Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T22:34:07.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Modern State and its Adversaries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

Helen Thompson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The modern state would be a crisis if consent to long-established sites of authoritative rule were breaking down, previously capable states were unable to command coercive power, and if the demands of international and supra-national institutions had enforceable claims against historically sovereign states. There is no general crisis of the modern state. The states of most developed countries are secure as sites of authoritative rule, and the military power commanded by the American state is unprecedented. However, the external sovereignty of many poor and small states is diminishing. The cause is not ‘globalization’ but the policies of the world's dominant state.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , 2006 , pp. 23 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 See, for example, from different perspectives, James N. Rosenau, Turbulence in World Politics, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1990; Susan Strange, The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996; Justin Rosenberg, The Empire of Civil Society: A Critique of the Realist Theory of International Relations, London, Verso, 1994; Wallace, William, ‘The Sharing of Sovereignty: the European Paradox?’, Political Studies, 47: 3 (1999), pp. 503–21;CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Hawthorn, Geoffrey, ‘Running the World through Windows’, New Left Review, 5 (2000), pp. 101–10.Google Scholar

4 Hont, Istvan, ‘The Permanent Crisis of a Divided Mankind: “Contemporary Crisis of the Nation-State” in Historical Perspective’, Political Studies, 42: special issue (1994), pp. 166–231;CrossRefGoogle ScholarStephen Krasner, Sovereignty: Organised Hypocrisy, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1999.

5 Andrew Moravcsik, The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht, London, UCL Press, 1999.Google Scholar

6 Paul Hirst and Graham Thompson, Globalisation in Question: The International Economy and the Possibility of Governance, 2nd edn, Cambridge, Polity Press, 1999; Linda Weiss, The Myth of the Powerless State, Cambridge, Polity Press, 1998; Wade, Robert and Veneroso, Frank, ‘The Asian Crisis: The High Debt Model Versus the Wall Street– Treasury–IMF Complex’, New Left Review, 228 (1998) pp. 3–23;Google ScholarDani Rodrik and Ethan Kaplan, ‘Did the Malaysian Capital Controls Work?’, in S. Edwards and J. Frankel (eds), Preventing Currency Crises in Emerging Markets, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2002.

7 See, for example, Hirst and Thompson, Globalisation in Question.Google Scholar

8 See, for example, David Held, Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance, Cambridge, Polity Press, 1995; Chris Brown, Sovereignty, Rights and Justice: International Political Theory Today, Cambridge, Polity Press, 2002; Martin Shaw, Theory of the Global State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000.Google Scholar

9 Gross, L., ‘The Peace of Westphalia, 1648–1948’, American Journal of International Law, 42: 20 (1948), pp. 20–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 ‘The Profession and Vocation of Politics’, in Peter Lassman and Ronald Speirs (eds), Weber: Political Writings, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1994, pp. 310–11.Google Scholar

11 See J. R. Lampe, Yugoslavia as History: Twice there was a Country, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996; Susan L. Woodward, Balkan Tragedy: Chaos and Dissolution after the Cold War, Washington DC, Brookings Institute, 1995.Google Scholar

12 Luiz Bresser Pereira, A. Maravall and Adam Przeworski (eds), Economic Reforms in New Democracies: A Social Democratic Approach, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1993.Google Scholar

13 Thompson, Helen, ‘The Modern State, Political Choice and an Open International Economy’, Government and Opposition, 34: 2 (1999), p. 217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Ibid., pp. 203–25.Google Scholar

15 See Rob Jenkins, Democratic Politics and Economic Reform in India, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999.Google Scholar

16 Taggart Murphy, R., ‘Japan's Economic Crisis’, New Left Review, 1 (2000), pp. 25–52.Google Scholar

17 On the place of oil in Venezuela's representative democracy prior to Chavez, see Terry Karl, The Paradox of Plenty: Oil Booms and Petro-States, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1997.Google Scholar

18 See Hakim, Peter, ‘Dispirited Politics’, Journal of Democracy, 14: 2 (2003), pp. 108–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 Levitsky, S. and Murillo, M., ‘Argentina Weathers the Storm’, Journal of Democracy, 11: 2 (2003), pp. 152–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 See, for example, Strange, Retreat of the State; Habermas, Jürgen, ‘The European Nation-State and the Pressures of Globalisation’, New Left Review, 235 (1999), pp. 46–59.Google Scholar

21 Financial Times, 28 April 1999.Google Scholar

22 OECD, Taxation and Investment: An Exchange of Experience between the OECD and the Dynamic Asian Economies, Paris, OECD, 1994; OECD, Taxing International Business: Emerging Trends in APEC and OECD Economies, Paris, OECD, 1997.Google Scholar

23 Andreas Haufler, Taxation in a Global Economy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2001, pp. 14–17.Google Scholar

24 See, for example, Martin Shaw, ‘Globalisation and Post-Military Democracy’, in Anthony G. McGrew (ed.), The Transformation of Democracy: Globalisation and Territorial Democracy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1997; Strange, Retreat of the State; Mary Kaldor, New and Old Wars: Organised Violence in a Global Era, Cambridge, Polity Press, 1999.Google Scholar

25 See Feldstein, Martin, ‘Refocusing the IMF’, Foreign Affairs, 77: 2 (1998), pp. 20–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 See Krasner, Sovereignty, pp. 131–43.Google Scholar

27 Weiler, J. H. H., ‘A Quiet Revolution: The European Court of Justice and its Interlocutors’, Comparative Political Studies, 26: 4 (1994), pp. 510–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 Takis Tridimas, ‘Member-State Liability in Damages for Breach of Community Law: An Assessment of the Case Law’, in Jack Beaston and Takis Tridimas (eds), New Directions in Public Law, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 1998, pp. 11–33.Google Scholar

29 See Moravcsik, Choice for Europe.Google Scholar

30 Ibid., p. 303.Google Scholar

31 Thompson, ‘The Modern State, Political Choice’, pp. 223–5.Google Scholar

32 Elton, G. R., The Tudor Constitution: Documents and Commentary, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1960, p. 344.Google Scholar