Copy Right: © Author (s)

African Journal of Politics and Administrative Studies (AJPAS

(AJPAS)
15(1) (June, 2022):136-160
Available online at https://www.ajpasebsu.org.ng/

p-ISSN: 2787-0367;e-ISSN: 2787-0359

0359

Sovereign States and Globalization in tthe

he New World Order
1
Chinedu Okeke Ebenyi
1
Department of Political Science, Ebonyi State University
University, Abakaliki

E-mail: [email protected].
Corresponding Author’s E

Abstract
The increasing population and advances in technology are forcing states to be interdependent
due to high rising demands for some uncommon solutions to such common problems such as
diseases,, economic depression, pollution, or some services as collective security,
communication, transportation, weapons control and other advanced technologies. These
developments in the world circle has become a source of worry w as the world growing
diversities, sophistication and organizati
organizational structure infuses integration and the expanding
network of cultural unity in different parts of the world and has been a source of threat and
insecurity globally. The integration superiority over all other authorities remains the
exclusive source of new world order and globalization
globalization, the developments which place
sovereignty under serious pressure as eroding of sovereign state ate is neither inevitable nor
obviously desirable, this puzzle was necessarily analyzed. The framework of analysis chosen
for the study is integration theory, is one of the most idealistic theory with the notions about
how state sovereignty could be eroded
eroded. The study while employing historical research design
adopted documentary method in the gathering of data and content analytical techniques was
used for the analysis. The study found that international law; international organizations and
diplomacy have been the major instruments of globalization in international search for new
world order. The author concluded that the new world driven by globalization shall enhance
more transnational integration of regiona
regionall groupings of states and the number will increase,
the continued cooperation in maintenance of universal or suppersupper-national
national organization like
United Nation can lead to the realization of international peace but end up in building supper-
supper
national organizational hegemony
hegemony.

Keywords: Sovereign, State, Globalization, State system, World Order

Citation of article: Chinedu, O.. E., (2022).Sovereign

Sovereign States and Globalization in the New
World Order. African Journal of Poli
Politics and Administrative Studies (AJPAS), 15(1):136-160.
15(1)

Date Submitted: 19/04/2022 Date Accepted:

Accepted 27/05/2022 Date Published: June, 2022

136
African Journal of Politics and Administrative Studies (AJPAS)
15(1) (June, 2022):136-160
Available online at https://www.ajpasebsu.org.ng/

Introduction
Historically, sovereignty as Bodin (1576) theorized in De le Repulique, published in Paris, is
the supreme power over citizens and subjects, unrestrained by law. Though, Bodin’s
sovereignty was based on royal absolutism which should not be restrained by any human
authority while Grotius (1625) on De Jure Belli ac Pacis defined sovereignty as that power
whose acts may not be made void by the acts of any other human will. Marshall (2002)
statement in the Schooner Exchange case suggests, absolute state sovereignty was widely
accepted as a description of the world’s political organization in the aftermath of the Peace of
Westphalia in 1648.

The traditional practices of international relations focuses on, states as states have power,
both military and economic, that other institutions or individuals do not.Morgentau (1973)
held that ‘’the conception of a divisible sovereignty is contrary to logic and politically
unfeasible.Marshall (2002) described sovereignty as the jurisdiction of the nation within its
own territory necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed
by itself. Any restriction upon it, deriving validity from an external source, would imply a
diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction, and an investment of that
sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction (Schooner,
1999).

Sovereignty is often thought to be synonymous with Westphalia sovereignty. Westphalia

sovereignty assumes the absolute control of nation-states over all conduct that occurs within
their own territories. This conception of sovereignty may not always have prevailed, even
among the nation-states themselves. Palmer and Perkins (2004) argued that sovereignty in its
meaning of absolute, unlimited, and indivisible authority is incompatible with international
law, perhaps with any law. Though, within a state’s territorial jurisdiction, a nation’s
sovereignty is exclusive and absolute and limitation arises from international law or with the
consent of the sovereign.

In historical reality, the world community is made up of all people everywhere, all of whom
live in ‘’sovereign’’ states that must co-exist on the same planet. This necessity for world co-
existence had diminished or limited nation’s sovereignty, which any such limitations must be
traced up to the consent of the nation itself. As Katzenstein et al (1999) has pointed out,
nations have long been willing to discard certain elements of sovereignty when it suited their
purposes.

137
African Journal of Politics and Administrative Studies (AJPAS)
15(1) (June, 2022):136-160
Available online at https://www.ajpasebsu.org.ng/

Many scholars argued that the version of absolute state sovereignty had eroded, as
globalization may be more certain than dreaming Westphalia sovereign mere shibboleth for
neo-isolationists. But what makes the current round of sovereignties different is their
marriage of sweeping, universal rules with independent institutions of enforcement. The
sovereign states have sheered relations with each other and international organizations
especially to promote their well being and security, thereby limits the absolute nature of
sovereignty, these international political situations aids states to often enter into bilateral or
multilateral commitments. These notions of interdependence commitments of states brought
about the notions of globalization.

Julian and John (2013) readily admitted that the institutions of global governance are only
now emerging from their infancy. They argued that some institutions such as the United
Nations Security Council and the International Court of Justice, have existed since the
adoption of the United Nations Charter, but have sought to expand their reach only in the last
few decades.

In fact, institutions of globalization, such as the World Trade Organization, International

Monetary Fund and the World Bank, have reoriented their missions and become more
interventionist in the domestic affairs of nation-states. Also emerged were new species of
international cooperation in which new multilateral agreements regulate the internal as well
as external conduct of nation-states on interest. This development is called new world order;
new world order offers a new framework for accommodating globalization which is popular
sovereignty. We are trying to shifts the focus away from Westphalia sovereignty, which
grants nations absolute autonomy within their territories, and toward “popular sovereignty”
where the right of citizens of state guaranteed through Constitution. The new world order and
emergence of globalization has became a source of worry as the world’s growing diversities
and sophistication of organizational structure infuses integration and expand network of
cultural unity has become a source of threat and insecurity to sovereign states. The
integration superiority over all other authorities remains the exclusive source of new world
order and globalization, the developments which place sovereignty under serious pressure as
eroding of sovereign state is neither inevitable nor obviously desirable.

