Why is ethnicity relevant in International Relations?

Introduction

The state can be seen as a multi-layered phenomenon, which is

changeable over time. In the seventeenth century, Thomas Hobbes

described a country as a "mortal God", while in the nineteenth century

Hegel concluded the state was "some earthly heaven" (Spektorski 2000,

p. 22). However, it is a popular misconception today to view a

sovereign state as a more normative than descriptive statement and

that and to view globalization and modern international relations as a

starting point of this. As a multidimensional phenomenon,

globalization and international relations assuming increase, both at

the qualitative and quantitative levels, of economic, political and

cultural integration of the modern world. Specifically, globalization

is said to narrow and condense space and time, accelerating the

exchange of information, people and capital. Today, globalization is

the dominant paradigm in the political and theoretical discourse. It

is part of the "new planetary Vulgate" (Bourdieu) and has an

unprecedented epochal dynamics. Its multi layeredness is transforming

politico-military, cultural and economic geography and approaches

political conceptualization in deconstructive terms. Thus

globalization should have an explanatory role regarding the (possible)

decline or re-conceptualization of the nation-state when meeting new

challenges.

Ethnicity and International Relations

The nation-state is a kind of political organization and territorial

union, which has sovereignty and political independence of axioms and

autonomy. The nation-state has prevailed as the dominant political

unit in international relations, starting from the nineteenth century

to the "third wave" of globalization. The process of globalization has

significantly disrupted the traditional analytical and conceptual

framework in which practical politics is understood (Kennett, 2008).

The state has never existed in such a diverse world and life, and

therefore it should be reviewed. In order to meet the challenges of

globalization, we should address the lack of an adequate national

framework, which in the modern world, due to the effects of

transnational factors that increasingly make questions about autonomy

and the functional capacity of the national government seem static and

even metaphysical character. In order to stay in the game, states must

understand that they are no longer the only actors and they must

understand the numerous factors undermining their authority. The

modern state seeks modification, transnationalization and

cosmopolitionization. The state will, in future, have a better chance

if it quickly adopts a new structure of international relations

(Ciric, 2008, p. 210). The thesis about the decline of the state or of

or the eventual death of the state, is not accurate, because the state

will be reconfigured and adapted to the new situation during the

process of globalization, which will lead to the transformation of the

existing geometry of power. The bifurcation of global political

structures and the creation of two parallel worlds (state and non-

state actors), as well as the emergence of fabricated risks (diseases,

environmental threats, etc.), forces the state to face major

challenges. The reality is that globalization has become so diverse

and complex that no one has enough power or knowledge to solve its

problems. It creates doubt in the power of the nation state, which

should be a key player in the political arena. The current political

arena is a kind of unstructured complexity (government organizations,

international governmental organizations, transnational organizations,

non-governmental organizations), which calls into question the

hierarchy of authority and power, as well as strategies from the top -

down, where the nation-state is in the spotlight (Kennett, 2008).

Nowadays, there are many actors – keys in the process of policy-

making, and we use the term state management to describe the changing

nature of the political process. We say that they have changed the

technology of governance, because the government has steadily moved

up, down and sideways, which is reflected in the transition from

ruling to state management (Jessop, 2000). This dispersion of power

and activities directed towards actors at different spatial levels

represents the most visible change of state in a globalized world.

Globalization is a key context in which the political process must be

understood due to the existence of numerous parallel spaces, as well

as the outsourcing of certain functions of government. In fact, the

only solution to the challenges of globalization is the relocation of

functions and their forwarding to different political and economic

organizations, as well as the creation of a poliarchaic network model

of government. However, the structural trend of nation-state

weakening, which is reflected in the territorial and functional

reorganization of the capacity of government to supranational,

transnational and sub-national levels, should not be confused with

about the supposed looming of the end of the nation state.

Philosophical standpoint does not explain the origin of the state with

temporality, but with purpose, and we should not be talking about the

interchangeability of the national government. The view of Pulancasa

is useful, according to which the state is somehow "un changeable". If

we rely on Aristotle's teleology of state, whose goal is to provide a

good life, we can examine to what degree the state, under

globalization, has to give up autonomy and independence to ensure the

good life, as well as the extent to which globalization limits the

country to provide a good life for its citizens.

