经济全球化与国家主权

2.经济全球化与国家主权　Economic Globalization ＆ National Sovereignty^[20]

本节导读

21世纪，随着经济全球化及其带来的政治、文化全球化的不断深入发展，民族国家和国家主权等这些国际关系传统核心概念是否会逐渐失去存在的意义，并将慢慢淡出历史舞台？

本文节选自《经济全球化的冲击力：国际商事仲裁机制的挑战》，探讨了经济全球化对国家主权所造成的影响这一热点课题，其关注的焦点在于：这种影响是颠覆性的还是非根本性的。作者旁征博引，将争论两派的主要观点一一列出，针锋相对，激烈对垒。作者指出，全球化现象是一个复杂的动态过程，涉及诸多领域和层面，对主权的影响结果也不是单一的；主权是一个动态的、多维的概念，其内涵随着社会的发展也不断丰富。讨论经济全球化与国家主权之间的关系，有必要对主权的概念进行剖析，并将国家行使主权实践中所涉及的“权威力”（authority）与“掌控力”（control）区别对待。

作者对史蒂芬·克拉斯纳关于主权的论证尤为推崇，并认为经济全球化对国家掌控力（体现为相互依赖主权）造成了一定影响，但对国家权威力（体现为威斯特利亚主权）的影响不能一概而论。主权国家自17世纪正式登上历史舞台以来，一直表现出独特的韧性和活力；在全球化时代乃至可预见的未来，主权国家仍然是国际关系最基本、最重要的行为体，国家主权仍是国际体系的核心组织原则。就如同华尔兹在《全球化与治理》中所指出：“各国时刻面临来自国内外各种挑战的考验。一些国家表现不够合格，一些国家经受住了考验。在现代，总有足够数量的国家存在，保证了国际体系作为国家组成的体系继续运作。挑战各式各样，国家经久不衰。”

The Trans formative Effect of Globalization?

A central issue within the globalization discourse^[21]is whether a global order or polity is emerging and displacing^[22]the traditional state system.Has the transformation of the global order by conditions brought on by globalization resulted in the decline or displacement of nation states—is the process called‘economic globalization’dissolving national frontiers and rendering national governments increasingly irrelevant?Does it challenge the premise of governance bound by the prerogative^[23]of states’sovereign powers?Many analysts such as Joseph Camelleri and Jim Falk argue that the world is entering a new era in which the existing institutional structures,particularly the sovereign state,is being undermined,marginalized^[24]or transformed by the forces of globalization.By contrast,many economists and political scientists question the reality of globalization—some simply question whether the effect of globalization is exaggerated and overstated^[25]，others question the whole concept of globalization denying there has been any real change.The main thrust^[26]of the debate is whether globalization erodes sovereignty or merely reconfigures, transforms or bolsters what is arguably a flexible concept in a way that maintains its central importance in international relations.It is useful,therefore,to analyze the‘loss of sovereignty’argument in more detail,as well as the counter-veiling arguments.An important part of this analysis is to consider the changing conception of state sovereignty.What is meant by the term‘sovereignty’and in what context is it used?This will provide a useful analytical framework for considering the impact of economic globalization on the regime of international commercial arbitration—in particular,whether globalization has resulted in the erosion of state sovereignty within the regime.

Globalization and Loss of Sovereignty Arguments

It has become in vogue to state that economic globalization is a threat to state sovereignty,as state autonomy is diminished in the face of global market pressures or as state policy makers become constrained by global or at the very least, transnational governance arrangements.Due to the pressures of globalization,states are losing control over certain activities within and across state territorial borders leading to an erosion of state sovereignty.For example,Eli Noam argues that telecommunications will eventually transcend the territorial concept and the notion of each state exercising‘territorial control over electronic communication will become archaic^[27]in the same sense that national control over the spoken(and later the written)word became outmoded.’Moreover,the bureaucracy of a nation state is often fragmented^[28]and diffuse and not located in a single central repository.Many different institutions,organizations and commissions are now delegated^[29]authority and power from the state for collective decision making.Thus,it is increasingly difficult to determine a single source of power in complex political systems given the proliferation of international institutions(e.g.intergovernmental organizations, quasi-governmental institutions and non-governmental associations)and international regimes.The proliferation of international organizations and the development of international law are often given as explanations for the increasing irrelevance of nation states.While these international organizations and regimes provide competing authority structures,the majoritarianism^[30]and consensus principles operating within such organizations may result in outcomes that differ dramatically with state policy.

