in the previous lesson what we did was talk about the concept of globalization and make a delineation between economic globalization political globalization as well as cultural globalization well in this lesson what we're going to do is talk about the impact of globalization with a specific focus on the impact that globalization has on the nature of the nation-state and the ways in which we view the nation-state as a result of an increase in globalization in geopolitics so this is going to form part of a series of lessons that we're going to spend talking about the impact of globalization we'll focus in this lesson specifically dedicated to the general impact that it has on the state system and the ways in which we interpret globalization through different lenses of analysis in geopolitics and then we will start to unpack the different types of globalization in the next three lessons talking about the impact of economic globalization the impact of political globalization and the impact of cultural globalization so in determining the impact of globalization we have to ask the question to what extent has globalization had any kind of impact firstly a measurable impact and then secondly a positive or negative impact on the nature of the nation state in modern geopolitics now this is a hotly debated topic and one that is difficult to answer so what we need to do is provide a number of different interpretations and lenses of analysis that give us some kind of indication of where we can be examining the impact of globalization on the nation state while most will agree that globalization has made a number of considerable changes in the world this is something that is relatively undisputed what the dispute tends to resolve around is the idea that it's had a measurable impact on the nature of the nation state and how the nation state operates on a global scale now the first of the theories or the lenses of analysis through which we can examine the concept of globalization and its impact on the nation state is to examine it through the lens of a hyper globalization perspective this is the viewpoint that not only has globalization had an impact on geopolitics again that is a a a an indication that is relatively undisputed but it has also had a measurable and irreversible impact on the nation state as a whole it's led to a decisive readjustment in the global power structure away from the sovereign state and into the hands of global institutions so all types of globalization whether it be political economic or cultural has led to an undermining of the power and influence of individual states with a heavy emphasis of course on political and economic globalization having that detrimental impact on the concept of the nation state and so the ultimate end goal or the ultimate end state that a hyper globalist may argue is is in our future if globalization continues is the proliferation of what they describe as a post-sovereign geopolitical structure whereby the idea of the nation-state begins to lose its potency to such an extent that it may not even exist in the future or at least it doesn't necessarily exist in the way in which we understand it today we could have a borderless society another interpretation relates to skeptical views on globalization the country opinion to hyperglobalization relates to those who are more skeptical not necessarily about the the how good or bad globalization is not necessarily making a normative claim about globalization but rather talking about the extent to which globalization has had an impact on the modern climate so while skeptics of globalization don't disagree that it's had an impact they argue instead that the extent to which this impact has led to a reduction in the power of the nation-state that is the thesis that is more debatable according to the skeptics on globalization and they give a number of different examples of how the nation-state seems to retain a lot of geopolitical power despite the fact that globalization is taking place so for example they talk about the fact that international institutions often clash with sovereign nation state over their influence so for example one of the the largest examples of this is the clash that took place between the international criminal court and the united states so we have an international institution in the icc and then we have a sovereign nation state in the united states now this was over alleged war crimes that had been committed in afghanistan by u.s soldiers by marine soldiers by troops now the argument is the argument that the trump administration had levied is that the icc has no jurisdiction and it has no authority to investigate or prosecute u.s troops in afghanistan because the united states is not a part of the international criminal court they have never ratified the rome statute and are therefore not a member of that particular international institution however on the on the other hand the international criminal court made the argument that afghanistan is a member of the international criminal court therefore they have the geographical jurisdiction within afghanistan so even though us troops are a member of a country that are not part of the icc they were committing allegedly committing war crimes in a country that is a part of the icc which gives them a jurisdiction over those war crimes and the back and forth and whether or not they they have a legal uh there's a legal argument to be had there is actually irrelevant considering that the trump administration placed heavy sanctions on the icc including the former icc prosecutor herself who was who was essentially barred from entering the united states and as they made the investigation very difficult for the icc to perform so this is an example of the international criminal court an international institution being challenged by another nation state in such a way as to show that the nation state essentially got won over on the icc because they were not able to do any kind of meaningful investigation a similar thing can be said when it comes to the adverse role that of the adverse role played by the world trade organization's dispute settlement system so again another uh clash that exists between an international institution this one being the wto and a sovereign nation state this again being the united states when it comes to the appointment of new members of the wto appellate body so as a general overview of how this operates the world trade organization has a dispute settlement system which resolves a number of disputes every single year that relate to trade or relate to the interpretation of the treaties of the world trade organization that being the general agreement on tariffs and trade the general agreement on trading services the intellectual property protections etc etc now the way in which this works is it is a two-tier judicial system where we have a where we have a panel system that will deliver some kind of verdict on a dispute and then the losing side of that dispute has the ability to appeal that to an appellate body which then has the final say over any kind of dispute now the way the appellate body operates is that there has to be new members appointed to the apple of body to um do the do to do the adjudicating on that particular um on that particular body and what happens is is new members come and go and there has to be unanimity among wto members about who ought to be on this new appellate body in 2016 the obama starting with the obama administration and going through the trump administration and actually into the biden administration as well the united states just refused to accept any new members of the apollo body so with no new members being added and the apple of body members that were already there having to only serve a certain period of time and then having to retire from the apollo body it now means that that we do not have an apple a body at the world trade organization it is non-functional there are no members because the united states refused to allow any new members to be added again showing and showing an example of how an international institution is challenged by a sovereign nation state and the sovereign nation state is essentially getting one over on the wto in this instance as well because now there is no apollo body and we've got what they describe as an apple at body crisis the third of the different positions that we can examine is known as transformationalism and transformationalism it can be almost seen as a compromise between the two precisions that we've already looked at between the hyperglobalist on the one hand and the globalist skeptics on the other transformationism seems to sit a little bit in the middle of the two according to a transformationalist globalization is indeed having an impact on the nation state so it accepts the view that um the that there is an impact that is being had on the nation state so it accepts the hyper globalist interpretation but then it says that even though this is the case while this is the case the nation nation-state is able to respond by adapting to new global settlements so countries like china for example have in recent years adopted new policies of soft power initiatives by implementing the use of global capital with exporting the the vast amount of foreign direct investment abroad an example of this is china's belt and road investment initiative and it shows that globalization is happening it is happening to nation states but the nation states are utilizing the changes in the global power structure and the changes in economic and political globalization to their own benefit so the nation state is a adapting to this new geopolitical settlement again likewise other countries may work within the confines of international institutions to also influence their own geopolitical agendas so again the united nations the world trade organization even the international criminal court to an extent so we see here that the transformationalists made the interpretation that yes globalization can be seen as having an impact on the nation state but that the nation state is able to respond by implementing new measures in such a way so as to be able to adopt and adapt to this new global environment where we have this increase in economic political and cultural globalization