The State of Sovereignty

(1)

The State of Sovereignty

Status Quo or Game Changer?

Alternative conceptions of sovereignty in pursuit of effective crime control within the

U.S.-Mexican Mérida Initiative

Thesis MA. International Security J. Lakerveld1

University of Groningen

University Supervisor: Dr. M.E. Drent Assistant Professor of International Relations

University of Groningen

June 2014

Abstract This thesis analyses the practical relevance of alternative theoretical conceptions of

sovereignty in the case of the security bilateral cooperation between the United States and Mexico. The theories of Slaughter, Agnew and Lake form the fundament for investigating the impact of

globalization on the practice of sovereignty and the role of these two states in the combat against drugs trade.

Keywords Sovereignty, Globalization, International Security, Transnational Organized Crime, State,

Non-state actor, Authority, Drug Trade, Drug Cartel

(2)

1

List of Figures

page

Figure 1 Two-dimensional Framework 7.

Figure 2 Sovereignty Regimes - Agnew 20.

Figure 3 Continuum of Security Relationships - Lake 22.

Figure 4 Sovereignty Regimes in Practice 47.

Figure 5 Continuum of Security Relationships in Practice 57.

List of Abbreviations

CNPDPC Centro Nacional de Prevención de Delito y Participación Ciudadana (Mexico) DCM Deputy Chiefs of Missions

DEA Drug Enforcement Administration (U.S.) DHS Department of Home Security (U.S.) DOD Department of Defence (U.S.) DTO Drug Trade Organization IAA Interagency Agreement (U.S.) LOA Letter of Agreement (U.S.)

INL Bureau for International Narcotics Affairs and Law Enforcement (U.S.) ONDCP Office of National Drug Control Policy (U.S.)

PGR Procurador General de la República (Mexico) SEGOB Secreataría de Gobernación (Mexico)

SEMAR Secretaría de Marina (Mexico)

SRE Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores (Mexico) State Department of State (U.S.)

TOC Transnational Organized Crime

UN United Nations

UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

(5)

4

Introduction

“Robin Hood, even in his most traditional forms, still means something in today’s world”2

Eric Hobsbawm

In the year 1969, the historian Eric Hobsbawm created a famous criminal archetype of the social bandit: a criminal gaining fame and popular adulation through social significance. The Robin Hood of the 21st century has just been captured: the Mexican drug lord Joaquin Guzmán, the world´s most wanted criminal and a generous near-mythical figure capable of outsmarting the government, was arrested on 23 February 2014 in the Mexican city of Mazatlán. This was the result of months of collaborative work between the United States and Mexico to deprive Mexico's biggest drug-trafficking organization the Sinaloa cartel of its leader. For many years, law enforcement agencies all over the world have been combatting this multi-billion cartel that stretches along the Pacific coast and smuggles tons of drugs into the United States, Europe and Asia. 3

The Sinaloa cartel is an example of local criminality that has taken opportunities of expansion and development to become a transnational and cross-border drugs and crime network with a profit estimated at 322 billion dollars a year.4 Other forms of organized crime such as human trafficking, money-laundering and cybercrime also share this ‘glocal’ connection.5 The United Nations (UN) unofficially defines this ‘transnational organized crime’ (TOC) as:’ virtually all profit-motivated serious criminal activities with international implications.’ 6

Driven by these international implications, many political scientists consider the engagement in criminal behavior on a transnational basis as a substantial aspect of the process of globalization. 7

2

“Hobsbawm and the bandits,” The New Yorker, last modified October 2, 2012,

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/10/eric-hobsbawm-and-the-bandits.html 3

“Why El Chapo’s Capture is a Beginning, Not an End,” Time, last modified February 27, 2014,

http://ideas.time.com/2014/02/27/why-el-chapos-capture-is-a-beginning-not-an-end/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+time%2Fideas+%28TIME+Ideas %29

4_{“Thematic Debate of the 66th session of the United Nations General Assembly on}

Drugs and Crime as a Threat to Development,” The United Nations, last modified June 26, 2005, http://www.un.org/en/ga/president/66/Issues/drugs/drugs-crime.shtml

5

Felia Allum and Monica den Boer, “United We Stand? Conceptual Diversity in the EU Strategy Against Organized Crime,” Journal of European Integration 35:2 (2013): 138.

6

“The United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime,’ General Assembly resolution 55/25, last modified on 15 November 2000, http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/a_res_55/res5525e.pdf

(6)

5 Since the 1990s, globalization has emerged as a central theme in political analysis and research. Without a clear and widely accepted definition, the discourse on globalization has been shaped by a great variety of approaches towards the impact of political, economic and social changes and the direction of politics.8

One of the substantial discussions within the globalization discourse concerns the role of the state in a context of transnational opportunities and ‘glocal’ threats. As of the year 2000, TOC is officially considered a worldwide security threat by the UN, and the organization propagates that this serious and growing problem should be tackled through close international cooperation.9 This U.N. statement supports the pre-supposition of this thesis that the independent role of the nation state in the international context should change because they can no longer provide effective solutions to transnational crime threats on their own.10

When further deepening this hypothesis about the changing role of the nation state, the root of modern statehood, the concept of sovereignty, becomes a crucial cornerstone. Sovereignty is about providing the norm that legitimizes authority and power in the hands of the state.11 In this respect, several analysts within the globalization discourse have initiated an examination of the nature of sovereignty and its influence on the position of the state. 12 For the purpose of this thesis, the theories on sovereignty of three of these analysts have been selected to constitute a framework for investigating the impact of globalization on the practice of sovereignty, authority and power in the modern state.

The three theorists Anne-Marie Slaughter, John Agnew and David Lake support the earlier mentioned hypothesis that the nation state is a boundary-setting institution which can change its role in time and place.13 Inspired by the globalization process, all three academics have developed theoretical arguments for a change in the role of a state that is embodied by alternative conceptions of sovereignty. Is sovereignty still effective when only in hands of the state? In summary, their arguments contain several ways of distributing sovereignty among many actors and on different levels to effectively combat the challenges of globalization.

