Leonid E.

Grinin
Volgograd Center for Social Research

Globalization and the Transformation of National Sovereignty

Abstract
The process of globalization undoubtedly contributes to the changes and reduction
of nomenclature and scope of state sovereign powers. At the same time this is a
bilateral process: On the one side, the factors are strengthening that fairly undermine
the countries` sovereignty, on the other – most states voluntarily limit the scope of
their sovereignty including the right to use the capital punishment, nomenclature and
size of taxation, the size of emission and borrowings etc. We believe that among the
range of factors influencing the process of change of national sovereignty (including
the technological and economical changes and the necessity to solve jointly a great
number of issues), the factor of voluntary reducing of scope of sovereign powers to
obtain an additional prestige and benefit appears to be of the utmost importance. At
the same time the limiting of sovereignty inevitably leads to great changes in the
policy patterns of states as well as of common people masses. So the problems of
changes of functions and role of the modern state, in our view, must be among those
of currant importance.

Can the started 21st century be already called the age of globalization? Will it be of
the kind? It is quite probable. But what will happen in the future with national states`
sovereign rights? And whether these latter remain as before the leading players at the
political scene or they will give this place to some new formations?
At the end of the 20th –beginning of the 21st century in the political science
especially in connection with the problems of globalization and new world order
there started to be raised also the issue of national sovereignty change, “diffusion”,
“disappearing” etc. (see e.g. Giddens, 1990; Held, et al. 1999, Russian translation –
2004; Gilpin, 2001; Held, and McGrew, 2003b, Ilyin, 1993b; Ilyin, Inozemtsev, 201,
Tsimbursky, 1993 etc.). Nevertheless, in comparison with an avalanche of works on
globalization the publications dedicated to the transformation of sovereignty in
modern world unfortunately are scarce, and above all, the problem itself is not
studied thoroughly and profoundly enough as one would like it to be. Meanwhile in
our view, the processes of change of sovereignty appear to be among the most
important for the present.
In the present paper we tried to prove that on the whole globalization contributes
to the change and reduction of nomenclature and scope of state sovereign powers and
besides it is a bilateral process: on the one hand, the factors are strengthening that
fairly undermine the countries` sovereignty, on the other – most states voluntarily
limit the scope of their sovereignty. And since the tendency to change and reduce the
sovereign prerogatives (with some fluctuations) most likely will strengthen, and it
will inevitably and fundamentally influence all spheres of life including the change of
ideology and public psychology. However, the last point is evidently underestimated
by analytics. We think that to give an appropriate estimation of these changes one
needs some new approaches to the problems of national sovereignty and the role of
national states in the process of globalization. In the present paper we suggest and
partially develop some of such approaches.
In political science sovereignty is usually defined as the most essential attribute of
a state in the form of its complete self-sufficiency, i.e. its supremacy in the domestic
policy and independence in the foreign one (see e.g. Jerry and Jerry 1999: 311;
Averyanov 1993: 367; Held 2003: 162-163). This notion became widespread in the
19th century. But already at the beginning of the New Age it got quite a definite
interpretation on the works by N. Machiavelli, J, Bodin, T, Hobbes and others (see
e.g. Held, 2003: 162–163). In the system of international affairs which appeared after
Peace Treaties of Westphalia of 1648 after the Thirty Years` War the principles of
state sovereignty gradually obtained the all-European appreciation (see on these
principle Held et al., 1999: 37–38). However, it is important to note that this
“normative trajectory” of international law was fully described only by the end of 18th
– early 19th century (ibid.: 37). At present in the UNO Charter and in some other
international agreements there are regulations on sovereign equality of states and
nations` right to self-determination which together with the increasing degree of
external security of most countries, in our view has sufficiently contributed to the
consolidation of the idea of national sovereignty in international affairs in the second
half of the 20th century. Indeed as we will see further the tendency of recognizing the
sovereign rights combined with the tendency of their voluntarily constraint by the
sovereigns themselves. However the notion of sovereignty is one of the most difficult
and ambiguous (see e.g. Stankiewicz, 1969: 291) and its content has constantly
changed and continues to change in connection with changes of international affairs
and characteristics of the states themselves (see e.g. Grinin, 2006a, 2007a; Grinin,
Korotayev, 2006) and also depending on who was the supreme sovereign: a feudal
monarch having right to “grant or split states when sharing the inheritance”; an
enlightened absolute monarch who already acted on behalf of people or a nation itself
(see e.g. Yan, 1996). Besides, absolute in theory sovereignty of states as well of
nations is always strongly and even fatally limited by different factors. Sovereignty
can be regarded in different aspects (e.g. as a positive and a negative one) and
variants. In other words the notion of sovereignty is not univocal and indisputable but
provokes numerous debates and thus demands a considerable elaboration.
