C O N T E M P O R A R Y W O R L D

Lesson 4
History of Global
Politics
I N S T R U C T O R : M S . V I R G I D U R A N A

G L O B A L I Z A T I O N
 Internationalization
The world is composed of many countries or states, all of them having
different forms of government. Some scholars of politics are interested in
individual states and examine the internal politics of these countries. For
example, a scholar studying the politics of Japan may write about the
history of its bureaucracy. Other scholars are more interested in the
interactions between states rather than their internal politics. These
scholars look at trade deals between states. They also study political,
military, and other diplomatic engagements between two or more
countries. These scholars are studying international relations. Moreover,
when they explore the deepening of interactions between states, they
refer to the phenomenon of internationalization.
 Internationalization
Internationalization does not equal globalization, although it is a major
part of globalization. As we explained, globalization encompasses a
multitude of connections and interactions that cannot be reduced to the
ties between governments. Nevertheless, it is important to study
international relations as a facet of globalization, because
states/governments are key drivers of global processes. In this lesson, we
will examine internationalization as one window to view the globalization of
politics. Although this course is about the contemporary world, we cannot
avoid history. What international relations are today is largely defined by
events that occurred as far back as 400 years ago.
 The Attributes of Today's Global System
World politics today has four key attributes. First, there are countries or states that
are independent and govern themselves. Second, these countries interact with each
other through diplomacy. Third, there are international organizations, like the United
Nations (UN), that facilitate these interactions. Fourth, beyond simply facilitating
meetings between states, international organizations also take on lives of their own.
The UN, for example, apart from being a meeting ground for presidents and other
heads of state, also has task-specific agencies like the World Health Organization
(WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO). What are the origins of this
system? A good start is by unpacking what one means when he/she says a "country,"
or what academics also call the nation-state. This concept is not as simple as it
seems. The nation-state is a relatively modern phenomenon in human history, and
people did not always organize themselves as countries. At different parts in the
history of humanity, people in various regions of the world have identified exclusively
with units as small as their village or their tribe, and at other times, they see
themselves as members of larger political categories like "Christendom"(the entire
Christian world).
 Nation-State
The nation-state is composed of two non-interchangeable terms. Not all
states are nations and not all nations are states. The nation of Scotland,
for example, has its own flag and national culture, but still belongs to a
state called the United Kingdom. Closer to home, many commentators
believe that the Bangsamoro is a separate nation existing within the
Philippines but, through their elites, recognizes the authority of the
Philippine state. Meanwhile, if there are states with multiple nations, there
are also single nations with multiple states. The nation of Korea is divided
into North and South Korea, whereas the "Chinese nation" may refer to
both the People's Republic of China (the mainland) and Taiwan.
What then is the difference between nation and state?
In layman's terms, state refers to a country and its government, i.e., the
government of the Philippines. A state has four attributes. First, it
exercises authority over a specific population, called its citizens.
Second, it governs a specific territory. Third, a state has a structure of
government that crafts various rules that people (society) follow. Fourth
and the most crucial, the state has sovereignty over its territory.
Sovereignty here refers to internal and external authority. Internally, no
individuals or groups can operate in a given national territory by ignoring
the state. This means that groups like churches, civil society organizations,
corporations, and other entities have to follow the laws of the state where
they establish their parishes, offices, or headquarters. Externally,
sovereignty means that a state's policies and procedures are independent
of the interventions of other states. Russia or China, for example, cannot
pass laws for the Philippines and vice versa.
What then is the difference between nation and state?
On the other hand, the nation, according to Benedict Anderson, is an
"imagined community." It is limited because it does not go beyond a given
"official boundary," and because rights and responsibilities are mainly the
privilege and concern of the citizens of that nation. Being limited means that
the nation has its boundaries. This characteristic is in stark contrast to many
religious imagined communities. Anyone, for example, can become a Catholic
if one chooses to. In fact, Catholics want more people to join their community;
they refer to it as the call to discipleship. But not everyone can simply become
a Filipino. An American cannot simply go to the Philippine Embassy and
"convert" into a Philippine citizen. Nations often limit themselves to people
who have imbibed a particular culture, speak a common language, and live in a
specific territory. Calling it "imagined" does not mean that the nation is made-
up. Rather, the nation allows one to feel a connection with a community of
people even if he/she will never meet all of them in his/her lifetime.
What then is the difference between nation and state?

