GLOBALISATION: RAMIFICATION, IMPACT
AND WAY FORWARD
SUBJECT: Justice in the Globalising World
NAME: Mirza Mozahar Baig
REGISTRATION NO: 234611130003
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I have taken efforts in this project. However, it would not have been possible
without the kind support and help of many individuals and faculty member Ms.
Neha Chaturvedi. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to all of them.
I would like to express my special gratitude to Dr. Pallab Das, Dean, School of
Law, Centurion University, Bhubaneswar for extending kind co-operations and
encouragements which help me in completion of this project.
I also want to acknowledge to the invaluable assistance from the staff of the Law
Department of the Centurion University, Bhubaneswar and my course mates for
their valuable suggestions and discussions, which helped me refine my ideas and
approach. The resources broadened my understanding and added significant
value to my project.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. THE JURISPRUDENTIAL APPROACH TOWARDS THE TREND OF
GLOBALIZATION
3. GLOBALIZATION AND THE GLOBAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF
JUSTICE
4. RETHINKING BOUNDARIES AND THE ROLE OF THE STATE
5. GLOBALIZATION AND THE TERRAIN OF FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS IN INDIA
6. GLOBALIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY: THE COURT’S
ROLE IN RESHAPING RIGHTS, DEVELOPMENT STRUCTURES, AND
NARRATIVES
7. NEW TYPES OF CRIMINALITY IN GLOBALIZATION AND
RELATED LEGAL ISSUES
8. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN THE AGE OF GLOBALIZATION - A
LEGAL ISSUE
9. CONCLUSION
10. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Introduction:
Globalization is a multifaceted phenomenon that has reshaped the world in profound ways,
impacting various aspects of society, economy, and culture. At its core, globalization refers to
the interconnectedness and interdependence of countries through the exchange of goods,
services, information, and ideas on a global scale. This intricate web of connections has led to
both positive and negative ramifications, shaping the present and influencing the future. The
economic implications of globalization are substantial. Increased international trade has
facilitated the flow of goods and services across borders, fostering economic growth and
providing consumers with a diverse range of products. However, this economic integration has
also raised concerns about inequality, as some regions and populations may benefit more than
others.
Culturally, globalization has led to a blending of traditions and values from different parts of
the world. This cultural exchange has enriched societies by promoting diversity and cross-
cultural understanding. Technological advancements have played a pivotal role in the process
of globalization. The rapid development of communication technologies has made it easier for
people to connect across continents, fostering a globalized flow of information. This
interconnectedness has its advantages, but it also raises issues related to privacy, cybersecurity,
and digital inequality. As we navigate the complexities of globalization, it is essential to
address its impact on environmental sustainability. The increased movement of goods and
people have environmental consequences, including carbon emissions, resource depletion, and
loss of biodiversity. Sustainable practices and global cooperation are crucial for mitigating
these challenges
1.THE JURISPRUDENTIAL APPROACH TOWARDS THE TREND OF
GLOBALIZATION;
Globalization transforms economic and social connections in basic terms, but their
influence still has to be completely understood through case law and policy theory. At the time
of Aristotle, the preconditions for justice have only been fulfilled in a political or political
context. The world has changed significantly since then, and globalization is the word that best
understands the core of the shift. Every aspect of globalization – interconnectedness1,
economic deregulation2, internationalization3 and homogeneity only helps to comprehend
how globalization changes social interactions. Nevertheless, it is the nature of globalization,
the space constriction that underpins both global social and perhaps global justice
transformational impacts of globalization. This reduction increases social ties, irrespective of
physical borders, and transcends the country itself. We are linked through globalization to a
level we have never seen in history of mankind, regardless of time and location. Such reduction
facilitates more than just the exchange of information among national businesses, networks
and: it affects the way space enters social connections with resultant modifications at all levels
of human experience. Globalization, in particular, is increasing our global consciousness.
