the US invasion of Iraq, Russia’s imperialist act against Georgia and Ukraine)
In addition, there is a third and final critical approach, which is the approach of global governance to other forms of power, interests, goals and acts of states. As globalization is now considered a world reality, states are forced to choose between two options. Either Iran, like North Korea, will remain closed and protect its national sovereignty outside of global governance, or, like other countries in the world, will join the process of globalization and cooperate with each other. Since there is an economic reality created by global governance in the world, global governance can keep states under its influence by changing the interests, goals and acts of states.
However, the decline of the state today is not only due to the process of globalization and global governance. In addition, there are institutions such as the global economy, business, large companies, non-governmental organizations and international organizations, which pose a serious threat to the sovereignty of states. Today we live in a world of more international, economic companies and organizations than national states. 49% of these companies and organizations belong to the states and 51% to the international economy. The economic power of some of these companies (Exxon Mobil, General Motors) is already greater than in many Eastern European and African countries. From this we can conclude that the second concept that leads to the decline of nation-states, along with international organizations, is the international economic companies.
As a result, I can say that today the globalized world and international organizations have become a system that borders states and limits their national decisions. If in the 20th century it was so easy to make a decision to start a world war, to use any type of weapon, it has become almost impossible to do so in a globalized world. But in addition, globalization and international organizations can sometimes help strengthen states. For example, today, because states play an important role in international organizations, decisions made through international organizations
sometimes depend on states. For example, the UN Security Council, the Consulate General of the European Union, is a process that depends on states in the decision-making process. The decisions of the member states are considered very serious and decisive in the decision-making process. In this case, too, we can see that international organizations do not act as a tool for the decline of nation-states, but as a concept that strengthens them. Therefore, I do not think it is right to assess globalization today as a system that leads to the decline of nation-states.
- Andrew Heywood. (2013, fourth edition). Politics s.18
- Robert Jackson & Georg Sorensen: Introduction to İR, s. 4
- Mazarr, M. (1999). Global trends 2005: An owner’s manual for the next decade. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
- Zygmunt BAUMAN, Küreselleşme-Toplumsal Sonuçları, Çev: Abdullah Yılmaz, Arıntı Yayınları, İstanbul, 2010, s.83
Making Women Visible in Plastic Waste Management: Examples from Indonesia
Plastic Waste: Long History, Massive Consumption Plastic was invented by John Wesley Hyatt in 1869 and has an original sense...
Protecting National Sovereignty In the Current globalization context
National sovereignty is an inseparable legal and political attribute of each state. National independence associated with national sovereignty is now...
New constructivism needed towards Europe’s East
Authors: Eugene Matos de Lara and Audrey Beaulieu On the historic date of 0March 08th – International Women’s Day, a...
COVID-19 pandemic and positives/negatives of the Pakistani government’s policy towards it
The covid-19 erupt from Wuhan in December 2019. The first case in Pakistan was observed on February 26th, 2020.It is...
InvestEU: EU programme to encourage investment
InvestEU continues EU efforts to boost investment in Europe, support the recovery and prepare the economy for the future. MEPs...
Flipflopi sets sail around Lake Victoria to raise awareness on pollution menace
Flipflopi, the world’s first sailing boat made from 100% recycled plastic, is joining forces with the UN Environment Programme’s Clean...
Who pulls the strings of the government of India?
While talking to a Cornell college professor, Rahul Gandhi lamented (March 2, 2021) that the RSS was making use of...
Africa3 days ago
South Sudan’s transition from conflict to recovery ‘inching forward’
Middle East2 days ago
Restart Iran Policy by Stopping Tehran’s Influence Operations
Middle East2 days ago
Iraq Opens Hands to the Pope Francis’ Historic Visit
Americas3 days ago
Implications of Right-Wing Politics in United States
Americas3 days ago
New US Administration Approach to Syria: How Different Could It Be?
Intelligence2 days ago
UN Security Council: Taliban continues to patronize Central Asian Jihadists
New Social Compact3 days ago
Mental health alert for 332 million children linked to COVID-19 lockdown policies
Central Asia2 days ago
Kazakhstan’s government is determined to enhance engagement with civil society