Today globalization been referred to the greater openness of national and international
economies to the flow of trade capital, science and technology, foreign direct investment,
market integration has shrinking space, time and disappearing borders and has created a

138
African Journal of Politics and Administrative Studies (AJPAS)
15(1) (June, 2022):136-160
Available online at https://www.ajpasebsu.org.ng/

global village structure based on share value where technology and market integration
processes have dominated the sovereign status of state. In discussion of this puzzle, we will
necessarily analyze the nature of sovereign states, new world order and emergence of
globalization, instruments of globalization in new world order,the features of the new world
order and future of state sovereignty in the new world order.

Theoretical Framework
The framework of analysis chosen for this study is integration theory, is one of the most
idealistic theory with the notions about how state sovereignty could be eroded. Integration
theory is built from the dependability experiences of human community. According to
Deutsch et al (1957) integration means the attainment within a territory of a sense of
community and of institutions and practices strong enough and widespread enough to ensure
dependable expectations of peaceful change among its population. By sense of community it
means a belief that common social problems must and can be resolved by process of peaceful
change.

Simply put, the central preposition of Integration theory emphasized the positive impact of
interdependent in shaping the global governance to achieve collective peace and welfare of
humanity. Haas (1970) an integration theorist stress on the plural character of modern society
composed of competing elites and conflicting interests. Integration here is seen as a process
and not a condition in which politically significant elites both in government and outside
government redefined their interests in terms of regional rather than in purely national
orientation. Haas defines integration therefore as the process whereby political actors in
several distinct national settings are persuaded to shift their loyal expectations and political
activities toward a new and larger centre whose institutions possess or demand jurisdiction
over the pre-existing national states. The key elements in Haas model are the following that
significantly political actors in different national societies within a regional area would firstly
decide in collaboration and beyond that, to confer authority or a decision making framework
beyond the nation-state. In each area of cooperation, politicization of issues arises, national
autonomy erodes and there is a choice between retention of autonomy of national decision
making or moving to a supra-national decision-making. If the latter is successful in one field,
the lesson is applied to other fields. This is the concept of spill over. Finally, this leads to the
formation of new coalitions across frontiers so as to pursue interests at the regional level.

139
African Journal of Politics and Administrative Studies (AJPAS)
15(1) (June, 2022):136-160
Available online at https://www.ajpasebsu.org.ng/

Puchala (1974) points out that the kind of sense of community that is relevant for integration
turned out to be rather a matter of mutual sympathy and loyalties of ‘’we feeling ‘’trust, and
mutual consideration of partial identification in terms of self-images and interests, of
mutually successful predictions of behaviour, in short, a matter of a perpetual dynamic
process of mutual attention, communication, perceptions of needs and responsiveness in the
process of decision making.

Another proposition of this theory aptly examines how societies, government and people in
countries of the world unite to tackle the high rising demands for some uncommon solutions
to such common problems such as diseases, economic depression, pollution, and some
services as collective security, communication, transportation, weapons control and other
advanced technologies. Mitrany (1966) adduced that the best way state sovereignty could be
eroded was through creation of international organizations whose exclusive role would be to
deal with human welfare tasks at the global level. He argues, such welfare tasks include
technical and politically neutral functions such as health, transportation, communication and
tasks which cannot be performed at the national level. Such tasks should not be left to
national governmental officials but to non national experts. Soroos (1986) notes that in the
sphere of global communications, International Communications Union (ITU) is responsible
for the planning and coordination of international and global communication networks and
much of the substantive policy take place in conventions of countries of all types. Most
delegates are engineers and yet there is so much friction about the assignment for radio,
television, and satellite broadcasts.

Finally, integration theory approach does not accept the national state as necessarily the
ultimate and final stage of the world’s political development. The world after all evolved into
the nation-state system and may evolve beyond it. The scholars working in this area
investigate the roots of the consensus building that leads to the formation of political
communities. They examine the nature of the integrative process in such area as the creation
of federal states and the formation of alliances into globalization.

Methodology
The researcher adopted explanatory research design method using documentary and in-depth
behavioural analysis. This design enabled the researcher to ascertain the historical dimensions
of the sovereign states and the trend of globalization in the new world order. The study while

140
African Journal of Politics and Administrative Studies (AJPAS)
15(1) (June, 2022):136-160
Available online at https://www.ajpasebsu.org.ng/

employing historical research design adopted documentary method in the gathering of data
and content analytical techniques was used for the analysis.

The researcher adopted content analysis (qualitative) method and also historical interpretation
of data was vital as it provided the researcher the avenue to establish proximity and linkage
between the past and the present events and subsequently predict future events. The
researcher commonly employed explanatory research design as it offered a comprehensive
understanding of socio-political behaviour which aimed to figure out the socio-political
phenomenon. The analysis and interpretation of the qualitative data created the perfect
framework in revealing the findings and drew versatile conclusions.

Nature of Sovereign States

The concept of sovereign state developed during the Middle Age and was apparently legally
used by Romans. Though socially, sovereignty began from ancient history in pre-Westphalia
era, where such early states as Greece, Egypt, Persia, and Carthage possessed supreme power
over a given territory and populace and were independent of any external power. According
to Douglass and Robert (1973) observed that there are two key parts to such a system, what
they might call internal sovereignty and external sovereignty. Internal sovereignty refers to
autonomy, the ability of the state to make and enforce its own rules domestically. External
sovereignty refers to the recognition of the state by other states, the acceptance of the state by
the international community.

The genesis of the current system of states has often been dated back to 1648, when the Peace
of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years War by diminishing the political role of many tiers of
the feudal nobility (Barkin, 2006).The peace of Westphalia 1648 was a convenient starting
point for the modern nation state, but in fact there were recognised forces that had been in
making for some time, the European struggle to expand their political authority by breaking
away from the secular domination of the Holy Roman Empire and the theological authority of
the Pope which finally collapsed in 476 A.D when the rule of the last Western emperors,
Romulus Augustus ended and a barbarian chieftain assumed the title of King of Rome.

Consequently,empires, rather than sovereign states, reigned in the political history of ancient
civilizations, and the feudal era in Europe featured over-lapping and territorially indistinct
patterns of political authority. The Eastern division of Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire),

141
African Journal of Politics and Administrative Studies (AJPAS)
15(1) (June, 2022):136-160
Available online at https://www.ajpasebsu.org.ng/

toward ending of 700 A.D with its capital Constantinople, continued for a time as a successor
state after the fall of the Western Empire. But Byzantine claims to universality were ended in
800 A.D by the rise of Charlemagne’s empire in the West. Charlemagne was seen by some as
the new Caesar and his coronation as a Roman emperor by Pope Leo111 in 800A.D.
appeared to mark the rebirth of the Western Roman Empire and reined till The Treaty of
Verdun in 843A.D. the great universal empire of the Caesar seemed doomed to disintegrate
into thousands of feudal units. These incidents sparked off the Thirty Years’ War (1618-
1648) mainly between the Holy Roman Emperor, Mathias, and the Czechs. The treaty of
Westphalia ended the war but splinted the Holy Roman Empire into political entities that
would develop into modern nation states (Greives, 1977).

