Actors in World Politics – Lecture Notes
Francesco Ragazzi – Leiden University
Lecture 2: International, global, or transnational?
The world has become global
1. Dimensions of globalization
- People
People are on the move/migrating. The majority of people are just regular migrants
(not necessarily refugee). There’s a lot of south to north migration (geographically).
But the biggest amount of migration is south to south migration (f.i. migration to Gulf
countries). *South to north has been exponentially increasing since the 60s.
- Capital (money)
Bretton Woods conference -> The basic principles of post ww2 economy (& the idea
of having more free trade between countries) were elaborated. -> Free trade & low
tariffs
It’s not only goods & services but also bonds & stocks that are being globalized.
Trade globalization = the amount of goods per GDP percentage per country
We also have an increase in trade between non-rich countries. -> Rich countries play
less of an important role. Globalization is not only influencing the rich.
- Politics
In terrorist attacks (1 person killing 1 person)/specific event with symbolic power,
suddenly becomes something huge (of global attention). A terrorist in France becomes
a globalized event bc media and the general sentiment: what happens in a small town
has an implication for the middle east/global fight of terrorism
Key: Small event can become global issue
- Culture
Emily in Paris creates marketable view of Paris. It creates a vision of Paris that allows
people to interpret Paris as ideally as they want. You produce a product that is
attractive to the rest of the world. -> Globalization of culture
Other example: English as primary language of communication
2. Globalization as a series of processes
- Deterritorialization = The process through which geographical territory becomes
less of a constraint on social interaction
-> Thanks to technology/internet, we can have a lecture & chat despite a pandemic.
Because globalization allows us to carry this out despite distance
-> We can order something from China and it can be here in 1 week
- Interdependence = The process through which “security and force matter less and
, countries are connected by multiple social & political relationships”
It’s important we have things in mind like the symbolic war between US & China, but
can’t go too far because of economic interdependence
Other example: Link between technological devices; War in democratic republic of
Congo (1998-2003)-> Phones became important and led to civil war in Congo for
getting a certain natural element that is in our phones that was available in Congo.
(Battle for resources that can be traded)
When you’re buying a phone you don’t think you’re committing a source of conflict.
Different part of the worlds are interdependent -> Opposing interest
- Time-space compression: The set of processes that cause the relative distances
between places (I.e. as measured in terms of travel time or cost) to contract,
effectively making such places grow “closer.” -> The idea that we can get things
much faster because the travel time/cost is increasingly lowering.
Making sense of globalization: 3 approaches
1. The international approach (IR theories) tells us: ((neo)Realist approach)
- The world is divided in domestic/international (anarchical world)
- States are the main actors in IR
- Other actors exist but they are negligible
2. The “globalist” approach
(analytical perspective because it tells us what’s going on, but also normative because
people wish what’s going on)
- World divides are flattened (no borders anymore, investment surface, investment
possibilities across and all kind of other possibilities)
- Undifferentiated investment surface
- Decreased relevance of states: States/sovereignty are no longer relevant
3. Transnational Critique
- A problem of analytical purchase
-> Relations develop between states and non-state actors
-> States adapt to globalization: transgovernmentalism
States are still important but they themselves are becoming transnational
We’re not so sure anymore if we’re in a ‘flat world’ like realists claim
- A problem of conceptualization: an either/or conception
Sovereignty is not either/or. We need to look at how the relations between state and
globalization to understand transnational strategies that are being development by
state & non-state actors in order to cope with globalization.
Both realists & globalist are wrong
Either/or: Realists would say that it’s national interest vs. National interest.
Globalists would also not be able to explain it bc states are active
It’s not full sovereignty or no sovereignty. It’s transnational networks that sometimes become
a state and sometimes don’t -> it’s an empirical question we have to look into.
Directions for a transnational approach
1. The territorial gap
1. States do not have exclusive power over territory
2. Domestic and foreign realms are not separate, but networked
3. Boundries of the state are not the boundries of society
-> Agnew tells us that states do not have exclusive power over territory. We don’t
have a strong distinction between domestic/international.
