Globalization and Nation States

В статье рассматриваются основные теории национализма в западном политическом дискурсе, анализирующие неоднозначность функций и вызовов для современной нации-государства. Рассмотрев ключевые этапы развития национализма в европейских странах как постоянную борьбу различных лояльностей (религиозной, национальной/государственной, этнической), автор подчеркивает, что изменение отношения к современному национализму тесно связано с упадком традиционных функций государства глобальной  эпохи, инструментальной ролью национализма для правящих элит и идеологическими вызовами современной социальной науки в форме постмодернистского распада.

Closely associated with China’s growing prominence in international politics are discussions about how to understand Chinese history, and how such perspectives inform the way a stronger China may relate to the rest of the world. This article examines two narratives as cases, and considers how they fit against more careful historical scholarship. The first is the nationalist narrative dealing with Qing and Republican history, and the second is the narrative on the Chinese world order. Analyses of Chinese nationalism tend to see a more powerful China as being more assertive internationally, based in part on a belief in the need to address and overcome past wrongs. Studies of historical regional systems in Asia point to the role that a peaceful ‘Confucian’ ethos played in sustaining a stable Chinese-led order, and highlight the promise it holds for checking regional and international tensions. The two perspectives create an obvious tension when trying to understand China’s rise, which can suggest that using historical viewpoints to understand contemporary developments may be doomed to incoherence. This article argues that difficulties in applying knowledge of the past to analyses of China’s role in contemporary world politics indicate a relative inattentiveness to Chinese and Asian history. It illustrates how the nature of China’s rise may be more contingent on the external environment that it faces than popular received wisdom may indicate. The article suggests that a more extensive engagement with historical research and historiography can augment and enrich attempts to appreciate the context surrounding China’s rise.

For much if not all of modern history, the spectacle of global politics has been pre-eminently dominated by sovereign nation-states, conceived as the supreme political agent, at all times autonomous and sovereign, to be challenged or compelled by none save, perhaps, other, stronger states. In an age of Great Power struggles—or in one of a Superpower Standoff—this ideal-type of the absolute political supremacy (and de jure equality) of nation-states was, of course, an understandable and arguably even indispensable analytical abstraction. In the post-Cold War world, however, the emphasis on the state has come under fire as anachronistic in light of the ‘unprecedented’ structural changes produced (or enabled) by globalization. The question of whether or not (or to what extent) globalization necessarily corrodes the autonomy and power of national governments is of obvious practical interest, and yet remains highly contentious in academia.

This brief paper will broadly underwrite the weaker (and arguably uncontentious) claim that globalization has changed certain political aspects or ‘rules’ with regards to the role, interests and (perceived) options of nation-states within the global system. However it is the strong claim—that globalization is necessarily, uniformly, or unambiguously diminishing (or even terminating) the significance of sovereign states in the domestic or global political spheres—that this argument will challenge. It will be argued that states do still matter in a globalized world, and will continue to do so, but that the dimensions of this significance may be far more fluid and complex than we have been used to in the past.

This provocation shows how five emerging digital citizenship regimes are rescaling European nation-states through a taxonomy: (i) the globalised/generalisable regime called pandemic citizenship that clarifies how post-COVID-19 datafication processes have amplified the emergence of four digital citizenship regimes in six city-regions; (ii) algorithmic citizenship (Tallinn); (iii) liquid citizenship (Barcelona/Amsterdam); (iv) metropolitan citizenship (Cardiff); and (v) stateless citizenship (Barcelona/Glasgow/Bilbao). I argue that this phenomenon should matter to us insofar as these emerging digital citizenship regimes have resulted in nation-state space rescaling, challenging its heretofore privileged position as the only natural platform for the monopoly of technopolitical and sensory power.

Calzada, I. (2022), How Digital Citizenship Regimes Are Rescaling European Nation-States, Space and Polity. DOI: 10.1080/13562576.2022.2072197.

This article entitled 'Cities & Nations' will be published in the June 2015 number of GrandPlace Journal shortly. The author argues that contemporary understanding of nations should include metropolitanisation processes in a new intertwined outcome between community-based nations and urban-based cities.

To cite this article:
Calzada, Igor (2015), Cities & Nations / Hiriak eta Nazioak (in Basque),
Grand Place Journal, Number 3, Issue Identities/Identitateak/Identities. pp 85-91.
DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.24229.45288/2. ISSN: 2386-429X.