Economic forces are the real determinants of interpretation of

contemporary politics. Economic globalization is seen as a force that

represents the greatest threat to the authority of the national

government. Therefore, it is necessary to pay special attention to

this aspect. The globalization of production, transport, communication

and finance increases the cleft between the state as an "economic

unit" and the state as “territorial and administrative units" (Jaksic

1997). Globalization undermines the historical constellation, which is

characterized with coextensive stretching of state and economy within

the same national boundaries, while creating a transnational economy,

where countries are primarily located within the market, as opposed to

the national economy, which is located within the boundaries

(Habermas, 2001). All this has happened because of the declaration of

the dollar’s non convertibility (in 1971). It caused the abandonment

of control of international capital flows, which are now free to roam

in search of investment opportunities and profits. World currencies

have lost their formal backing in a valuable metal, and in response to

new developments in the international currency and financial markets,

there have appeared unfamiliar financial instruments, which have had a

profound effect on national economic policy, especially in its three

segments: monetary policy, fiscal policy and exchange rate policy

(Čauševič, 2004). The national economy began to open up due to the

free movement of capital, but the increased volume of flows and the

need to achieve economic efficiency has created competition among

states for the “logic of capital”, which makes it moves towards those

jurisdictions that do not pose a threat to profits. George Soros said

that capital tends to avoid those countries in which employment is the

subject of excessive taxation and too protected (McBride, McNuttand

and Williams, 2007). Thus, the ability of the state to act contrary to

market forces destroyed the fact that the state has to lower

regulatory standards in order to attract capital.

The theory that reflects the essence of modern international

relations, globalization and the reduction of regulatory policy is "a

race to the bottom (RTB) hypothesis" (Drezner, 2001; Mosley, 2005).

RTB hypothesis starts from the premise that the governments of nation

states increasingly have to deregulate their economies, inter alia, to

sell their policies and international investors in order to carefully

consider the preferences of market participants. This led to the

"ratchet effect" in which each new deregulation augmented the

complexity of structure and price sensitivity, thus preventing the

return of national regulation. Broad deregulation, according to Saskia

Sassen (2008) is another name for the deterioration of the state.

Modern growth theory, as Harod – Domar’s theory is, finds that the

support of growth of domestic product in equity, which is the result

of investment and economic growth, and that it stands in relation to

the exponential growth of investment every year. During the process of

globalization, the national economy must be free from the “functional

completeness”, while the government of the nation state has to limit

the power of authorities as it does not represent a load of capital.

It is widely used monetary doctrine in reality, which removes the

state from the economy. Recommended growth theory - supply side

economics, which is based on restrictive monetary policy and

simulative fiscal policy, is based on government incentives

(stimulation of investments through appropriate tax policy, reducing

marginal tax rates and deregulation of the economy). Thus, the nation-

state during the globalization was faced with reduced budget revenues

from real sources, as well as the "chronic disease" an inability to

intervene so as to ensure full employment and social protection of its

citizens. Modern international relations, in the context of

globalization, undermines the state in many ways, particularly its key

basis - legitimacy, because it is in transition from the Keynesian

national welfare state to Schumpeter post-national working state. The

differences between these types of states lie in the valorization of

capital and the reproduction of the labor force. Moreover, in the

modern globalized countries there is a trend of subordination of

social policy to the needs of structural competitiveness and labor

market flexibility (Jessop, 2000; Fulcher, 2000). Social policy and

the labor market will become more flexible, and this is achieved by

removing the “politically constructed” obstacle from the continuous

operation of market forces. Economic Secretariat of the OECD made a

recommendation for the implementation of political reforms in the Jobs

Study in 1994 because of it rigidities (such as social benefits and

strong legislation, designated as responsible for the rise of

unemployment in the OECD area) (McBrideand McNuttand, Williams, 2007).

Therefore, when we talk about globalization, the essential nature of

the nation-state apparently suffered changes and underwent a

transformation of its character, and the focus of policy (Laffey and

Weides, 2005). The nation-state has no more powerful role in ensuring

the welfare of its citizens. Now more than ever, it depends on

external factors and therefore it is said that the state is

“precarious” because its legitimacy in the globalization process can

be evaluated more frequently by citizens (strikes and protests,

particularly in Greece). The macroeconomic authority of the state is

largely limited. It is especially evident in the inability of the

state to lead an ambitious monetary and fiscal policy, or wage policy.

National monetary policy loses its autonomy, it cannot be introverted

facing the domestic real stock, but must be oriented towards

extroversion international capital flows and must be included in the

international macroeconomic coordination (Jaksic, 1997).