Geographical limitations on social and cultural structures are diminishing, and individuals are
becoming more and more conscious of them. We know more about what occurs outside our
borders, we move beyond our borders with greater ease, we do more than we are conscious of
these effects and we have new, deeper opportunities to engage in economic activity beyond our
borders. In fact, borders become opaquer, we know more about what occurs outside of our
borders. Equity as a legal term implies, as Walzer says, that the "substantial life of a society is
living in a way that is loyal to its members' common understanding. In other terms, the common
1
This transnationalization is also reflected in the increasing number of cross-border networks formed
by non- State actors such as corporations, civic associations, scientific bodies, and individuals. See
generally Jessica T. Mathews, Power Shift, FOREIGN AFF., Jan.–Feb. 1997, at 50, 50–51 (1997).
2
There is broad consensus that economic de-regulation is one of the principal engines of
globalization, though commentators differ widely in their evaluation of the consequences of this fact.
The resulting increase in the number of transactions involving goods, services, labor, and capital
crossing national boundaries promotes a degree of economic interconnectedness resembling, at least
to some commentators, a single market spanning the globe. See, e.g., PETER DICKEN, GLOBAL
SHIFT: TRANSFORMING THE WORLD ECONOMY (3d ed. 1998) (documenting the shift to a
global pattern of production).
3
Internationalization describes the shift in power from States to international systems and
institutions. See Franz Nuscheler, Global Governance, Development, and Peace, in GLOBAL
TRENDS AND GLOBAL GOVERNANCE 156, 157
knowledge of social values is needed for justice. Such shared knowledge only exists in political
groups and the nation-state is the main example. Justice simply makes sense inside countries,
and justice is needed, indeed, achievable only in the countries. In David Miller’s words:
“Although in the contemporary world there are clearly forms of interaction and cooperation
occurring at the global level the international economy provides the most obvious examples,
but there are also many forms of political cooperation, ranging from defense treaties through
to environmental protection agreements these are not sufficient to constitute a global
community. They do not by themselves create either a shared sense of identity or a common
ethos. And above all there is no common institutional structure that would justify us in
describing unequal outcomes as forms of unequal treatment.”4 This idea of justice therefore
presents a special obstacle to the feasibility of global justice; notably, global justice needs a
type of global connection — Nagel calls it sovereignty; some call it a society or a community
that we simply have not and maybe cannot, engage with globally. However, it is exactly where
it is necessary to consider globalization.
2.GLOBALIZATION AND THE GLOBAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF JUSTICE
As the most influential justice theorist of the twentieth century, John Rawls and his work are a
natural point of departure for considering justice theory for the twenty-first century. In A
Theory of Justice, Rawls selects a particular level of social relationships, the nation-State, and
conceives of it ―for the time being‖ as a closed system separate from other nation States5. It is
within this set of social relationships that the need for and possibility of justice arises. Rawls
discusses this phenomenon through an inquiry into what he calls ―the circumstances of
justice.The circumstances of justice are those conditions of our situation that make cooperation
both possible and necessary. Where they obtain, and they lead to such cooperation, justice is
relevant, and where they do not, justice is not the circumstances of justice can be divided into
two categories. The first category consists of three objective circumstances: a moderate scarcity
of resources; a shared geographical territory; and a capacity to help or harm each other. In other
words: there is not enough to go around for everything we each want to do; we are all going to
be looking for these resources in the same places; and we have the capacity to unite to defeat
one another ‘s goals, or work together to achieve many of them. The second category is
4
David Miller, Justice and Global Inequality, in INEQUALITY, GLOBALIZATION, AND
WORLD POLITICS 190.
5
Rawls is often cited as the leading contemporary theorist against the possibility of global justice. However, it
is critical to note that in his principal work, A Theory of Justice, JOHN RAWLS, A THEORY OF JUSTICE (1979)
subjective and includes two circumstances: people are mutually disinterested; and they have
conflicting claims. In other words, we are not generally altruistic: We want what we want, and
to get it, we go after what each other has. Because of these five circumstances, we are led to
cooperate as the rational means toward achieving our individual ends. This, in essence, is
society, which Rawls defines as a cooperative venture for mutual advantage. As a consequence
of the circumstances of justice, we are led to form a variety of social arrangements through
which we hope to cooperate in the furtherance of our mutual welfare. We need, however,
principles by which to choose among the various possible social arrangements, principles that
will guide the distribution of the fruits of this venture, and these are the principles of justice.