“Throughout human history, perhaps even pre-human, there has been a tension between the need for order and the forces that cause change. That tension is greater now than ever, because, in our increasingly globalized world, the rate of change is also increasing. This book finally explains how we can cope: we have stories. We live our narratives.” Brian Spooner, University of Pennsylvania, is editor of Globalization: The Crucial Phase and Literacy in the Persianate World: Writing and the Social Order

"The idea that Axial Ages occurred, and that they provide warnings/opportunities for us today, seems both new and useful. But the value of this book is additional to this stance, in that it looks at cultural change - civilizations - from a complexity viewpoint. These changes are certainly complicated, but the pressures are interwoven and therefore need to be understood as complex. The book does a good job of explaining our present cultural difficulties - our prospective emergencies social, ecological and physical - in a wholly new way. Perhaps we'll get new answers..." Jack Cohen, evolutionary biologist, is co-author of The Collapse of Chaos, with Ian Steward.

"This is a challenging and creative tour de force on comparative, global, world history and cross-cultural, complex societal dynamics. Without doubt one of the most stimulating works in the tradition of big history and macro analysis.” Claudio Cioffi-Revilla, George Mason University, is author of Power Laws in the Social Sciences: Discovering Non-equilibrium Dynamics in the Social Universe.

“In this book, Dmitri Bondarenko (Russia) and Ken Baskin (USA) compare Modernity with the period historians know as the Axial Age (800-200 BCE) as times of transformation, responding to rapidly increasing social complexity. In doing so, they try to apply the experience of the earlier period, and the time of cultural achievement that followed it, to our time of ideological tension among civilizations. The great achievement of this relatively small book is the lucid way in which the co-authors present a picture of complex worldwide developments, based upon their mastery of recent and older literature, and their efforts to point to a way out of the hopelessly divided socio-political situation of today.” Henri J.M. Claessen, Emeritus Professor of Cultural Anthropology, Leiden University, is author of Structural Change; Evolution and Evolutionism in Cultural Anthropology.

“With a lens of great magnification, the authors search through the intricacies of history, selecting its most important threads to weave together. What emerges is a rich tapestry in which the underlying trajectory of history, not clearly visible to the untutored eye, is brought boldly to the surface. And far from being couched in academic jargon—as one might have supposed—the book is a rare combination of brilliant analysis and beautifully crafted prose. Moreover, it ends on a hopeful note with the authors prescribing what they think societies must do if they are to confront and surmount the challenges that lie ahead.” Robert L. Carneiro, Curator Emeritus of Anthropology, American Museum of Natural History, is author of Evolutionism in Cultural Anthropology: A Critical History.

"I find this a very insightful book, that will help readers to place current cultural developments within the framework of our common past, while contemplating what the future may bring." Fred Spier, University of Amsterdam, is President, International Big History Association, and author of Big History and the Future of Humanity.

Abstract: The impact of British rule casts a long shadow over Irish history. While nationalist historians tended to blame Union with Britain for all the economic ills of the 19th century (O'Brien 1921), recent re-evaluations of both historical and recent Irish economic performance have been cause for a reappraisal of the economic relations between Ireland and Britain (Cullen 1969; Kennedy and Johnson 1996). The extent to which economic factors were important in Ireland's withdrawal from the United Kingdom will be examined ...

Abstract
One of the most important debates in the globalization process is on the issue of sovereignty. As it plays a decisive role in many areas with its positive and negative outputs, globalization has serious effects on the state structure, also. Globalization can simply be defined as the process of intensifying all kinds of relationships and increasing interdependence at the global level. Globalization reflects a phenomenon that finds meaning through words such as free movement, intense interaction, integration, transparency of borders, global society and technological development. On the other side of the issue, sovereignty is one of the basic elements that make state a state. Sovereignty is the feature of the state having a single and absolute authorized control mechanism over its country and citizens. Sovereignty is based on the principle that there is no external interference with the state authority within its borders. State sovereignty is experiencing serious difficulties in the period we live and experiences a process in which it is heavily criticized. Globalization is one of the important actors in this process because of the effects that shake the absolute jurisdiction and authority of the states. Such outputs of globalization as the increase of the powers of international organizations, the expansion of the scope of multinational corporations, the cross-border feature of global economic activities, the situation created by international migrants, the discussion on border security because of all kind of free movements, the increasing difficulty of domestic control due to technological developments and especially social media damage state sovereignty directly and indirectly. The future of the states, which gradually lose control over their borders, within the country and on their citizens and find it difficult to resist serious threats like as international terrorism and illegal migration, has also been questioned. In this study, first of all, a conceptual framework will be drawn on globalization and state sovereignty and then the challenge created by the globalization process on the states will be discussed. Finally, a short future projection will be made.