The European Union is a good example of that policy because monetary

policy is completely stripped from the national government and the

established European supranational sovereignty of the economy

(competition policy, public spending and state aid) and monetary

issues. The European Central Bank is the only entity responsible for

the implementation of monetary policy and has the freedom to decide on

target inflation or printing money and price stability (Hyksos, 2007;

Wells, 2008).

Romano Prodi stressed that the waiver of the state's exclusive right

to print money and accept the euro as a reference currency means

abandoning an important instrument of sovereignty of nation states

(Prodi, 2002). It can be said that the EU Member States are, members

of the monetary union in which foreign policy is validated and Euros

are no longer available for the use of traditional policy instruments

and have no "room for maneuver" (Greve, 2006). Globalization has gone

a step further, exposing the declining power of nation states in the

field of international finance. As a result of such a vast process of

globalization, there has been an addition to the international

financial markets linked to the economic cycle, which in most

countries is very synchronized and that the crisis, if it breaks out

in a country where the reserve currency is the dollar, it would

quickly spread to the whole world (the global economic crisis of 2008)

(Smith, 2009). Globally integrated banking sector that works

continuously, deregulation, securitization (pack of traditional credit

arrangements that can be traded) and the possibility that corporations

have to enter the market, reduce in the present world the role of the

central bank as an institution that provides national monetary

stability and creates the potential loan that has a guarantee of the

state (Jaksic, 1997, p. 6). Globalization has also produced a "harmful

tax competition" - so-called "fiscal termites" that threaten the

regime of taxation and thus lead to dangerous consequences for the

state fiscal system. These "fiscal termites" lead to increased

mobility of the workforce, to the growth of electronic commerce, to

the possible replacement of bank accounts by electronic money on

"smart cards", to the difficulties in collecting information on income

and consumption, as well as increasing the number of tax havens (Wolf,

2003). The government continues to impose taxes (de jure sovereignty

of the tax), but this does not mean that they will achieve the desired

tax revenue that will successfully achieve the desired goal of tax

policy (de facto tax sovereignty). Governments have maintained de jure

sovereignty of the tax, but it is significantly reduced, because the

government is powerless to realize greater tax revenues. Change of tax

competition can be seen in the repositioning of the tax burden from

mobile capital to immobile labor force (Rixen, 2008). The nation-state

is, in terms of globalization, in such a situation that cannot fully

accomplish its normative ideals, as was previously the case. Anthony

Giddens believes that during the process of globalization, the ability

of long-term national planning has been significantly challenged

(Bleses and Seeleib – Kaiser, 2004).

To put it simply, there had never existed such interdependence and

situations where external influences determine the fate of the nation

states. Individual states, with all the power they have, do not have

the power to actually protect its citizens from external effects of

decisions made by other actors or the effects of chain processes,

whose source is outside the borders of that state (spontaneous limits

of loans from current account) (Habermas, 2001). Globalization, by

itself, increases the risk, but “a world without borders would mean

that , with all the glaciers that float outside territorial waters ,

no government has a sense of responsibility - as neither has the power

to find a radically solve – it” (Pecujlic, 2001).

What we in this paper are primarily interested with is whether

international relations and globalization makes government powerless

to protect its residents and whether greater cooperation between

companies and countries poses a threat to the nation-state as the

dominant form of political organization.

Some historians believe that national security is a central reason for

the rise of the state. The most important role of the nation state is

to protect national borders, and to preserve the physical integrity of

the national citizen. Modern security threats and challenges, which

are transnational in nature and which largely represent the product of

globalization (terrorism, organized crime, proliferation of weapons of

mass destruction, disease, environmental problems, etc.), so that the

nation state become so vulnerable and interdependent that it no longer

has a monopoly on individual problem solving. As the country is

geographically limited, security threats come from non-state actors,

and security is increasingly provided by regional organizations.

However, as soon as the state begins to seek help from outside, it

means it is no longer able to guarantee security (Ripsman and Paul,

2010). Bearing in mind the fact that the terrorists are

transnationally organized, that their structures are jagged and that

organized crime is no longer hierarchical, but within a network

structure, states are finding it increasingly difficult to provide

security. Due to the globalization of communications, technology and

transportation, state control of what is happening in terms of its

boundaries is significantly reduced. The availability of weapons of

mass destruction and the presence of international terrorism has led

to a new historical situation in which countries that have few

financial resources may jeopardize the safety of many powerful

counties (Krasner, 2007). Therefore, in the era of globalization a

threat to one country is seen as a threat to the security of all

state. This new situation, which is characteristic of the globalized

world, caused the new security dilemma. This shows that the only

consideration of national interests is inadequate and unsafe policy.