The second category is subjective and includes two circumstances: people are mutually
disinterested; and they have conflicting claims. In other words, we are not generally altruistic:
We want what we want, and to get it, we go after what each other has. Because of these five
circumstances, we are led to cooperate as the rational means toward achieving our individual
ends. This, in essence, is society, which Rawls defines as a cooperative venture for mutual
advantage. As a consequence of the circumstances of justice, we are led to form a variety of
social arrangements through which we hope to cooperate in the furtherance of our mutual
welfare. We need, however, principles by which to choose among the various possible social
arrangements, principles that will guide the distribution of the fruits of this venture, and these
are the principles of justice.
3.RETHINKING BOUNDARIES AND THE ROLE OF THE STATE
The developments in globalization discussed here are challenging and transforming traditional
political and legal concepts that have hitherto organized social relations at an international level
in particular, the role of States and the nature of boundaries. Historically, the dominant view
of the role of the State in international relations has been as a sovereign actor acting in its
unitary self-interest. Beginning with the post war human rights movement and intensifying
through globalization, social processes and, increasingly, regulation are occurring on a Trans
boundary networked basis. These dynamics have been challenging and transforming this
understanding of the State as actor on the international stage, to the State as agent in the sense
of one who acts on behalf of another, in an increasingly rich multipolar and networked
environment. That other‖ consists of the range of individuals, groups, and national communities
that States represent on the international level. These changes have implications throughout
domestic and international politics and social relations as they have been conventionally
understood. Because of globalization, the very notion of what is national and what is
international‖ or global‖ is undergoing a change, as even national‖ institutions can now be
sometimes understood more accurately as horizontally integrated components of a
transnational system, than as vertically accountable components of a traditional State.
Globalization emphasizes the arbitrariness of many contemporary territorially based allocative
principles such as citizenship, because it allows us to be aware of the plight of others as never
before, forcing us to ask whether the traditional way of allocating rights, opportunities, and
resources is really adequate in a globalizing world.
Global community demands a new view of the role of the State, in which the State no
longer holds a monopoly on the delivery of basic public goods, but rather, as the guarantor of
last resort, plays a central role in their delivery. It is increasingly common to understand the
State as co-existent with a variety of cross-border networks. Indeed, it has been argued that one
key shift in the role of the State in globalization is as manager of these networks.
4.GLOBALIZATION AND THE TERRAIN OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IN INDIA
As India ‘s economy underwent major transformation in the 1990s and early 2000s, the
Supreme Court ‘s approach to the interpretation of fundamental rights and application of rights-
based scrutiny also fundamentally changed. In cases involving major rights-based challenges
to economic liberalization, privatization, and development policies in the post1991 era, the
Court redefined and adjudicated the scope and meaning of the core fundamental rights
contained in Article 14 (equality before the law), Article 19 (speech, assembly, and other
freedoms), and Article 21 (life and liberty) of the Indian Constitution. The Court dramatically
expanded the scope of these rights in the post-Emergency era to create a new arsenal of rights-
based frameworks of scrutiny, along with a new regime of public interest litigation aimed at
correcting human rights and governance failures. However, as this Part illustrates, since the
1990s the Court has reinterpreted and arguably restricted the scope of these rights, and modified
the nature of rights-based scrutiny in the realm of globalization policies. In the early 1990s, the
Congress government of P.V. Narasimha Rao launched the New Economic Policy, in which
the government initiated new liberalization policies. This included the introduction of policies
aimed at deregulation, liberalization of government licensing regimes, and a shift toward
privatization of government owned enterprises. Following the adoption of the New Economic
Policy, the Supreme Court provided greater clarity in articulating the scope of judicial review
under Article 14 and Article 21 in a series of decisions involving challenges to privatization of
the telecom sector, the privatization and disinvestment of the industrial and mining sector, and
other cases. In most of these cases, the Court upheld and endorsed the government ‘s policies
of economic liberalization. Since the 1990s, and well into the twenty-first century, the Supreme
Court of India has effectively redefined the scope and terrain of the fundamental rights in a
series of decisions involving challenges to government liberalization and privatization, and
development policies. In calibrating this new ―globalization rights infrastructure‖ and
attendant modes of scrutiny for globalization policies, this article explores three main facets of
the Court ‘s decision-making and role.