From this perspective, the influence of the transnationally organized Sinaloa cartel and other drug cartels in Mexico is presumed to be one such a globalization challenge. Following the U.N. call for more international cooperation, the United States and Mexico established a bilateral cooperation

8_{Edward Cohen, ‘Globalization and the Boundaries of the State: A Framework for Analyzing the Changing} Practice of Sovereignty,” Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration 14:1 (2001): 75. 9

“The United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime,’ General Assembly resolution 55/25, last modified on 15 November 2000, http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/a_res_55/res5525e.pdf

10

John Agnew, Globalization & Sovereignty (Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2009), 112. 11

Cohen, ‘Globalization and the Boundaries of the State,” 76. 12_{Cohen, ‘Globalization and the Boundaries of the State,” 75.} 13

1. Anne-Marie Slaughter, “Sovereignty and Power in a Networked World Order,” Stanford Journal of International Law 40 (2004)

2. John Agnew, “Sovereignty Regimes: Territoriality and State Authority in Contemporary World Politics,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 95:2 (2005)

(7)

6 programme, the Mérida Initiative, to counteract the power of the TOC networks trading drugs in both countries.

This Mérida Initiative will serve as the case in which the practical value of the theoretical implications of Slaughter, Agnew and Lake will be tested. Could evidence be found that distribution of sovereignty among numerous actors and on different levels occurs in this specific case? Does that influence the role of the two sovereign states in this cooperation?

In other words, the central question of this thesis is;

To what extent can alternative conceptions of sovereignty as defined by Slaughter, Agnew and Lake be found within the bilateral security cooperation of the Mérida Initiative (from 2007-onwards) between the United States and Mexico?

The thesis central concept of sovereignty is characterized by two sides; the legal existence or de jure sovereignty in the heads of policy-makers may not always correspond to the practice of de facto sovereignty.14 The aim of this thesis is to bridge this gap by reconciling theory about de jure sovereignty with practical examples of de facto sovereignty, to see if it will make for a better understanding on the role of the state in this globalized international context.

Officially, the theories of Slaughter, Agnew and Lake are not related yet for the purpose of this thesis they have been put together because of their similar and complementing assumptions on effective sovereignty. Two similarities are that they are all part of the globalization discourse and they consider sovereignty as an attribute that can be divided into rights, which enables a way of distributing sovereignty into different locations to be developed. They complement each other as they have chosen different globalization themes to investigate the impact on the nature of sovereignty; international cooperation (Slaughter uses Government Networks), de-territorialization (Agnew defines Graduated sovereignty) and hierarchy (Lake).

Slaughter and Agnew are oriented towards a hybrid horizontal distribution of sovereignty among multiple actors (states) and across borders (territorial and non-territorial actors), whereas Lake is more focussed on a vertical distribution resulting in a hierarchy of different degrees of sovereignty (among polities). Combining the theories will add a horizontal and vertical dimension to the distribution of sovereignty resulting in a two-dimensional framework (Figure 1).

(8)

7

Figure 1: Two-dimensional framework

Two-dimensional framework of distributing sovereignty using the theories of Slaughter, Agnew and Lake (Lakerveld, 2014)

This two-dimensional framework could be applied to many practical examples. A reason for selecting the Mérida Initiative as the case of analysis in this thesis is the characteristics of the bilateral cooperation that seem relevant to the theoretical framework; this international cooperation is high on the political agenda of both countries and has an extended budget, elements of hierarchy are likely to be found because of the asymmetry between the United States en Mexico and issues of de-territorialization are presented as the problem of drug trade exceeds borders and it presumed an international security threat. Therefore, the case of the Mérida Initiative is expected to offer possibilities for alternative conceptions of sovereignty to occur.

In order to answer the central question of this thesis, the theoretical foundations of sovereignty and globalization need to be assessed. The first step is to portray the history of the concept of sovereignty and development of the discourse throughout the centuries. This can be done by a historical account of the classical and constructivist theorists and a display of the development towards alternative notions that account for a change in the meaning of the concept and the role of the state. The ‘new sovereignty’ supporters are Slaughter, Agnew and Lake and their theories will be elaborated on. Therefore, the first chapter will apply the following sub question;

To what extent has the changing discourse on sovereignty determined the role of the state in IR?

(9)

8 Furthermore, the presumed growth of TOC networks worldwide will be investigated in perspective of the globalization process. The second chapter will answer these considerations through the following sub question;

To what extent did the process of globalization impact the role of the state in IR and the presence of TOC?

The two sub questions above will account for the necessary theoretical foundation whereas the third chapter will serve to introduce the central case in this thesis; the Mérida Initiative. This chapter will assess the premises which have determined the context and content of this bilateral security cooperation.

Issues surrounding the Mérida Initiative will be repeated and elaborated on when applying the theoretical framework on the case to find an answer to the central question. In the last three chapters, the emphasis will be placed on analysing and discussing the different parts of the two-dimensional framework in the practice of the Mérida Initiative. The fourth chapter serves to analyze the theoretical notions of Slaughter. Agnew’s assumptions establish the basis for the fifth chapter. Lastly, the contributions of Lake will be discussed in the sixth chapter.

In the conclusion, the research question of this paper will be answered as to whether the role of the state as the main carrier of sovereignty makes room for theoretical assumptions of a more hybrid sovereignty across a wider range of players and locations in the practice of the Mérida Initiative. Furthermore, this section will offer some final conclusions and suggestions for further research.

(10)

9

Chapter One: Sovereignty

1.1 Introduction

This chapter serves to create a theoretical framework around one of the most controversial concepts in the history of International Relations (IR). Throughout the centuries, the discourse on sovereignty has evolved towards an extensive scope of perspectives. The following sub question will be answered in this section: To what extent has the changing discourse on sovereignty determined the role of the state

in IR?

Firstly, the definition of sovereignty is crucial and will be outlined within a historical perspective. As the theoretical concept is hard to measure in practice, the third paragraph focusses on the real meaning of sovereignty emerged from related core principles. Furthermore, for a long time did the discourse on sovereignty depend on the classical and constructivist academics. These approaches will be shortly outlined, and in particular the central role they assign to the state.

Subsequently, the influence of the process of globalization on the sovereignty discourse will be addressed, which serves as an introduction to the central theories in this thesis. The last part of this chapter will analyse the basic assumptions of Slaughter, Agnew and Lake and their position in the sovereignty discourse. The aim is to draw a reliable picture of the extended landscape of and the new developments on sovereignty that has changed throughout time.

