Explaining the Concept of Continuity or Destruction of National State Sovereignty

پژوهش ‎های جغرافیای سیاسی

Article 2, Volume 1, Issue 4, January 2017, Pages 41-66   

Document Type: مقالات علمی -پژوهشی

DOI: 10.22067/pg.v1i4.64175

Authors

Hamid Reza Nosrati^{* 1}; Hamid Reza Mohammadi²

¹Kharazmi University

²Shahid Beheshti University

Abstract

Extended Abstract

Abstract:
States have always sought to consolidate their sovereignty in a specific area in order to provide their well-defined national security within their political boundaries framework. Actually, the size and realm of their sovereignty were specified and delineable. However, this kind of sovereignty got decentralized and appeared in the world globally and locally by the emergence of postmodernism period associated with the predominance of local identities, NGOs, global and multinational corporations, as well as transnational and international organizations. In this situation, the survival and preservation of the sovereignty would be ensured if the state be compatible and coordinate with these two categories. Therefore, this article examines and explains the concept of the continuation or destruction of national state sovereignty in the global geopolitical system. The main question raised here is whether the conceptual scope of the national sovereignty will be continued, transformed or eroded?, or is the ground now prepared for transforming of the sovereign state as a new world actor? Accordingly, in order to answer the question, 3 different attitudes have been studied as follows:
1- Believing in sovereignty continuation and survival of the national state.
2- Believing in establishing new functions for national state.
3- Supporting collapse and destruction of national state.
Thus, according to these three attitudes, the hypothesis in this paper is organized based on the claim that although the national states sovereignty has not been demolished despite all the pressures and limitations that were enforced, its conceptual and dominative scope has been transformed.
1- INTRODUCTION
The relationships were established in the world’s geopolitical system and in relation to the role of states in surviving the societies have been considered through two historical periods which is related to the emergence of the "state-nations" by concluding of the Westphalia treaty in 1648 and then have been included coming nongovernmental actors in the International field since the second half of the twentieth century.
Ending the Cold War and the collapse of the bipolar system, which paved the way of globalization for the economy and culture, can be considered as the highest point of these transformations. So, the power of states was affected by several factors, such as the communications, information, technological developments, multinational corporations, organizations and increasing non-governmental actors. Sates functions were significantly transformed. Totally, the historical evidence of four recent centuries has shown that the national state not only consisted itself very efficiently with global transformations and could continue its own life in this way but also it gradually influenced the direction of global change by its growing up, as well other social institutions and organizations have to adapt themselves to this social organization or "Social Structures" as Vendent says. The national state in this current world has shown itself as a main supplier of human public benefit and welfare, so the public expectations have significantly increased. Nobody can image the modern life without state. Because of this superior role of states in people modern life, Andrew Vincent writes it is hardly possible to suppose life without states practically. The state not only indicates a set of entities, but also suggests the attitudes and practical and behavioral styles which are briefly called civility that undoubtedly is considered as a part of civilization.
2- THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The concept of the Nation refers to the certain public intercommunication among people through a common sense which is created as a result of sharing common historical experience, tradition, language, religion, culture, and common political ends. Dick Shield continued: "Although the land is one of the nation characteristics and the nation is a superior concept in policy, it is not included in a territory of an independent country. Sovereignty is the supreme power with undisputed authority over the country and its citizens. In political contexts and in foreign relations, sovereignties should be recognized by other countries and international legal competent authorities. The national state can be defined as a complex array of modern institutions which are involved in sovereignty system in the form of a limited and specific spatial realm. This system claims the dominance on that realm and preserves it by monopolizing the violence tools. Generally, two different processes were effective in creating a national state: The first theory considered the state as concentrator of the authority in its own territory and aimed to create the political and social infrastructure in order to run the decision by influencing civil society. And the second thesis tries to oblige the nation structure; the noble class to create a national identity and culture as well as a citizenship concept consequently using authority is gained through creating state procedure. The global government is as an executive mechanism that links all actors in the format of world rules. The global government tries to regulate and shape a new form of political, economic and strategic mechanisms. Indeed, this government is discrete and possibly unstable; it can make the masses of more or less coherent governmental entities, which have somewhat global influence and legality. Also it can act as a state in the context of regulating the economy, society and politics in global scope.
3- METHODOLOGY
The present study has descriptive-analytical approach and the data are mostly gathered based on the library. Foreign reference books and articles from university libraries archives as well as Internet are other references.
4- RESULTS & DISCUSSION
The article examines the three major attitudes of realists, transformatives, and globalists in order to explain the concept of the continuation or erosion of the national state's sovereignty. According to the above theories, it should be noted that, despite the changes have made in the global geopolitical system, neither realists nor transformationalists and globalists provide a complete framework for analyzing global politics. It can be said that national states have lost their former role, the national states nature is transforming, and it is a myth that states do not influence globalization processes, according to Smith, but in spite of this permeability, national state is still present as the main actor in the global geopolitical system, and nations defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity enthusiastically, it is true, especially the Third World nations, whose autonomous struggles are still alive in memories. War and constant readiness for war, political disunion, cultural diversity and a huge gap between the most advanced and poorest states are still the most fundamental features of the contemporary world system.
Totally, the study shows that the conceptual forms of sovereignty are being transformed at least as a result of excessive expanding of globalization and it is generally collapsing in pessimistic point of view.