Globalization is an exceptionally many-sided process. Practically all spheres of
life experience its impact (see e.g. the analysis of its different aspects or
“dimensions” [Giddens, 1990]). It is the result of a very difficult allegation of
political, social, economic, civilizational and many other processes in modern world.
But among these numerous factors one should especially mark out the huge changes
in modern productive forces, media, world trade and specialization. Technology and
trade entangle the world with new network connections and make national boundaries
transparent. Together with other factors this harshly complicates the conditions
external for a society. As a result globalization strongly reduces and changes the
scope of national sovereignty, undermines the position of a state as of a major subject
of international affairs (see Grinin, 1999; 2005; 2007). Thus the changes in
production forces in this or that way lead to the changes of all other spheres of life
including the political one.
Any progress always means that a certain part of changes makes the situation
worse in comparison with what there has been before. Respectively, globalization
does not always give a positive effect and this is constantly emphasized by its critics.
In particular they point to the disparity in benefiting from globalization and the
increasing gap in life rate of different countries. Indeed this is quite an ambiguous
conclusion. That is why it is rather natural that reducing of national sovereignty has
not only positive side. Like any other radical turn this one also brings many negative
consequences, e.g. weakening of such features as patriotism. And also the openness
of boundaries is good in some way and wrong in another, e.g. in the field of terrorism
and drugs spreading.
In political science sovereignty is usually defined as the most essential attribute of
a state in the form of its complete self-sufficiency, i.e. its supremacy in the domestic
policy and independence in the foreign one (see e.g. Jerry and Jerry 1999: 311;
Averyanov 1993: 367; Held 2003: 162-163). This notion became widespread in the
19th century. But already at the beginning of the New Age it got quite a definite
interpretation on the works by N. Machiavelli, J, Bodin, T, Hobbes and others. At
present in the UNO Charter and in some other international agreements there are
regulations on sovereign equality of states and nations` right to self-determination.
Undoubtedly, in reality the state sovereignty has always been limited by different
factors. But it is important to mention that today the idea of states' complete freedom
of action even in mere theory looks false. The matter is that the scope of internal
sovereignty has greatly narrowed de jure due to the international agreements
including the issues of human rights (see Averyanov, 1993: 368) and actually to a
greater degree – in connection with already prevalent traditions.
As it has been already said there are quite few works dedicated to the
transformation of the position and role of a state in modern world. At that in most
cases, as Michael Many correctly observes, there is going on a one-sided debate on
the issue whether the state system becomes stronger or weaker, meanwhile the
process appears to be quite complicated and ambiguous; in some way these positions
are weakening but in some way they become stronger (Mann, 1997)1. Thus Susanne
Strange insists that under the influence of powerful economic processes the state
power becomes weaker and at the same time she notes with surprise that the state has
started to regulate the issues which before people solved themselves, in particular
how to build their own house, how to arrange family relations, so that in her point of
view there is almost no sphere where the state bureaucracy would not intervene
(Strange, 2003: 128). She calls it a paradox though these are quite natural things as
the processes never go unilinearly and only in one direction. The general trajectory is
always a complicated balance of alternate changes, at the same time the system’s
weakening usually combines with strengthening of some its aspects although it
occurs at the expense of its components conversion and changes in hierarchy levels.
The problem of state fortune and the significance of its influence on the regulation
of different processes in globalizing world is even more seldom analyzed in the
aspect of transformation of state sovereignty. Moreover we would like especially
emphasize the narrowness of the approaches even in these investigations. There is an
impression that authors study the issue only from the angle that powerful world
economic powers – supranational and to a great degree anonymous – influence the
transformation of national sovereignty, changing it on the whole as if in spite of or
even contrary to the will of the states themselves (see e.g. [Clark, 1999; Held, 2003;
Keohane, 1995; Slaughter, 2000; Strange, 2003])2 At the same time another aspect of
the problem is almost unnoticed (or it is not attached a sufficient importance) which
we consider exactly an exceptionally important one: sovereignty to a large (probably,
prevalent) degree is reduced voluntary by national states themselves.