1.2 Definition of Sovereignty

Historically, the concept of sovereignty contributes to the foundation of the Westphalian Treaty marking the end of the Thirty Year’s War in 1648. This event is seen as the first official instalment of a balance of power in Europe in which the new-born nation states were sovereign as they had ‘the

supreme authority over a certain territory,’15 or ‘the absolute territorial organization of political

authority.’16

During this era, the supreme and political authority was used to legitimize a strong and

undivided power that provided law and order in times of crisis. The Westphalian sovereignty was highly based on the exclusion of external actors from the territory and any authority structures. However, being a complex concept, this is only one of the four ways in which sovereignty has been used as formulated by IR theorist Stephan Krasner.17

Secondly, sovereignty was relevant in the domestic context. This internal sovereignty should fulfil three criteria; the ability of state to effectively control (1) its territory (2) and to have authority over its citizens (3).18 Krasner has defined this form as ‘domestic sovereignty.’ Externally, Krasner identifies the ‘international legal sovereignty’ of states in an international system defined by anarchy, following the fourth criteria of external sovereignty; the ability to engage in relations with other

15_{David Lake, “The New Sovereignty in International Relations,” International Studies Review 5 (2003): 306.} 16_{Agnew, Globalization & Sovereignty, 100.}

17

(11)

10 sovereign powers (4). This implies that each state is independent and all are equal as legitimate centres of public power. States legitimize their claim to power and control by the mutual recognition which lies at the origin of statehood.19 Finally, on the interface between the internal and external context, the ‘interdependence sovereignty’ refers to the ability to control the regulation of the flow of people, goods, pollutants, capital and information across the borders.

These four kinds of sovereignty are manifestations of the one concept of sovereignty, however they do not apply to all states as they show some contradictions among them. Moreover, the exercise of one kind could undermine the other. For example, Krasner explains that the external focus to engage, as part of the international legal sovereignty, can undermine the strict Westphalian rule ‘to be left alone.’ On the other hand, the state of Taiwan enjoys Westphalian sovereignty and lacks international legal sovereignty.20

1.3 Core Principles

The dissonance between these four interpretations of sovereignty are caused by the involvement of different core principles of sovereignty. Although a frequently used and investigated concept, sovereignty suffers from a certain lack of clarity.21 Being very abstract, the real meaning of sovereignty emerges from these related core principles. These principles are visible and more appealing to one’s imagination than the vagueness of sovereignty. In this way, they provide a very important connection between theoretical policy-making and events in practice. Furthermore, these core principles of sovereignty help to distinguish between the different meanings of sovereignty defined by Krasner. All four are embedded in one or more of the following core principles of sovereignty;

Authority

The sovereignty discourse is in the first place an attempt to define political authority with demarcated boundaries.22 On the domestic level, the supreme political authority is entitled to allocate resources, interchange politics and economy, classify society and distinguish cultures and groups. Moreover, the legal political authority is responsible for providing a legal, administrative and cultural infrastructure in which it can autonomously make decisions under all circumstances.23 On the international level, the political authority provides a state’s membership of the system of sovereign states in which non-intervention plays a distinctive role.24 Thus, authority is of crucial value in effectively forming

19

Thomas J. Biersteker and Cynthia Weber, State Sovereignty as a Social Construct (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 3.

20_{Krasner, Sovereignty, 4.} 21

Joseph Camilleri, “Sovereignty Discourse and Practice - Past and Future,” in Re-envisioning Sovereignty, ed. Trudy Jacobsen et al. (Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing, 2008), 34.

22_{Camilleri, “Sovereignty Discourse,” 35.} 23

(12)

11 sovereignty; any erosion of this authority is considered to challenge the sovereignty and, therefore, the existence of the state.25

Control

Authority and control are often associated however their conditions are fundamentally distinctive. Authority is a type of relationship; and mutual recognition and control can be achieved just by the use of force while neglecting any type of recognition.26 Practically, authority and control are strongly related as they can strengthen and weaken each other. In his book, Turbulence in World Politics, James Rosenau concludes that the range of activities over which states can effectively exercise control is declining. The rise of transnational phenomena such as drugs trade, terrorism, currency crises and diseases are exceeding a national approach.27 Although, it is a mistake to derive rapid conclusions out of this; a loss of control across borders (interdependence sovereignty) does not necessary imply a loss of authority on the domestic level (domestic sovereignty) or a state is suddenly subject to external authority structures (Westphalian sovereignty). As Krasner puts it; in quasi-states ‘rulers can lose control over transborder flows and still be internationally recognized and be able to exclude external actors.’28

Territoriality

This aspect of sovereignty provides the historical geographical condition to mark the distinction between the domestic hierarchy within the state and the anarchy that exists beyond it.29 In other words, the spatiality of political authority is reduced to the territorial template of sovereignty for political, social and economic ends.

Legitimacy

The effectiveness of political authority is highly based on the compliance of the population, which is also known as ‘consent of the governed.’ Legitimacy is the popular acceptance of authority and, according to philosopher John Locke, the foundation of governmental power.30 A state government can exert its legitimate powers on different grounds, such as tradition, charisma and rational-legal arguments. Out of these three types defined by sociologist Max Weber, the latter is the most dominant in Western societies. This rational-legal legitimacy is founded on public trust and has the institutional grounds to establish and enforce the rule of law and order in the public interest.31As a consequence, legitimacy leads to a state monopoly of legal control of violence and institutional coercion.

Responsibility

25

See Seng Tan, “Whither Sovereignty in Souteast Asia Today?,” in Re-envisioning Sovereignty, ed. Trudy Jacobsen et al. (Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing, 2008), 84.

26

Krasner, Sovereignty, 10. 27

James Rosenau, Turbulence in World Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), 13. 28

Krasner, Sovereignty, 13. 29

Agnew, Globalization & Sovereignty, 100. 30

Richard Ashcraft, John Locke: Critical Assessments Volume 1 (London: Routledge, 1991), 524. 31

(13)

12 Responsibility as an aspect of sovereignty which derives from sociology. Among others, French philosopher Rousseau defined the principle of the social contract; the agreement between state and citizen, to exchange responsibilities and rights to establish a social order.32 To establish such an order, he proposes ‘a form of association that may defend and protect with the whole force of the community the person and property of every associate.’33 The so-called Social Contract comprises a reciprocal engagement between the public (sovereign) and individuals. Individuals give up their freedom and in return the government puts it focus on the common good and interest of the society as a whole.34

When combining these principles with the typology of Krasner, it is shown that Westphalian

sovereignty and international legal sovereignty involve issues of authority and legitimacy as they are focused on recognition, juridical independence and exclusion of external actors. Domestic sovereignty involves authority, control, legitimacy and territoriality when it comes to effectively governing the population in a given territory. Lastly, interdependence sovereignty is exclusively concerned with control in order to regulate flows across borders.35

The last core principle of responsibility has been contested and its relevance is dependent on a certain point of view. Even when sovereignty was in its infancy, philosophers Hobbes and Locke could not agree on the meaning of sovereignty to include either rights or responsibilities.

