Would globalization impact national sovereignty in international relations? (Essay Sample)

Would globalization impact national sovereignty in international relations? Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Course Instructor’s Name Date Would globalization impact national sovereignty in international relations? Globalization defines the modern day world through steady a harmonization process of interconnection of states democracies through technology and establishment of business ties. Also, globalization addresses influential concerns like terrorism, climate change, and pandemics that transcend statutory borders, thus, requiring collaborative and multilateral contributions. On the other hand, national sovereignty is anchored on statutory tenets of justice, freedom, and equality. National sovereignty is measured by a state’s internal and external dimensions that define its territorial jurisdictions and governance ability. Globalization is the driver of international affairs but national sovereignty plays an essential constructive role, so the connection between them should be mutual, but not as polarizing as has been the case in recent times (Saaida, 2023). Contentious debates have been on aspects like human rights, politics, cultural differences, and economic growth and development. Proponents of national sovereignty insist on upholding their unconditional freedom because states are eternal and they cannot trade their pride, future, and well-being for selfish global influences. Nevertheless, critics describe globalization as an unstoppable revolution with extensive benefits and impacts on international relations. This essay demonstrates how globalization alienates national sovereignty from contributing to international relations. A common critic highlights that globalization has empowered states by opening up economic, social, and political avenues (Santiago et al., 2020). Globalization has triggered market startups across borders to facilitate investments by individual states and multinational organizations, thus, growing their GDP. Therefore, in the past 50 years, economic globalization has spurred nations’ reliance on international trading activities. Globalists believe that every successful country must embrace globalization and its effects to overcome poverty among other challenges. For instance, North Korea alongside other passive participants is lagging behind economically, in science and technology, and security (Koen and Boem, 2020). Moreover, critics believe global political happenings and influences have fostered essential human rights practices and democratic ideals. Also, the counterargument supports the interconnectedness of cultural values, ideas, and beliefs and even proposes future homogenization plans under the new world order. On the other hand, champions of national sovereignty believe that all these intrigues erode a state’s autonomy and governance. A nation is the basic unit whose individual contribution builds better international relations, and is better run without external forces. Proponents believe that global economic growth may make states vulnerable to uncontrollable fluctuations since they operate on different capitalism wavelengths. According to Afonso and Blanco-Arana (2022), the economic turbulence experienced in 2008 caused ripple effects and later major financial crisis to certain states. Also, some multinational establishments violate state’s regulatory powers since their economic impacts leverage across borders, thus overriding national sovereignty doctrine of autonomy and governance. Moreover, politics are local and they influence governance in a state. Therefore, external political ideals can degrade a state’s control over its governing bodies because certain international treaties limit them to upholding sovereign decisions. Common political interferences that have destabilized a state’s national focus have been over; international law, trade and environmental agreements. Cultural diversity is an essential element of proper international relations, but globalization intends to erode the beliefs and values to homogenize the world. Through technological advancements like social media, globalization has indirectly impacted negatively on national and societal identities. Notably, social media has caused moral decadency across different cultures because some practices are acceptable in certain states, but abolished in others. Another counterargument illustrates that globalization makes the world and its resources accessible to everyone through easy flow of information and capital, thus boosting commercial and social activities. Critics believe that globalization empowers states through mutual benefits in trade and interconnected relationships, and despise the notion of disempowering nations. Nevertheless, champions of national sovereignty fear that an open-minded world infiltrates into a nation’s power structures to influence policymaking approaches and territorial dominance. National sovereignty belongs to the citizens, but globalization violates domestic code of conduct by introducing foreign and selfish policies and values. Globalization sacrifices national freedom and its impacts on international relations by prioritizing commercial returns by converging policies like; labor regulations, sustainable environment, taxation, consumer safety, and health. These transnational governance practices destabilize states because loopholes occur in domestic affairs leading to corruption and other criminal cases (Hale, 2020). Globalization was the aftermath of World War II, to facilitate trade, but it has penetrated into states’ domestic laws and regulations, forcing them to conform to specific international commitments and doctrines. Notably, globalization has pressured states’ territorial jurisdictions, thus losing their authority over entrances and exits. Therefore, increased cases of terrorism, cybercrimes, fraud, and money laundering can be attributed to infiltrated territories and limited national sovereignty. The prominent states advocate for globalization because they drive economic and commercial activities, but they have also suffered from authority transformation because their powers are limited. Proponents of national sovereignty believe that World War II aftermath could have been handled well through anti-globalization where individual states were left to manage their issues because their magnitudes and powers differed (Buckley and Hashai, 2020). The prominent nations exploited others through colonialism and slavery, thus, violating their freedom, justice to ownership of property and equality. Moreover, local law enforcement is affected by reduced trade barriers because traction of criminal activities...