Political globalization / Blog assignment 3 / Choi Pureum

  1. Summary

  

  Political globalization is multidimensional and accelerating, and crossing national boundaries, organizations are interconnected regardless of time and space. Especially, in relation to political globalization, there has been much discussion in the globalization of the social world that emphasizes multinational and transnational processes beyond one country. As time goes on in modern times, there is a major point in the decline of the national unit by the influence of the great powers. Political globalization paves the way for new liberation through the process of the development of the multinational network, through the process of politics, de-territorialization and re-territorialization. However, through globalization, it causes the loss of the independent autonomy of each country and society, and at the same time, it divides the social world into groups. Political globalization is like both sides of a coin. We must approach this concept in a multifaceted and multifaceted political globalization.

  Political integration is becoming increasingly global. Among them, 'democracy' is spread over the world in its most universal form. Communism has been perceived as a failed system and has fallen out of globalization. Even China and Russia can accept democracy in large part, and in fact, the world is integrated into democracy. This became a universal world system after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

  The first dimension of political globalization is the geopolitics of global power. A second dimension of political globalization refers to the rise of a global normative culture. This includes a variety of dimensions including environmental issues, culture, and political communication. Now this problem is not limited to one country, but to be cross-border and multinational. For example, the issue of carbon dioxide emissions is multinationally seeking to regulate and address emissions through agreements. Such a problem can not be solved by the efforts of one country, but it is possible when there are cooperation of various countries across borders.

  The state is gradually changing. It is a general move from ethnocentric to multinationalization to adapt to the cooperation and change between countries. EU, ACTA, TPP, WTO and many others. There are many reasons for this, including economic reasons and political reasons, but one unified view requires extensive national participation. Now the world is being integrated and the autonomy is being lost. The broader movement is about meaningless military and political unification. Martin Shaw has said since 1989 that it will develop into an end to military conflict and national integration.

  Let's look at the EU case in detail. Now nationality and citizenship may be the time to understand it as a different concept. The boundary between domestic law and international law has become blurred, and it is now difficult for the state to resist international law. Unlike domestic law, international law is difficult to control, but now you have to follow international law if you do not break your connection with the world. International legal tribunals are playing a growing role in national politics. But this national unification ultimately undermined the nation state. Ultimately, this leads to a nationalist movement. We are concerned that we have gone too far into supranational form and lost our national identity. It is to keep the national identity and to defend the autonomy.

  Communication is central to politics. Nation-states have been based on centralized systems of   communication ranging from national systems of education and science, national newspapers and media such as TV as well as national commemorations and popular culture in which national narratives and collective identities were codifi ed, reproduced and legitimated. 

  In the end, political globalization, such as the intergovernmental network, nationalism, and the loss of autonomous autonomy, is complex and multidimensional. We can point to three dilemmas to which these complex relationships give rise and the implications for autonomy and fragmentation. First, the globalization of the nation-state, and its model of political membership and institutionalized governance, has given form to the universal aspiration for democracy. Autonomy through human rights, democracy is an important factor in globalization. It is a global form of globalization, and it has also been acted upon as a global standard for the development of global normative culture, which has been disseminated by the INGOs. by human rights law. Third, polycentric networks, and in particular the development of global civil society, create new opportunities for autonomy and the recognition of a range of new actors and new modes of governance, but at the same time, can create new instabilities and dangers.

2. What’s interesting points?

  Globalization has progressed so rapidly that we can not even recognize it, and many national institutions have emerged. Political globalization has both sides. Like globalization, political globalization has several aspects and leads to many interpretations. It has been discussed not only in the context of autonomous loss and division of social globalization, but also in the context of the possibility of a new liberation. Political globalization can be seen in democratization of the world, creation of global civil society, and outward movement of nationalism, especially in changes such as the only actors in the political field. Some of the questions at the heart of the discussion on political globalization are: It is related to the future. Whether its significance is diminishing and what is the cause of such a change; And to understand the emergence of the concept of global government. The creation and continuation of the UN has been called a classic example of political globalization. Political actions by non-governmental organizations and social movements on various topics such as environmental protection are also major factors.

3. Discussion points

   There are many national institutions and partnerships. But these organizations are usually driven and manipulated by the power of the great powers. This is because there is no central control system unlike the domestic organization. Opinions of developing countries are inevitably weaker than those of the powers. In fact, the international organization is ultimately driven by the interests of the great powers, is this correct?