Alexandra Giroux

The last decades, there has been an interplay between the forces of globalism and nationalism, and between unifying and fragmenting trends (Smith, 1993, p.134). Nation-states have been the principal architects of global interconnectedness and the most successful actors in the international arena of the last two hundred years. But in a context of tension between centralization and sovereignty they now have to reconsider their role and functions because of their fragile structures. Their power have been challenged by European supranationalism, economic globalization and the end of the Cold War. Because of the problem, the cognitive and the hegemonic condition, international organizations such as the European Union have emerged. Europe is an interesting laboratory to study the nation-state and issues such as legitimacy, sovereignty or identity. The Wesphalian ideal of sovereign statehood is not buried but transformed by globalization, producing a disaggregated state. The question to be asked is whether nation-states should still occupy the political centre stage in world affairs. It will be argued that post-national entities such as the European Union might be better equipped to face and solve modern challenges. The central issue to be addressed is the relevance of nation-states in the 21st century. In a first part, some evidences of the pertinence of nation-states will be shown. Then, it will be argued that nation-states are sometimes less powerful than post-national entities. To finish, the idea of the necessity of international cooperation trough the example of Europe will be developed.
Nation-states can be largely defined as autonomous geopolitical entities inhabited by citizen sharing the same language, history and ethnicity. In the age of globalization, it can be asked if nations are “imagined communities”, to use Anderson’s famous formula (2006), or “communal images”. Nationalism has to be understood in term of sentiments, politics and ideology. Until the end of the Cold War, the trend has been an increase in the number of nation-states (Baylis, 2008, p.404). Alongside, one can observe a resurgence of nationalism showing evidence that self-determination, self-governance and nation-states are still relevant. After the end of the breakup of the Soviet Union, nations have claimed their power against the state. In France, the Front National, an extreme right wing party rejects the idea of a European supranational power revealing the eagerness to “preserve” French national identity. This kind of resurgence of nationalism might be seen as a a vain response to the post-modern anomic pressure and is evidence of the quest for meaning and identity. Building Europe is a challenge: the European constitution has been knocked off course and Great-Britain still refuse the European currency. Conventions, agreements and treating usually require ratification by the state. Relying on the state is reassuring since it provides security: they are usually responsible for implementation when it comes to operational activities within international organizations. According to the realist school, endorsed by De Gaulle or Machiavelli, the state is unified and self-contained: it is a major actor in international relations. Raison d’état matter more than the notions of friends of enemies. International organizations are seen as not very useful since each state uses it for its own purpose: they are only used as an instrument. International cooperation is difficult in the field of security since states assess their gains relative to others, and because of the low degree of transparency leading to trust reluctance. Moreover there is a legitimation crisis because for instance inability of governments to respond to minor groups within the state: it expresses the disillusionment of citizen with established elites and institutions. Legitimacy of Europe is also an issue for the nation-states since it ”requires a measure of internal homogenization; geo-political demarcations now take priority over other differences” (Smith, 1991, p.169).
Globalization, through transnational rights, by eroding sovereign territorial power and creating competing identities embodied in international organizations, undermines “state” and “nation” (Castells, 1997, p.244). “The nation-state is ceasing to be the overwhelmingly important power-container of earlier phases of global politics” (Breuilly, 2007, p.413). It is “fast becoming obsolete and nationalism, which expunged from human consciousness must be expunged from human consciousness or at least rendered forever harmless” (Smith, 1991, p.151). That is why international organizations have emerged during the 19th century. These post-national entities allow states to collectively broach common problems. The world economy has changed and have played an important role in the weigh of nation states on a global scale. Financial markets are now interdependent: there constant exchanges and zones with the same currency. The nation-state is in crisis, confronted to other flows of power in the network and is dependent on a broader system of enacting authorities. Moreover, “the international system resists the recognition of new states (and) many who legitimately consider themselves distinct peoples do not receive the regional and/or international recognition they deserve” (Young, 2000, p.254). The Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe broke new ground in intrusion in areas normally within state sovereignty: the postmodern system rely on balance even if it collapsed at an early stage. Cooper (2003, p.29) explains the basic incompatibility in systems that occurred: “the modern based on balance and the postmodern based on openness”. (Rittberger and Zangl, 2006, p.213) state that at the European level “integration has outstripped community building”. According to the idealist school, international organizations are the basis of an infrastructure that will enable the different states to work together. From a normative idealist point of view, societies are rather than states the central actors in international politics. The idealist theory is based on the hope that the hegemony of a world government or a collective-security system will replace the anarchy of nations. Pursuit of national interests can lead to global catastrophes like it has been shown during WWII. Thinking and acting more idealistically is the key to a more structured and peaceful world. Lately, imperialism has been dying slowly and there now increasing multilateral interdependence between nation-states. New technologies and increased knowledge toward the global character of major challenges had an important impact. International cooperation becomes a necessity in the post-modern era.
