NATIONAL SECURITY INSTITUTIONS

National Security Institutions



National Security Institutions

Will the nation-state remains the primary unit of action in world affairs? Justify your response and explain in what ways this does and does not matter for U.S. foreign and security policy.

Nation state remains the primary unit of action in world affair as the nation-state changes from being the primary unit of international relations, to being a provider of public goods and infrastructure to global businesses. A harsh fate indeed for what was once the significant unit of global interaction. The economic challenge of globalization to the nation-state is one of decreased legislative ability (or sovereign control) over markets in the state, and increased market ability to affect the nation-state. It is a twofold problem of losing control and being increasingly controlled, with global organizations and global trends transcending and perhaps ultimately replacing the nation-state as the primary units of international organization or importance.

This leads to what Oran Young calls a “retreat from the postulate of the state as the fundamental unit of world politics”, and to a conception of an international system of conflicting actors without a settled hierarchical relationship. For realists (and others) the nation-state is far from finished, and indeed “importance of the state has even increased in some areas, certainly with respect to promoting international competitiveness through support for R & D, for technology policy, and for other assistance to domestic firms”. The challenges that globalization presents to the nation-state are not regarded as insurmountable, and globalization may even be a construct of the nation-state rather than an exclusionary force aligned against it. Virtually all “states have become involved in the process of internationalization”, even if only to maximize potential national benefit or to minimize possible harmful effects. Globalization need not reduce state autonomy, and Keohane goes so far as to suggest that nation-states use international regimes to accomplish policy that benefits them on a national level, and which may not be possible through unilateral action.

Furthermore, it can be argued that nation-state need not be replaced or significantly 'reconstructed' in the face of globalization, and “remains the most powerful institution to channel and tame the power of markets”. The state is currently the most effective method of organizing international relations currently in existence, and while bodies like the UN or EU possess limited power on an international level, and bodies like the Scottish Parliament have limited power on a regional level, the nation-state must remain the fundamental unit in international relations.

In short, “The nation-state is still the most important institution to ensure the rule of law in an explosive world”. It can be said, “Globalization is authored by states and is primarily about reorganizing rather than bypassing them”. This is a similar assertion to the 'resilient state' suggestion of nation-state involvement in globalization above, but assumes a slightly different outcome. Rather than suggesting that the nation-state is fated to dissolve in the face of globalization, or that it will remain the primary unaltered unit of international relations, ...