Κατά τον 21 ο αιώνα, οι απειλές για την εθνική ασφάλεια των κρατών έχουν αλλάξει άρδην μορφή και χαρακτήρα και εκπορεύονται πλέον από τρεις κύριες πηγές: τα κράτη, τους μη κρατικούς δρώντες και το (άναρχα και πολυπολικό) διεθνές σύστημα. Οι μη κρατικοί δρώντες έχουν αυξήσει δραματικά την ισχύ και επιρροή τους στο διεθνές σύστημα την επαύριο της λήξης του Ψυχρού Πολέμου. Ως εκ τούτου, οι ένοπλες ομάδες (τρομοκράτες, αντάρτες και οργανωμένο έγκλημα) αμφισβητούν το κρατικό μονοπώλιο στην βία δυναμικώς χάρη σε ορισμένους παράγοντες: α) την πρόσβαση σε υπερσύγχρονα όπλα (μέσω της μαύρης αγοράς) και σε ανθρώπινους και υλικούς πόρους (χάρη στους νέους πολλαπλασιαστές ισχύος κατά την εποχή της παγκοσμιοποίησης και της πληροφορίας), β) την χρήση των νέων τεχνολογιών (πρωτίστως το διαδίκτυο και τα μέσα κοινωνικής δικτύωσης), γ) τη συνεργασία μεταξύ ομοδεϊατών ανά την υφήλιο (π.χ. οι τζιχαντιστές ή οι μαφίες) και δ) τον περιορισμό της κρατικής κυριαρχίας (π.χ. η εκχώρηση των αρμοδιοτήτων της εθνικής ασφάλειας σε υπερεθνικούς οργανισμούς όπως η ΕΕ). Οι απειλές εκ των ενόπλων ομάδων, όμως, ενίοτε υπερβαίνουν τα όρια ενός κράτους όπως αποδεικνύει η έκταση του διεθνούς οργανωμένου εγκλήματος (π.χ. η Ρωσική Μαφία) και της διεθνούς τρομοκρατίας (π.χ. το Ισλαμικό Κράτος). Την εποχή της παγκοσμιοποίησης αναφύονται απειλές εκτός της επικράτειας ενός κράτους που όμως επηρεάζουν το ίδιο και τα υπόλοιπα ποικιλοτρόπως. Η κλιματική αλλαγή, η (παράνομη) μετανάστευση, η (πολιτική / θρησκευτική) ριζοσπαστικοποίηση, τα όπλα μαζικής καταστροφής και οι οικονομικές κρίσεις – καθώς και τα παράγωγά τους (π.χ. η επιστιστική ασφάλεια ή η χρήση όπλων μαζικής καταστροφής από τρομοκράτες) – αποτελούν απότοκα της μη γραμμικής διαδικασίας της παγκοσμιοποίησης. Ως εκ τούτου, δεν επιδέχονται επιτυχούς αντιμετώπισης παρά μόνον σε υπερεθνικό επίπεδο. Ακόμη, όμως, και οι «παραδοσιακές» απειλές εκ μέρους των κρατών μεταλάσσονται. Σε μια εποχή όπου η «διπλωματία των κανονιοφόρων» και ο πόλεμος υποχωρεί δραματικά, τα κράτη υιοθετούν νέες έμμεσες μεθόδους για να επιβάλουν την θέλησή τους. Ο κυβερνοπόλεμος και οι κυρώσεις (οικονομικές και μη) αποτελούν ισχυρά εργαλεία στο οπλοστάσιο ενός κράτους την εποχή της παγκοσμιοποίησης και της πληροφορίας. O υβριδικός πόλεμος, όμως, αντιπροσωπεύει μια ακόμα ισχυρότερη απειλή. Ως όρος εμφανίστηκε σχετικά πρόσφατα (βλ. Πόλεμος Χεζμπολλάχ-Ισραήλ το 2006) και ορίζεται ως μια σύμμειξη του μη συμβατικού και συμβατικού modus operandi (εμπεριέχοντας τον κυβερνοπόλεμο επίσης). Ο υβριδικός πόλεμος δεν υιοθετείται αποκλειστικά από μη κρατικούς δρώντες (π.χ. Χεζμπολλάχ

The impact of British rule casts a long shadow over Irish history. While nationalist historians tended to blame Union with Britain for all the economic ills of the 19th century (O’Brien, 1921), recent re-evaluations of both historical and recent Irish economic performance have been cause for a reappraisal of the economic relations between Ireland and Britain (Cullen, 1969; Kennedy and Johnson, 1996). The extent to which economic factors were important in Ireland’s withdrawal from the United Kingdom will be examined in this paper. A secondary aim is to assess the economic consequences of independence in the interwar period. There were many economic reasons up to 1913 as to why Ireland should separate. UK policy was determined by majority voting and policies were suited to the needs of industrial workers in Britain, rather than agricultural workers in Ireland. This led to increased spending beyond the means of Ireland which caused transition difficulties on independence. Finally the consequences of separation in the north and south of Ireland are examined. Evidence suggests that separation led to short term economic difficulty. In the longer run the south benefited from independence due to weakness in British institutions and the incentive structures created during the interwar period.

