Holden Caulfield
10th January 2010, 15:19
In the course of this essay we shall discuss, and try to draw conclusions upon, the affect that globalisation is having on the power, authority, sovereignty and democratic accountability of states in the modern day. To do this we shall look at the different schools of thought surrounding this subject; the main 3 being the Realist approach, the so-called Liberal approach, and also a Marxist approach of analysing globalisation. As well as discussing affects of globalisation on the state, we shall also discuss globalisation itself, that is to say, to discern whether globalisation is a ‘new’ phenomenon, a transitional theory, or merely a new term for existing relationships, for example, as Marxists would claim.
By globalisation “we mean the process of increasing interconnectedness between societies, such that events in one part of the world more and more have effects on peoples and societies far away”[1] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn1). The power of the state, as mentioned in the title, is the ability of the state to be sovereign power, the “supreme authority within [its] territory”[2] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn2).[I] This of course leads to the issues of democratic accountability of the governments of states in a globalised world, if the government is not the ‘supreme power’ then it cannot sufficiently represent the will of the people, but is in fact ‘held’ by extraneous powers and authorities.
Those who claim that the power of state is being eroded by globalisation, would be (although, not exclusively so) from the ‘Liberal’ school of International political thought. Liberals assume that the state is in fact being weakened and eroded by the growth in importance of other non-state actors, (such as transnational companies and economic communities, etc) to the point where the state is no longer the central actor in international relations. This has been called the “retreat of the state”[3] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn3). The main threat to the power of the state is the economic globalisation that has taken place over recent decades, the globalisation of finance and industry has moved both capital and the means of production, further away from state control. As governments can no longer affectively control the economic situation within their own borders it would appear that now “it is the markets which [...] are masters over the governments of states”[4] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn4). As Mr Webb puts it “[international financial] flows generate economic instability and pose a serious problem for [...] national economic policy”[5] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn5), that is to say, as economies have transcended states, it is extremely difficult for individual states to control their own economic situations. An example of the weakness of states, and also of the globalisation of economies, would be the recent ‘Credit Crunch’, where states found themselves in dire economic situations (e.g. Iceland, as a state, was bankrupt) due to a crisis in the global financial market.
Globalisation has also, seemingly, created other truly global issues for states to contest with; the global drug trade that transcends states is worth a reported $500 billion[6] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn6), global terrorist organisations which are not tied to individual states or territories, and global warming, each of which cannot be combated by states individually.
Another example of eroding state power is the undermining of the democratic accountability that should lie at the core of any ‘liberal’ democracy. “Ministers have lost the authority over national societies and economies”[7] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn7) and therefore are not accountable to the electorate, which is a central pillar of representative democracy. States cannot act in the interests of their citizens as they are held in check by economic pressures, which stem from the globalised economy; for example if the US and Saudi Arabia were to clash politically, the US could stand to lose the 10% of its entire economy, controlled by Saudis, this highlights how policy is dictated by globalised economics. This theory of the state has been called the “straight-jacked state”[8] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn8), as the state’s ability to act is severely restricted by extraneous actors.
Unlike the Liberal approach Realists would stress that although globalisation “may affect our social, economic and cultural lives [...] it does not transcend the international political system of states”[9] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn9). The state still holds onto legal and administrative power, also the state can in theory use the armed forces to enact policy within its territory, as has been shown when in 2006 Bolivian President Evo Morales used the army to seize control of sections of the gas industry, ousting multi-national companies. Whereas Liberals claim that states are no longer central actors in International Politics, Realists would disagree, claiming that “competition for world market shares has replaced competition for territory”[10] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn10) but that “this agenda is still set within the same old locations of power”[11] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn11). If we push this view to a logical conclusion it would be true to say that “globalisation engenders conflict between [states]”[12] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn12), when the interests of transnational companies would benefit one state over another tension and conflicts can and have arisen. One could reasonably assume that the source of recent deterioration of relations between the UK and Russian governments can be found in the conflict between the ‘British based’ BP (British Petroleum) and the Russian government over who should hold shares in Russian oil operations. Realists see globalisation as a transformation of world economics, not as a process eroding the power of the states.