Bertrand (1957) observed that the growth of the concept of sovereignty was an answer to the
‘’primordial character of the problem of who decides’’. He noted that in the medieval period,
it was the church that first solved this problem by it concentration of power in spiritual realm.
John and Mark (2001) agreed that sovereign states developed late in the Middle Age (ca. 500-
1350) from a consolidation and simultaneous expansion of political power. First, the rulers of
Europe expanded their political authority by breaking away from the secular domination of
the Holy Roman Empire and the theological authority of the Pope. Second, the king also
consolidated political power by subjugating feudal estate and other competing local political
organizations within their rules. The resulting states exercised supreme authority over their
territory and citizens; they owed neither allegiance nor obedience to any higher authority.

The systematic doctrine of sovereignty was formulated by Bodin (1576) Les Six Livers de le
Repulique, published in Paris at the period of France Civil War; Bodin linked his sovereignty
ideology with a broader idea of a world community ruled by natural law and concluded that
only a powerful central authority could preserve order. He made sovereignty essentially a
principle of internal political order. The strong central authority was the ‘’principal
foundation of every state’’, there could be no state without sovereignty, which is ‘’the
absolute and perpetual power of a state’’ (Grieves,1977). He argued that since the
sovereignty is the single source from which all laws originate, a logical extrapolation is that
the sovereign is not only above the law but independent of restrictions, internal or external.
While some scholars saw sovereign state as the principle of international disorder. For
instance in Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, he argued that interstate relationships are similar to
those of people in the State of Nature, characterised by war of every person against every

142
African Journal of Politics and Administrative Studies (AJPAS)
15(1) (June, 2022):136-160
Available online at https://www.ajpasebsu.org.ng/

person. He emphasized that Nations being composed of men naturally free and independent,
and who, before the establishment of civil society, lived together in the state of nature,
Nations, Sovereign states are to be considered as so many free persons living together in the
state of nature. But the body of the Nations, the state, remains absolutely free and
independent with respect to all other men and all other Nations as long as it has not
voluntarily submitted to them.

Barkin (2006) argued that one important feature of sovereignty, however, changed
fundamentally in the nineteenth century. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, princes
were sovereign. From the perspective of the international community, a country was the
property of its ruler, and representatives of the country represented the interests of the ruler,
rather than of the population. Beginning in the nineteenth century, and even more so in the
twentieth, citizens became sovereign. Rulers became representative of their populations,
rather than the other way around. He notes that in the twentieth century, even dictators
usually claimed to be ruling in the interests of the people, rather than for their own gain.

Sovereignty therefore, symbolizes one of the most basic assumptions of international

relations, the authority of the state to act independently. This does not mean, however, that
the sovereign state is free from obligations to its own citizens or to other states, or that the
exercise of this sovereignty cannot be restricted. Rather in the new world order, nation state
inherits a style and culture which in their turn influence and decide the course of actions; the
nation state has to follow in relation to other sovereign states.

This paradoxical turn in history confronts most nation- states, as the further spread of
technology, trade, commerce, finance and information obliterates the socio-political and
economic boundaries among nations. The new form of state based on the notion of
sovereignty redefines the idea of integration. In the era of globalization, state may aims at
preventing any alien power from violating its boundaries, but the process of globalization had
made these boundaries porous. The current phase of globalization is important in the
evolution of the nation-state. Precisely from this angle, economic globalization challenges the
political authority, which the nation-state had retained by undermining gradually many of the
norms of the traditional civil society. The political authority of the nation-state was
consolidated in the process of expansion of commerce, as its law and jurisdiction extended
over the national economy. This meant that although countries still warred with their

143
African Journal of Politics and Administrative Studies (AJPAS)
15(1) (June, 2022):136-160
Available online at https://www.ajpasebsu.org.ng/

neighbours to increase their territory, they also became more likely to cooperate with their
neighbours to maximize the welfare of their citizens.

New World Order and Emergence of Globalization

Political order in the world from the Middle Age through the Westphalia sovereign
arrangement, states traditionally handles international relations with other states on the basis
of what is called balance of power politics. Though, modern era of balance of power politics
lasted historically roughly from the congress of Vienna (1815) to World War 1 (1914), often
called the classical period of international relations. It was the apparent failure of this system
that incurred the reproach of President Wilson, a period that would enable states to conduct
their relations peacefully (Grieves,1977).Grieves observed that not only did World War 1
apparently prove the balance of power system but was unable to keep the peace, and the
system was widely blamed for causing the war. President Woodrow Wilson was a leading
critic of balance of power politics, attacking the secret diplomacy, the overlapping alliances,
and the philosophy of power politics. He advocated the League of Nations as a means of
institutionalizing the balance power system by bringing it out into the open and legitimizing
it.

Huntington (2002) notes that after World War I, President Wilson's idea of a new world
order, based on moral principles and self-determination would lead to peace through the
creation of a "concert for peace" which will be maintained by a partnership of democratic
nations; and the League of Nations was born. He further noted that the World War I resulted
in social upheaval, ideological conflict, and another world war. World War II, as President
Franklin Roosevelt put it, would "end the system of unilateral action, the exclusive alliances,
the balances of power, and all the other expedients that have been tried for centuries and have
failed".

This new system, the League of Nations known as ‘’collective security’’ was to enable the
world to police itself on the basis of public control of the use of force and universal respect
for the rule of law but in turn, failed to prevent World War 11. Perhaps a significant reason
was that states tried to retain the old balance of power habits without really using the League.
By the end of world war 11 a new commitment was made to collective security, the
emergence of United Nations in 1945 and by this time the classical European balance of
power system was really dead. Grieves (1977) argued that the free-wheeling image of

144
African Journal of Politics and Administrative Studies (AJPAS)
15(1) (June, 2022):136-160
Available online at https://www.ajpasebsu.org.ng/

classical international balance of power politics was destroyed by the rise of cold war
alliances. This image was on the way out after the formation of the Entente Cordiale
(England/ France) in 1904 expanded to the Triple Entente (adding Russia) in 1907, aimed at
stopping German expansion, especially through the Triple Alliance (Germany, Austria,
Hungary and Italy). He further notes that the modern international relations have involved a
solidification of alliance system, in particular with rival blocs of East and West.