Because of wars, industrial expansion, world economic crises, human rights violations, developmental disparities and environment degradations, states have to solve together these problems. Globalization involves the transnationalization and regionalization of governance (Kaldor, in Caplan and Feffer, 1996, p.44). Global governance postulates the possibility of sustained cooperation based on international agreements. Different orientations have emerged from the global condition: “multi-state collaboration” which honors the sovereignty of the nation state; multi-state collaboration which erodes autonomy; and “international conventions” which override sovereignty (Morris, 1997, p.194). Each nation-states is in the same time independent of any central authority and interdependent. This model is very balanced since the global hierarchy is overcome without having to endure a world hegemonic order or founding a world state. International cooperation among sovereign states are encouraged and stabilized. Nation-states can form coalitions; are less and less sovereign but more and more components of an international policy. “The central functions of the nation-state will become those of providing legitimacy for and ensuring the accountability of supra-national and sub-national governance mechanisms” (Hirst and Thompson, quoted in Castells, 1997, p.304). In this postmodern era, the state system of the modern world is collapsing into greater order than disorder and moral consciousness has replaced the Machiavelic amorality. The Treaty of Rome (1957) is a successful attempt to go beyond the destructive extreme of nationalism and the nation state. Camilleri and Falk (1992, p.256) predict that “though the state will continue to perform important administrative and other functions, the theory of sovereignty will seem strangely out of place in a world characterized by shifting allegiances, new forms of identity and overlapping tiers of jurisdiction”. Product of a transnational aggregation of interests and policy preferences, new policy areas are increasingly being determined at the European level: this is what reveals the application of the concept of “Europeanisation” to the increasingly “com-munitarised” or “Brusselsized” EU governance system reveals (Winn, 2003, p.160). The world is moving away from the premise of having a unique hegemonic power to having different centers growing, more in line with Europe’s 19th century concept of power (Ashdown, 2007). The solution may consist is “re-legitimizing the state in its post-national reincarnation” (Held, quoted in Castells, 1997, p.303). The role of Europe on the international stage will depend of the future of Europe itself and “how far large-scale polyethnic states and regional groupings have taken root, where else may we look for that global interdependence that can underpin a cosmopolitan culture that transcends national limitations” (Smith, 1991, p.154). “But the end of the Cold War, the widening of the Union, the continued differences in the EU members’ strategic culture, ambitions, values, and historical relationships and the lack (…) of a European identity sufficient to permit delegation of sovereignty to centralized institutions mean that EU foreign policy cooperation will probably remain limited, fragmented and intergovernmental” (Gordon, 1997, p.100). Post-nationalism might be a myth. The European dilemma lies in the fact that European unification does not rely on post-national Euro-citizens but on a plurality of nationals with contrasting and rival identities (Deflem, 1996, p.138). Europe will require extensive and mutual trust within to nation-states to ensure compliance while a European identity might have to be built to bring more legitimacy to this post-national entity (Follesdal, 2000, p.503) and to create a single voice. A constitution is needed (Habermas, 2001, p.6) since only a political act foundation can give a power of symbolic crystallization so Europe can take hold in the consciousness of its citizens. Europe is an economic giant but a political dwarf.
International structure is moving step by step toward a global governance model where international organizations are able to stabilize and encourage sustainable international cooperation. Devotion, cultural recognition and transnational linkage are now more important since the sovereign nation-state is no longer central. It does not mean that nation-states will disappear but there will be a plurality of sources of authority. Nation-states are different but not obsolete, more similar to globalized states, introducing an inside-out element. Step by step, some international organizations are frank successes and give a great hope to further worldwide cooperation. Post national entities such as the European Union might remain in the future the central pillar of global governance. Cooper (2003, p.32) provides a good summary of the situation: “economy, law-making and defense may be increasingly embedded in international frameworks and the borders of territory might be less important, but identity and democratic institutions remain stubbornly national. This is the reason why traditional states will remain the fundamental unit of international relations for the foreseeable future, even though they might have ceased to behave in traditional ways”.

Bibliography:
Ashdown, P. (2007). Swords and Ploughshares: Bringing Peace to the 21st Century. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Baylis, J, Steve S and Patricia O. (eds.) (2008). The Globalization of World Politics, 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Breuilly, J. (2007) Nationalism. In Baylis, J, Smith, S and Owens, P. The globalization of world politics: an introduction to international relations, 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Camilleri, J. A. and Falk, J. (1992). The End of Sovereignty?  The Politics Of A Shrinking And Fragmenting World. Aldershot (Hants UK): Edward Elgar.
Caplan, R and Feffer, J. (eds.). (1996). Europe’s New Nationalism: States and Minorities in Conflict. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press
Castells, M. (1997). The Power of Identity. The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, Cambridge : Blackwell.
Cooper, R. (2003). The Breaking of Nations. Order and Chaos in the 21st Century. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press.
Deflem, M., Pampel, F.C. (1996) The myth of postnational identity: Popular support for European unification. Social Forces, 75, 1, 119-143.
Follesdal, A. (2000). The future soul of Europe: nationalism or just patriotism? A critique of David Miller’s defence of nationality. J Peace Res 37(4):503–518.
Gordon, H. (1998). “Europe’s uncommon foreign policy”, International Security, Winter 1997/98,. 21-38.
Habermas, J. (2001). “Why Europe Needs a Constitution”, New Left Review, 11 (September-October 2001): 13. xxxvii. L.
Hudson, R. (2000). One Europe or Many? Reflections on becoming European. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 25(4): 409-426.
Morris, L. (1997). “Globalisation, Migration and the Nation-State: The Path to a Post-National Europe?”. British Journal of Sociology 48: 192-209.
Rittberger, V. & Zangl, B. (2006), International Organization: Polity, Politics and Policies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Smith, A.D. (1993). “A Europe of Nations” or the Nation of Europe? , Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 129-135.
Smith, A.D. (1991), National identity. London: Penguin.
Winn, N. (2003) “The European Union’s External Face: The. Europeanisation of JHA and CFSP”, Perspective on European Politics and. Society, 4 (1):147-166.
Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.