Organisations such as the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and the UN (United Nations) etc have been said to limit the power of governments, as they remove the sovereignty from states, however this is a Liberal point of view that Realists can easily refute, and a view that I think shows a naivety of understanding of how these organisations are established, and how they act. The “IMF has no real authority [and...] has never been able to compel [the] great capitalist powers”[13] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn13). Similarly the UN has no means to command the great capitalist powers, as can be seen in the lack of UN support for the Iraq War, and the USA’s neglect of this disapproval. Both organisations can be seen to be, by some, controlled by the USA through the sheer percentage of the organisations support, which comes from America; or to be unable to control America; as no other countries or existing bloc of countries have the means to challenge the lone Superpower. The “United States preferred weaker institutions”[14] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn14) because it was also “the most likely to exploit open capital markets”[15] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn15) which result from this type of globalisation.
In times of economic crisis it is the state that is seen to come back to the centre of focus and show that it is, still, in fact the central actor is proceedings. The E.U conference on how to tackle the ‘Credit Crunch’ saw states seeking to protect their own economic positions through control and fiscal support ‘private’ companies, and not, as Liberals would assume, the cooperation of states engaged in this economic community. When economies hit crisis we see the power of states clearly demonstrated and also the willingness of states to act in the interests of private companies, highlighting the fact that the interests of states, the maintenance of their power, has not diminished because of a globalised economy, even if the means of doing this have changed. The ‘Credit Crunch’ is also, perhaps, a stark reminder that due to the globalisation of economies all individual states should have vigilant regulations on their own capital flows.
Globalisation has often been, sneeringly, labelled “Mcdonaldisation”[16] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn16), meaning that it is in fact merely the expansion of Western, particularly American, culture, to further aid American economic imperialism, and hegemony around the globe. The movement of cultures seen under the epoch of globalisation can be seen as rather one sided, and in fact it is really the opening of new markets for American products. For example, after the Iraq War’s initial campaign a Burger King was opened in Baghdad, this is not sharing of cultures but the imposition of American culture across the globe. Also American companies are finding markets for cigarettes in Africa; the imposition of American culture on these states has doubtlessly increase sales for the companies such as Marlboro. In regards to this, the concept of globalisation is undermined, depending on perspective; it may be seen merely as Westernisation.
“It is neither new, nor it is global”[17] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn17)would be a Marxist view of globalisation. Whereas Marxists would agree that so-called globalisation is ‘Westernisation’, and a form of economic imperialism, they would, therefore, not call it globalisation as it is merely a Western-led phenomenon. Also it is not a new phenomenon, but rather the development of international capitalism which has its roots hundreds of years into the past. Marxists would argue that the interests of the state and of the large multi-national companies are one and the same, as it is the ‘ruling classes’ who are the leaders of both states and of global capitalism, and so states act to benefit capitalist ventures in order to, as is the central aspect of capitalism, accumulate profit. For example the ruling classes in America saw the benefit of using the state apparatus to invade Afghanistan, to allow the American capitalist venture, led by Halliburton (who’s former CEO was Vice President at the time of the invasion), to gain profit from controlling a gas-pipe from the Caspian Sea. This is not merely an American condition, states and corporations have given us many examples of their mutual interests, such as the invasion of Egypt over the control of the Suez Canal by the French and British armies. As Marx said: “[in] the need of a constantly expanding market [...] the bourgeois [spread] over the whole surface of the globe, it must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, and establish connections everywhere”[18] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn18).
Examples of shared interests of state and capitalists are clear, for example in America where the Bush Doctrine has been applied only to the most financially rewarding targets, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, possibly Iran, and not to North Korea, Somalia, or Zimbabwe. In China, the so called ‘communist’ state, the bureaucratic ruling class has also taken the role of the capitalist class, Chinese state policy and capitalist ventures go hand in hand, as can be seen with the much improved relationships with the USA, and the recent investment in Morgan Stanley.
The issue of Labour organisations will only be briefly touched upon, partly due to the relative weakness of such groupings in the current epoch and party due to the recession of Left Internationalism as a mainstream political theory. “Labour groups often influence state policy”[19] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn19) claims Robert O’Brien: However in the current epoch states and corporations have effectively nullified the threat from Unions and other working class organisations, be it through neo-liberalist economic policies of Thatcher, or through the political assassinations we see in Columbia. Although Labour groups can affect change in policy (being that power is derived from the people in advanced capitalist nations, and the working class is the largest demographic) in the present day this has little chance of occurring on any large scale.
Although globalisation is occurring, it is, as we have seen, not undermining the power of states, or removing them from their place as the central actors in international relations. It is rather just the economic situation developing and altering to make best use of technological advances. The interests of states and of corporations are intrinsically linked, but this is no new phenomenon and has been the case for many hundreds of years, with examples ranging from the Opium Wars, to World War One, to the invasion of Iraq. Many political commentators say that ‘capitalism has not grown past states yet’ however it appears that the state is the best instrument of economic protection when the ‘globalised free market’ fails, and so it can be said that the state shall exist as long as capitalism prevails as the major economic system.