5.GLOBALIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY: THE COURT’S ROLE IN
RESHAPING RIGHTS, DEVELOPMENT STRUCTURES, AND NARRATIVES:
Early 1990s, the Central and State Governments also expanded investment in large scale
development projects aimed at expanding energy resources and building a resources
infrastructure to support high-growth economic development. Major examples of this included
the construction of hydroelectric plants, including the Narmada and Tehri Dams, as well the
exploration and development of India‘s forests and undeveloped lands for mining and logging.
As noted above, following the post Emergency era, the Court dramatically expanded the scope
of rights and the permissible scope of court intervention in public interest litigation cases
involving state governance failures, human rights violations, and other forms of state and
private illegality, including bail undertrials, prison violence, and bonded labor cases. Building
on the right to life in Article 21 and read together with directive principles setting forth state
obligations to protect the environment, the Court also recognized rights to clean air and water
and developed a robust body of environmental jurisprudence and principles aimed at taking on
widespread environmental degradation6. Through environmental public interest litigation, the
Court sought to take on underenforcement of, and noncompliance with, a set of new
environmental laws aimed at protecting the environment, including India‘s water, air, and
natural resources, including rivers and forests.
6
SHYAM DIVAN AND ARMIN ROSENCRANZ, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY IN INDIA 41–42 (2001); SATHE
6.NEW TYPES OF CRIMINALITY IN GLOBALIZATION AND RELATED LEGAL
ISSUES
German jurist Savigny says that the law is the spirit of community, which means that the
provisions of the law must meet the needs of the community and address its problems. The
change in the norms and customs of the peoples lead to changed needs and problems. The
multinational companies play various roles in creating international business ethical rules and
regulations through pressurizing sates in order to bring changes in its legal systems and
legislation for more economic interests. As for the nature of the crime itself, the phenomenon
of globalization has reflected its impact in the field of organized crimes and made crimes with
extra serious nature. Consequently, as extraordinary openness in trade, finance, travel and
communication has created economic growth and well-being, it has also given rise to huge
chances for criminals to make their business prosper. The new types of crimes are well
organized and the criminals use the latest developed techniques to commit it, such as
computers, network systems, information systems, internet and technology of communications.
The character of crime has revolutionized considerably in a single generation. Just decades ago,
crime was organized in a hierarchy of operations. It was "industrial" in that it included the
division of labour and the specialization of operations. This composition extended worldwide,
as organized crime emulated the global business. Globalization has not only changed the nature
of crimes, but also changed its types and forms, the nature of criminal and victims and venue.
Moreover, the means of modern crimes in the age of globalization became more developed
than before, and the national legislation is paralyzed in dealing with those types of crimes.
According to Findlay, the globalization of the market has introduced more and new forms of
opportunity for criminals. The new types of criminality are described by the American legal
scholar Sutherland as "crimes of powerful persons", he says that such crimes are committed by
the respectable and powerful persons, such as white-collar crimes. Opportunities for new
crimes are created by demographic change, economic reform, globalization and technological
advancement, but because of globalization "criminals have taken advantage of transitioning
and more open economies to establish front companies and quasi-legitimate businesses that
facilitate smuggling, money laundering, financial fraud, intellectual property piracy, and other
illicit venture.
7. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN THE AGE OF GLOBALIZATION - A LEGAL
ISSUE
Virtually every criminal justice system today overlaps, interacts, and intermingles with other
criminal justice systems. The traditional model of a single nation-state possessing exclusive
authority to criminally sanction those within its borders is being challenged from below by sub-
state demands for communal autonomy and from above by international and global assertions
of criminal jurisdiction. It is no surprise that control over criminal justice has become a
significant jurisdictional battleground between nation-states and their sub-state and supra-state
challengers, for criminal jurisdiction is still considered the sine qua non of state sovereignty.
Opposed to the Sovereigntist position are the Internationalist and Pluralist points of
view, which maintain that international and subnational entities, respectively, can and should
play a vital role in criminal justice. Internationalists extol the importance of strong supra-
national criminal justice institutions both those that aim to keep national justice systems in
conformity with human rights norms, such as the regional human rights courts, and those that
directly prosecute and adjudicate the most serious violations of international criminal law, such
as the ICC. For Internationalists, there are universal norms that demand or at least recommend
international enforcement mechanisms. From the other end, Pluralists endorse the legitimacy
of sub-national community-based criminal justice, especially by and for indigenous peoples
and other traditionally marginalized minority groups. Pluralists emphasize that some
subnational communities have long traditions of self-governance and can articulate and enforce
communal norms more effectively for themselves than the state structures in which they live.
