A nation-state is an autonomous political community bound together by the overlapping bonds of citizenship and nationality, meaning that political and cultural identity coincide. Since the idea of a nation-state was first developed after the peace treaty of Westphalia in 1648, the state has been the most significant actor within global politics. Its roles and significance have included creating laws, economic management and national security. However it can now be argued that a states sovereignty has been eroded in these positions. This then meaning that the state is no longer the most important/significant actor within global politics.
Threat to a Nations importance/significance on the global stage
So why after so much dominance can the nation state now be seen as not the most important/significant actor on the world stage? One reason is due to the growing importance of international organizations such as the United Nations or the European Union. For example in the recent shock agreement between the UN security councils P-5 on the matter of fighting I.S.I.S. The UK can then be seen as being forced into having a vote over action in Syria which it voted for in the House of Commons just over a week ago. Although being a member of the UN does not actually erode any of a nations sovereignty. So a better example in this case I feel would be, when a nation is a member of the EU they do lose some of their sovereignty. For example with fishing regulations, Spanish vessels are able to fish in British Waters. This then shows that there is no doubting that the state has lost some of its significance.
Another way in which a nation state can now be seen as not the most important/significant actor on the World Stage is due to the growing size and nature of TNC's. There continual growth and dominance of many industry has led them to be able to inflict their will on some governments policies. This idea should come as no surprise as 51 out of the top 100 economies in the world are now TNC's. So if a company can have the same financial backing as a Nation then surely they may be able to warrant the same amount of power? Not only this but a lot of major corporations base themselves in tax heavens and find loopholes to not pay tax in nations were they are present and earn millions of dollars. For example Amazon turned over 3.85 billion in 2011 and only paid 1.6 million in tax. This then shows the true extent of the power in which these corporations now have. Another example comes from the UEFA president Micheal Platini (French) who was told by the French president to vote for the 2020 World Cup to be in Qatar due to the french links with oil corporations.
Is the Nation state still the most important/significant actor?
Although there is a very valid argument for the fact that the nation state is no longer the most significant/important actor. For example international organisations are now being used a lot more as a means for international talks, rather than directly between the state. Not only this but there has been a continual rise of these giant corporations who do have a lot of pulling power worldwide not only because of there vast amount of profits but also because of the amount of people they now employ which then reduces the pressure on the government, for example Walmart employs 2.1 million people and McDonald's 1.7 million. However I do still believe that the state is still very much the most significant/important actor on the World stage. This is because they are the ones who create the laws and boundaries for the corporations to work in. Not only this but they can pack up and leave the international organizations when ever they like as they are not tied down to them in any shape or form.
No comments:
Post a Comment