1.4 The Classical Perspective

As the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes writes in his famous work Leviathan (1651), an absolute sovereign power was the only solution to the chaotic situation of ‘war of all against all.’36

Hobbes considers the nature of all mankind as greedy and therefore in need of a supreme authority to create civilization; a commonwealth.37 This supreme authority should be exclusively entrusted to the state as the main actor and as protector to its subjects.

Parallel to Hobbes’ top-down perspective, other philosophers at that time were pointing at the consent of the people as the sovereign source of power. John Locke was one of the representatives of this ‘popular sovereignty’ focussing on the state obligations of responsibility and the rule of law to the governed.38

Despite these differences in approach, these medieval thinkers all agreed to the words of contemporary legal theorist Hugo Grotius, when he argued that a state is either sovereign or it is not a

32

Jean Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract (1762), 156. 33_{Jean Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract (1762), 163.} 34

Jean Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract (1762), 170. 35_{Krasner, Sovereignty, 4.}

36

Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1651), ed. C.B. Macpherson (London: Penguin Books,1985), 54.

37_{Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1651), ed. C.B. Macpherson (London: Penguin Books,1985), Chapter XVII} 38

(14)

13 state, claiming that sovereignty is assumed to be an absolute principle exclusively entrusted to states.39 In order to be fully effective, classical realists contend that sovereignty should be a fixed and exogenous attribute of states with internal and external characteristics.40

1.5 The Constructivist Perspective

Contrary to the realists’ consideration of state sovereignty as a given natural existence, the social constructivists declare a constructed reality. Starting from a post-positivist ontology and

epistemology, constructivists are interested in the social action of states. In their book ‘State Sovereignty as a Social Construct,’ academics Thomas Biersteker and Cynthia Weber consider sovereignty as an ‘inherently social concept’ and under influence of social norms and practices. 41 Instead of being a timeless principle, their connection is the result of a normative conception on a certain time and in a particular place.42

Another point of contradiction is the possibility of change, as constructivists underline the continuing (re)construction of the state units. The practices of states produce social

constructs and influence the structures within the international society.43 The anarchic structure of the international system, as claimed by the realists, is according to constructivist Alexander Wendt ‘what states make of it.’44

Despite their ontological and epistemological differences, the realists and constructivists share their opinion about a very fundamental condition; the notion of sovereignty being a given, powerful and indivisible instrument exclusively entitled to the state. This is the so-called ‘foundational principle’ of sovereignty.45

It has been this tight exclusive relation between sovereignty and state that caused a cradle for self-determination, the control and power position of states and still plays an indispensable part of the international system of today. This consensus is exactly the reason why sovereignty of states for so long has remained unaffected by the ravages of time. These mainstream views only form a small part of the extended spectrum of perspectives, thoughts, ideals and questions that surround the highly contested concept of sovereignty. Events in the 21st century caused the once firmly constituted concept, power and implications of sovereignty to become a highly debated topic.

39_{Lake, “The New Sovereignty,” 305.} 40

Lake, “The New Sovereignty,” 305. 41_{Biersteker and Weber, State Sovereignty, 1.} 42_{Biersteker and Weber, State Sovereignty, 3.} 43_{Biersteker and Weber, State Sovereignty, 5.} 44

Alexander Wendt, “Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics,” International Organization 46 (1992): 395.

(15)

14

1.6 Questions for the unquestionable in the process of globalization

For centuries, sovereignty of states indeed seemed to be invincible; strengthened by the unquestionability of its existence and the absence of no other supreme authority. Until around the 1970s, a significant amount of articles were published that critically analyse the old concept of sovereignty against a new and rapidly globalising world where boundaries slowly disappear. During the globalization era, more academics ask for a new and fresh wind through the old notion of sovereignty and its core principles. They noticed a ‘diminishing utility’ and requires that sovereignty is need of a ‘revised analytical framework.’46 Moreover, the role of the state as the sovereign power receives critical reviews; political theorist Hanna Arendt argues that the auto-effectiveness of the sovereign power has ‘always been an illusion.’47 This illusion has been contested by the process of globalization, the common denominator for the growing interdependence and transnational phenomena such as organized crime networks. Globalization puts the central role of the sovereign state into question 48 and the proliferation of transnational connections, rising power of multinationals, and the growth of international organizations are seen to be signs of ‘withering of the state.’49

Furthermore, the diminishing role of the state in a time of growing interdependence reveals ‘two fundamental challenges’ for all forms of sovereignty. First of all the challenge of ineffectiveness, political theorist Anne-Marie Slaughter cites the academic Robert Keohane to describe this problem; ‘the ability of governments to reach their objectives and control border flows has been undermined by the growth of political and economic interdependence’ (interdependence sovereignty). In other words, because the global economic system is less tied to geography, the implication of state territoriality is no longer sufficient to govern the people effectively and the state fails in meeting its responsibilities (domestic sovereignty). The second challenge to sovereignty is interference; when domestic conditions within failed states are posing a threat to international peace and security, collective armed intervention is sometimes required, as was the case during the genocide in Rwanda (international legal sovereignty and Westphalian sovereignty).50

With this experience from events in practice, the discourse on sovereignty fell apart in three categories of analysis; the end of sovereignty, the centrality of sovereignty and the qualification of sovereignty.51 Although interesting, the first two categories will be put aside as the latter will form a point of departure in discovering the role of sovereignty in this research.

46

Camilleri, “Sovereignty Discourse,” 33. 47

Peter Gratton, State of Sovereignty, (New York, Suny Press, 2012), 10. 48_{Agnew, Globalization & Sovereignty, 101.}

49_{Aas, Globalization & Crime, 151.} 50

Anne-Marie Slaughter, “Sovereignty and Power in a Networked World Order,” Stanford Journal of International Law 40 (2004): 284.