Keywords

sovereignty; national state; global state; realists; transformationalists; globalists

References

1. Abdi, A. & mazaheri, M. (2014), Pathology and Analysis of the State Evolution Process in Iran, Considering Universal Experiences (Comparative Study), Geopolitics Quarterly, Issue 33.10(1). [In Persian]

2. Ashoriyan, D. (No date), Iran's nationality and ethnicity from empire to state-nation; Iran's Farda Monthly, Third Year, No. 18. [In Persian]

3. Badiee .A.M. & Hosseini Nasrabadi, N. (2012), Globalization and the Transformation of the Concept of National Sovereignty, Journal of Applied Researches in Geographical sciences. 12(25). 151-172. [In Persian]

4. Burton, R. (2001), Political Ethnology, translated by Fokohi, N., Tehran, Nashreney Publications. [In Persian].

5. Castells, M. (2001), The Rise of the Network Society: The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture (The emergence of a community network), translated by Aligholiyan, A. & Khakbaz, A., Tehran. Tarh-e-no Publications, first edition. [In Persian]

6. Clark, I. (1999), Globalization and International Theory, Oxford University press.

7. Dikshit. R.D. (1995), Political geography. 2nd Vol. New Dehli: Tata. Mc Grow- Hill pub. Co.

8. Galahar, C. & et al. (2011), key concepts in political geography, translated by Nami, M. H.& Mohammad pour, A., Tehran, Zeytone sabz Publications. [In Persian]

9. Gellner, E. (1964), Thought and Change, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

10. Giddens, A. (1997), Sociology, Translated by Saboori, M. Tehran: NashreNey Publications. [In Persian]

11. Heywood, A. (2004) ‎Political theory: an introduction, Translated by Alam, A.R. Tehran: Gomes Publications. [In Persian]

12. Holton, R.J. (1995), Globalization and the Nation State, (London: Macmillan).

13. Johnston, RJ& Peter J. W., & Michael J. (2004), ‎Geographies of global change remapping the world in the late twentieth century, translated by Noriyan, N. Tehran, Great War Publications. [In Persian]

14. Kazemi, A. (2005), International Relations in Theory and Practice, Tehran, Gomes Publications.

15. Lee, H.(2004),Second generation Tongan transnationalism: hope for the future?, Asia Pacific Viewpoint,45(2).235-254.

16. Mirhaydir, D. & Heydari Far, M.R. (2006), The Evolution of the Concept of Territory at the Age of Globalization; Geopolitical Quarterly, Issue 4. 2 (2). [In Persian]

17. Mojtahedzadeh, P. (2002), political geography and geopolitics, Tehran, SAMT Publications. [In Persian]

18. Morgenthau, H.J. (2005), Politics among nations, translated by Moshirzade, M., Tehran Political and International Studies Office. [In Persian]

19. Mosalanejad, A. (2014), Institutionalism and globalization, Tehran, Tehran University Publications. [In Persian]

20. Muir, R. (2000), Political Geography: A new introduction. Translated by Mirhaydir, D., Tehran, Geographic Organization of the Armed Forces Publications [In Persian]

21. Murry, E.W. (2006), Geographies of Globalization, published by Routledge.

22. Nosrati, H. R. & Kaviani Rad, J. (2014), Expounding the Functions of Area Debate in the Unitary State, Geopolitical Quarterly Issue 35. 10(3). [In Persian]

23. OTuathail, G., (1996), Critical Geopolitics: The Politics of Writing Global Space (Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press).

24. Parvin, Kh. (2011) Globalization and its effect on the world transitions and governments, national sovereignty. Politic Quarterly, 40(4).41-62. [In Persian]

25. Peters, B. G. & Pierre, J. (2000), Governance, Politics and the State. London: Macmillan.

26. Rhodes, R. (1997), Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press.pp.15.

27. Rivière, C. (2003); ‎Anthropology Polities,, translated by Fokohi, N. , Tehran, Nashreney Publications. [In Persian]

28. Rosenau, J.N. (1980), The study of global interdependence: Essays on the transnationalization of world affairs (Essays on the analysis of world politics), London, Pinter.

29. Sazmand.B (2004), Introduction to Globalization and Evolution of the Concept of the National Government, Rahbord Quarterly, (32). [In Persian]

30. Smith A.D. (2004), Nationalism: Theory, Ideology, History, translated by Ansari, M. , Tehran. Institute of National Studies. [In Persian]

31. Taylor, P.J, (1993), Political Geography: World Economy, Nation-state and Locality, 3rd End (Harlow Longman).

32. UNESCO (2002), Culture Trade and globalization, Translated by Farahani, F. & Abbasi, S., Tehran Publications Center. [In Persian]

33. Vincent, A. (1997) Theories of the State, translated by Bashiriye, H., Tehran: Nashre ney Publications. [In Persian]

34. Waters, M. (2001), Globalization (2nd edn), London, Routledge.

35. Weiss, L. (1998),The Myth of the Powerless State: Governing the Economy in a Global Era, Cambridge: Polity Press.

36. Williams, M. (1996), Nothing Succeeds Like Success? Legitimacy and International Relation, in Holde, N. the ethics Dimension of Global Change (London).

37. Youngs, G. (2001), the Taylor Guide to Globalization: reflections on some of the signpost, Political Geography, 20.

38. Zain al-Abedin, Y. & Shirzad, Z. (2014), The Analysis of the Realm of States Sovereignty in the Post-Modern, World Politics A Quarterly Journal, 3( 3). 125-151.[In Persian]