It appears that it is not completely comprehended that since the after-war time
there is going on the most important process as a result of which many countries
1
In Antony Giddens point of view [Giddens, 1990] the analysis of the change of national state and
its sovereignty by most authors is not completely satisfactory and the view on the progressing
decrease of sovereignty requires to be considerably specified.
2
The list of threatens to the state sovereignty often includes: global financial flows, multinational
corporations, global media empires, Internet etc. The globalists maintain that state authority is
greatly weakened by these processes which lead to the boundaries transparency – David Held and
Anthony McGrew sum up such views (Held and McGrew, 2003: 124).
deliberately start to limit themselves in seemingly most sovereign things. We marked
out and analyzed these aspects of globalization in a number of our works [see Grinin,
1999; 2005; 2007]
To agree with the above-said it is enough to cast a brief glance at the spheres
where sovereignty has reduced. The right to impose duties and taxation and define
their rate; to forbid and reward import and export of goods (capitals) and some types
of activity; to issue currency; to borrow; to set the rules of keeping the imprisoned
and usage of their labour; to use the capital punishment; to proclaim these or those
politic liberties or restrict them; to define fundamental rules of elections (and to hold
them proper) and electoral qualification and also a great number of other important
things have stopped to be defined only by the wishes of a state itself. Not so long ago
the Europeans refused the sanctum sanctorum – their own national currencies that
had been gained for centuries for the sake of a common currency (euro). Finally,
what has always been regarded the main thing in sovereignty – the right of war and
peace – is under international control. World wars and totalitarianism showed that
absolute sovereignty including also the right to unleash wars and repressions is
dangerous. Hence it is possible to make an important though on the whole
obvious conclusion: the domestic affairs of a state where nobody intervenes and
which are regulated only by national law and traditions, are getting narrow and
international law or law of a definite community (of collective participation) is
expanding (Grinin, 1999; 2005; 2007).
Of course, the processes of internationalization have started not today but have
been already going on for centuries increasing all the time. But as we have already
mentioned (Grinin, 1999; 2005: 16–17), the prevalence and power of these processes
yesterday and today are incomparable, in other words at present they have obtained a
qualitatively different level in comparison with past epochs. First, they have involved
the whole world. Second, the economic alliances were uncommon before and now
they have become the most typical form of associations. And some of the economic
organizations (such as WTO, IMF) encompass the majority of countries of the world.
The scale and aims of political associations have also changed. Third, enormously
grew the intensity and consistency of country leaders` contacts. And the problems
they solve have changed greatly. Fourth, only a few countries are able today to carry
out an isolationist policy and avoid any associations.
To emphasize the above said it is worth mentioning though it may sound strange
that the maximal sovereignty is gained by the countries ideologically (China, Iran)
and economically closed such as North Korea, Cuba; or exactly because of their
“sovereign rights” (in particular to create nuclear weapon) there happen sharp
conflicts. But on the whole even these countries` sovereignty starts to diminish. As
for sufficiently open and developed countries, in our point of view the tendency to
delegate their powers to the international, regional and world organizations and
associations is absolutely obvious. The only exception are the USA which at times
permit themselves to act regardless of many countries opinion, openly putting their
national interests above the world and allied ones. But it seems to us that just in this
confrontation of the USA and other countries which express a certain collective
opinion, probably roots the main intrigue of the change of the world in the future and
also the transformation of sovereignty content (see Grinin, 1999: 28–29; 2005: 9, 25–
26).
Thus there is completely no doubt that today in comparison with the past the
sovereignty of completely free and independent countries has become much
smaller. And what is extremely important, many countries quite often give away
a part of their sovereign powers voluntarily indeed. We think that such altruism
can be seriously explained only by the fact that such restriction becomes profitable as
instead the countries gain quite real advantages. It is quite natural that such an
“exchange” has become possible in principle only as a result of the powerful
influence of the described (and many unmentioned but implicit) processes. As an
important cause of sovereignty reduction in my view it must be noted a kind of world
public opinion: the wider is the circle of countries voluntarily limiting their
sovereignty the more inferior seem those states which do not make such restrictions.