Nation and state are closely related because it is nationalism that

facilitates state formation. In the modern and contemporary era, it has
been the nationalist movements that have allowed for the creation of
nation-states. States become independent and sovereign because of
nationalist sentiment that clamors for this independence. Sovereignty is,
thus, one of the fundamental principles of modern state politics.

(Sovereignty - in political theory, the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the

decision-making process of the state and in the maintenance of order. The
concept of sovereignty—one of the most controversial ideas in political
science and international law—is closely related to the difficult concepts
of state and government and of independence and democracy)
The Interstate
System
 The Interstate System

The origins of the present-day concept of sovereignty can be traced back

to the Treaty of Westphalia, which was a set of agreements signed in
1648 to end the Thirty Years' War between the major continental powers
of Europe. After a brutal religious war between Catholics and Protestants,
the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, France, Sweden, and the Dutch Republic
designed a system that would avert wars in the future by recognizing that
the treaty signers exercise complete control over their domestic affairs
and swear not to meddle in each other's affairs.
 The Interstate System

The Westphalian system provided stability for the nations of Europe, until it
faced its first major challenge by Napoleon Bonaparte. Bonaparte believed
in spreading the principles of the French Revolution-liberty, equality, and
fraternity-to the rest of Europe and thus challenged the power of kings,
nobility, and religion in Europe. The Napoleonic Wars lasted from 1803-
1815 with Napoleon and his armies marching all over much of Europe. In
every country they conquered, the French implemented the Napoleonic
Code that forbade birth privileges, encouraged freedom or religion, and
promoted meritocracy in government service. This system shocked the
monarchies and the hereditary elites (dukes, duchesses, etc.) of Europe,
and they mustered their armies to push back against the French emperor.
 The Interstate System