Other analysts stress that the compression of time and space created by globalization will result in a diminished role for states in international society.Roland Robertson^[31]describes globalization as both the‘compression of the world and the intensification of the consciousness of the world’resulting from rapid advances in technology and intensification of economic activities.This results in an interpenetration of national societies which he argues erodes the competence and autonomy of national authorities.International markets result in governments losing control over domestic markets and national economies.Similarly,Scott Lash and John Urry argue that globalization,which involves the development of transnational practices, an increasing number of inter-state connections,and the emergence of new sociospatial political entities,has resulted in an overall decline in the sovereignty of the state.They argue that globalization has blurred the distinction between national and international,transformed the conditions for national decision making,altered the legal framework and administrative practices of states,with the result that state sovereignty is of little relevance.The development of transnational networks and global authority structures also alters national decision making resulting in an erosion of state sovereignty.Globalization is perceived as destroying the government’s capacity to do what is required,particularly in three main areas:taxation,public spending for income distribution and macroeconomic policy.

Refuting^[32]the Loss of Sovereignty Claim

Not surprisingly,many analysts refute the loss of sovereignty thesis as myopic^[33]and over-generalized and argue that a more careful analysis of the phenomena of globalization is required.Globalization is a complex process that does not always have the singular result of undermining,transforming,or bolstering state sovereignty—it may,in fact,be responsible for producing each of these effects at different points in time.In this context,Stephen Krasner’s argument against the loss of sovereignty thesis is compelling^[34].He argues that states have never been secure in the exercise of their sovereignty—there has never been a‘mythical past’in which states could exercise absolute control and authority.Both the control and authority of states have historically been subject to continuous challenge for two main reasons:(a) there is no authority structure that can determine competing normative prescriptions;and(b)states have never been able to guarantee control over activities within or across their borders(especially weaker states).Globalization(with its associated technological innovations)may have raised some new and unique problems for sovereignty as understood as‘control’,but states have been confronted with similar challenges in the past.Moreover,Krasner argues that the threat to state control does not consider the fact that:(a)trade and capital markets were as highly integrated in the pre-World War I period;and(b)that the greater levels of economic integration over the past 50 years have also been accompanied by increased levels of state activity.Globalization may have in fact strengthened the importance of international legal sovereignty^[35]because states have entered into more international agreements and conventions that facilitate international regulation,particularly when unilateral policy is ineffective.

Overall,Krasner argues that there are two main defects^[36]inherent in the loss of sovereignty argument:(a)it confuses one meaning of sovereignty—effective state control—with other meanings of sovereignty relating to authority and legitimacy(discussed further below);and(b)it is historically incorrect since states have always operated in an integrated international environment.The degree of change from the past attributed to globalization in terms of international capital flows and the integration of global capital markets has often been exaggerated.

Eric Helleiner^[37]also persuasively argues for a more careful analysis of the loss of sovereignty thesis.He suggests that the implications of economic globalization for the world order are more complicated than they are often portrayed and submits different variations of the argument that financial globalization poses a challenge to nation states to closer scrutiny.Firstly,he refutes the popular argument that innovations in information technology have resulted in states having a declining capacity to regulate finance.It is important not to overstate the degree to which sovereign states have ever been able to regulate international movements of money.In many areas,information technology has in fact strengthened rather than weakened the regulatory capacity of the state in the financial sector.Secondly,it is often argued that the heightened mobility of financial capital has created powerful competitive deregulation^[38]pressures that prevent states from even considering regulating their domestic financial sectors.Philip Cerny,for example,argues that globalization forces have increased the competitive pressure for deregulation of state markets with the result that state regulatory power is inhibited.While it is fair to say that competitive deregulation pressures have undoubtedly played an important role in defeating cooperative regulatory initiatives and encouraging the liberalizing by states of their financial markets,Helleiner persuasively argues that their influence should not be overstated.Economic globalization has not resulted in the declining regulatory power of states over finance.Instead,it appears to have encouraged states to enhance this power through cooperative action at the international level.

