Abstract
This chapter starts with the distinction between sovereignty and globalization as a way of getting at the big picture of international governance. What is the place of international organizations (IOs) in world politics? IOs, defined here as inclusive intergovernmental organizations, are a relatively new phenomenon in international relations. They first appeared on the scene a little more than a century ago, in a modern state system that had already been around for more than 200 years. Before the advent of inclusive IOs there had been exclusive intergovernmental organizations, such as military alliances, among sovereign states. Predating the state system altogether were important international nonstate actors such as the Catholic Church and the Holy Roman Empire. But these actors were not intergovernmental—they were not created by states, but rather existed independently of them.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
For a discussion of the frequency of emanations, see Cheryl Shanks, Harold Jacobson, and Jeffrey Kaplan, “Inertia and Change in the Constellation of International Governmental Organizations, 1981–1992,” International Organization 50 (1996): 593–628.
For a broader discussion of the practical limits of sovereignty in Africa, see Robert Jackson, Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Third World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).
On Westphalia as metaphor versus Westphalia as history, see Andreas Osiander, “Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth,” International Organization 55 (2001): 251–287.
J. Samuel Barkin, “The Evolution of the Constitution of Sovereignty and the Emergence of Human Rights Norms,” Millennium 27 (1998): 229–252.
For a good general introduction to the globalization literature, see Jan Aart Scholte, Globalization: A Critical Introduction, 2nd ed. (Houndmills, HA: Palgrave, 2005).
On multilateralism, see John Gerard Ruggie, “Multilateralism: The Anatomy of an Institution,” International Organization 46 (1992): 561–598.
For a discussion of the mechanics of this process, and an example of it in the realm of financial regulation, see Beth Simmons, “The International Politics of Harmonization: The Case of Capital Market Regulation,” International Organization 55 (2001): 589–620.
For a discussion of regulatory races to the bottom, see H. Jeffrey Leonard, Pollution and the Struggle for World Product: Multinational Corporations, Environment, and International Comparative Advantage (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988) and Daniel Drezner, “Globalization and Policy Convergence,” International Studies Review 3 (2001): 53–78. For a range of arguments against globalization, see Jerry Mander and Edward Goldsmith, eds., The Case against the Global Economy: And for a Turn toward the Local (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1996 ).
See, for example, Jennifer Clapp, “Africa, NGOs, and the International Toxic Waste Trade,” Journal of Environment and Development 3 (1994): 17–46.
Examples of both arguments can be found in Kevin Gallagher and Jacob Werksman, eds., The Earthscan Reader on International Trade & Sustainable Development (London: Earthscan, 2002).
For a discussion of this literature in the context of disarmament, see Klaus Knorr, “Supranational Versus International Models for General and Complete Disarmament,” in The Strategy of World Order, vol. 4, Disarmament and Economic Development , ed. Richard Falk and Saul Mendlovitz (New York: World Law Fund, 1966), pp. 326–353.
Hedley Bul l, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (London: Macmillan, 1977).
See, for example, Susan Strange, “Cave, Hic Dragones: A Critique of Regime Analysis,” International Organization 36 (1982): 479–496; John Mearsheimer, “The False Promise of International Institutions,” International Security 19 (1994–1995): 5–49; and Lloyd Gruber, Ruling the World: Power Politics and the Rise of Supranational Institutions (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000).
See, for example, Louis Henkin, How Nations Behave: Law and Foreign Policy, 2nd ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1979 ).
See, for example, Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998).
On “sovereignty” being more of a convenience for powerful states than being an absolute rule, see Stephen Krasner, Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999).
On the processes through which competitive behavior can lead to war, see Robert Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Politics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976).
See, for example, Shirin Sinnar, “Mixed Blessing: The Growing Influence of NGOs,” Harvard International Review 18 (1995–1996): 54–57.
Copyright information
© 2013 J. Samuel Barkin
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Barkin, J.S. (2013). Sovereignty and Globalization. In: International Organization. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137356734_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137356734_2
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-30240-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-35673-4
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)