Anglo and Prussian armies finally defeated Napoleon in the Battle of

Waterloo in 1815, ending the latter's mission to spread his liberal code
across Europe. To prevent another war and to keep their systems of
privilege, the royal powers created a new system that, in effect, restored
the Westphalian system. The Concert of Europe was an alliance of "great
powers"-the United Kingdom, Austria, Russia, and Prussia-that sought to
restore the world of monarchical, hereditary, and religious privileges of the
time before the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars.
 The Interstate System
More importantly, it was an alliance that sought to restore the sovereignty of
states. Under this Metternich system (named after the Austrian diplomat,
Klemens von Metternich, who was the system's main architect), the
Concert's power and authority lasted from 1815 to 1914, at the dawn of World
War I. Klemens Von Metternich was the architect of the "Concert of Europe."
Despite the challenge of Napoleon to the Westphalian system and the
eventual collapse of the Concert of Europe after World War I, present-day
international system still has traces of this history. Until now, states are
considered sovereign, and Napoleonic attempts to violently impose systems
of government in other countries are frowned upon. Moreover, like the
Concert system, great powers" still hold significant influence over world
politics. for example, the most powerful grouping in the UN, the Security
Council, has a core of five permanent members, all having veto powers over
the council's decision-making process.
Internationalism
 Internationalism
T'he Westphalian and Concert systems divided the world into separate,
sovereign entities. Since the existence of this interstate system, there have
been attempts to transcend it. Some, like Bonaparte, directly challenged
the system by infringing on other states' sovereignty, while others sought
to imagine other systems of governance that go beyond, but do not
necessarily challenge, sovereignty. Still, others imagine a system of
heightened interaction between various sovereign states, particularly the
desire for greater cooperation and unity among states and peoples. This
desire is called internationalism. Internationalism comes in different forms,
but the principle may be divided into two broad categories: liberal
internationalism and socialist internationalism. The first major thinker of
liberal internationalism was the late 18th century German philosopher
Immanuel Kant. Kant likened states in a global system to people living in a
given territory.
 Internationalism
If people living together require a government to prevent lawlessness,
shouldn't that same principle be applied to states? Without a form of world
government, he argued, the international system would be chaotic.
Therefore, states, like citizens of countries, must give up some freedoms
and "establish a continuously growing state consisting of various nations
which will ultimately include the nations of the world. "In short, Kant
imagined a form of global government. Writing in the late 18th century as
well, British philosopher Jeremy Bentham (who coined the word
"international" in 1780), advocated the creation of "international law" that
would govern the inter-state relations. Bentham believed that objective
global legislators should aim to propose legislation that would create "the
greatest happiness of all nations taken together."
 Internationalism
To many, these proposals for global government and international law
seemed to represent challenges to states. Would not a world government,
in effect, become supreme? And would not its laws overwhelm the
sovereignty of individual states? The first thinker to reconcile nationalism
with liberal internationalism was the 19th century Italian patriot Giuseppe
Mazzini. Mazzini was both an advocate of the unification of the various
Italian-speaking mini-states and a major critic of the Metternich system.
He believed in a Republican government (without kings, queens, and
hereditary succession) and proposed a system of free nations that
cooperated with each other to create an international system. For Mazzini,
free, independent states would be the basis of an equally free,
cooperative international system. He argued that if the various Italian mini-
states could unify, one could scale up the system to create, for example, a
United States of Europe.
 League of Nations
Mazzini was a nationalist internationalist, who believes that free, unified nation-
states should be the basis of global cooperation. Mazzini influenced the thinking
of United States president (1913-1921) Woodrow Wilson, who became one of the
20th century's most prominent internationalist. Like Mazzini, Wilson saw
nationalism as a prerequisite for internationalism. Because of his faith in
nationalism, he forwarded the principle of self- determination-the belief that the
world's nations had a right to a free, and sovereign government. He hoped that
these free nations would become democracies, because only by being such
would they be able to build a free system of international relations based on
international law and cooperation. Wilson, in short, became the most notable
advocate for the creation of the League of Nations. At the end of World War I in
1918, he pushed to transform the League into a venue for conciliation and
arbitration to prevent another war. For his efforts, Wilson was awarded the Nobel
Peace Prize in 1919.
 League of Nations
The League came into being that same year. Ironically and unfortunately for Wilson,
the United States was not able to join the organization due to strong opposition
from the Senate. The League was also unable to hinder another war from breaking
out. It was practically helpless to prevent the onset and intensification of World
War II. On one side of the war were the Axis Powers- Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's
Italy, and Hirohito's Japan- who were ultra-nationalists that had an instinctive
disdain for internationalism and preferred to violently impose their dominance
over other nations. It was in the midst of this war between the Axis Powers and
the Allied Powers (composed of the United States, United Kingdom, France,
Holland, and Belgium) that internationalism would be eclipsed. Despite its failure,
the League gave birth to some of the more task-specific international organizations
that are still around until today, the most popular of which are the World Health
Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO). More
importantly, it would serve as the blueprint for future forms of international
cooperation. In this respect, despite its organizational dissolution, the League of
Nations' principles survived World War II.
 The United
Nations and
Contemporary
Global
Governance
 Global Governance

Although many internationalists like Bentham and Kant imagined the possibility of a
global government, nothing of the sort exists today. There is no one organization
that various states are accountable to. Moreover, no organization can militarily
compel a state to obey predetermined global rules. There is, however, some
regularity in the general behavior of states. For example, they more or less follow
global navigation routes and, more often than not, respect each other's territorial
boundaries. Moreover, when they do not-like when Russia invaded Crimea in 2014-it
becomes a cause for global concern and debate. The fact that states in an
international order continue to adhere to certain global norms means that there is a
semblance of world order despite the lack of a single world government. Global
governance refers to the various intersecting processes that create this order.
There are many sources of global governance.
 Global Governance

States sign treaties and form organizations, in the process legislating public
international law (international rules that govern interactions between states as
opposed to, say, private companies). International non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), though not having formal state power, can lobby individual
states to behave in a certain way (for example, an international animal protection
NGO can pressure governments to pass animal cruelty laws). Powerful
transnational corporations can likewise have tremendous effects on global labor
laws, environmental legislation, trade policy, etc. Even ideas such as the need for
"global democracy" or the clamor for "good governance" can influence the ways
international actors behave.
 What is an International Organization?