The new world that emerged after World War 11 was dominated by two superpowers
struggle, the United States and the Soviet Union, called Cold War and refer generally to the
intense hostility and tension that developed in Soviet- American relations. The end of Cold
War and the events of 1989 marked an essential goals of the global society of mankind
having changed with the respect to ideological perspectives, it turned to a new world order in
which capitalism dominate. Echezona (1998) observed that ‘’in this new world order, we are
at a turning point in history in which order in world politics is not dependent on hegemonic
powers but on human power. He notes that United States having led a multinational coalition
and won the Gulf War and having stayed and watched the other hegemonic power, stands at
the threshold of history where it can lay down the rules not only about global management
but also about domestic management of states as well.

The new world order is marked by liberal values. Aida (2005) argued that Liberals have long
maintained that the basic principles of democracy, competition and participation, presuppose
an economic foundation whereby mass demands expressed through mass participation then
formulated by elite competition, can lead to solid economic results and a better quality of
life’’. This free market view is probably most recognizable in (Fukuyama, 1989)’s widely
read book ‘’The End of History. For Fukuyama, The end of history signifies ‘’ the end point
of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of western liberal democracy as
the final form of human government’’. Thinking along with Hegel that the contradictions
which drive history forward exist in the ‘’realm of consciousness’’, he sees 1806, which
marked the defeat by Napoleon of the Prussian Monarchy at the battle of Jena as the end of
history, that marked the victory of ideals of French Revolution and the imminent
universalization of the state incorporating the principles of liberty and equality. He further
notes that before the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, history was characterized by a series of
grand ideological struggles of Liberalism and Socialism, against Monarchy and Aristocracy;
Democracy and Capitalism, against Fascism and Communism. But the end of the cold war,

145
African Journal of Politics and Administrative Studies (AJPAS)
15(1) (June, 2022):136-160
Available online at https://www.ajpasebsu.org.ng/

Fukuyama believes signals that liberal democracy and free market capitalism have survived
as the fittest forms of government.

Kissinger (1973) noted that "the traditional agenda of international affairs, the balance among
major powers, the security of nations, no longer defines our perils or our possibilities. Now
we are entering a new era, old international patterns are crumbling: old slogans are
uninstructive; old solutions are unavailing. The world has become interdependent in
economics, communications and human aspirations. While these free market conservatives
have ended history in the market place of ideas, they portrayed economic globalization as an
outcome of evolution: a natural and inevitable. This was corroborated by this declaration of
Judge Rosalyn Higgins, the former President of the International Court of Justice that
Globalization represents the reality that we live in a time when the walls of sovereignty are
no protection against the movements of capital, labour, information and ideas nor can they
provide effective protection against harm and damage.

The consequences of new world order was the emergence of globalization which involve a
host of state and non-state actors such as the International Governmental Organizations
(IGOs), Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs), Multinational Corporations (MNCS), and
even individuals which have multiplied since the end of the Cold War, and all attempting to
affect the foreign policy process of states. In making this argument, conservatives today point
to the primary role played by advances transportation and information technologies. They
point to the way that the development and expansion of transcontinental airline, the frequency
of air express delivery and the use of standardized containers have facilitated a vast
expansion in both international trade and globalization of production. Julian and John (2013)
observed that the internationalization of production and global exchange of goods and
services have more direct implication for coalitions of national interests than for nation-
states.

The symmetry of this view indicates that there is substantial tilt away from the significant of
autonomous national policy design and policymaking. This means power relationships and
processes of opinion making and decision making are increasingly located in complex and
transnational settings, characterized by shifting alliances among international as well as
national stakeholders instead of nation-states. While Adams (2004) argued that globalization
of production is unique to today’s global economy. Advances in transportation, technologies
and new business techniques such as ‘’ just- in-time delivery’’ and ‘’cross border

146
African Journal of Politics and Administrative Studies (AJPAS)
15(1) (June, 2022):136-160
Available online at https://www.ajpasebsu.org.ng/

outsourcing’’ have created global assembly lines where single products are now designed,
produced, assembled and packaged in and among a number of locations around the world.

Significant to the globalization of production are the advances in communication

technologies. Direct-dial long distance telephone calls e-mail and personal computers, in
combination with satellites, the Internet and fibre-optic cable, allow firms to monitor and
coordinate their operations around the globe. The information technology revolution is also
said to be driving force behind the globalization of finance, in which computerized currency
markets now turn over almost $3 trillion a day. In view of the chairman of Citicorp Bank,
Restow(1971) argued that ‘’our new international financial regime differs radically from its
precursors in that it was not built by politicians, economists, central bankers or financial
ministers it was built by technology men and women who interconnected the planet with
telecommunications and computers’’.

In fact, so many firms have now ‘’gone global’’ that there are currently more than one
million multinational corporations operating worldwide. Therefore, globalization is a
relatively recent process of worldwide integration, cooperation and conscious building
whereby an increase in the flows and trade of ideas, people, goods and services between
national state borders is prevalent. It has assumed the emergence of single market system,
dominated by international capitalism. It implies changes in the production and the
integration of national economies into the global market. Though shrinking space, time and
disappearing borders, it is refers to the greater openness of national and international
economies to the flow of trade, capital, science and technology, foreign direct investment,
market integration and so on. It signifies the ever growing importance of international trade
to the various peoples and nations of the world. It has created a global village structure based
on shared values and where principally technology and market integration processes have
dominated the world economic system and advancing peace in the new world order.

Instruments of Globalization in New World Order

Thereare many indications that we are living in a period of systematic change, which had led
to new world of radical shifts in international relations.Changes in world affairs reflect more
than quantitative changes, the increasing pace of modern international life and the increased
number of participating actors. The developments was as a result of the qualitative changes in
area of technology, thermonuclear weapons, strategic military planning, ideology,

147
African Journal of Politics and Administrative Studies (AJPAS)
15(1) (June, 2022):136-160
Available online at https://www.ajpasebsu.org.ng/

environmental challenges, overpopulation , and world economy. According to Max (1962)

‘’we are witnessing the beginning of the end of classical world politics’’ which was
characterised by a world of nation states, based on the concept of sovereignty, applying the
principles of balance of power, with war as a frequent result of the internal failures and
external pressures.

