The Attributes of Today’s Global System

​ According to Claudio et.al (2018), world politics today has four key attributes.
First, there are states or countries that govern themselves and are independent.
Second, these states or countries connect with each other via diplomacy. Third,
international organizations, such as the United Nations (UN), facilitate these
interactions. Fourth, beyond simply facilitating meetings between states, international
organizations also take on lives of their own. The UN, for example, aside from being
a meeting ground for presidents and other heads of states, also has task-specific
agencies like the World Health Organizations (WHO) and the International Labour
Organization (ILO).
​ To trace the origin of this system, it is important to look initially, the concept of
“nation-state”. This concept is not as simple as it seems. It is the term used to
identify the modern states. It is a system of organization in which people with a
common identity live inside a country with firm borders and a single government.
The nation-state is composed of two non-interchangeable terms - the nation
and the state. For example, when we say ‘African Nations’, ‘Asian Nations’ or
‘Western nations’, we do not mean nations but States. Similarly, the ‘United Nations’
is in reality an organization of nation-states. Each modern state is a Nation State;
nevertheless there exist some important distinctions between the two. According to
Paul (1996) "State" govern a territory with boundaries. It has its own government that
enforce laws, impose taxes, officials, own currencies, postal services, police and
(usually) armies etc. They claim "sovereignty" within their territory. They wage war,
negotiate treaties, put people in prison and regulate life in thousands of ways. This is
exactly how Max Weber define state, according to him state is a “human community
that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within
a given territory.
"Nations" on the contrary are groups of people claiming common bonds like
language, culture and historical identity. Benedict Anderson, termed nation as an
"imagined community." It means that the nation allows one to feel a connection with
a community of people even if he/she will never meet all of them. Example, when
you cheer for the Filipino athletes during the 2019 SEA games, it is not because you
personally know them. Rather, because you imagine your connection as both
members of Filipino community.

There can be sharp differences about the legitimacy of states and nations,
both within and outside of their territory. Nations may be "imagined communities," but
they are not imagined in the same way by everybody.

As a whole, nation-states can count on much greater loyalty from their citizens
than states that contain many nations, and this provides them greater strength in
their international dealings.

The Interstate System

States connect with one another in an environment known as the Interstate

System. The modern world-system is structured politically as an interstate system
– a system of competing and allying states. Political Scientists commonly call this
the international system. All states are sovereign, and some states have greater
power than the others.
 Most commonly, the view of a nation-state was and is associated with the rise
of the modern system of states, often called the “Westphalian system” in reference to
the Treaty of Westphalia (1648). It is a system of international relations claiming the
principle that each state has exclusive sovereign power over its territory. The
Westphalian system did not create the nation-state, but the nation-state meets the
criteria for its component states.

Picture Source:
https://valdaiclub.com/multimedia/infographics/westphalian-system/

Figure 1: Westphalian System

Significant Events that Marked the Milestones in the Development of the

Interstate System.

●​ The Peace of Westphalia (1648)

The Peace of Westphalia, in 1648 finished the 30 year war between the
Catholic states and the Protestant states in Central and Western Europe,
establishing the modern international system. It proclaimed that the each nation’s
sovereign could do what she or he wished in its borders and recognized the state as
the main actor in the global politics. In this point, the international system has
consisted primarily of relations among nation-states. This event legitimized the idea
of “sovereignty” in the world. State sovereignty is also known as Westphalian
sovereignty.

●​ Shifting Balances of Power (1600–1800)

In the 17 and 18th centuries, the nation-state emanated as the commanding political
th

unit of the international system. Specifically, a series of strong states controlled

Europe. The weaker states often joined forces to prevent the dominant states from
becoming powerful, this was known as the Balance Of Power. Several wars and
economic competition was prominent in this era. Some nations like England and
France were powerful, but some such the Otooman Empire and Spain shrank in
power over the time.

●​ Emergence of Nationalism (1800–1945)

The 19th century leads two significant changes in the international system:

-​ First: nationalism appeared as a strong force –authorizing the nation-states to

grow more powerful.
-​ Second: Germany and Italy became unified countries – which amended the
balance of economic in military power in Europe.

●​ New World Orders (1945–Present)

The end of the WW II pronounced a significant movement in the global system. After
the war, there are only two great worlds that survived: the Soviet Union and the
United States. Even though some other dominant states existed, almost all states
were understood within because of their relations with the two countries.

A global system where the power is centered with two great countries is Bipolar. In
the end of the Cold War, the Soviet Union fell. With this, only one super country
remains, this was then labeled as Unipolar. Furthermore, others point to the
increasing economic power of some Asian and European states is labeled as
Multipolar.