When scholars refer to groups like the UN or institutions like the IMF and the World
Bank, they usually call them international organizations (IOs). Although international
NGOs are sometimes considered as IOs, the term is commonly used to refer to
international intergovernmental organizations or groups that are primarily made up
of member-states.

International organization - institution drawing membership from at least three

states, having activities in several states, and whose members are held together by
a formal agreement.
 What is an International Organization?

First, IOs have the power of classification. Because IOs can invent and apply
categories, they create powerful global standards. For example, it is the UN High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) that defines what a refugee is (see Lesson 10
for more). And since states are required to accept refugees entering their borders,
this power to establish identity has concrete effects. Second, IOs have the power
to fix meanings. This is a broader function related to the first. Various terms like
"security" or "development" need to be well-defined. States, organizations, and
individuals view IOs as legitimate sources of information.
 What is an International Organization?
Finally, IOs have the power to diffuse norms. Norms are accepted codes of conduct
that may not be strict law, but nevertheless produce regularity in behavior. IOs do not
only classify and fix meanings; they also spread their ideas across the world, thereby
establishing global standards. Their members are, as Barnett and Finnemore
emphasized, the "missionaries" of our time. Their power to diffuse norms stems from
the fact that IOs are staffed with independent bureaucracies, who are considered
experts in various fields. For example, World Bank economists come to be regarded
as experts in development and thus carry some form of authority. They can, therefore,
create norms regarding the implementation and conceptualization of development
projects. Because of these immense powers, IOs can be sources of great good and
great harm. They can promote relevant norms like environmental protection and
human rights. But, like other entrenched bureaucracies, they can become sealed-off
communities that fail to challenge their beliefs. For example, the Nobel Prize-winning
economist Joseph Stiglitz famously criticized the IMF for using a "one-size-fits-all"
approach when its economists made recommendations to developing countries.
 The United Nations

The main headquarters of the United Nations in New York Having examined the
powers, limitations, and weaknesses of IOs, the spotlight wil now fall on the most
prominent IO in the contemporary world, the United Nations (UN). After the collapse of
the League of Nations at the end of World War II, countries that worried about another
global war began to push for the formation of a more lasting international league. The
result was the creation of the UN. Although the organization is far from perfect, it
should be emphasized that it has so far achieved its primary goal of averting another
global war. For this reason alone, the UN should be considered a success.
 The United Nations

The UN is divided into five active organs. The General Assembly (GA) is UN's "main
deliberative policymaking and representative organ.": According to the UN charter:
"Decisions on important questions, such as those on peace and security, admission
of new members, and budgetary matters, require a two-thirds majority of the
General Assembly. Decisions on other questions are done by simple majority.
Annually, the General Assembly elects a GA President to serve a one-year term of
office."24 All member states (currently at 193) have seats in the GA. The Philippines
played a prominent role in the GA's early years when Filipino diplomat Carlos P.
Romulo was elected GA president from 1949-1950.
 The United Nations
Although the GA is the most representative organization in the UN, many
commentators consider the Security Council (SC) to be the most powerful.
According to the UN, this body consists of 15 member states. The GA elects ten of
these 15 to two-year terms. The other five-sometimes referred to as the Permanent
5 (P5)-are China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. These
states have been permanent members since the founding of the UN, and cannot be
replaced through election. The SC takes the lead in determining the existence of a
threat to the peace or an act of aggression. It calls upon the parties to a dispute to
settle the act by peaceful means and recommends methods of adjustment or terms
of settlement. In some cases, it can resort to imposing sanctions or even authorizing
the use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security. Because of
these powers, states that seek to intervene militarily in another state need to obtain
the approval of the SC. With the SC's approval, a military intervention may be
deemed legal. This is an immense power.
 The United Nations

In addition to maintaining peace and security, other important

objectives include developing friendly relations among countries
based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-
determination of peoples; achieving worldwide cooperation to solve
international economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian problems;
respecting and promoting human rights; and serving as a centre
where countries can coordinate their actions and activities toward
these various ends.