http://www.21stcenturytryst.org/nation.doc
What has happened to the nation state in this new system? First it has become less aggressive. Indeed the new system is possible only because the imperial urge seems to have died in European states. It is striking that the developed world as a whole is neglecting the many fine opportunities for imperialism which are open to it, eg in Africa or in the Balkans. It may be that European states have come to understand that the costs of war or colonies far exceed any possible benefits. Wealth and power today depend not on the acreage of land owned but on skills, capital and technology.
Second, states have become more open. Especially in Europe the distinction between external and internal affairs is increasingly hard to sustain. International treaties permit challenge inspection not only of armies but also of prisons (Council of Europe Convention on Torture), abattoirs, and beaches. European negotiating processes determine the price of agricultural products, the amount of fish that can be caught and the way animals are looked after in zoos.
Thirdly in a world of growing individualism there is growing sympathy for other individuals. International news media can make events in distant lands dramatic and immediate. Against this background the morality of Machiavelli is no longer sustainable. Governments have to follow the concerns of voters. Most people do not want to belong to states which behave according to raison d’état, disregarding moral issues. Governments are obliged to take account of issues such as human rights and environmental damage.
Fourthly the network of international agreements to which almost all states subscribe has radically limited their freedom of action. Admittedly it would be possible to tear up all treaties and to refuse to operate international agreements; but no state could gain by this. The cumulative effect of international agreements and of the written and unwritten rules of the international system is to limit the freedom of action of the individual state very considerably. The image of Gulliver bound by the thousand silken threads of the Lilliputians (which was often applied to Germany) could be applied to Leviathan.
What, in this situation, is the meaning of sovereignty? If sovereignty is defined as a state’s monopoly on law and force within its own territory, then it exists today only in an attenuated form. The monopoly on law has been weakened by every international treaty obligation. In particular for European countries the monopoly has been broken by the creation of an alternative source of law in the collective law making capacities of the European institutions. The monopoly on force is circumscribed in a number of ways: by alliance obligations, by arms control treaties, by international institutions such as the UN, and in some special cases by the (contested) right of humanitarian intervention.
As we approach the end of the 21st century a new definition of sovereignty is needed. If sovereignty no longer means the monopoly on law and force what then does it mean? Probably it is best defined today as the right to cooperate, the right to reach international agreements, the right to a seat at the table.
Thanks to you both for the articles on a new definition of sovereignty.
GeronL, the article you posted is nightmarish:
its outright lies and spin are deplorable. Its still hard for me to accept that people in their right minds would go along with the godless New World Order.