(16)

15

1.7 The New Sovereignty

The first step in qualifying sovereignty is to be aware of the earlier mentioned discrepancy between perceptions of sovereignty on paper and sovereignty in practice. The legal existence or de jure sovereignty in the heads of policy-makers may not always correspond to the practice of de facto sovereignty, for example when the international community accepts the sovereignty of failed states in Africa.52 This paradox is illustrative for the current political position of nation states in a globalized world with many horizontal and vertical layers. Anne-Marie Slaughter incites to get rid of, what she calls the ‘analytical blinder’ that causes the international system to be seen solely through the lens of unitary states and in self-imposed terms. The first basic assumption in this new sovereignty is the acceptance that sovereignty is not territorial bounded to states. This approach opens upe a new international landscape.53

A second basic assumption for the theorists of the new sovereignty is about the nature of the concept. Academics Werner and the Wilde point out to the two-folded nature of sovereignty; a claimed status and a bundle of rights. According to them, sovereign power is established in the status of being the supreme authority and the rights, responsibilities and powers related to that status. The status of sovereignty (being the supreme authority) cannot be divided because this is an indivisible quality. However, the practical mechanisms derived from that status: rights, responsibilities and powers can indeed be handed over to, as Werner and de Wilde suggest, other states and international organizations.54 Sovereignty thus can be liberated out of the opaque entity of states and flow towards higher international levels.

The above contested central role of the state and the two-folded nature of sovereignty do not automatically infect the relevance of sovereignty. Many academics underline the notion that sovereignty does not become less important when the role of the sovereign power (e.g. the state) is at bay.55 Instead when qualifying sovereignty, the possibility of alternative carriers is less impossible than earlier thought, and in this context the core principles of sovereignty could assist to discover other sources of authority, control and legitimacy. Moreover, the importance of territoriality and the meaning of responsibility become subject to critical analysis.

1.8 Government Networks, Sovereignty Regimes and Hierarchy

In the search for new conceptions of sovereignty within IR, many variations and directions are possible. The main question is to investigate how sovereignty is distributed to effectively combat the challenges of globalization. The following three academics all put the emphasis on different

52

Wouter Werner and Jaap de Wilde, “The Endurance of Sovereignty,” European Journal of International Relations 7:283 (2001): 300.

53

Anne-Marie Slaughter, A New World Order (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), 13. 54

(17)

16 implications of sovereignty, however in the end they plead for the same outcome: accept a more hybrid form of sovereignty will benefit the correspondence with the practice of IR.

1.8.1 Government Networks - Slaughter

Academic Anne-Marie Slaughter is especially concerned with the effective authority of the sovereign power. In the current circumstances of the globalized world, she points out that under the Westphalian sovereignty, states can no longer govern in an effective way. As an alternative, she proposes that ‘states can only govern effectively by actively cooperating with other states and by collectively reserving the power to intervene in other states’ affairs.’56

This statement stands opposite to the

traditional notions of anarchy, self-determination and the right to ‘be left alone.’

To illustrate her statement on this new conception of sovereignty, she defines the term

government networks, as an intensified network of cooperation and operation between government

officials of all kinds that exceeds borders and regulate individuals and corporations.57 Beside international cooperation, one of the main aims is to address common problems on a global scale, such as transnational organized crime, and to reach a higher effectiveness combatting these. Herein, common interests and norms generate the main motive and a bonding factor among these cooperative regimes. All share a number of basic features; building trust and relationships; establishing reliability; exchanging information and offering technical assistance and professional socialization to less developed actors. All because, as Slaughter puts it; ‘networked threats require a networked response.’58

In today’s practice, numerous of these government networks already exist in political, economic and judicial international fields; G20, NAFTA, Europol and ECJ.59 However, Slaughter claims that ‘yet to see these networks as they exist, much less to imagine what they could become, requires a deeper conceptual shift.’60

This conceptual shift is mainly concerning the current position of the state.

Although Slaughter admits that the state still remains the central and most crucial actor, she demands for a broader vision to see a variety of different institutions performing the basic functions of government (legislation, adjudication and implementation) on a domestic and international scale.61 Sharing authority becomes plausible in order to overcome the loss of control over transnational problems that go beyond the state’s capacity to manage on its own. To attain this, the state must be ‘disaggregated’ and parts of the state should become the building blocks in the international order. Officials of courts, ministries, regulatory agencies and legislatures all participate on various levels and

56_{Slaughter, “Sovereignty and Power,” 285.} 57

Slaughter, “Sovereignty and Power,” 288. 58_{Slaughter, A New World Order, 2,3,4.} 59_{Slaughter, A New World Order, 2,3.} 60

(18)

17 in different categories to create links across borders and between national and supranational institutions. 62 These categories and levels make it possible to derive a categorization out of Slaughter’s theory.

Despite frequent overlap, the three categories of government networks can be roughly divided. Harmonization networks aim for a standardization of laws and regulations between states to effective contribute to common interests in areas such as trade, environment and crime control. Enforcement networks assist in enforcing laws to protect the public good on a national and international scale. And information networks manage the exchange of information that could be valuable and helpful.63 Currently a topic of political discussion, the precise mechanisms of the latter have not been internationally agreed on yet.

The various levels, through which these aggregations of institutions are operating, enable to distinguish different relations within government networks. Horizontal networks are formed by the links between counterpart officials across borders. For example, a state’s diplomatic network with embassies in multiple countries. Less frequent are the vertical networks, as national government officials collaborate with their supranational counterparts, such as the European Union. A very important prerequisite of the existence of vertical networks is that states need to delegate their sovereignty to empower the supranational institution.64

With the theory above, Slaughter is providing a new view on sovereignty; as relational and a capacity to engage instead of the traditional emphasis on isolation and the right to resist. This signifies consequences regarding the traditional unitary sovereign power and the attached rights of supreme authority. In this new sovereignty, being sovereign means ‘the participation of as many government officials as possible in, regional and global government networks.’65

The earlier mentioned two-folded nature of sovereignty is necessary to act effectively; these legislative, executive and judicial officials should be able to exercise independent rights and be subject to obligations. To fulfil this demand, a certain measure of sovereignty should be granted to each government institution, tailored to their functions and capabilities.66

However, it is important to bear in mind that this perspective is not directly violating the classical nature of sovereignty yet it changes the meaning of it. The state remains the fully sovereign power claiming that very status, and it disassembles the attributes of its sovereignty to different government institutions active in multiple fields.