Nation-states as created by the Westphalia Treaty no longer hold the monopoly of power;
more and more, they are being shared by a plurality of sources that traverse national
boundaries and compete for authority, pacts and alliances. In the contemporary international
system, national security has taken a new meaning no longer equated exclusively with
military issues; it has been broadened to include economic, ecological, and welfare issues.
The most defining interests of the post-modern era that have drawn sovereign states into
union have centred on political, economic and security-related safekeeping. International
political relations in the 20th century have drastically transformed the way in which nation-
states co-operate. Since the 1940s, substantial political integration has become so
predominant that some political theorists believe that the idea of Westphalia sovereignty no
longer pertains. Political interconnectedness via international and regional organisations such
as the United Nations and European Union has meant that nation-states are increasingly
coalescing and thus sacrificing their recognition as sovereign.

The progress in cooperation and the dramatic changes in the basic pattern in the new world
order contradicted the Westphalia structure of international system. There is several
interesting global development in the new world order with the following features:

(i) Integration
Scholars of international relations have generally agreed with the varying degrees of
experience on prospects for regional and universal unity. Grieves (1977) argued that nation
state itself appears to be moving in two directions. On the one hand there is a great deal of
excitement over the prospect of regional integration and the creation of organizations with
supranational powers.In this new world order many states have joined in the union of
confederation, many continents have one continental organization or the other. European
Union for instance had evolved into a value government with political and economic forces.
The prospect of European Union have provoked Asian, Latin America and African states to
form unions closer to European Union, which had every organs as nation states. Though, the
components of European Union still retain their sovereign integrity and functions as nation-

148
African Journal of Politics and Administrative Studies (AJPAS)
15(1) (June, 2022):136-160
Available online at https://www.ajpasebsu.org.ng/

states but their deepening integration has made European Union supper-national that
supplanted other regional integration in the evolving new world order.

These integrative forces at work in the current world order have substantially brought
fundamental restructuring of national power in different continents of the world. The
restructuring was possible because of technological advancement especially, in transportation
and communications which have started eroding the boundaries between hitherto separate
markets territorial boundaries that were necessary condition for autonomous national policies.
Internationalization of production has eroded the state’s capacity to control its own economic
future rather the sovereign states continue to place their national interest in the forefront
while taking decisions concerning their economic policies but clearly their autonomy are
restricted by market decisions. Smith (1987) observed that monetary and fiscal policies of
individual governments are dominated by the movements in international financial product
markets. In fact, global market has played greater competitiveness and increase dependence
among states, making the idea of independence of nation-states redundant but creates serious
cooperation among the modern nation-states.

The new world order driven by globalization has much basic elements of integration such as
the acceleration in cross-border activity between governments, businesses, institutions, and
individuals. Mainly, international organizations has been an instrument of globalization that
provides a convenient at both the universal and regional levels, in which much issues of
common interest especially in socio-economic and political consensus has been addressed.
The integrated alliances and shifting of the decision-making process from the nation-state to
the power blocks are increasingly mediated through rationalized institutional processes”
rather than the anarchy of the Westphalia sovereign system.

According to Micklethwait and Afutureperfect(2000) globalization also includes the growth

of political cooperation, migration, and communications, as well as sharp reductions in
transportation costs and the blending of national societies and cultures. Scholte (2000) also
viewed, the explosion of cross-border interaction as has strengthened international
institutions and the development of cosmopolitan legal obligations. In the above views,
“globalization in this new world” accelerates various processes of economic, social, cultural,
and political integration across national borders. It has a profound effect on the concept of
physical territory as an individual, corporate organizations located in an industrialized nation
can comfortably communicate, transact, interact, or work on another state abroad, thereby

149
African Journal of Politics and Administrative Studies (AJPAS)
15(1) (June, 2022):136-160
Available online at https://www.ajpasebsu.org.ng/

increasing integration, among states and widening degree of order. Carayannis (2012) argued
that when a system, like global system, is functioning by designated sets of rules and
standards, there is no time for conflict to emerge, similar to the past-centralized mechanism,
it is dissolved in a multitude of micro- decisions within the existing hierarchy structure.
Guehenno (2000) noted that diffusion of power has taken the sting out of conflict. “And like
a block of granite that is being eroded into sand, the imperial (global) age is dissolving
conflict into a thousand impalpable fragments.”

Therefore, globalization’s acceleration of the movement of goods and services, people,

capital, and information, has increased states ability to regulate universal economic activity
on its territory and centrally redefined national sovereignty. The conduct that crosses state
borders gives rise to demands for international cooperation and the dream of an open and
cooperative world order to which mankind look beyond the obvious potential sources of state
power has achieved greater global integrated alliances in the new world order.

(ii) New International Actors

In the classical international relations, states have been the only true international actors,
though; they are still the only dominant member of international community. But in the
modern international relations more important responsibilities are been handle by individuals,
Multinational Corporations and international organizations in international affairs. The new
actors other than nation-states include: international organizations, governmental and
nongovernmental, business corporations, and even single individuals. Non-state actors have
come to influence the content and scope of many different kinds of international law, perhaps
most so in the area of Customary International Law (CIL, NGOs and IOs) have sought to
accelerate this process by promulgating a new norm of international law, persuading states to
adopt it, and then arguing that dissenting states refusing to follow are bound by universal
practice. In this way, NGOs outside the control of any nation-state can use their influence to
co-opt the process of identifying customary state practice, effectively imposing legal
obligations on unwilling nations which further reduces state sovereignty. The development of
these international and transnational organizations has led to important changes in the
decision-making structure of world politics. New forms of multinational organizations have
been established and with them new forms of collective decision making involving states,
inter-governmental organizations and a whole variety of transnational pressure groups, also
moderated the idea of state sovereignty.

150
African Journal of Politics and Administrative Studies (AJPAS)
15(1) (June, 2022):136-160
Available online at https://www.ajpasebsu.org.ng/

Quincy (1955) argued that the role of sovereign state can be interpreted in two different ways
namely: the state as sovereign, protecting, punishing individuals in its own interest under
such guidance as it chooses to accept from international law, but it is also possible to interpret
the individual as a jural personality with rights under international law which he can only
purse through the agency of his state and with duties under international law which the
society of nations can enforce only through the agency of the state with jurisdiction over him.
The state in other words, may be construed not as a sovereign entity valuable in itself, but as
an agent on the one hand of the individuals that compose it, and on the other of the universal
society embracing all humanity.

