Our very concept of sovereignty is being challenged. Let me explain.In the new landscape, the Aff could argue that the UN's commitment to sovereignty is obsolete. Human rights, though, are every bit as important as they have always been. How might the Neg respond? Or is this a valid move for the Aff?
The challenge is most visible in the economic sphere, where territorial nation-states find it increasingly difficult to keep up with multinational enterprises that take a global rather than a territorial view of their activities....
What does this mean for states? The distinction between domestic issues and international issues is becoming less relevant every day. The ability of nation-states to conduct an independent monetary and fiscal policy is constrained by the fluidity of capital markets. The ability of nation-states to tax, which is the basis of the power of a state, is constrained by the decisions of multinational enterprises and by the worldwide competition for capital....
And so in the economic sphere, it is clear that the sovereignty of states has been eroded by the necessity to enter into multilateral arrangements, as we have seen with the creation of the World Trade Organization, and by the emergence of non-state actors that produce their own norms. Such norms are sanctioned by the marketplace, and are particularly relevant when states fail to keep up with the pace of change....
Territory is no longer the basis of power, nor is it a sufficient guarantee of security. In an age of globalization, characterized by the migration of global capital markets, territorial security can only be achieved if states could transform themselves into large gated communities -- an unrealistic and dangerous goal that could only lead to the impoverishment of the state implementing such a policy.
Feb 20, 2007
the information revolution is destroying sovereignty
In a piece related to the current resolution, so argues Jean-Marie Guehenno in The Topology of Sovereignty
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Be sure to note that Guehenno's argument is essentially logical, but only applies to TERRITORIAL sovereignty, which most cases regarding the current resolution. Most cases within the current resolution will deal with sovereignty on a political basis, making arguments regarding territorial sovereignty nontopical.
Anonymous, I disagree slightly. "Territorial sovereignty" is, in classical terms, redundant, since sovereignty is defined as "supreme authority within a territory." Guehenno is essentially arguing that territorial sovereignty is obsolete, and that sovereigntists like Bolton (who rejects the ICC) are trying to push back the tide.
Post a Comment