Actually the notion of sovereignty itself undergoes very significant changes. In
political science there is realized to a certain degree that the doctrine of national
sovereignty has become old-fashioned and there is required “a complex re-thinking
and re-evaluation of the notion of sovereignty” in connection with the emergence of
world political community as well as in connection with the specifying of the limits
of particular sovereignties, principles of their combination with each other and
construction of their hierarchy (Averyanov, 1993: 368) and also in connection with
the actions of other different subjects such as multinational corporation and non-state
organizations as well as multinational structures and arrangements (see e.g. Utkin,
2000: 41–41). However it seems that most researchers still underestimate the gravity
of changes of sovereignty and the necessity to re-think this notion itself in the context
of modern processes.
Well, of course, a state still principally remains (and will endure for quite a long
time) the superior unit of historical and political life. However, today there have
appeared new powerful factors which in the long run will lead the state to stop being
the limit of expressed and will give this place to large supranational formations. And
in our opinion this tendency will increase. On the other hand, we would like without
fail add that this is not a one-sided and univocal but a many-sided process:
sovereignty will reduce in the main but in some way it will become stronger and
even grow. That is why it is dangerous to hurry too much to bury national state, for a
long time it will remain the leading player in international affairs. Besides, as some
scholars fairly point out the abrupt reduction of sovereignty and traditional functions
of a state may cause chaos (Utkin, 2000: 41–42).
Though sovereignty is getting narrow but this principle itself will long remain one
of the most important in the international affairs. That is why its open disrespect will
continue to provoke condemnation. When old ideas are still alive and the new ones
have not become firmly established the collisions may obtain a form of opposition of
principles which hides their historical significance. In that case it is difficult to
understand who is right, who is wrong. For instance, if basing on the right of the
strong to openly trample on the sovereignty principle even in the respect of a
dictatorial regime the sympathy may appear on the per se reactionary side. The war in
Iraq in 2003 proves this. That is why it appears that in the legal and moral aspects
really irreproachable arguments are desirable which would base on the world
organizations decisions (UNO in the first place). That is why to support the actions
against the regimes-disturbers the sanctions of exactly this kind are important.
So since the post-war time the tendency is more clearly revealed that countries
gradually delegate a part of their sovereignty to the world international organizations.
Even a larger part of sovereignty passes to regional associations and courts of
arbitration. And the integration of states in suprastate economic associations is
becoming more and more important part of globalization. Such supranational
formations are present on almost all continents and in some cases a transformation of
economic alliances into political ones is outlined. Of course, the process of creating
really formed, systematically and profoundly integrated suprastate formations can not
be quick. Neither will it be smooth since all its members can not ignore their own
interests and in this or that way will oppose them to each other. Besides within the
countries themselves different political powers interpret national aims quite in a
different way. In other words the adjustment of the supra- and intrastate interests is a
difficult problem, and different confrontations are inevitable here. Besides, common
aims also may be interpreted in a different way. In this sense a very significant
example is that of the USA which were able to bring together into a tight knot their
purely national narrow political problems (such as the coming elections or the
necessity to increase the president popularity) with world interests.
Globalization though it has started far from today on the whole is a new,
unknown, most complicated and in many ways unpredictable process. At that still it
is not worth exaggerating that anyway great role of economy in the transformation of
the state (as Turaev does it [2001, ch. 2]). The economy comes forward as the leading
factor in this sense only in the long run. We think for a radical change of sovereignty
there are also required some serious changes in other spheres of life just as for the
formation of bourgeois society the changes in economy were not enough but also
there required a political revolution (see in detail Grinin, 1999; 2005; 2007). That is
why in our opinion, for a long time the most important problem will be that of
combining national and supranational, group and world interests. After all only an
institutionalized solution of this huge problem will establish a more or less stable
world order. But this will not be the order which is spoken about with confidence in
the USA but let us hope it will be a system of a more balanced account of interests of
different regions and countries. However, the way to such an order is unclear,
complicated and discrepant. Naturally it will take some time during which there must
occur a profound turn in the elites and people outlook as a result of which the
national problems will start to be considered primarily through the prism of common
interests and only next in the context of common (regional and world) tasks and
problems

References
Averyanov, Yu. I. (ed.), (1993). Politologia: Entsyclopedicheskiy slovarj. [Politology: Encyclopedia].
Мoscow: Izdateljstvo Kommercheskogo Universiteta.
Clark, I. (1999). Globalization and International Relations Theory. Oxford; New York: Oxford University
Press.
Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
Gilpin, R. (2001). Global Political Economy: Understanding the International Economic Order. Princeton,
N.J.
