political globalisation

political globalisation definition

• Process by which nation states are no longer autonomous in taking decisions

• Decisions are more polycentric, involving a variety of non-state actors

Global Governance

• Nation-states sharing decision making with non-state actors (IGOs, NGOs and TNCs), particularly over global collective dilemmas

role of ICC in political globalisation

• Established in 2002 following the Rome Statute Treaty (1998)

• ICC was established as a permanent body prepared to try everyone indicted for either war crimes or crimes against humanity

• The court would hopefully dramatically increase the influence of human rights based law by establishing a global consensus that the ICC could now challenge the Westphalian principles of state sovereignty

• By 2021 123 nation states had ratified the Rome statute which means that they recognize the authority of the ICC within their own borders 

• From 2002-2020 the ICC made 8 convictions and 4 acquittals

 

how powerful is the ICC

• China, Russia and the US don’t accept the ICC's jurisdiction in their countries. Undermines ICC power

• In 2014 the ICC withdrew its indictment of President Kenyatta of Kenya for inciting ethnic violence due to the Kenyan government's failure to cooperate  

• In 2019 the Philippines withdrew from the ICC in response to investigations into whether the government of Rodrigo Duterte had committed large scale human rights abuses in its campaign against drugs

• The ICC's power is limited and relies on state cooperation, making it a court of last resort. It can prosecute individuals for the most serious international crimes, but its ability to enforce its judgments depends on the willingness of individual countries to cooperate.

  • For example, Hungary refuses to turn in Putin

  • ICC only has power if the state allow it to

ICC somewhat significant as it requires state cooperation and isn't very enforceable  

role of ECtHR in political globalisation

• To enforce the ECHR. 

• Supranational body

• The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has jurisdiction over the 46 member states of the Council of Europe, covering all individuals within their respective jurisdictions

how powerful is the ECtHR

• Their power is limited as member states can 'derogate' from the ECHR during national emergencies.

  • According to Article 15 of the ECHR in these circumstances, member governments may suspend 'in a temporary, limited and supervised manner' … 'their obligation to secure certain rights and freedoms under the convention'.

  • e.g. UK govt did this in 1975 when it claimed that the republic internees arrested during Operation Demetrius in Northern Ireland could not appeal their arrest because the government's actions had been a response to a 'public emergency'.

• They lack the coercive powers to enforce its judgements over the jurisdiction of the ECHR.

  • e.g. in 2015, Russia asserted the primacy of domestic law over the jurisdiction of the ECHR.

  • In 2020, UK govt was criticised by the Council of Europe for failing to comply with the ECHR judgements that it must reopen cases involving potentially illegal killings by the security forces in NI.

  • ECtHR has been highly critical of Turkey's suppression of civil liberties. In 2020 it demanded the release of businessman and philanthropist Osman Kavala who had been held in custody without trial since 2017 on the charge of trying to overthrow the government. However, at the end of 2020, Turkey's highest court refused to comply with the ECtHR's judgement.

ECtHR not very significant -> judgements and rulings are unable to actually be enforced so it relies on the cooperation of states. 

role of ICJ in political globalisation

• Principal judicial organ of the UN. Based in the Peace Palace at The Hague, in the Netherlands.

• Settles legal disputes between member states.

• Gives advisory opinions on legal questions submitted by authorised agencies.

• The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has jurisdiction in:

  1. Contentious Cases – between states that have consented to its jurisdiction.

  2. Advisory Opinions – for legal questions asked by UN organisations or specialised agencies (e.g., the General Assembly or Security Council). These are not binding.

• The ICJ does not have jurisdiction over individuals, companies, or states that haven’t consented.

how powerful is the ICJ

• does not powers to investigate, like a criminal court does.

• The ICJ does not have automatic authority to hear cases between states and instead both sides must agree that the court has jurisdiction (or the legitimate legal authority to make a ruling) on the matter.

• Means states can simply declare that they do not recognise the court's authority in respect of cases that are not to their liking.

• However it has made successful rulings on contentious cases and carries out an important role in arbitrating between states that are in dispute with each other.

  • e.g. in 2004 it rule that the security fence Israel constructed around the Palestinian West Bank, in territory that a UNSC Resolution continues to call for Israel to withdraw from, was illegal under international law.

  • HOWEVER, Israel chose to ignore this ruling and continue to build the barrier, stating that it was vital to its internal security.

• So in theory, ICJ rulings are binding on UN member states but if they do not comply, the UN Charter allows for the matter to be referred to the UNSC (UN Security Council) for enforcement.

• However, again action is entirely dependent on the UNSC issuing a resolution forcing states to comply

To an extent, the ICJ is a significant factor of political globalisation as with or without the consent of states, the ICJ is still able to make important judgements which carry authority and many states see the ICJ as a useful mediator in disputes. -> many international treaties specify that the ICJ is the designated means of resolving disputes for the agreements they set out.

But, enforcement of rulings are dependent on the UNSC and without this, rulings can easily be ignored.

is the state still relevant in political globalisation

YES - state is still relevant

• Nation-states remain key decision-makers in global affairs.

• UNSC permanent members use veto power in conflict resolution and war decisions.

• EU member states retain veto on key sovereign issues: foreign policy, defence, taxation, and non-EU immigration.

• Trump administration (2017–2021) pursued “America First”: withdrew from Paris Agreement, negotiated trade deals outside WTO, refused Trans-Pacific Partnership. Shows powerful states can act independently of global pressure.

• States control fiscal, tax, education, healthcare, defence, immigration, and foreign policy.

• Covid-19 responses highlighted state power in protecting citizens.

• States also regulate the internet:

  • China → Great Firewall

  • Russia → bans foreign NGOs deemed a threat to national security

• States remain central to citizens’ everyday lives, not just conduits for global capital.

• contrary to liberal predictions, borders remain crucial.

• Post-9/11, states strengthened border security:

  • US Department of Homeland Security established 2002; 240,000 employees (2020).

• Refugee crises (e.g., Syrian crisis) challenged Schengen’s passport-free travel.

• Covid-19 → states enforced border controls to contain the virus.

• States decide whether to join or follow international law:

  • China refused ICC membership, citing sovereignty.

  • US does not submit personnel to ICC jurisdiction.

• Nation-states control how far they adhere to human rights and dispute arbitration.

NO - state is irrelevant

• Nation-states are increasingly bound by organisations like the IMF, World Bank, and WTO.

• States must accept WTO rulings even if contrary to national interests.

• IMF/World Bank loans come with conditions that recipient states often have no choice but to accept.

• International criminal law: UN war crimes tribunals and the ICC set universal standards, limiting state discretion.

• IGOs increasingly lead on collective dilemmas like climate change, global crime, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation.

• Regionalism reduces state sovereignty:

  • EU → Qualified majority voting in Council of Ministers is legally binding; Schengen Agreement allows passport-free travel.

  • Other examples → Mercosur, NAFTA, ASEAN enforce free-trade rules, constraining member states’ policy choices.

• NGOs and global foundations increasingly influence policy beyond state control:

  • Human Rights Watch, Greenpeace → shape global political debate.

  • Climate activism → Greta Thunberg, David Attenborough push climate agenda more than many governments.

  • Global foundations → Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Clinton Foundation, Carter Centre tackle global poverty and disease, e.g., guinea-worm eradication.

• Internet and social media amplify transnational influence, bypassing state authority.