Thirdly,it is commonly argued that the increased mobility of financial capital has undermined that ability of sovereign states to conduct an independent macroeconomic policy within their state.Many argue that as states lose macroeconomic autonomy,non-state bodies are emerging in the financial markets(e.g.credit rating agencies^[39])which supplant states as key authorities in world politics.The combined forces of interdependence and transnationalism limit the states’capacity to engage in independent domestic policy making.While Helleiner argues that this is a more convincing argument about the implication of economic globalization,it still overstates the case that globalization is undermining state sovereignty.While some erosion of macroeconomic policy autonomy has taken place,the external constraints on fiscal policy and the declining macroeconomic power of the state are often exaggerated.As Helleiner convincingly argues,an erosion of macroeconomic autonomy does not necessarily challenge the structure of the sovereign state within the world order.Helleiner and others analysts,such as Janice Thompson,suggest that a weakness of the previous three loss of sovereignty arguments is that they measure the status of the sovereign state according to its ability to control activities within and across its borders.A more useful approach,particularly in the context of this analysis of globalization and international commercial arbitration,would be to consider the changing authority of the state based on the principle of territoriality^[40]which is arguably at the core of the sovereign state’s authority.

Unraveling^[41]of Territoriality:The Denationalization^[42]of Territory

Another dynamic resulting from globalization emphasizes the denationalizing response to global issues and the declining importance of place in economic matters. Some analysts have argued that economic globalization may be eroding state authority based on the notion of territoriality—what Janice Thomson refers to as‘de-territorialization of state authority claims’.For example,Saskia Sassen^[43]argues that the devel opment of offshore^[44]financial centers(e.g.in Bermuda^[45],Jersey^[46]and Guernsey^[47]) challenges the sovereign state by acting as locations within national territories that are created deliberately beyond its regulatory umbrella—what she refers to as a‘denationalization of national territory’.Another development suggest that territoriality is being challenged by financial globalization:changing regulatory practices in which states co-operate in the extra-territorial application of domestic rules(e.g.the Basle Accord^[48]）.The unraveling of the principle of territoriality may well beabetter indicator of a decline of state sovereignty than macroeconomic policy autonomy or regulatory control over finance,but it does not necessarily support the thesis of the end of the sovereign state system and the emergence of a‘post-Westphalian’order.

Viewed from the perspective of globalization as a re-ordering of time and space, the traditional concept of state‘territory’is undergoing change.Some argue that territory is not static^[49]but rather a fluid concept in the sense of‘permeability of boundaries’—the way that some states control their territorial borders more effectively and vigorously than others.Consider the degree to which states‘trade’access to their territory and the scope and density of activity across national borders. Yarbroughs’description of the states‘trading’access and exclusion at three levels is appropriate here.At the domestic level,states trade‘protection and justice’for revenue.Internationally,states trade often access to its territory to other states on the basis of reciprocity^[50]—in other words,in return for reciprocal access.The territorial concept can also be considered‘fluid’,however,in the sense of its irrelevance in view of the innovations in information technology creating a new digital space operating outside of conventional geographical and territorial boundaries.Innovations in technology mean that states cannot control the flow of information across their borders.Thus,globalization may render territoriality obsolete as an organizing principle for international society.It may become a world without borders and spatial boundaries.A belief,however,in a mutually exclusive set of terrains where the national economy or state loses what the global economy gains is a deceptive approach—particularly in the context of international commercial arbitration.Saskia Sassen quite persuasively argues that such a zero sum view does not truly capture the dynamics of the global economy and the national state in the era of economic globalization.

The unraveling of territoriality as an organizing principle is echoed in the work of James Rosenau^[51]who argues that the differences between globalizing and localizing forces give rise to competing conceptions of territoriality.Globalization renders boundaries and identity with the land less important while localization^[52],being driven by pressures to narrow and withdraw,highlights borders and deepens attachments to land that can dominate emotion and reasoning.A useful insight is offered by economists Paul Hirst and Grahame Thompson who argue that while globalization is a new stage in international economic,political and cultural relationships,there are still opportunities for the development of governance mechanisms at the level of the international economy that neither undermine national governance nor hinder the creation of national strategies for international control.This‘international economy’view suggests the complexity of the current conditions of globalization and interdependence, with regionalizing tendencies cross-cutting those of increasing globalization,and‘national’impulses surviving even in the face of powerful‘internationalizing’forces. This points to the often antagonistic tension between the boundary expanding and integrating dynamics of globalization and the fragmenting forces of localization.