[1] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref1) John Baylis. Patricia Owens. Steve Smith. ‘The Globalization of World Politics’ (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2008) 7
[2] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref2) ‘Sovereignty’, Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sovereignty/ (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sovereignty/), 18 June 2003)
[3] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref3)Susan Strange, ‘Political Economy in the Changing Global Order’ (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2006) 371
[4] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref4) Susan Strange, ‘the Global Transformation Reader’ (Cambridge: Polity Press. 2002) 128
[5] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref5) Michael Webb, ‘Political Economy in the Changing Global Order’ (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2006) 158
[6] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref6)UN: Office on Drugs and Crime ( http://www.undoc.org/undoc (http://www.undoc.org/undoc), June 2008)
[7] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref7) Susan Strange, ‘the Global Transformation Reader’ (Cambridge: Polity Press. 2002) 127
[8] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref8) Linda Weiss, ‘States in the Global Economy’, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2003) 313
[9] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref9) John Baylis. Patricia Owens. Steve Smith. ‘The Globalization of World Politics’ (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2008) 8
[10] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref10) Susan Strange, ‘the Global Transformation Reader’ (Cambridge: Polity Press. 2002) 131
[11] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref11) Arif Dirlik, ‘Globalism and the Politics of Place’ Development 41 (June 1998) 11
[12] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref12) Bruce E. Moon, ‘Political Economy and the Changing Global Order’ (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2006) 434
[13] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref13)Samir Amin, ‘Capitalism in the Age of Globalisation’ (New York: Zed Books Ltd. 1998) 18
[14] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref14)Samir Amin, ‘Capitalism in the Age of Globalisation’ (New York: Zed Books Ltd. 1998) 18
[15] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref15) Bruce E. Moon, ‘Political Economy and the Changing Global Order’ (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2006) 431
[16] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref16) Ariun Appadurai, ‘‘Globalization’,( North Carolina: Duke University Press. 2001)
[17] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref17) Robert O’Keohane ‘the Global Transformation Reader’ (Cambridge: Polity Press. 2002) 147
[18] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref18) Karl Marx, ‘On the Question of Free Trade’ Marx &Engels Collected Works, Volume 6. (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/01/09ft.htm)
[19] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref19)Robert O’Brien, ‘Political Economy and the Changing Global Order’ (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2006) 223
By globalisation “we mean the process of increasing interconnectedness between societies, such that events in one part of the world more and more have effects on peoples and societies far away”[1] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn1). The power of the state, as mentioned in the title, is the ability of the state to be sovereign power, the “supreme authority within [its] territory”[2] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn2).[I] This of course leads to the issues of democratic accountability of the governments of states in a globalised world, if the government is not the ‘supreme power’ then it cannot sufficiently represent the will of the people, but is in fact ‘held’ by extraneous powers and authorities.
Those who claim that the power of state is being eroded by globalisation, would be (although, not exclusively so) from the ‘Liberal’ school of International political thought. Liberals assume that the state is in fact being weakened and eroded by the growth in importance of other non-state actors, (such as transnational companies and economic communities, etc) to the point where the state is no longer the central actor in international relations. This has been called the “retreat of the state”[3] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn3). The main threat to the power of the state is the economic globalisation that has taken place over recent decades, the globalisation of finance and industry has moved both capital and the means of production, further away from state control. As governments can no longer affectively control the economic situation within their own borders it would appear that now “it is the markets which [...] are masters over the governments of states”[4] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn4). As Mr Webb puts it “[international financial] flows generate economic instability and pose a serious problem for [...] national economic policy”[5] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn5), that is to say, as economies have transcended states, it is extremely difficult for individual states to control their own economic situations. An example of the weakness of states, and also of the globalisation of economies, would be the recent ‘Credit Crunch’, where states found themselves in dire economic situations (e.g. Iceland, as a state, was bankrupt) due to a crisis in the global financial market.
Globalisation has also, seemingly, created other truly global issues for states to contest with; the global drug trade that transcends states is worth a reported $500 billion[6] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn6), global terrorist organisations which are not tied to individual states or territories, and global warming, each of which cannot be combated by states individually.