1. Sovereignty Is not absolute but relational
- Rule existed in other forms (city-state, monarchies, empires)
, - Territorial state is a recent invention (19th century)
- No strict division domestic/international
- Transnational elite networks/transgovernmentalism
2. Domestic and foreign realms are not separate, but networked
- Unified territorial control has a history
- Effective territorial sovereignty is a myth
- Power operates much through networks which don’t follow an international
domestic distinction
3. Identities are not homogenous but multiple and hybrid
- Nationalism is historically determined
- Identities have never entirely fit territorial borders
- Globalization has reinforced discrepancy
- Hybridity rather than homogeneity
National identities should fit borders -> Relatively new idea, has never happened.
There’s many people claiming an alternative identity. (migrants also add to this)
Italy is not just in the country itself, it is all over the world; a global concept.
Globalization reinforced the idea that you can have an identity outside of the country
it comes from -> Hybridity: Multiple parts that form identity
Hybridity > Homogenous identity
2. Re-thinking sovereignty
3. Re-imagining national identities
Spatiality = the map we have doesn’t look at the actual networks ???
Key points
Readings #2: Transnational relations and world politics
• Realism dominates international relations according to the writers
- Focuses on states
- Security (war & peace)
- x (see slide)
• The authors are most concerned about
, •
So to be a transnational interaction it has to:
- Some kind of movement tangible/intangible
- Has to cross boundry/border
- At least one is not government/IO
A RELATION BETWEEN STATES IS NOT TRANSNATIONAL
• How much of the sovereignty that they (states) claim can they actually assert? ->
Needs to be determined empirically
•
-> More nuanced approach: Transnational relations reinforce the inequalities between
rich & poor
Lecture 3: Sovereignty and the nation-state
The world is naturally defined as domestic vs. international. However, this distinction is
artificial and relatively new. Transnational flow pre-exist the nation-state and have shaped it.
The idea that the nation and the state should be the same thing, is also problematic. There’s
always conflict at the roots that were necessary to create this fiction of a nation-state. It never
comes peacefully, but is instead violence-based.
- The nation-state is often a violent project aimed at reducing the world into the
‘national’ and the ‘international’
Francesco Ragazzi – Leiden University
Lecture 2: International, global, or transnational?
The world has become global
1. Dimensions of globalization
- People
People are on the move/migrating. The majority of people are just regular migrants
(not necessarily refugee). There’s a lot of south to north migration (geographically).
But the biggest amount of migration is south to south migration (f.i. migration to Gulf
countries). *South to north has been exponentially increasing since the 60s.
- Capital (money)
Bretton Woods conference -> The basic principles of post ww2 economy (& the idea
of having more free trade between countries) were elaborated. -> Free trade & low
tariffs
It’s not only goods & services but also bonds & stocks that are being globalized.
Trade globalization = the amount of goods per GDP percentage per country
We also have an increase in trade between non-rich countries. -> Rich countries play
less of an important role. Globalization is not only influencing the rich.
- Politics
In terrorist attacks (1 person killing 1 person)/specific event with symbolic power,
suddenly becomes something huge (of global attention). A terrorist in France becomes
a globalized event bc media and the general sentiment: what happens in a small town
has an implication for the middle east/global fight of terrorism
Key: Small event can become global issue
- Culture
Emily in Paris creates marketable view of Paris. It creates a vision of Paris that allows
people to interpret Paris as ideally as they want. You produce a product that is
attractive to the rest of the world. -> Globalization of culture
Other example: English as primary language of communication
2. Globalization as a series of processes
- Deterritorialization = The process through which geographical territory becomes
less of a constraint on social interaction
-> Thanks to technology/internet, we can have a lecture & chat despite a pandemic.
Because globalization allows us to carry this out despite distance
-> We can order something from China and it can be here in 1 week
- Interdependence = The process through which “security and force matter less and
, countries are connected by multiple social & political relationships”
It’s important we have things in mind like the symbolic war between US & China, but
can’t go too far because of economic interdependence
Other example: Link between technological devices; War in democratic republic of
Congo (1998-2003)-> Phones became important and led to civil war in Congo for
getting a certain natural element that is in our phones that was available in Congo.