Globalization and the Nation-States

​ Globalization as a debatable concept especially in the final years of the

twentieth century, have also drawn various speculations over the existence of state.
Did the states being displaced by globalization? What is its role in the globally
interconnected world? To what extent is the nation-state relevant? Economically
speaking, for hyper globalist such as Ohmae, states failed to exist as primary
economic organization units in the global market. For the people are consuming
highly standardized global products and services produced by global corporations in
a borderless world. Reich (1991) states that globalization transforms the national
economy into a global one where ‘there will be no national corporations, no national
products, and no national industries.
In the view of Boyer and Drache (1996), globalization is not absolutely
displacing the role of the nation-state, but they admit that “globalization is redefining
the role of the nation-state as an effective manager of the national economy”. Refuse
the idea of uniform state policies and conceive the state as the main shelter from the
perverse effects of free market economy.
In support, Brodie(1996) believes that it is misleading to consider that the
existence of state is obsolete and irrelevant; governments instead are acting as the
“midwives of globalization”. Governments may not be the one to conceive
globalization, but they are the means towards its facilitation.
​
However, globalization supporters and critics both agree that globalization, by
embracing neo-liberals’ principles of deregulation, privatization and free trade, is
imposing a forced choice upon states. States either conform to free-market principles
or run the risk of being left behind. Thomas Friedman, well-known advocate of
neoliberalism, came up with up with a phrase “Golden Straitjacket” to describe how
states are now forced into policies that suit the preferences of investment houses
and corporate executives who swiftly move money and resources into countries
favoured as adaptable to the demands of international business and withdraw even
more rapidly from countries who are deemed uncompetitive.

Schattle (2014) came up with an analysis over the impact of globalization on

states. Here are some of his concluding points:
●​ Globalization coincides with states and indeed has spurred the creation
of many new states; with many nations and ethnic, linguistic and
religious communities long submerged with existing states demanding
and rising up their statehood.
●​ States now work in a world in where power is scattered both
horizontally (civil society and the marketplace) and vertically
(international organizations, subnational political authorities)
●​ Globalization shapes states, and states in turn shape globalization, and
this circular flow encompasses many elements, such as transnational
capital, investments, ideas, brands, art and music, film and so forth.
●​ Because the benefits and costs of globalization are unevenly
distributed across states and populations, life chances for individual
citizens are heavily determined by the particular states they are from;
and how they cope up in ensuring basic needs and safeguarding basic
rights.
●​ States agendas and drive the cooperation that governs the
international organizations leading the world, from the United Nations
to the World Trade Organization. States also craft and justify the
common standards that emerge from these institutions.
●​ Globalization settles states in a direct competition. States compete on
a variety of fronts; economic policies that offer the most favourable
incentives for multinational corporations to locate within their
jurisdictions, tourism campaigns that attract the world’s upwardly
mobile populations and their disposable incomes, and political systems
that meet basic minimum standards of democratic legitimacy and moral
credibility.

Internationalization vs. Globalization

Internationalization and Globalization are the two terms that most people get
confuse at due to their similar nature. Nevertheless, they are two distinctive, yet
connected concepts. According to Daly (1999), internationalization refers to the
increasing importance of international trade, international relations, treaties,
alliances, etc. The word “internationalization” comes from Latin and means
“between” or “among” nations. In this process people do not relate directly to each
other as individuals but usually interact with each other as citizens of different
nations and in formal settings by means of national representatives. Nation remains
the basic unit. While globalization refers to global economic integration of many
formerly national economies into one global economy, mainly by free trade and free
capital mobility, but also by easy or uncontrolled migration.
 According to Glossop (2017), the difference between these two outlooks is
one of viewing the world as made up of a collection of nation-states as contrasted
with viewing it as a single planet where national boundaries are relatively
insignificant. The appropriate image for internationalism is a map of the world or a
traditional globe where the different countries appear in different colors, each one
bordered by a solid black line. The appropriate image for globalism is the photo of
Earth from space where there are no national boundaries and the unity and
solitariness of the planet in space are most evident.

Focus

Its focus is another differentiation between globalization and

internationalization. Internationalization focus is the development of the local
businesses in the international market, while the focus of globalization is the
exchange and trade of products and services from the interaction of local markets in
one global market. And, this enhances free trade and capital mobility services as
well. Thus, internationalization focuses more of quantitative change while
globalization is more of qualitative transformation.

Result

The results of internationalization include increasing the influence of the

enterprise of a local market and influencing globalization. The results of globalization
include the decrease of global market trade barriers, the emergence of free and
open markets, the mobility of free trade capital, increased and uncontrollable
migration, decline of local cultures and identities and the negative effect on the small
local business.
Thus, internationalization and globalization might not be totally the same but
they are much related from each other. Realizing globalization today would not be
possible without initiating the process of internationalization. Globalization is a
process and internationalization is part of the same. If globalization is the end;
internationalization is the means. As Claudio et.al (2018) stated, internationalization
is one window in the phenomena of globalization.