Another example of eroding state power is the undermining of the democratic accountability that should lie at the core of any ‘liberal’ democracy. “Ministers have lost the authority over national societies and economies”[7] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn7) and therefore are not accountable to the electorate, which is a central pillar of representative democracy. States cannot act in the interests of their citizens as they are held in check by economic pressures, which stem from the globalised economy; for example if the US and Saudi Arabia were to clash politically, the US could stand to lose the 10% of its entire economy, controlled by Saudis, this highlights how policy is dictated by globalised economics. This theory of the state has been called the “straight-jacked state”[8] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn8), as the state’s ability to act is severely restricted by extraneous actors.
Unlike the Liberal approach Realists would stress that although globalisation “may affect our social, economic and cultural lives [...] it does not transcend the international political system of states”[9] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn9). The state still holds onto legal and administrative power, also the state can in theory use the armed forces to enact policy within its territory, as has been shown when in 2006 Bolivian President Evo Morales used the army to seize control of sections of the gas industry, ousting multi-national companies. Whereas Liberals claim that states are no longer central actors in International Politics, Realists would disagree, claiming that “competition for world market shares has replaced competition for territory”[10] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn10) but that “this agenda is still set within the same old locations of power”[11] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn11). If we push this view to a logical conclusion it would be true to say that “globalisation engenders conflict between [states]”[12] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn12), when the interests of transnational companies would benefit one state over another tension and conflicts can and have arisen. One could reasonably assume that the source of recent deterioration of relations between the UK and Russian governments can be found in the conflict between the ‘British based’ BP (British Petroleum) and the Russian government over who should hold shares in Russian oil operations. Realists see globalisation as a transformation of world economics, not as a process eroding the power of the states.
Organisations such as the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and the UN (United Nations) etc have been said to limit the power of governments, as they remove the sovereignty from states, however this is a Liberal point of view that Realists can easily refute, and a view that I think shows a naivety of understanding of how these organisations are established, and how they act. The “IMF has no real authority [and...] has never been able to compel [the] great capitalist powers”[13] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn13). Similarly the UN has no means to command the great capitalist powers, as can be seen in the lack of UN support for the Iraq War, and the USA’s neglect of this disapproval. Both organisations can be seen to be, by some, controlled by the USA through the sheer percentage of the organisations support, which comes from America; or to be unable to control America; as no other countries or existing bloc of countries have the means to challenge the lone Superpower. The “United States preferred weaker institutions”[14] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn14) because it was also “the most likely to exploit open capital markets”[15] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn15) which result from this type of globalisation.
In times of economic crisis it is the state that is seen to come back to the centre of focus and show that it is, still, in fact the central actor is proceedings. The E.U conference on how to tackle the ‘Credit Crunch’ saw states seeking to protect their own economic positions through control and fiscal support ‘private’ companies, and not, as Liberals would assume, the cooperation of states engaged in this economic community. When economies hit crisis we see the power of states clearly demonstrated and also the willingness of states to act in the interests of private companies, highlighting the fact that the interests of states, the maintenance of their power, has not diminished because of a globalised economy, even if the means of doing this have changed. The ‘Credit Crunch’ is also, perhaps, a stark reminder that due to the globalisation of economies all individual states should have vigilant regulations on their own capital flows.
Globalisation has often been, sneeringly, labelled “Mcdonaldisation”[16] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn16), meaning that it is in fact merely the expansion of Western, particularly American, culture, to further aid American economic imperialism, and hegemony around the globe. The movement of cultures seen under the epoch of globalisation can be seen as rather one sided, and in fact it is really the opening of new markets for American products. For example, after the Iraq War’s initial campaign a Burger King was opened in Baghdad, this is not sharing of cultures but the imposition of American culture across the globe. Also American companies are finding markets for cigarettes in Africa; the imposition of American culture on these states has doubtlessly increase sales for the companies such as Marlboro. In regards to this, the concept of globalisation is undermined, depending on perspective; it may be seen merely as Westernisation.
“It is neither new, nor it is global”[17] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn17)would be a Marxist view of globalisation. Whereas Marxists would agree that so-called globalisation is ‘Westernisation’, and a form of economic imperialism, they would, therefore, not call it globalisation as it is merely a Western-led phenomenon. Also it is not a new phenomenon, but rather the development of international capitalism which has its roots hundreds of years into the past. Marxists would argue that the interests of the state and of the large multi-national companies are one and the same, as it is the ‘ruling classes’ who are the leaders of both states and of global capitalism, and so states act to benefit capitalist ventures in order to, as is the central aspect of capitalism, accumulate profit. For example the ruling classes in America saw the benefit of using the state apparatus to invade Afghanistan, to allow the American capitalist venture, led by Halliburton (who’s former CEO was Vice President at the time of the invasion), to gain profit from controlling a gas-pipe from the Caspian Sea. This is not merely an American condition, states and corporations have given us many examples of their mutual interests, such as the invasion of Egypt over the control of the Suez Canal by the French and British armies. As Marx said: “[in] the need of a constantly expanding market [...] the bourgeois [spread] over the whole surface of the globe, it must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, and establish connections everywhere”[18] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn18).