Thus, the aim of Slaughter is to create a necessary theoretical framework for current events as the world is now in the process towards, what she calls, a Networked World Order. Seeing the world through the lens of a disaggregated state instead of a unitary ‘billiard ball,’ provides new insights for

62

Slaughter, A New World Order, 6. 63

Slaughter, “Sovereignty and Power,” 291. 64

Slaughter, A New World Order, 13. 65

(19)

18 academics and policy-makers to uncover hidden patterns and features of the global system.67 Moreover, the close web of government officials compensates the decrease power of territoriality with an increase in global reach. This multi-layered engagement in activities beyond borders welcomes the conceptions of de-territorialization into the discourse on sovereignty.

1.8.2 Sovereignty Regimes – Agnew

The above-mentioned conception of the disaggregated state and the splitting of sovereignty among government officials across borders leave room for re-interpreting the role of territory in sovereignty.

Political geographer John Agnew specifically focalizes on territoriality within sovereignty and his theory is complementary to Slaughter’s perspectives. Sharing the same reasoning of the unavoidable impact of globalization on the effectiveness of state authority and control, Agnew claims that the relation between state territory and state sovereignty should be less tight. In other words, the ‘effective sovereignty is not necessarily predicated on and defined by the strict and fixed territorial boundaries of individual states.’68

The traditional Westphalian conception of territoriality as the territorial division of space, control over boundaries and demarcated domestic authoritative commands misperceive the distinction between territory and space. Agnew explains when territory might be re-designed in the organization of political authority, that does not imply that space disappears. Geography is not simply territorial and the territorial state as a basic building block is only one of the many possibilities in which space can be socially and politically constructed. 69

These two statements signify that effective sovereignty of states is not restricted by their territorial boundaries and that outside these boundaries a space vacuum exists in which political authority and control can also be exercised. Agnew uncovers his main argument distinguishing himself from Slaughter: when political control and authority is not necessarily exclusively territorial, it is not restricted solely to states.70 The role of the state as exclusive carrier of sovereignty has been put aside by Agnew. As a consequence, competing sources of authority such as private entities, supranational governments and even illicit criminal networks arise and might even correspond to a greater authority than states in some international areas.71 This spatiality of authority has an effect on sovereignty, and therefore Agnew pleads for a new conception of ‘graduated’ sovereignty; where claims to sovereignty are both territorial based (by agents managing territories) and non-territorial based (by agents who manage flows through space or through action at a distance).72

67_{Slaughter, A New World Order, 6.}

68_{John Agnew, “Sovereignty Regimes: Territoriality and State Authority in Contemporary World Politics,”} Annals of the Association of American Geographers 95:2 (2005): 438

69_{Agnew, Globalization & Sovereignty, 114-115.} 70_{Agnew, “Sovereignty Regimes,” 441.}

71

(20)

19 It is remarkable how John Agnew manages to disregard the claimed absolutism of sovereignty and to divide it among many actors. It turns out to be a matter of definition as he considers sovereignty as a labile form of political authority not solely to be associated with territorial state power. However, ‘having authority’ does not automatically entails ‘being sovereign’ and here Agnew underlines that all claims to sovereignty need to satisfy certain criteria of legitimacy.73

In this respect, the source of power is essential as Agnew defines political authority as ‘the legitimate exercise of power.’74

He uses the words of sociologist Michael Mann to illustrate the two important types of state power that underline the state claims to sovereignty; despotic power and infrastructural power. Despotic power concerns the power of the state elite over civil society and infrastructural power denotes the power of the state to penetrate and centrally co-ordinate the activities of civil society through its own infrastructure.75 Both of these powers are centrally and directly commanded and bound together as the centralized power of the state76.

As the alternative, non-state actors and supranational entities, originate from different sources of power. Here, Agnew positions ‘diffused power;’ power resulting from patterns of social interaction and association in movements and groups, for example NGOs and economic forms of market exchange. Agnew attempts to prove that the traditional association between despotic/infrastructural power and centralized state authority is diminishing.77 As a result, these types of power as the foundations of legitimate claims to sovereignty that used to belong to states, are now distributed among the spectrum of diverse actors in the international field.

New deployments of infrastructural power (currencies, trading networks, regulatory activities and information technologies) are used by hybrid public and private international organizations to deliver a wide range of public goods from across the border.78 Nowadays, despotic power becomes more and more established on a modicum of popular authority and consent, and when not satisfied elites and pressure groups can easily shift their loyalties to non-territorial entities such as international organizations, corporations and social movements.79 This migration of essential powers puts an overall challenge for states to maintain their legitimacy in a growing global interaction. To further complicate this, possible power mechanisms concerned with the exercise of authority could be divergent (coercion, assent, seduction and co-optation) and have an immediate impact on society(despotic power).

73_{Agnew, Globalization & Sovereignty, 114.} 74

Agnew, “Sovereignty Regimes,” 441.

75_{Michael Mann, “The autonomous power of the state: its origins, mechanisms and results,” European Journal} of Sociology 25 (1984): 188.

76_{Agnew, Globalization & Sovereignty, 115.} 77_{Agnew, Globalization & Sovereignty, 114.} 78

(21)

20 Where centralized power mainly is fixed and founded on automatic mechanisms of command and obedience, the upcoming diffused power sources rely on flexible flows of assent and association.80 The latter could constitute competing sources of legitimate authority when satisfying the other criteria of transparency, efficiency, accountability and expertise. It is evident to note that there is no such thing as a strict territorial line between state and non-state actors; and centralized and diffused powers. Centralized state actors can also operate over long distance, for example in the deployment of military assets, and diffused power networks, such as NGOs, can be territorialized when constrained by a central state authority. Included in this overlap is the general tendency that all actors are less territorialized by state boundaries than at any time since the nineteenth century.81

Agnew brings up several practical examples of his theoretical thoughts about the migration of authority, such as the emergence of the European Union, the shift from inter-state to civil wars (as currently in Syria and Ukraine) and international security threats by criminal networks.82 He underscores that these events cannot be captured in one single trend because the co-variation between the effectiveness of the authority of states and their reliance on territoriality is different in various parts of the world. For purposes of empirical analysis, John Agnew proposes four types of sovereignty regimes; classic, integrative, imperialist and globalist (Figure 2: Sovereignty Regimes), classified by the extent of state authority (the legitimate despotic power) and state territoriality (the administration of infrastructural power).83 In this respect, a regime is a calculation s of rule in a given state or regional bloc that provides insights into the effectiveness of sovereignty of a state over time and space. The globalist type (open borders and strong central state authority) seems somewhat contradictive on Agnew’s account, yet this combination could be possible when the state retains the capacity to close its borders down. This element of state control might be a little overlooked in the theory of Agnew; nevertheless it plays an indispensable part in the sovereignty discourse.