The new international law is openly concerned with the relationship between a nation and its
own citizens or between citizens of different nations. New international law includes rules
and principles governing states relations with persons. It means that individuals have full
remedy in international law and that the subject matter of international law has expanded.
The International Convention on Civil and Political Rights guarantees the individual rights of
free expression, political association, property, life, and procedural justice, among others
(U.N.T.S 16, 1966, 999. 171). Rights and duties are recognized in international law which
transcend the claims of nation-state and which, whilst they may not be backed by institutions
with coercive powers of enforcement, have far-reaching consequences.

The point remains that individuals, multinational corporations, and international

organizations have gradually emerging more important in running the day to day affairs of
international community. These non state actors have assumed serious active forces, often
able to defy the attempts of national governments to gain effective control over them.The
new sets of actors on the world scenario, unlike governments, do not approach problems from
the perspective of national interest. There are international coalitions of non-governmental
organizations and issue-networks among people across borders. These groups are shaping a
whole set of standards, rules and norms. There have been much impacts played by
International Standards Organization, International Organization of Security Commissions,
International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Amnesty International, Green Peace, and
other global civil society and global mass movements.

These international organizations have generally existed at the intergovernmental or

confederation level with primary aim of cooperation and common policies largely within the
context of international organizations, individuals have allowed an enhanced international

151
African Journal of Politics and Administrative Studies (AJPAS)
15(1) (June, 2022):136-160
Available online at https://www.ajpasebsu.org.ng/

status. This was particularly possible through emphasizing human rights increasingly in the
new world order.

Multinational business corporations have also emerged as very important new participants in
the world stage; these multinational corporations are in many respects beyond the control of
either nation-state or other international organizations. Their power lies in their size, their
sophisticated ability to move goods and services worldwide and generally public knowledge
of their structure and operation. Equally, multinationals have been highly successful in their
transnational organization, their control of international goods, services, capital, labour,
management, resources and the like on an extremely efficient basis which individual and
governments have been benefiting.

(iii) Internationalisation of National Conflicts

The development of international and transnational organizations has led to important
changes in the decision-making structure of world politics. New forms of multinational
organizations have been established and with them new forms of collective decision making
involving states, inter-governmental organizations and a whole variety of transnational
pressure groups, also moderated the idea of state sovereignty. The new world order
introduced new national conflicts that have international significance such as terrorism,
insurrection, guerrilla warfare, civil war and similar violent activities that were once
primarily of domestic concern and responsibility. This internationalization of domestic
conflict is possible because of the modern technology especially in communications and
mobility which the dissident national groups can easily solicit worldwide support, easier for
foreign governments to aid surreptitiously dissidents and terrorist groups can connect
international network because of the vulnerability of modern technologies.

As technologies that driven the new world of humanity changes in its advancement,human
beings changes and society changes, the world has recorded all forms violence stemmed from
changes in world power structure. Palmer and Perkins (2004) argued that the vital issue is the
capacity of men to devise a regime of peace that also carries with it some assurance of
security and well being. Each generation pose the issue a new, each in its own set of concrete
terms. If we may believe the lesions of history, once the present impasse has been resolved
we shall pass on to new names and threats of aggression.

152
African Journal of Politics and Administrative Studies (AJPAS)
15(1) (June, 2022):136-160
Available online at https://www.ajpasebsu.org.ng/

The aggression from terrorism, civil wars, insurrection, guerrilla warfare, and the threat of
nuclear proliferationsin world affairs have been a serious threat to the sovereignty of nation-
statesand challenge to new world. According to Reinhold (1949) our problem is that
techniques have established a rudimentary world community but have not integrated it
organically, morally or politically. They have created a community of mutual dependence,
but not one of mutual trust and respect. Without this higher integration, advancing techniques
tend to sharpen economic rivalries within a general framework of economic interdependence,
they change the ocean barriers of yesterday into the battle ground of today; and they increase
the deadly efficacy of the instruments of war so that vicious circles of mutual fear may end in
atomic conflicts and mutual destruction.

These groups are shaping a whole set of standards, rules and norms, of the world, they have
been playing many impacts in International system, international security and global mass
movements and has significantly change the direction of the modern state, challenge the
principle of military discipline and subverted national sovereignty. Internationally recognized
legal mainstays of sovereignty have been progressively questioned by operations of
internationalisation of national conflicts. According to Grieves (1977) the rapid, complex,
interwoven international changes have perhaps left us all somewhat overwhelmed trying to
understand a whole world we must somewhat manage. He believes in human rationality, a
belief that human beings are able to sort out their experiences and attach meaning to them. It
is on the premises of rationalities and human ability to confront complex human problems
and guarantees world peace that the main instruments of globalisation in new world order
emerged.

(iv) Universal or Worldwide Culture

There have been frequent changes in power relationships among states and groups of states,
other actors, including sub-national and supper-national groups, unofficial as well official,
continue playing an increasingly active and influential roles. International relations continued
broaden and deepen and become meaningful to larger number of people, as contacts increase
and horizons expand. Though, states continue pursuing security through military
establishments, defensive alliance, and collective security arrangements and many adhoc
power alignments, but diplomacy as an instrument of globalization has been used in several
occasion to build consensus and resolve dispute as well as to provide solution to foreign
policy confrontations.

153
African Journal of Politics and Administrative Studies (AJPAS)
15(1) (June, 2022):136-160
Available online at https://www.ajpasebsu.org.ng/

The necessary ingredients are the courage and commitment to seek mutually acceptable
solutions to our problems, and to continue to search for peace, no matter how discouraging
the prospects and how tempting it is to resort to arms. Lester (1959) notes that what is needed
is a new and vigorous determination to use every technique of discussion and negotiation that
is available, or more important, that can be made available, for the solution of the tangled,
freighting problems that divide today, endanger peace.

While global and national mechanism differ in many respect, the extent of their control over
political and economic affairs, have faced the similar challenges to governance. Both are
faced with rapidly changing world in which goods, information, people and idea are in
“continuous motion” that propels perpetual rearrangements of social, economic and political
spheres that continue evolving global unity. The modern communication and the growing
internationalization of human experiences are bound to force us to refocus our conceptions of
ourselves and others.

The history had shown that people with a great deal in common cannot fight because of the
bridge of communication gap. We should hope that as the world ‘’get smaller’’ our common
problems will provoke a common determination to solve them and entrench peace (Grieves,
1977). The increasing population and advances in technology are forcing states to be
interdependent as there were higher rising demands for some uncommon solutions to such
common problems as disease, economic depression, pollution, or some services as collective
security, communication, transportation and other advanced technologies. These rising
problems that do not stop at territorial boundaries have increased the importance of
international organizations as well as of individual persons in international relations.