Nation-states will continue to be the primary jurisdictional agents of criminal justice, the
principal legislators, enforcers, and adjudicators of criminal law for the foreseeable future. But
sub-state and superstrate challenges to that jurisdiction are not going away, and criminal justice
officials and legal commentators must come to grips with the reality of partially autonomous
criminal justice regimes at the sub state and supra-state levels. The current fights among
Sovereigntists, Internationalists, and Pluralists are not going to end in decisive victory for any
one vision of criminal jurisdiction. A Bounded Pluralism approach, however, offers a way
forward that honors nation-state values while allowing for supra-national and sub-national
assertions of jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION:
Globalization, the interconnectedness of economies, cultures, and societies across the world,
has brought about significant ramifications and impacts on various fronts. As we delve into the
conclusion of this discussion, it's essential to highlight key points and outline a way forward.
The ramifications of globalization are multifaceted. Economically, it has led to increased trade
and investment, fostering economic growth in many nations. However, this growth has not
been uniform, contributing to economic disparities between developed and developing
countries. Socially, globalization has facilitated the exchange of ideas, cultures, and values,
creating a more interconnected global community. On the flip side, it has also led to cultural
homogenization, eroding local traditions and identities. The impact of globalization on the
environment is a pressing concern. The increased movement of goods and services across
borders has escalated carbon emissions and environmental degradation. The way forward
necessitates a sustainable approach, with a focus on eco-friendly practices, renewable energy
sources, and global cooperation to address environmental challenges. In the realm of
technology, globalization has spurred rapid advancements and innovation. However, it has also
given rise to concerns such as job displacement due to automation. The way forward involves
investing in education and upskilling programs to empower individuals to adapt to the evolving
job market.
Globalization's effects on geopolitics are undeniable. It has led to increased
interdependence among nations, but it has also fueled geopolitical tensions and conflicts. The
way forward as we contemplate the way forward, it is imperative to consider inclusive growth.
Policies and initiatives should aim to reduce economic disparities between nations and ensure
that the benefits of globalization reach marginalized communities. This can be achieved
through international collaborations, fair trade practices, and targeted development projects.
requires diplomatic efforts, international cooperation, and a commitment to resolving disputes
through dialogue and negotiation. Education emerges as a crucial component in navigating the
complexities of globalization. Empowering individuals with the skills and knowledge needed
to thrive in a globalized world is essential. This involves revamping educational curricula to
include a global perspective, promoting cultural awareness, and fostering critical thinking
skills.
In conclusion, globalization is a double-edged sword with both positive and negative
ramifications. Its impact extends across economic, social, environmental, technological, and
geopolitical dimensions. However, the way forward lies in adopting a holistic and sustainable
approach. This involves addressing economic inequalities, embracing environmentally friendly
practices, investing in education, and fostering international cooperation. By doing so, we can
navigate the challenges posed by globalization and create a more equitable and interconnected
world for future generations.
Bibliography:
STATUTES AND CONVENTIONS:
1. The Constitution of India
2. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
3. International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights (ICCPR)
BOOKS:
1. Constitutional Law of India, H.M Seervai, 4th edition
2. The Constitution of India, P.M. Bakshi, 13th edition
3. Constitution of India, M.P Jain
ARTICLES AND WEBISTES:
1. Article titled as The Legal World Is Flat: Globalization and Its Effect on Lawyers Practicing in Non-
Global Law Firms, by Laurel S. Terry, Volume 28 Issue 3 Spring.
2. Article titled as―Analyzing the Friedman Thesis Through a Legal Lens: Book Review Essay Assessing
Thomas L. Friedman‘s The World Is Flat, by Jayanth K. Krishnan published at TULANE LA W REVIEW,
Volume 81.
3. Article titled as ―Globalization, Rights, and Judicial Review in the Supreme Court of India‖ by Manoj
Mate, Washington International Law Journal, Volume 25 Issue 3.
4. Article titled as ―Legal Issues of Globalization‖ by Hilalz, also available
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-69-legal issues-of-globalization.ht