Grinin, L.E. (1999). Sovremennye proizvoditiljnye sily i problemy natsionaljnogo suvereniteta [Modern
Productive Forces and Problems of National Sovereignty]. Philosophiya i obschestvo 4: 5–44.
Grinin, L. E. (2005). Globalizatsiya i natsionaljnyj suverenitet [Globalization and National Sovereignty].
Istoria i sovremennostj 1: 6–31.
Grinin, L. E. (2007). Gosudarstvo i istoricheskiy protsess. Politicheskiy srez istoricheskogo protsessa.
[State and Historical Process. The Political Cut of Historical Process]. Moscow: KomKniga.
Grinin, L. E., Korotayev, A. V. (2006). Political Development of the World System: A Formal Quantitative
Analysis. In Turchin, P., Grinin, L. E., de Munck, V., and Korotayev, A. V. (eds.), History &
Mathematics: Historical Dynamics and Development of Complex Societies (pp. 63–114). Moscow:
KomKniga.
Held, D. (2003). The Changing Structure of International Law: Sovereignty Transformed? In Held, D., and
McGrew, A. (eds.), The Global Transformation Reader: An Introduction to the Globalization Debate
(pp. 162–176). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Held, D. et al. (eds.) (1999). Global Transformations. Politics, Economics and Culture. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Held, D., and McGrew, A. (2003a). Political Power and Civil Society: A Reconfiguration? In Held, D., and
McGrew, A. (eds.), The Global Transformation Reader: An Introduction to the Globalization Debate
(pp. 121–125). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Held, D., and McGrew, A. (eds.). (2003b). The Global Transformation Reader: An Introduction to the
Globalization Debate. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Ilyin, M. V. (1993). Sobiranie i razdelenie suvereniteta [Collecting and Dividing Sovereignty]. Polis 5
Ilyin, M. V., Inozemtsev, V. L. (2001). Megatrendy mirovogo razvitia [The Megatrends of World
Development]. Moscow: Ekonomika.
Jerry, D., Jerry, G. (1999). Bolshoy tolkovyj sotsialogicheskiy slovarj [Big Explanatory Sociological
Dictionary]. 2 vols. Vol. 2. Moscow.
Keohane, R. O. (1995.) Hobbes Dilemma and Institutional Change in World Politic: Sovereignty in
International Society. In Holm, H.-H., and Sørensen, G. (eds.), Whose World Order? Uneven
Globalization and the End of the Cold War (pp. 165–186). Boulder: Westview Press.
 Mann, M. (1997). Has Globalisation Ended the Rise and Rise of the Nation-State? Review of International
Political Economy 4(3) (Autumn): 472–496.
Slaughter, A. M. (2000). Governing the Global Economy through Government Networks. In Byers, M.
(ed.), The Role of Law in International Politics (pp. 177–205). Oxford; New York : Oxford
University Press.
Stankiewicz, W. J. (1969). The Validity of Sovereignty. In Stankiewicz, W. J. (ed.), In Defense of
Sovereignty (pp. 291–298). London, Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Strange, S. (2003). The Declining Authority of States. In Held, D., and McGrew, A. (eds.), The Global
Transformation Reader: An Introduction to the Globalization Debate (pp. 127–134). Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Tsimbursky, V. L. (1993). Idea suvereniteta v posttotalitarnom kontekste [The Idea of Sovereignty in the
post-totalitarian Context]. Polis 1.
Turaev, V. A. (2001). Globaljnye problyemy sovremennosti [Global Problems of Modernity]. Moscow:
Logos.
Utkin, A. I. (2000). Vectory globaljnykh peremen: analiz i otsenki osnovnykh faktorov mirovogo
politicheskogo razvitiya [Vectors of Global Changes: Analysis and Evaluation of the Main Factors
of World Political Development]. Polis 1: 38–54.
Yan, E. (1996). Demokratia i natsionalism; edinstvo ili protivorechie? [Democarcy and Nationalism: Unity or
Opposition?]. Polis 1: 114–123.

Leonid E. Grinin, is a senior research fellow of the Volgograd Center for Social Research, a vice-editor of
the journals History and Modernity and Philosophy and Society, and a co-editor of the Social
Evolution & History. Current research interests include the long-term trends in the evolution of
technologies and their influences on sociocultural evolution, periodization of history, and long-term
development of the political systems. He is author of over 100 scholarly publications, including
such books as “Philosophy, Sociology, and Theory of History”, “Productive Forces and Historical
Process”, “Formations and Civilizations”, “The State and Historical Process”.