Thus, there is an increasing need for a coordinated act on a global

level, as well as approaches to regional organizations (NATO). New

diseases and infections to its negative impact on sovereign states

represent a special threat to international security. The global

spread of germs is further stimulated by tourism and migration.

Globalization has increased its genetic "library code", which is

available to all pathogenic organisms from different regions. They now

can exchange genetic material with other organisms. Health is the

cornerstone of the material power of one state, since it affects its

prosperity and destabilizes the relationship between state and society

(Smith, 2009). This suggests that our understanding of globalization

threats to nation states could be accurate and sustainable. Although

in history there are numerous examples of such threats to the state

and society, the current era of globalization makes the country

particularly vulnerable and almost all states restrict that to ensure

the safety of citizens. The frequency of such threats in the past few

years shows that the states, in fact, are powerless and are mere

witnesses of their losses. The only thing you can do is to cooperate

with international organizations in order to prevent serious harm to

the public infrastructure. Challenges that undermine the state as a

sovereign territorial unit are: economic, technological and

demographic processes. A particular challenge is to change the

identity that is now happening. The growing interdependence of

countries in the world and the pressure of globalization, pushing the

nation-state from the bottom up, in addition to modern conditions

reveal new identities and the nation-state is no longer the only

option loyalty and primary bases of identity. Results of globalization

are new non-spatial identities, which do not originate from the

national government.

Economic interdependence and globalization led European integration,

mainly to the reduction of the importance of the territory and

functions of the national government. The author Caroline Staple,

successfully analyzes the discourse of the European Pact for

Immigration and Asylum (2008), which shows that the immigration policy

of the EU is creating the conditions for the emergence of EU identity

(Staple, 2009). Since the European pact addresses EU citizens as

European citizens, it represents the beginning of Staple overcome the

nation-state. Joel Tufvesson also shows that the state is no longer in

a marriage between culture and politics, giving the example of certain

elites who no longer identify with the country. Tufvesson video is a

new kind of loyalty to the example of the Öresund - skomiteen. In his

opinion, loyalty operates in a vacuum between nation states. As a

result of globalization, as well as its part, the Committee was formed

to create a regional integration area of southern Sweden and northern

Denmark, where the newly created Committee had jurisdiction which

included the fields of economics, culture, ecology, politics and law.

The structure of this committee and administration consisted of

individuals from both countries, who represented the "new elite"

globalized world.

This new elite is identified primarily with the state of eligible

because of its location and access to certain resources and networks

out of their country (Tufvesson, 2005). For the author of this work it

is a significant example that illustrates that the nation state has no

more real control over events in its territory due to global

processes, which can be materialized in national territories.

Conclusion

Picture of international relations has changed significantly over the

past thirty years. State centric paradigm has changed, and the state

is no longer the most important modus operandi. Roman politician

Lentulus has said that each news is a danger. The new transnational

actors are still not so dangerous to represent a death threat to

nation states. Globalization does not come off the nation-state

strong, but it takes away the privileges of the highest authorities.

Economic re-structuring is the most powerful driver to destroy a

fusion of existing sovereign public authorities, as well as the

physical space defined limits, which has changed the relationship

between function and territories (Keating, 2001). It is increasingly

difficult for states to impose its fiscal and monetary authorities,

but also to create national prosperity regardless of the international

market. In order to achieve concrete gain of modern international

relations, states increasingly act as drivers of globalization, so

they reduce their power and become accountable to external economic

actors. Mittelman says that the state is no longer the primary active

force, because it has already become reactive in relation to global

economic forces (Mittelman, 2003).

New threats, risks and challenges in the era of globalization has made

the countries so vulnerable and interdependent that they no longer

have a monopoly on the individual problem solving; states can no

longer independently solve problems without international cooperation

and supranational integration, so they become less and less able to

manage their own destiny. So we can say that the state is no longer

the only, or even the main source of authority (Sending and Neumann,

2006).

Plato asked - if something has not always been there, should it be

there in the future? - The most useful describes the fate of the

nation-state. It is necessary to revise the nation-state in modern

conditions. Although the state is losing a large part of its power in

the globalization process, its political function, as well as the

psychological importance of providing ontological security, has not

yet disappeared. After the event caused a major economic crisis

(2008), states were those who participated in the formulation of

policies and draw global economy out of recession. Today, the only

threat is the inability of the new zone management (weak states,

terrorism, crime and ineffective form of global governance), in which

the state must play a crucial role in order to manage to overcome it.