(Battle for resources that can be traded)
When you’re buying a phone you don’t think you’re committing a source of conflict.
Different part of the worlds are interdependent -> Opposing interest
- Time-space compression: The set of processes that cause the relative distances
between places (I.e. as measured in terms of travel time or cost) to contract,
effectively making such places grow “closer.” -> The idea that we can get things
much faster because the travel time/cost is increasingly lowering.
Making sense of globalization: 3 approaches
1. The international approach (IR theories) tells us: ((neo)Realist approach)
- The world is divided in domestic/international (anarchical world)
- States are the main actors in IR
- Other actors exist but they are negligible
2. The “globalist” approach
(analytical perspective because it tells us what’s going on, but also normative because
people wish what’s going on)
- World divides are flattened (no borders anymore, investment surface, investment
possibilities across and all kind of other possibilities)
- Undifferentiated investment surface
- Decreased relevance of states: States/sovereignty are no longer relevant
3. Transnational Critique
- A problem of analytical purchase
-> Relations develop between states and non-state actors
-> States adapt to globalization: transgovernmentalism
States are still important but they themselves are becoming transnational
We’re not so sure anymore if we’re in a ‘flat world’ like realists claim
- A problem of conceptualization: an either/or conception
Sovereignty is not either/or. We need to look at how the relations between state and
globalization to understand transnational strategies that are being development by
state & non-state actors in order to cope with globalization.
Both realists & globalist are wrong
Either/or: Realists would say that it’s national interest vs. National interest.
Globalists would also not be able to explain it bc states are active
It’s not full sovereignty or no sovereignty. It’s transnational networks that sometimes become
a state and sometimes don’t -> it’s an empirical question we have to look into.
Directions for a transnational approach
1. The territorial gap
1. States do not have exclusive power over territory
2. Domestic and foreign realms are not separate, but networked
3. Boundries of the state are not the boundries of society
-> Agnew tells us that states do not have exclusive power over territory. We don’t
have a strong distinction between domestic/international.
1. Sovereignty Is not absolute but relational
- Rule existed in other forms (city-state, monarchies, empires)
, - Territorial state is a recent invention (19th century)
- No strict division domestic/international
- Transnational elite networks/transgovernmentalism
2. Domestic and foreign realms are not separate, but networked
- Unified territorial control has a history
- Effective territorial sovereignty is a myth
- Power operates much through networks which don’t follow an international
domestic distinction
3. Identities are not homogenous but multiple and hybrid
- Nationalism is historically determined
- Identities have never entirely fit territorial borders
- Globalization has reinforced discrepancy
- Hybridity rather than homogeneity
National identities should fit borders -> Relatively new idea, has never happened.
There’s many people claiming an alternative identity. (migrants also add to this)
Italy is not just in the country itself, it is all over the world; a global concept.
Globalization reinforced the idea that you can have an identity outside of the country
it comes from -> Hybridity: Multiple parts that form identity
Hybridity > Homogenous identity
2. Re-thinking sovereignty
3. Re-imagining national identities
Spatiality = the map we have doesn’t look at the actual networks ???
Key points
Readings #2: Transnational relations and world politics
• Realism dominates international relations according to the writers
- Focuses on states
- Security (war & peace)
- x (see slide)
• The authors are most concerned about
, •
So to be a transnational interaction it has to:
- Some kind of movement tangible/intangible
- Has to cross boundry/border
- At least one is not government/IO
A RELATION BETWEEN STATES IS NOT TRANSNATIONAL
• How much of the sovereignty that they (states) claim can they actually assert? ->
Needs to be determined empirically
•
-> More nuanced approach: Transnational relations reinforce the inequalities between
rich & poor
Lecture 3: Sovereignty and the nation-state
The world is naturally defined as domestic vs. international. However, this distinction is
artificial and relatively new. Transnational flow pre-exist the nation-state and have shaped it.
The idea that the nation and the state should be the same thing, is also problematic. There’s
always conflict at the roots that were necessary to create this fiction of a nation-state. It never
comes peacefully, but is instead violence-based.
- The nation-state is often a violent project aimed at reducing the world into the
‘national’ and the ‘international’
