Delbruck defines globalisation as the process by which nations loose the central role on controlling politics, markets and laws for the sake of common good. He believes that the process of globalisation is clearly distinct from internationalisation where the latter term refers to a type of cooperation between nations that is done in order to fulfil needs that cannot be met be sovereign countries. He argues that the main difference between globalisation and internationalisation is that in the latter sovereignty of states is maintained while in the former sovereignty is lost.
Gilpin argues that the process of globalisation is characterised by the interaction of economic and political issues between sovereign states. However, this [process of globalisation has been intensified because of the introduction of technology, better communication and better modes of travel between these countries. Liberal economists believe that globalisation assists in the process of building peace in the world. It encourages economic growth and also institutes order in the international arena.
Kennedy also adds that the process of globalisation has shown how states no longer take up the central role in their individual economic process. This argument can be verified by the existence of a global economy. The forces affecting the global economy have very little to do with what is prevalent in specific countries. Additionally, the rate of flow on capital from the international arena into and out of specific countries also indicates how nations are loosing their central role. Because of globalisation in the business sector, politics in individual countries has to change to accommodate this new phenomenon.,. Some of the arguments for against the denationalisation of states will be examined inn the essay below. These arguments will be based on their effect on state authority in international relations.
Arguments supporting the notion that globalisation does NOT remove the state from its central role in international relations
Jackson and James (1999, p 34) describe the state as a community of persons that have the sole authority to exert physical force within a certain territory. This means that there are certain features that are distinct to states. If these features are eliminated then that particular state will not have a central role. These factors include;
1) Central political relations
2) Individualised persons
3) demarcating territories
4) authority in making rules
O'Neill (2006, p13) says that the issue of globalisation has not undermined the states' role because it has not hampered the issue of central political relations. A case in point is the European Union, where member states from various parts of the European continent are controlled by one unifying force. While the EU has made a lot of changes in those individual countries, it should be noted that their policies have not been bale to reach some crucial elements of particular states. For example, they should have the ability to change trade unions within member states, interest groups and even political parties. EU member countries still retain their autonomy in terms of such issues. Globalisation has therefore not been able to impede political relations.
Jackson and James (1993, p23) explain that there are instances where states retain the ability to choose their own policies. The international community can put forward a number of policies but states do not have to accept those policies blindly. States usually decide on which policies they will adopt and then customize the rest.
Hellenier (1996, p 193-210) affirms that when one traces the history of states, they realise that states were created through violence. Most leaders would attack their enemies, take over their resources and then use these resources to further expand their territory. This means that the process of state creation was like a cycle and it was very difficult to maintain peace in the world. This notion propagated