The weakness of the state in the economic sphere is obvious and

noticeable is the lack of power of the state to control the processes

that take place on its territory. However, the national government

could use its power to enhance international cooperation and

integration into international organizations. The old type of

government that that is the sole and fearful today is dysfunctional.

Globalization is a challenge of the state and it demands to be more

inclusive, to delegate and to participate in order to advance the art

of management.

Bibliography

Bleses, P.and Seeleib-Kaiser, M.The Dual Transformation of the German Wel-fare State.New York:Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.

Čaušević, F.„Finansijka globalizacija i ekonomski suverenitet.“Sociologija, Vol.XLVI, No.1, 2004:71–95.

Ćirić, J.„Suverenitet u savremeno doba.“Filozofija i društvo1, 2008:191–216.

Drezner, D.„Globalization and Policy Convergence.“International Studies As-sociation, 2001:53–78.

Fulcher, J.„Globalisation, the nation-state and global society.“The sociological review, 2000:521–543.

Greve, B.The future of the Welfare State:European and Global perspectives.Aldershot:Ashgate,2006.

Habermas, J.„Evropska nacionalna država pod pritiskom globalizacije.“Novasrpska politička misao, vol.VII, no.3–4, 2001:139–153.

Hiks, S.Politički sistem Evropske unije.Beograd:Službeni glasnik, 2007.

Jakšić, M.„Globalizacija i javna politika.“Poslovni krug, decembar, 1997:1–12.

Jessop, B.„Globalization and the National State.“ Department of Sociology,Lancaster University, 2000:1–19.

Keating, M.Plurinational Democracy.Oxford:Oxford University Press, 2001.

Kennett P.Introduction:governance, the state and public policy in a global age.In:Kennett, P.Governance,Globalization and Public Policy.CheltenhamUK, Edward Elgar, 2008:3–19.

Kovač, O.„Uzroci i mogući koncepti rešavanja svetske finansijske krize.“Novasrpska politička misao, vol.XVII, no.3–4, 2009:7–25.

Krasner, S.„Podela suvereniteta.“Nova srpska politička misao, vol.XV, no.3–4,2007:203–239.

Klamer, C.„Blending Identities.“Lund University, Department of Political Science,STVM01, 2009:1–23

Laffey M.and Weides J.„Policing and global governance.“ In:Barnett, M.andR.Duvall.Power in Global Governance.Cambridge University Press, 2005:59–80.

McBride S.and McNutt K., „Williams R.Tracking Neo-Liberalism:Labour Mar-ket Policies in the OECD Area.“ In:Lee, S.and S.McBride.Neo-Liberalism,State Power and Global Governance.AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Springer, 2007:79–95.

Mitelman, Dž.Dinamika globalizacije. In: Vuletić, V.Globalizacija:Mit ili stvarnost, Beograd:Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva, 2003:157–182.

Mosley, L.„Globalisation and the State:Still Room to Move?“ New Political Economy 10, No.3, 2005:355–362.

Moreno, E. Kako misliti Evropu. Sarajevo:Svjetlost, 1990.

Pečujlić, M.„Planetarni Kentaur:dva lika globalizacije.“ Nova srpska politička misao, vol.VII, no.3–4, 2001:21–59.

Price-Smith, A.T. Contagion and chaos. Cambridge, Massachushetts: The MITPress, 2009

Prodi, R. Moja Evropa. Beograd:BMG, 2002.

Ripsman, N.M.and Paul, T.V. Globalization and the National Security State. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 2010.

Rixen, T. The Political Economy of International Tax Governance.New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.

Sasen, S. Utelovljenje globalnog u nacionalnom. In: Bojanić P. and I. Milenković, Suveren i suverenost.Beograd: Službeni glasnik, 2008: 293–308.

Sending, J. and Neumann, I.„Governance to Govermentality: Analyzing NGO’s, States, and Power.“ International Studies Quarterly 50, 2006:651–672.

Spektorski, E. Država i njen život. Beograd:Dosije, 2000.

Tufvesson, J.„The Rise of a New Elite.“ Lunds universitet, Statsvetenskapligainstitutionen,

STV004,2005:1–31.

Volf, M.Da li će nacionalne države preživeti globalizaciju. in:Vuletić, V.Globalizacija:Mit ili stvarnost.Beograd:Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva,2003:302–317.

Wells, B.Sherrill and Wells, F.Samuel.„Shared Sovereignty in the EuropeanUnion.“Yale Journal of International Affairs,2008:30–43