Examples of shared interests of state and capitalists are clear, for example in America where the Bush Doctrine has been applied only to the most financially rewarding targets, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, possibly Iran, and not to North Korea, Somalia, or Zimbabwe. In China, the so called ‘communist’ state, the bureaucratic ruling class has also taken the role of the capitalist class, Chinese state policy and capitalist ventures go hand in hand, as can be seen with the much improved relationships with the USA, and the recent investment in Morgan Stanley.
The issue of Labour organisations will only be briefly touched upon, partly due to the relative weakness of such groupings in the current epoch and party due to the recession of Left Internationalism as a mainstream political theory. “Labour groups often influence state policy”[19] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn19) claims Robert O’Brien: However in the current epoch states and corporations have effectively nullified the threat from Unions and other working class organisations, be it through neo-liberalist economic policies of Thatcher, or through the political assassinations we see in Columbia. Although Labour groups can affect change in policy (being that power is derived from the people in advanced capitalist nations, and the working class is the largest demographic) in the present day this has little chance of occurring on any large scale.
Although globalisation is occurring, it is, as we have seen, not undermining the power of states, or removing them from their place as the central actors in international relations. It is rather just the economic situation developing and altering to make best use of technological advances. The interests of states and of corporations are intrinsically linked, but this is no new phenomenon and has been the case for many hundreds of years, with examples ranging from the Opium Wars, to World War One, to the invasion of Iraq. Many political commentators say that ‘capitalism has not grown past states yet’ however it appears that the state is the best instrument of economic protection when the ‘globalised free market’ fails, and so it can be said that the state shall exist as long as capitalism prevails as the major economic system.
[1] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref1) John Baylis. Patricia Owens. Steve Smith. ‘The Globalization of World Politics’ (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2008) 7
[2] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref2) ‘Sovereignty’, Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sovereignty/ (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sovereignty/), 18 June 2003)
[3] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref3)Susan Strange, ‘Political Economy in the Changing Global Order’ (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2006) 371
[4] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref4) Susan Strange, ‘the Global Transformation Reader’ (Cambridge: Polity Press. 2002) 128
[5] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref5) Michael Webb, ‘Political Economy in the Changing Global Order’ (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2006) 158
[6] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref6)UN: Office on Drugs and Crime ( http://www.undoc.org/undoc (http://www.undoc.org/undoc), June 2008)
[7] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref7) Susan Strange, ‘the Global Transformation Reader’ (Cambridge: Polity Press. 2002) 127
[8] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref8) Linda Weiss, ‘States in the Global Economy’, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2003) 313
[9] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref9) John Baylis. Patricia Owens. Steve Smith. ‘The Globalization of World Politics’ (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2008) 8
[10] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref10) Susan Strange, ‘the Global Transformation Reader’ (Cambridge: Polity Press. 2002) 131
[11] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref11) Arif Dirlik, ‘Globalism and the Politics of Place’ Development 41 (June 1998) 11
[12] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref12) Bruce E. Moon, ‘Political Economy and the Changing Global Order’ (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2006) 434
[13] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref13)Samir Amin, ‘Capitalism in the Age of Globalisation’ (New York: Zed Books Ltd. 1998) 18
[14] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref14)Samir Amin, ‘Capitalism in the Age of Globalisation’ (New York: Zed Books Ltd. 1998) 18
[15] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref15) Bruce E. Moon, ‘Political Economy and the Changing Global Order’ (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2006) 431
[16] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref16) Ariun Appadurai, ‘‘Globalization’,( North Carolina: Duke University Press. 2001)
[17] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref17) Robert O’Keohane ‘the Global Transformation Reader’ (Cambridge: Polity Press. 2002) 147
[18] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref18) Karl Marx, ‘On the Question of Free Trade’ Marx &Engels Collected Works, Volume 6. (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/01/09ft.htm)
[19] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref19)Robert O’Brien, ‘Political Economy and the Changing Global Order’ (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2006) 223