Figure 2: Sovereignty Regimes

Sovereignty Regimes, John Agnew84

80

Agnew, Globalization & Sovereignty, 115. 81_{Agnew, Globalization & Sovereignty, 115.} 82_{Agnew, Globalization & Sovereignty, 126.} 83

(22)

21 Although these four categories are not exclusive and intersecting continua remain, it offers a useable method to arrange states on the scale of effective sovereignty and their mechanisms of power. Some states will exercise more control and authority beyond (and even within) their borders than do others.85This possibility makes room for the last stride in this theoretical framework; the issue of hierarchy.

1.8.3 Hierarchy – Lake

With Slaughter and Agnew providing insights about the horizontal distribution of sovereignty within a state; and between territorial and non-territorial actors, it requires only a small step to acknowledge hierarchy’s presence and role in world politics of interdependence. Social scientist David Lake is especially concerned with the existence of hierarchical relationships in sovereignty. His contributions are shifting the discussion more vertically towards, as he calls it, the ‘dead horse’ within IR; hierarchy.86 Acknowledging these hierarchical differences in sovereignty between states clash with the norm of international legal sovereignty and the anarchic relationship of statehood.87 Lake investigates how states enter into a variety of relationships and by doing this are denying the anarchic claim on the international world. Sovereignty becomes shared and pooled across an extended spectrum of institutionalized realms where some states enjoy more authority than others.88

Although controversial in the sovereignty discourse, several academics support Lake in his notions; professor Barry Buzan openly wonders if heavily penetrated states such as Somalia and Lesotho are equally sovereign to Britain and United States, in terms of deciding for themselves how they will ‘cope with internal and external problems.’89 His conclusion is based on his practical observation demonstrating that sovereignty, like power and independence, also varies in degree among states. 90

According to Lake, the ontological recognition of incorporating variations in hierarchy into the theories of international relations could resolve perplexing problems of globalization in current policies.

Constructivists considered sovereignty to be a socially constructed force yet an absolute condition in all states identically. In his search for academic acceptance, David Lake heavily relies on the assumptions of Stephan Krasner who is trying to show deviance in sovereignty across units in the international system. In particular, examining external restrictions and influences on state sovereignty, such as forced economic reforms and financial support , reveal a wide range of authority relationships

85

Agnew, Globalization & Sovereignty, 110. 86_{Lake, “The New Sovereignty,” 303.} 87_{Lake, “The New Sovereignty,” 305.} 88_{Agnew, Globalization & Sovereignty, 110.} 89

Barry G. Buzan, Ole Wæver and Jacob de Wilde, Security: A New Framework for Analysis (Boulder: Lynn Riener Publishers, 1998), 70.

(23)

22 between state actors.91 Despite these necessary conclusions, Lake is slightly disappointed Krasner did not develop these arguments into a pragmatic metric.

Therefore, Lake himself has identified several continuums between state actors pure anarchic relationships at one end and purely hierarchic ones at the other. The most relevant in this case is the continuum on security relationships, where in a situation of anarchy each party possesses full authority and control and in an hierarchical situation only the dominant member can claim this right over the subordinate member (see below for Figure 3: Continuum of Security Relationships).92 Members on the continuum can vary between a single state, a collective cooperation, or even the United Nations. Agnew uses the definition of polities to include all possible international actors, although in his arguments he remains rather focussed on state actors. The intermediate range is defined by variations in the equilibrium between the dominant and subordinate actor based on the distribution of authority and control in the decision-making process.

Figure 3: Continuum of Security Relationships

Security Relationships Continuum, David Lake93

Similar to the proposition of Slaughter, Lake aims for the relational character of sovereignty and the right to engage: actors should not be focused on domination yet cooperation should rule the roost. The discovery of various authority relationships in cooperative structures highlight the multi-layered hierarchy in IR. However, to fully operationalize this concept and to distinguish these authority relationships remains rather difficult due to the complexity of the influences on all the actors.94

Nevertheless, Lake highly supports the future development of operational indicators as he recognizes the frequent discrepancy between theories and thoughts of policy-makers and the practice in the daily world. When sovereignty is only conceived in absolute terms, no effective solutions could be found for the current civil wars and revolutions in the Middle East. Thus, by introducing his studies on hierarchy, Lake hopes to make for a better understanding of world politics and a comprehensive affiliation to state behaviour.95

91

Lake, “The New Sovereignty,” 309. 92_{Lake, “The New Sovereignty,” 312.} 93_{Lake, “The New Sovereignty,” 312.} 94

(24)

23

1.9 Conclusion

The discourse on sovereignty has long been dominated by the arguments of the classical and constructivist theorists. Defining sovereignty as to have ‘the supreme authority over a certain

territory,’96, the nation state was exclusively entrusted as the main actor of indivisible and absolute sovereignty. As of the 1970s, stimulated by the results of globalization and increased independence among states, several academics have initiated an alternative direction for the sovereignty discourse that put the central role of the state into question. The new sovereignty is considered to be relational and a capacity to engage, whereas the nature of sovereignty is considered to be two-folded; as a status and a bundle of rights than can be divided.

As supporter of this new sovereignty, Slaughter proposes a horizontal and border-crossing form of sovereignty carried out by close cooperating government networks. Agnew takes this view beyond to the next level by underlining the diminishing of national borders of a state and introducing other non-state carriers of sovereignty in the field, drawing form alternative legitimate power sources. Lastly, Lake completes this theoretical framework with a vertical dimension by introducing international stratification into the spectrum of sovereignty polities. Differences in sovereignty unfold a pattern of hierarchy into the discussion of effective politics.

As the theoretical framework of this thesis, these divergent yet complementary assumptions combined serve to create a new understanding of the horizontal and vertical dimensions of a more fluid form of sovereignty as graphically shown in Figure 1: Two-dimensional framework.

Answering this chapter’s sub question shows that the introduction of a new sovereignty in the sovereignty discourse is about status, engagement and the political ability to be actor of it. This has a substantive effect on the role of the state in IR, no longer considered as the exclusive carrier of sovereignty rights, and opens up a new landscape of possible carriers and locations of sovereignty. Changing the meaning and practice of sovereignty is changing the conceptual lenses of the unitary state into a two-dimensional spectrum of connections. This will place the current challenges of transnational organized crime in this globalized world into a new light.