Changing Conceptions of State Sovereignty

This discussion of the potentially trans formative effect of globalization on state sovereignty underscores the need for a more careful consideration of the nature of state sovereignty.In recent years the concept of sovereignty has become increasingly contested with a number of historical analyses suggesting that meaning of‘sovereignty’is in a process of continuous evolution.Sovereignty has come to symbolize the authority of the state to act independently without being subject to control by any higher or external authority.It is central to the modern nation state and political concepts such as power,authority,order and legitimacy.The term sovereignty can be traced back to Aristotle^[53],Bodin^[54]and Hobbes^[55],as well as to the American and French Revolutions.Originally,sovereignty referred to the sovereignty of the ruler within the state but it evolved to represent popular sovereignty—the will of the people as contained in the nation state.The modern doctrine of sovereignty arose in Western Europe during the 15th and 16th centuries and it was closely related to the rise of capitalism as a social form of organization and the emergence of the state as a political organization.One of the key features of the system of international relations established by the new nation states in the 19th century was the principle of national sovereignty which asserts that the state has the absolute right to determine autonomously the internal fate of the state for which it constitutes the set of political arrangements.

Modern Conception of State Sovereignty

The modern conception of sovereignty,however,is characterized by two distinct features.Firstly,distinctions are drawn between‘internal’and‘external’sovereignty. Internal sovereignty,also known as‘political sovereignty’,refers to the extent to which an institutional state has power over and is capable of controlling its territory and population and maneuvering so as to gain an advantageous position within the global community.By contrast,external sovereignty,also known as‘juridical sovereignty’,refers to the notion that states are recognized by other states as members of the international community.Externally,sovereignty means that states are not subject to any higher power and the territorial integrity and political independence of each state is inviolable.Secondly,both the internal and external dimensions of sovereignty refer to the existence of supreme law making authority.The conventional view of state sovereignty,both internally and externally,focuses on the states’territorial dimension.A state is‘an independent and autonomous political structure over a specific territory,with a comprehensive legal system and a sufficient concentration of power to maintain law and order’.Thus,sovereignty means the existence of a‘specified holder of supreme coercive power’within a legally defined territory.

In the context of the globalization debates,Stephen Krasner seeks to understand what state sovereignty means in actual practice and offers a useful characterization of the term sovereignty being used in at least four different ways.Krasner focuses first on what he characterizes as‘Westphalian sovereignty^[56]’referring to the extent to which central state authorities are independent of and can exclude external authority.Krasner points out that in recent years a number of analysts have used the Westphalian model of sovereignty as a benchmark to argue that there has been fundamental change in international system.Secondly,Krasner considers‘international legal sovereignty’which refers to the mutual recognition of one state by another as a sovereign entity(this is similar to external or juridical sovereignty),as opposed to state control,exclusion of external authority or domestic constitutional order.By contrast,‘domestic sovereignty^[57]’is akin to internal and political sovereignty and indicates the formal organization of political authority within the domestic constitutional structure.Finally,‘interdependence sovereignty^[58]’refers to the ability of a government to actually control activities within and across state borders(including movement of capital,goods and ideas).The central feature in interdependence sovereignty is that of control,as opposed to authority with which the other three conceptions of sovereignty are concerned.

The important feature of Krasner’s analysis of sovereignty is the underlying distinction drawn between the notion of state‘authority’and state‘control’.Both Westphalian sovereignty and international legal sovereignty refer to issues of authority:whether the state has authority to exclude external actors,and whether a state is recognized as having authority to enter into international agreements.By contrast,interdependence sovereignty refers to control—whether a state can control movements across its own borders.Domestic sovereignty,however,is used in ways that refer to both authority and control:the nature of authority structures within a state,and the effectiveness of their control.When considering the impact of globalization on state sovereignty,in particular on the regime of international commercial arbitration,it is important to keep in mind the distinction drawn between:(a)interdependence sovereignty,meaning the capacity of states to control activities within and across their borders;and(b)Westphalian sovereignty,referring to the authority of the institutional state within its own territory and the ability to legislate within these territorial boundaries.While Krasner resists the view that interdependence sovereignty and domestic sovereignty have been weakened by the forces of globalization,he argues that Westphalian and interdependence sovereignty have been derogated^[59]for many years(referring to the gap between sovereignty norms and sovereignty practice as‘organized hypocrisy’).

