2. What is global politics?

The term global’ has two meanings, and these have quite different implications as far as global politics is concerned. In the first, global means worldwide, having planetary (not merely regional or national) significance. The globe is, in effect, the world. Global politics, in this sense, refers to politics that is conducted at a global rather than a national or regional level. There is no doubt that the global or worldwide dimension of politics has, in recent decades, become more significant. There has been a growth of international organizations, some of which, like the United Nations, come close to having a universal membership. A growing number of political issues have also acquired a ‘global’ character, in that they affect, actually or potentially, all parts of the world and so all people on the planet. This particularly applies in the case of the environment, often seen as the paradigm example of a ‘global’ issue, because nature operates as an interconnected whole, in which everything affects everything else. The same, we are often told, applies to the economy, where it is commonplace to refer to the ‘global economy’ or ‘global capitalism’, in that fewer and fewer countries now remain outside the international trading system and are unaffected by external investment and the integration of financial markets. For theorists of globalisation, this trend towards global interconnectedness is not only perhaps the defining feature of modern existence, but also requires that traditional approaches to learning need to be rethought, in this case by adopting a ‘borderless’ or ‘trans- planetary’ approach to politics.

However, the notion that politics - and, for that matter, everything else - has been caught up in a swirl of interconnectedness that effectively absorbs all of its parts, or ‘units’, into an indivisible, global whole, is very difficult to sustain. The claim that we live in a ‘borderless world’, or the assertion that the state is dead and sovereignty is irrelevant, remain distinctly fanciful ideas. In no meaningful sense has politics at the global level transcended politics at the national, local or, for that matter, any other level. This is why the notion of global politics, as used here, draws on the second meaning of ‘global’. In this view, global means comprehensive; it refers to all elements within a system, not just to the system as a whole. Global politics thus takes place not just at a global level, but at and, crucially, across, all levels - worldwide, regional, national, sub-national and so on. From this perspective, the advent of global politics does not imply that international politics should be consigned to the dustbin of history. Rather, ‘the global’ and ‘the international’ coexist: they complement one another and should not be seen as rival or incompatible modes of understanding.

The approach we take in this book acknowledges that it is as absurd to dismiss states and national governments as irrelevant as it is to deny that, over a significant range of issues, states now operate in a context of global interdependence. The choice of Global Politics as its title reflects the fact both that what goes on within states and what goes on between states impact on one another to a greater degree than ever before, and that an increased proportion of politics no longer takes place simply in and through the state. As such, it moves beyond the confines of what has traditionally been studied under International Relations and allows for the adoption of an interdisciplinary approach that takes account of issues and themes from across the social sciences, in the process bringing a wider range of debates and perspectives into focus. At the same time, however, particular attention is given to International Relations, as this is the field in which most of the relevant research and theorizing has been done, especially in view of theoretical developments in the discipline in recent decades.

3. WHAT IS IR?

IR is the shorthand name for the academic subject of international relations. The main reason why we should study IR is the fact that the entire population of the world is divided into separate territorial political communities, or independent states, which profoundly affect the way people live. Together those states form an international system that is global in extent.

States are independent of each other, at least legally: they have sovereignty. But that does not mean they are isolated or insulated from each other. On the con¬trary, they adjoin each other and affect each other and must therefore somehow find ways to coexist and to deal with each other. They are usually embedded in international markets which affect the policies of their governments and the wealth and welfare of their citizens. That requires that they enter into relations with each other. Complete isolation is usually not an option. When states are ‘ isolated and are cut off from the state system, either by their own government or by foreign powers, the people usually suffer as a result. The state system is a system of social relations, that is, a system of relations between groups of human beings. Like most other social systems, international relations can have certain advantages and disadvantages for the participants. IR is the study of the nature and consequences of these relations.

The state system is a distinctive way of organizing political life on earth which has deep historical roots. There have been state systems of quasi-state systems at different times and places in different parts of the world: for example, in ancient India, in ancient Greece, and in Renaissance Italy. However, the subject of IR conventionally dates back to the early modern era (sixteenth and seventeenth centuries) in Europe, when sovereign states based on adjacent territories were initially established. Ever since the eighteenth century the relations between such independent states have been labeled ‘international relations’. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries the state system was expanded to encompass the entire territory of the earth. The world of states is basically a territorial world: it is a way of politically organizing the world’s populated territory, a distinctive kind of territorial political organization which is based on numerous different governments that are legally independent of each other. The only large territory that is not a state is Antarctica, and it is administered by a consortium of states.

Today IR is the study of the global state system from various scholarly perspectives, the most important of which shall be discussed in this book.

To understand the significance of IR it is necessary to grasp what living in states basically involves. What does it imply? How important is it? How should we think about it?

To begin to respond to these questions it may be helpful to examine our every¬day life as citizens of particular states to see what we generally expect from it. There are at least five basic social values that states are usually expected to uphold: security, freedom, order, justice and welfare. For example, people generally assume that the state should and will underwrite the value of security, which involves the protection of citizens from internal and external threat. That is a fundamental concern or inter¬est of states. However, the very existence of independent states affects the value of security: we live in a world of many states, almost all of which are armed at least to some degree. Thus states can both defend and threaten peoples’ security, and that paradox of the state system is usually referred to as the ‘security dilemma’. In other words, just like any other human organization, states present problems as well as provide solutions.