The world systemic change undoubtedly have affected by the sophisticated diplomatic
development of the new world order. Meanwhile, International peace operations and their
relationship to broader processes and trends within global politics are transforming from an
activities primarily involving states to one characterized by transnational relations between
different types of politically significant actors which are connected by potentially global
diplomatic communications. In fact, the modern world systems have been extremely
coexisted because of economic bond, multinational corporations and international
organizations thathave been active forces, often able to challenge the attempts of national
governments to gain effective control over them and has continue shifting to keep on trying

154
African Journal of Politics and Administrative Studies (AJPAS)
15(1) (June, 2022):136-160
Available online at https://www.ajpasebsu.org.ng/

to solve problems one by one, and stage by stage, not because of confidence but for
cooperation, mutual toleration and improvement in world coexistence.

Today’s world is shaped by contemporary globalization, which has facilitated the important
of events that happen in one part of the world invariably impact on the others, such
connectivity has given rise to international society as a whole as a ‘responsibility to protect’
individuals from grave breaches of their human rights in situations where their own state is
either unwilling or unable to do so. The implications is universal world culture,this
commonality in culture in this new world will surely bring clear guarantee of peace as social
conflict will drop simply because people are in steady contact with each other.

Future of State Sovereignty in the New World Order

The contemporary international system offers some intriguing and complex impediments to
the historical Westphalia sovereign state. The growing challenge to state sovereignty around
the world seems to originate from the inability of the modern state to navigate between the
power of global networks and the challenges raised through the increase in ethno-political
conflict, the expansion of terrorism, the growth of sophisticated weaponry production, all of
which undermine state boundaries and sovereignty, and had made us rethink the changing
nature of war and peace in the new post-Westphalia world order (Aida, 2005).

Westphalianation-states sovereignty have move into a new world where transnational

negotiation and cooperation can lead to the realization of Kant's "perpetual peace." New
world order driven by globalization seems to be the world of competitors whether they are
friends or foes, everyone fears not the other as much as the rapid change created by that order
we cannot see, touch, or feel. Globalization is an ongoing process and its key feature is
integration. Its integration of all people living within and out the boundaries of a certain
space into the political community and their political equality of citizens make up the essence
of a new nation-state; and seems to be a democratic ideal few nations have reached.

Thomas Friedman observed, "It is the inexorable integration of markets, nation-states, and
technologies to a degree never witnessed before, in a way that is enabling individuals,
corporations, and nation-states to reach around the world farther, faster, deeper, and cheaper
than ever before. These three key actors in this process: the state, the global market, and the
individual’s interaction with each other helps us better understand the system.

155
African Journal of Politics and Administrative Studies (AJPAS)
15(1) (June, 2022):136-160
Available online at https://www.ajpasebsu.org.ng/

Katzenstein et al (1999) accepts it as a system where state interdependence has somewhat

reduced the Westphalia concept of state sovereignty when the domestic jurisdiction of
sovereignty is taken into account, he argues that globalization is not necessarily eroding the
concept of state sovereignty but evolving, enhancing and expanding. Political integration is
practically inseparable from economic integration. The latter has also been a historic product
of globalization, specifically since the end of the Cold War. Though, (Reynolds, 2000)
argued that internationalization of commerce', spreading global capitalism into all continents,
has become so substantial that the issue of borders has become irrelevant and vanished as an
effective control mechanism.

Economic amalgamation has become an inevitable consequence to which many feel has both
merits and demerits, for instance international economic organisations such as the World
Bank and the International Monetary Fund have played an extensive role in shaping
intercontinental trade. This was anchored by Osterhammel and Petersson (2005) when argued
that the internationalization of trade has not only created greater wealth but also lessened the
prospect of military conflict among state actors that adopted liberal democratic political
values and thus capitalist economics. Interlinked with state stability and sovereignty in a
global era is the issue of security-related safekeeping. The issue of security-related
safekeeping is also, like political relations, intertwined with the economic aspect.
Technological advance in areas such as transport and communications has had an impact on
sovereignty on a global scale so much so that it has shaped, if not dictated, greater co-
operation among state actors.

Mansbach (2000) ultimately considered that 'since state evolution was gradual, states
managed to monopolize the means of coercion but today, some states have surrendered that
monopoly. This does not suggest that states will become irrelevant or disappear. Rather they
must share pride of place with other actors and must co-operate with one another to cope with
today's challenges'. The view was corroborated by Viotti and Kauppi (1999) when observed
that the new form of global integration will enable humans to co-operate more meaningfully
with each other, because according to the Kantian concept of "pacific federation",
cooperative relations between democratic states with unity of interest based on a
"cosmopolitan law adds material incentives to moral commitments", and that is why they
renounce the option to use force in their mutual interactions’’ It was within this hope in mind
that president George Bush Sr. Spoke of the emergence of a ‘’ new world order’’ to describe

156
African Journal of Politics and Administrative Studies (AJPAS)
15(1) (June, 2022):136-160
Available online at https://www.ajpasebsu.org.ng/

the onset of the post-cold war era. From some observers, this triumphant and optimistic
Immanuel Kant world view was shattered by the tragic events of September 11th 2001.

In fact, with Islamic terrorists having launched a successful attack on the American
homeland, Fukuyama’s work, ‘The End of History’ was challenged by Samuel Huntington’s
work, ‘The Clash of Civilizations’. Adams (2004) notes that in contrast to Fukuyama’s free
market view, Huntington draw on the approach of security trumps trade and the movement of
history appears as a circle rather than a line. The circle represents the idea that history is a
repetition and basically unchanging process one driven by the pursuit and distribution of
power between competing political groups’’.

Thus from the perspective of the national security view, the current clash of civilizations
developed in this ongoing struggle, while some see a clash of civilization driven by the
competition between political groups. But from this perspective, best described as the social
democratic view, the challenge today is the free market capitalism rather than the liberal
democracy. Others sense, the clash of globalizations as also just the latest development in an
ongoing struggle between the proponent of free markets and those who advocate greater
government intervention. Therefore, those who found the prospect of a returning state less
desirable also sought to play down the renewed trust in government, as the other group is in
opposite.

Conclusion
The history of mankind is a story of trial and error, and the most inspiring part of it is the
persistence of good men in good cause. In this unfolding and expanding universe,
international relations have come of age, or at least have taken on new and more challenge
(Grieves, 1977). The modern sovereign state structure has been dominated by globalization
driving by liberal democracy and free market economy. Large numbers of multinational
corporations, international governmental organizations, nongovernmental organizations have
emerged as active forces, often able to defy the attempts of the national government to gain
effective control over them in the new world order.