Continuing Relevance of State Sovereignty

The forces associated with economic globalization have certainly raised issues concerning the effect on interdependence sovereignty,in other words,the degree to which states can exert control over their population and territory.The claims that globalization renders the concept of Westphalian sovereignty redundant^[60],however, appear exaggerated and overly simplistic.While it is not disputed that forces associated with globalization may affect the primacy of the state in world politics(e.g. the increase in international institutions and organizations),the loss of sovereignty argument tends to confuse notions of state control with state authority in the form of Westphalian sovereignty.Absolute power of a state is a myth.Any diminution^[61]of state control over aspects of its domestic policy may indicate a loss of autonomy, but it does not necessarily herald^[62]the end of the sovereign state system.The constraints on states resulting from the current pressures of globalization do not necessarily mean the diminishment of states’capacity to tax,regulate,or intervene in their domestic economies.The argument that globalization makes states unnecessary or unimportant is less than credible given the need for an appropriate legal and regulatory environment,and the fact that international government depends on the ability of individual states to provide and guarantee stability through coercive powers within its territorial jurisdiction.

Despite the challenges posed by economic globalization to the concept of sovereignty and the repeated claims about the‘death’of the state,sovereignty remains a central organizing principle of the international system.This does not mean,of course,that it has not been altered or transformed by conditions associated with globalization—in fact,one of the key features of sovereignty is its flexibility or degree of‘plasticity’.A good description is Marc Williams’reference to sovereignty as a‘robust’concept meaning that the concept has withstood the test of time mirroring shifts in domestic and international politics.As Stephen Krasner has highlighted,globalization is not a singular concept but rather a complex multifaceted^[63]process with inherent contradictions^[64].As such,not all its tendencies point to the displacement of the state and the concept of state sovereignty.

In this context,James Rosenau’s description of the dynamic and‘fragmentative’interaction of the opposing forces of globalization and localization is relevant to this analysis of globalization and the regime of international commercial arbitration.A proto-theory^[65]of globalization has emerged which can be described as‘dualistic^[66]’in that it remains committed to the primacy of states and inter-state relations but recognizes that economic and cultural integrations develop alongside them.The world order is considered dualistic in nature in that it is integrated at the sub-state level but still organized as segmented nation states.Rosenau suggests that globalization has resulted in the splitting of macro-global structures into the two worlds of global politics:(a)a‘state-centric^[67]world’comprising the relations among the USA,Russia,the EC/EU,Japan,and the third world,and their links to international organizations and subgroups;and(b)a‘multi-centric^[68]world’focused on the relations between subgroups,international organizations,state bureaucracies and transnational actors(e.g.MNCs^[69]).Mark Zacher presents a similar dualistic argument arguing that the world is in a process of a fundamental transformation from a system of highly autonomous states to one where states are increasingly enmeshed in a network of collaborative interdependencies and regimes.Zacher does not suggest that the centrality of states is being undermined but rather,that states are becoming increasingly embedded or‘enmeshed’in networks of explicit and implicit regimes,interdependencies and regulatory and collaborative arrangements that constrain their autonomy.In other words,the global society does not displace the state system and nation states remain a central repository of legitimacy and power in the world community(e.g.they retain the power to frame and execute policies).Decision making power within nation states,however,may be redistributed in a globalized economy—not merely downward to domestic firms and markets-but also upward to international markets and firms and a range of functionally specialized international institutions and organizations.

思考题

1.What are the main‘loss of sovereignty’arguments referred to in this text?

2.How does Krasner argue against the‘loss of sovereignty’thesis?

3.What are the distinct features of the modern conception of sovereignty?

4.How do the notions of state authority and state control differ from each other?

5.What is the author’s conclusion on the debate about globalization’s effects on sovereignty?