Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Blog #9: SUPERnational!

I would agree with our prompt for this week, due to massive universal challenges that affect thousands of people across the globe, it is necessary to come together under some kind of supernational integrated group.

Think for a moment of tackling the issue of global warming, or any other global issue, if you are a country the size of Iceland, Bhutan or Togo. Perhaps you could have an impact on what you do domestically but domestic reform, especially if you are a small nation, means that it’s hard for you to have a large impact. Just as Dr. Jacob Burksti stated during our presentation on Monday about the EU, smaller countries have a hard time being heard or standing alone in the presence of larger nations. This is one of the key reasons that it is important to acknowledge the benefits of a constructivist / supernational approach.

The economic status of the globe can be categorized similarly to the issue of global warming. As seen in the present conditions of global economics, we’re all linked. As one large nations economy falters, other countries economies are directly affected. Allowing for economic supernational integration may allow nations to help limit this trend and ease the economic depression felt by those countries that are smaller. Just as global warming is an issue that small countries may not be contributing to as quickly as larger nations, the global economy is similar. As Zimbabwe’s economy has continued to spiral downward due to massive inflation, the United State’s economy has remained largely unaffected by it. But it’s fair to say that small nations felt the effect of the United State’s economic downturn. Allowing for supernational integration could perhaps help us to regulate our economies so that the little guy isn’t always the one getting stepped on.

Overall the utilization of supernatial integration could do a lot for the betterment of the globe.

2 comments:

  1. But Sarah, wouldn't a powerful state still have a larger voice than a smaller one anyway? A powerful, established state, it seems to me, would approach involvement in supranational integration in a couple of ways. It could do as France and Germany are doing, and drown out the smaller states in the integrated order; the powerful economies would help the smaller states, but the power of the established nation would overwhelm the others. OR, the state might take a British approach, decide NOT to acquiesce to other state's worries - and just leave. Couldn't a powerful nation-state exist outside of a supranational superstate? Wouldn't it have INCENTIVES to do so, if it could keep its autonomy?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great question from Tom.

    This comment's just meant to play devil's advocate, hopefully we can stir up some sort of discussion.

    Regarding the economy, I'm not entirely sure that multilateral action is necessary. It seems to me that it's within a state's best interest to have a strong and healthy economy but subsequently to have a better economy than competitors in the international system. While I think that multilateral action on economic issues can be good, I don't see the importance in including smaller and "less important" states. The reason being is that larger states tend to require a larger amount of resources to survive. This means that they're probably the most likely to contribute to problems such as global warming. Maybe a concentrated effort with the largest economies would be a better solution to addressing issues such as global warming.

    ReplyDelete