What are the implications of globalization for international order? Globalization is a very popular concept very much talked about in the world today. It is considered by many to be interdependence and cooperation between states. Therefore, one can assume that globalization can have a positive affect on international order as all states would cooperate and have the same interests and that would lead to peaceful international relations and the enforcement of international order.
Firstly, I shall start my essay by formally defining both the globalization and international order. I shall do this by giving my definition of both terms and put forward the name of a few scholars and their definitions. I will then talk about the implications of globalization for international order once again by putting forward the arguments of a few scholars, evaluating these arguments. Finally, I will conclude my essay by writing about my own beliefs taken from what I have read and the way I have interpreted my readings.
I am hoping to conclude that globalization can have positive and negative consequences for international order as it is possibly good for the world economy but can also lead to inequality, that inequality leading to instability and preventing international order. The term `globalization` refers to the way economies cooperate throughout the world, especially through trading and financial flow. The idea is that countries become interdependent and cooperate in a way that they all expand their economy by concentrating on what they do best.
For example, oil is produced very cheaply in Saudi Arabia and cars are produced very cheaply in Japan. Therefore, both countries exchange their goods and it works out cheaper for both countries. According to Martin Albrow (1980) "globalization refers to all those processes by which the people of the world are incorporated into a single world society, global society. "1 The term globalization can be defined in four different ways: internationalisation meaning cooperation and interdependence between states and cross boarder interactions.
A scholar supporting this assumption that globalization can be referred to as internationalisation was Robert Cox (1994) who argued that "the characteristics of the globalization trend include the internationalising production, the new international division of labour, new migratory movements from south to north, the new competitive environment that accelerates these processes and the internationalising of the state… making states into agencies of the globalizing world. "
Globalisation can also be regarded as liberalization which is breaking down barriers between countries so that there is an "open" world economy. Thirdly, globalization can be seen as universalisation which is the spread of technology, knowledge, people and so forth around the world; Rosabeth Moss Kanter (1995) "the world becoming a global shopping mall in which ideas and products are available everywhere at the same time. "3 Finally, globalization can be described as westernization which is the imposture of western cultures and beliefs around the world.
Martin Khor (1995) "globalization is what we in the third world have for several centuries called colonisation. " 4 In sum the basic idea of globalisation is to "make the world a single place" in which ideas, beliefs, economies and cultures are all the same. In my personal opinion, I agree with those who argue that globalization is westernisation, and Martin Khor's argument. To me globalisation is to impose western culture around the globe however, I do not believe that it is done so as to ensure everyone in the world becomes equal.
I believe that globalization is spread in order to suit the interests of the western leaders and economies. Globalization is spread so that western countries become more powerful and have a stronger influence on the poorer countries of the world, and exploit them further. Therefore, I believe that instead of having a world in which everyone is equal we would have a world in which the most powerful states of the world would dominate all the poorer states. International order is finding the middle ground of relationships and organizations, which unite people from different countries.
According to Hedley Bull "international order is a pattern that leads to a particular result, an arrangement of social life that promotes certain goals or values. "5 Therefore, what Bull means is that the notion of international order is to certify that promises made in the international arena are kept and to promote stability. An argument put forward by Stanley Hoffman is that "order in international relations consists of formal or informal rules that allow for the moderation of disputes and for a measure of security and stability.
"6 David Armstrong argues that "order denotes stability and regularity in the pattern of assumptions, rules and practices that are accepted as legitimate among the members of a given society and that concern the mechanisms of and the limits to the process of change within that society. "7 Having read the arguments of the scholars above I have come to the conclusion that the basic concept of international order is to bring about stability and security in international relations.
Bearing in mind that one of the major implications of globalisation is that it promotes inequality among states I believe that it is not wrong to assume that one of the implications of globalisation for international order is that it causes instability. The concept of globalization today is to turn the world into a "global communication" agency that covers most of the global issues. In other words to make all the countries of the world integrated so that one country's problem would be every other country's problem therefore pressure them to provide help.
However, "global interdependence" is today related to a large amount of "inequality and injustice"8 that makes many people in the world suffer. I believe that the globalization concept was put forward by the West because it suits them to trade with the rest of the world as their capital would increase but what they prefer not to realize is "that excessive richness is not possible without hurting others, that extreme suffering causes bitterness and holds the seeds of the unrest. "