The increase role of international organizations in regulating international affairs has meant
that many of them, in order to perform these roles successfully, have assumed a judicial
personality. This is substantially different from the situation in classic international system, in
which states were the sole legal subjects, unchallenged by lesser entities. The state

157
African Journal of Politics and Administrative Studies (AJPAS)
15(1) (June, 2022):136-160
Available online at https://www.ajpasebsu.org.ng/

sovereignty is subject to very real limitations stemming from the structural nature of the new
world itself, the interaction of these key actors: the individual’s, the global market, and the
nation-states with each other helps us better understand the new world order.

The new world driven by globalization and its key feature ‘’integration’’ has changed
boundaries of a certain space into the political community and their political equality as it full
utilization of sciences, technologies and cultures have reach around the world and its citizens
farther, faster, deeper, and easier. Therefore, new world driven by globalization has enhance
more transnational integration, regional groupings of states and the number will increase, the
continue cooperation in maintenance of universal or supper-national organization like United
Nation can lead to the realization of international peace but end up in building supper-
national organizational hegemony.

References
Adams, H. (2004).The Return of the State.Protestors’ Power-Brokers and theNew Global
Compromise.Douglas andMcintyre Ltd, Vancouver/Toronto.

Aida, D. (2005).Globalization and the Challenges to State Sovereignty and Security.

https//www. lebarmy.gov.lb/en/content/52-d.
Barkin, J. S. (1998). The Evolution of the Constitution of Sovereignty and the Emergence of
Human Rights Norms”.Millennium.

Barkin, J. S. (2006).International Organization: Theories and Institutions. Palgrave

Macmillan 175 Fifth Avenue, New York.

Bertrand, De J. (1957). Sovereignty: an Enquiry into the Political Good, University of

Chicago Press, Chicago.

Camilleri, J.A. and Falk, J. (1992).The End of Sovereignty: The Politics of a Shrinking and
Fragmentary World. Edward Elgar, England.

Castles, S. and Alastair D. (2000).Citizenship and Migration, Globalization and the

Politics of Belongings. Macmillan Press Ltd.
Carayannis,E.G. (2012). Institutional Learning and Knowledge Transfer AcrossEpistemic
Communities, Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management 13, DOI
10.1007/978-1-4614-1551-0_2, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.
Clyde, E. (1948). International Government.rev. ed. The Ronald Press Company, New York.

158
African Journal of Politics and Administrative Studies (AJPAS)
15(1) (June, 2022):136-160
Available online at https://www.ajpasebsu.org.ng/

Deutsch, K.W. and Burrel, C.(1957).Political Community and the North Atlantic Area.
Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Douglass, N. and Robert P. T. (1973).The Rise of the Western World: A New Economic
History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Echezona, N. (1998).International Politics in the Post Cold War Era.Meks Publishers

Lid, P. M. B 5039 Awka.

Friedman, T. L.(2000).The Lexus and the Olive Tree. Anchor Books.

Fukuyama, F. (1989).The End of History?National Interest. New York: Avon Books

Grieves, L. F. (1977).An Introduction to International Relations.University of Montana.

Houghton Miflin Company.

Grotius, H. (1646).De Jure ac PacieLibriTres, Prolegomena, Vol. 11,edited by Francis W.

K. Carnegie Endowment Series.
Guehenno, J. (2000).The End of Nation State, translated by Victoria Elliott.University of
Minnesota Press.

Haas, E.B. (1970).The Study of Regional Integration’’ Reflections of the Joy and Anguish of
Pre-theorizing’’ International Organization,24(3).17-29.

Higgins, R.(1999). International Law in a Changing International System.58CAMBRIDGE

L. J.78, 82.

Huntington, S. (1996). The Clash of Civilizations.New York Simon & Schuster.

Julian, K. andYoo, J. (2013).Globalization and Sovereignty.Berkeley Journal of

International Law.31(1).

Katzenstein, P. Keohane, R. and Krasner, S. eds. (1998).International Organization and the

Study of World Politics.The MIT Press.

Katzenstein, P. Keohane, R. and Krasner, S. eds. (1999).Exploration and Contestation in the

Study of World Politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Keohane, R. and Nye J. (1977).Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition.

Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

Kissinger, H. A. (1973). A World Restored. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston

Lester, B. P.(1959).Diplomacy in the Nuclear Age.Harvard University Press, Cambridge,

Mass.
Mansbach,R. W. and Rhodes, E ed. (2000).Global Politics in a Changing World.Houghton
Mifflin.

159
African Journal of Politics and Administrative Studies (AJPAS)
15(1) (June, 2022):136-160
Available online at https://www.ajpasebsu.org.ng/

Marshall, W. (2002).Big Government Conservatism. Claremont Review of books, Spring.

Max, L. (1962) .The Age of Overkill: A Preface to World Politics. New York.
Mitrany, D. (1966) A Working Peace System.Chicago
Palmer,N. D. and Perkins,H. C. (2004).International Relations, the World Community in
Transition.Third Reversed Edition, A.I.T.B.S. Publishers and Distributors.J-5/6,
Krishan Nagar, Delhi-110051 India.

Paul, B. S. (2000).International Governance and American Democracy.1 CHI. J. INTL.L.

237, 241.

Puchala, D.J.(1974).International Politics Today Dodd. Mead, N Y.

Quincy, W. (1955) .Contemporary International Law: A Balance Sheet.Doubleday and

Company, Inc., Garden City New York.

Robbie,R.(2003) .The Three Waves of Globalization, A History of Developing Global

Consciousness. Zed Books publishers.

Rostow, W.W. (1971).Politics and Stages of Growth.Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

Rourke, J. T. and Boyer M. A. (2002).World Politics, International Politics on the

World Stage, Brief, 4th Edition. Mcgraw-Hill/Dushkin.

Scholte, J.A (2000). Globalization: A Critical Introduction. Houndmills, Hampshire:

Palgrave.

Soroos, m. (1986).Beyond Sovereignty, the Challenge of Global Policy.University of

Carolina Press.

United Nations Treaty Series 195 (1966).International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights. New York: UN.

Viotti, P. R. and KauppiM. V. (1999).International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism,

Globalism, and Beyond. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 3rd edition,

Yoo, J. (1998).The New Sovereignty and the Old Constitution: The Chemical Weapons
Convention and the Appointments Clause, 15CONST.COMMENT.

160