International Affairs
July 1997
This article stresses the dangers of the widespread current belief that the global economy is now ungovernable, and argues for the need for, and the feasibility of, extended public governance at both national and international levels. Only thus can economic growth and trade openness be combined with fairness within and between nations. The extent to which capital is 'footloose', embodied in homeless transnational corporations, has been exaggerated, and the potential for concerted action to control the financial markets has been underestimated. The case for regulation and stabilization of the financial markets is a strong one, but it will only work if the major states impose common rules on the system. Such concerted action will strengthen rather than weaken states. The scope for national policy remains large, if electorates are willing.
'Globalization' is a term that has come to be used in recent years increasingly frequently and, arguably, increasingly loosely. In a close analysis of the term, the author focuses on the concept of globalization as the transcendence (rather than the mere crossing or opening) of borders arguing that this interpretation offers the most distinctive and helpful insight into contemporary world affairs. The article goes on to explore one of the key questions raised by this trend, namely, how the growth of supraterritorial space has altered capitalism in general, and the role of the state within capitalism in particular. The author concludes by suggesting that if globalization poses a threat, it is not (as is often argued) to the state itself, but rather to democracy.
There is considerable confusion and hyperbole about globalization. Disagreements range over whether it is a process or an end--state, over the degree to which it is happening or has already reached, and over its implications for the power and ultimate survival of the state. By examining the micro--foundations of globalization, the pressures that firms feel from their more diverse stakeholders, this article attempts to rectify and to look beyond the simplistic, often implicit, assumption that firms gain, while states lose, from globalization. Both firms and governments face heightened risks and both need new skills to deal with them.
This article argues that actors in contemporary world politics display a 'propensity to comply' with international norms, regimes and regulations, and that this propensity is rooted, in part, in a 'presumption of trust'. However, this presumption is unstable in the contemporary context and increasingly so owing to the growing discrepancy between the legal and institutional forms of world politics and many of its most important processes, especially the complexity and types of agents. This is compounded by difficulties in the conceptualization of trust. The article concludes by outlining ways of evolving practices in world politics that might rectify this situation, focusing especially on 'shaming'--a practice that can generate trust, and hence support, and enhance the 'propensityto comply' with an ever--widening agenda of issues in an increasingly complex institutional environment.
Against all political odds, China leaped from economic feudalism into post--modern society in the space of 18 years, although the mass of its population has yet to share in the benefits of this achievement. Despite its impact on world trade and its crucial role in shaping global economic and political influences, China has so far been denied membership of the World Trade Organization (WTO) which would provide a boost to its reform and development efforts and signify a seal of approval from the rest of the world about China's future role in shaping the world economy. China has become impatient with standing on the sidelines of the decision--making process in global trade policy matters. This article traces the complex reasons responsible for the delays in China's accession process to the WTO, focusing especially on the role of the European Union.
The tripartite aggression against Egypt in 1956 involved an extraordinary reversal of Britain's position in the Middle East. The French were the matchmakers in bringing Britain and Israel into a military pact whose principal aim was the overthrow of Gamal Abdel Nasser. The war plot against Egypt was hatched towards the end of October 1956 in a secret meeting at Sèvres, near Paris. The discussions lasted three days and culminated in the signing of the Protocol of S vres. British, French and Israeli sources are used here to reconstruct the sequence of events that produced the most famous war plot in modern history.
Edited text of the 22nd Martin Wight Memorial Lecture delivered at the University of Sussex on 24 October 1996.
Book reviews