(25)

24

Chapter Two: Globalization

2.1 Introduction

The three central theorists of this thesis share the opinion that the process of globalization has created new incentives in the meaning of sovereignty and the role of the state in the IR. In this chapter, the process of globalization is the subject of analysis, addressing the following sub question;

To what extent did the process of globalization impact the role of the state in IR and the presence of TOC?

Firstly, the process of globalization and its consequences are analysed. Many political scientists consider the growth of international opportunities as an essential part of globalization and deregulation of national economies.97 This automatically has impact on the role and influence of the nation state operating in a globalized world, as elaborated on in the third paragraph.

Thirdly, the presumed negative consequences of the globalization process will be examined. In particular, the three most serious and harming forms of TOC; drug trade, arms trade and transportation of human beings and their ways of operating will be mentioned. Lastly, it will be analyzed to what extent the negative effects of these TOC results have led to state responses.

2.2 Globalization process

According to the astronomical laws of Kepler, the earth is constantly in motion. In less empirical terms, the description of movement is also applicable to the current globalized world. The stirring process of globalization is shaping contemporary life and the perceptions of community, identity and culture all over the world.98 The discourse on globalization has been shaped by a great variety of approaches with a lack of consensus on a definition. For the purpose of this thesis the following definition has been chosen as it describes the impact of the process on all levels in the world; globalization can be defined as ‘the process of increasing interconnectedness between states and societies such that events in one part of the world increasingly have effects on people and societies far away.’99

Besides, this definition displays the earlier mentioned ‘glocalization’, where local conditions can have border-crossing or even global impact.

Among academics, there is controversy on the proclaimed impact and the newness of globalization. Some analysts point to the fact that the term globalization might sound modern, it is just a new name for an old-term feature and the outcome of historical processes of modernity, economic growth and interdependence over the last centuries.100

97

Katja Aas, Globalization & Crime (London: SAGE, 2013), 17. 98_{Aas, Globalization & Crime, 3.}

99

John Baylis, Steve Smith and Patricia Owens, The Globalization of World Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 8.

(26)

25 Others do believe that the globalization process is marked after the end of the Cold War the world enters a higher degree of interdependence; a so-called ‘interpenetration’ of a wide range of state and non-state actors in a wide range of issue areas; political, economic, social and ideational.101 Regardless of any time frame, in practice, globalization can be measured in transnational flows of commodities, people, capital, information and technology within a global space.102 By the end of the 21st century, these webs of interaction have become much denser while the transaction costs have shrunk drastically.103

Another consequence of globalization is the dialectic between the local and the global; local developments and events adjust to global interconnections operating a distance away. In this way, global and local become intertwined104 yet this new synthesis of local and transnational elements does not have a governmental counterpart to increase the control of states domestically and internationally. This leads to the paradox of globalization: more government is needed on the global scale however such political centralization of decision-making is too far away from the local communities in fear of a democratic deficit.105 Although such type of world government is both infeasible and undesirable, its absence leaves a vacuum of power fostering the rise of non-state actors in corporate, civic and criminal sectors.

All in all, the consequences of a global space are restructuring the amount of authority, autonomy, territoriality and control possessed by states. This leads to changes in the meaning and practice of all four characterizations of sovereignty as defined by Krasner in the first chapter (Westphalian, domestic, international legal and interdependence). Logically, this has an immediate effect on the carrier of sovereignty: the state. Some academics consider these sovereignty changes owing to proliferation of transnational connections, the growth of international organizations and the rise of multinational corporations as a signal of ‘withering of the nation state’ and ‘hostile takeover.’106

Contrary to this claim, others allege globalization elicits a more activist state attitude pointing to the attempt of states to re-assert their credibility by extensive multilateral and bilateral cooperation to combat the negative challenges of globalization.107

2.3 Impact on the role of the state

The sovereign statehood has changed under the dynamics of globalization. Especially during the last wave of globalization, a constant flux between inside and outside and the dissolving significance of

101

Michael Smith, International Security: Politics, Policy, Prospects (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), 38. 102

Williams, Security Studies, 508. 103

Paul Williams, Security Studies (New York: Routledge, 2008), 508. 104

Aas, Globalization & Crime, 6. 105

Slaughter, A New World Order,8. 106

Aas, Globalization & Crime, 151.

(27)

26 borders and boundaries created a form of hybridity among states instead of stable entities.108 As globalization has intensified over the last three decades, these border-crossing interconnections such as technological and global capital flows also have had their important impact on state vulnerability and its capacities: reducing the state’s ability to unilaterally protect itself and forcing states to cooperate internationally to manage threats resulting from the intensified openness at the global arena.109 This quote of Judge Rosalyn Higgins, the former President of the International Court of Justice, clearly outlines the connection between globalization, sovereignty and the impact on the state;

Globalization represents the reality that we live in a time when the walls of sovereignty are no protection against the movements of capital, labor, information and ideas – nor can they provide effective protection against harm and damage110

Furthermore, the emerging autonomic influence of the world economy leads some states no other choice but to transfer economic authority to supranational institutions such as the International

Monetary Fund (IMF). As a result, states can no longer strictly separate the domestic and international spheres of political and economic action.111 However, it is a mistake when stating that the state has become a victim of the rapid globalization process. In his article, Globalization and the Boundaries of the State, theorist Edward Cohen clearly states that during the 20th century, the economic well-being of a state became a central priority of state policy. According to its priorities, a state can shape its

behaviour and decisions over time. For example, states has made a comparative assessment between on the one hand, the assertion of absolute authority and control on its territory and on the other; the liberal flow of persons, goods, capital and ideas with the assertion of some control to forces acting on the global scale. 112 So, within the globalization process, every state should wonder what its priorities and aims will be; its commitment to a globally structured organized economy or its role as defender of territorial community. This notion supports the pre-supposition of Slaughter, Agnew and Lake, as mentioned in the introduction chapter, that the nation state is a boundary-setting institution which can change its role according to its aims.

At the flip side of the coin, the process of globalization did not bring solely thriving outcomes for individuals, communities and states. The significance of globalization and its impact differs among the states making it not a singular condition or a linear process. Asymmetrical or deviant globalization are terms to describe this inequality in distribution of benefits and wealth between rich

108_{Aas, Globalization & Crime, 8.} 109_{Smith, International Security, 39.}

110_{Julian Ku and John Yoo, “Globalization and Sovereignty,” Berkeley Journal of International Law 31:1 (2013)} : 210.

111_{Baylis, Smith, Owen, The Globalization, 24.}

The State of Sovereignty