Most states are likely to be friendly, non-threatening, and peace-loving. But a few states may be hostile and aggressive and there is no world government to constrain them. That poses a basic and age-old problem of state systems: national security. To deal with that problem most states possess armed forces. Military power is usually considered a necessity so that states can coexist and deal with each other without being intimidated or subjugated. Unarmed states are extremely rare in the history of the state system. Many states also enter into alliances with other states to increase their national security. To ensure that no great power succeeds in achieving a hegemonic position of overall domination, based on intimidation, coercion, or the outright use of force, it is also necessary to construct and maintain a balance of military power. Security is obviously one of the most fundamental values of international relations. That approach to the study of world politics is typical of realist theories of IR. It operates on the assumption that relations of states can be best characterized as a world in which armed states are competing rivals and periodically go to war with each other.

The second basic value that states are usually expected to uphold is freedom, both personal freedom and national freedom or independence. A fundamental reason for having states and putting up with the burdens that governments place on citizens, such as tax burdens or obligations of military service, is the condition of national freedom or independence which states exist to foster. We cannot be free unless our country is free too: that was made very clear to millions of Czech, Polish, Danish, Norwegian, Belgian, and Dutch citizens as well as citizens of other countries that were invaded and occupied by Nazi Germany during the Second World War. Even if our country if free we may still not be free personally, but at least then the problem of our freedom is in our own hands. Peace and progressive change are obviously among the most fundamental values of inter¬national relations. That approach to the study of world politics is typical of liberal theories of IR. It operates on the assumption that international relations can be best characterized as a world in which states cooperate with each other to maintain peace and freedom and to pursue progressive change.

The third and fourth basic values that states are usually expected to uphold are order and justice. States have a common interest in establishing and maintaining international order so that they can coexist and interact on a basis of stability, certainty, and predictability. To that end, states are expected to uphold inter¬national law: to keep their treaty commitments and to observe the rules, con-ventions, and customs of the international legal order. They are also expected to follow accepted practices of diplomacy and to support international organizations. International law, diplomatic relations, and international organizations can only exist and operate successfully if these expectations are generally met by most states most of the time. States are also expected to uphold human rights. Today there is an elaborate international legal framework of human rights - civil, political, social, and economic - which has been developed since the end of the Second World War. Order and justice obviously are among the most fundamental values of international relations. That approach to the study of world politics is typical of International Society theories of IR. It operates on the assumption that international relations can be best characterized as a world in which states are socially responsible actors and have a common interest in preserving international order and promoting international justice.

The final basic value that states are usually expected to uphold is the popula¬tion’s socioeconomic wealth and welfare. People expect their government to adopt appropriate policies to encourage high employment, low inflation, steady investment, the uninterrupted flow of trade and commerce, and so forth. Because national economies are rarely isolated from each other, most people also expect that the state will respond to the international economic environment in such a way as to enhance or at least defend and maintain the national standard of living.

States nowadays try to frame and implement economic policies that can maintain the stability of the international economy upon which they are all increasingly dependent. That usually involves economic policies that can deal adequately with international markets, with the economic policies of other states, with foreign investment, with foreign exchange rates, with international trade, with international transportation and communications, and with other inter-national economic relations that affect national wealth and welfare. Economic interdependence, meaning a high degree of mutual economic dependence among countries, is a striking feature of the contemporary state system. Some people consider that to be a good thing because it may increase overall freedom and wealth by expanding the global marketplace and thereby increasing partici¬pation, specialization, efficiency, and productivity. Other people consider it to be a bad thing because it may promote overall inequality by allowing rich and powerful countries, or countries with financial or technological advantages, to dominate poor and weak countries that lack those advantages. But either way, wealth and welfare obviously are among the most fundamental values of international relations. That approach to the study of world politics is typical of IPE (international political economy) theories of IR. It operates on the assumption that international relations can be best characterized as fundamentally a socioeconomic world and not merely a political and military world.

4. FROM INTERNATIONAL POLITICS TO GLOBAL POLITICS

In what ways has ‘international’ politics been transformed into ‘global’ politics, and how far has this process progressed? How have the contours of world poli¬tics changed in recent years? The most significant changes include the following:

• New actors on the world stage

• Increased interdependence and interconnectedness

• The trend towards global governance.

The state and new global actors

World politics has conventionally been understood in international terms. Although the larger phenomenon of patterns of conflict and co-operation between and among territorially-based political units has existed throughout history, the term ‘international relations’ was not coined until the UK philoso¬pher and legal reformer, Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), used it in his Principles of Morals and Legislation ([1789] 1968). Bentham’s use of the term acknowledged a significant shift: that, by the late eighteenth century, territorially-based political units were coming to have a more clearly national character, making relations between them appear genuinely ‘inter-national’. However, although most modern states are either nation-states or aspire to be nation-¬states, it is their possession of statehood rather than nationhood that allows them to act effectively on the world stage. ‘International’ politics should thus, more properly, be described as ‘inter-state’ politics. But what is a state? As defined by the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, a state must possess four qualifying properties: a defined territory, a permanent population, an effective government, and the ‘capacity to enter into relations with other states’. In this view, states, or countries are taken to be the key actors on the world stage, and perhaps the only ones that warrant serious consideration. This is why the conventional approach to world politics is seen as state-centric, and why the international system is often portrayed as a state-system. The origins of this view of international politics are usually traced back to the Peace of Westphalia (1648), which established sovereignty as the distinguishing feature of the state. State sovereignty thus became the primary organizing principle of international politics.

However, the state-centric approach to world politics has become increas-ingly difficult to sustain. This has happened, in part, because it is no longer possible to treat states as the only significant actors of the world stage.

Transnational corporations (TNCs), non-governmental organiza¬tions (NGOs) and a host of other non-state bodies have come to exert influence. Since the 1970s pluralist theorists have advocated a mixed-actor model of world politics. However, although it is widely accepted that states and national governments are merely one category of actor amongst many on the world stage, they may still remain the most important actors. No TNC or NGOs, for instance, can rival the state’s coercive power, either its capacity to enforce order within its borders or its ability to deal militarily with other states.