Globalization via the digital age is upon us, demanding a new ethics and an intercultural awareness while the dialectics of globalism and cyberspace mandate a committed reflection on what the synthesis between the digital realm and global citizenship entails. In many ways, the borders that previously separated us as citizens physically and culturally have begun to dissipate, replaced by a call for an intercultural accountability and a form of global citizenship that, on one hand, surpasses borders, patriotism, and nationalism alike, but while on the other, demands an understanding and respect for the cultural idiosyncrasies among us, acknowledging the unique existential paradox of universal citizenship that posits each of us as both stranger and citizen on a commonly shared globe.

What is cosmopolitan in the digital age? Is a global digital citizen the same as merely a digital citizen? While talk of digital citizenship has increased in recent years, usually centered on a capitalist drive, encouraging a full electronic participation in society and a responsibility to digital commerce, many questions remain unanswered.  Is the netizen the citizen of a democratic state, and of digital democracy? As a citizen of the world interacting online, how will one’s “rights” and “duties” be determined? And are these “rights” universal, and in such a case, what does “universal” mean? What are the legal parameters of netizenship, and what will they be as globalization further takes hold? Is democracy critical to citizenship, or is it not? What are the political landscapes of global citizenship in the digital age? And last of all, is the concept of digital citizenship even tangible? Is it real?

State sovereignty, in terms of the organisation and expression of political authority by nation states, is traditionally interpreted as a political container that is being weakened by increasing human and non-human mobilities. However recent research indicates that states are themselves becoming more mobile as executive bodies move and sovereign spaces are tactically reduced and expanded to intercept and control global mobilities. While challenging dichotomous notions of mobility and sovereignty, such research frames the movements of governments, territory and sovereign agents as the tactics of already established states. This paper builds on extant research by drawing on both a mobile ontology and Giorgio Agamben's theory of sovereignty to examine how mobilities constitute modern state sovereignty. To do so I examine Australian sovereignty and the related material and symbolic exclusion of asylum seekers arriving by boat. My analysis finds that mobilities, in terms of material movements and their representation, are essential to the construction of Australian sovereignty and the position of maritime asylum seekers as its outsider and limit identity. Through their mobile interception and management, and their representation as mobile ‘others’, maritime asylum seekers are used to create sovereign borders between specific types of movement; between ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’ (im)mobilities. I argue that this form of state sovereignty is disarticulated from space and follows populations who construct territories as being ‘inside’ or ‘outside’ of the Australian state as they move.

Academia should (ultimately and) inevitably overpass its disciplinary boundaries if engaging in knowledge exchange activities in order to tackle political and city-regional challenges. Despite the current post-Brexit scenario's uncertainty and the similarly evolving context of the European regional realm, research collaborations among urban scholars across Europe through interdisciplinary scientific ties are vital to building further democratic cities and regions, even more so now and for the future. The present circumstances urge us to take action in support of this socio-political endeavour to, as it was the main purpose for this visiting fellowship.

This panel organised by Dr Calzada and chaired by Dr Herrschel, has been accepted to be into the programme of UACES (The Academic Association for Contemporary European Studies) Conference in Bilbao.

European regional context is being transformed by the increasingly demand of the sub-national territorial units to reach more devolution and even independence. Under the same devolution regional trend though, many manifestations can be identified that remark their new relationship with their referential nation-states. This panel looks at the concept such as 'devolution', 'independence' and 'self determination' in order to find theoretical and policy-informed evidences in the European arena. Moreover, it looks into ways in which the phenomenon could be explained from different perspective such as, city-regionalism, comparative politics, urban and spatial planning, city diplomacy and social innovation, among others.

This article aims to shed some light on the current debate of the independence in the European broad context that the author entitled 'Postindependence', by pointing out remarkable differences between EU nation-states such as the UK and Spain.

The UK and Spain are not depicted as having the same nation-state DNA with regard to their respective histories and political-cultural traditions. A glance at the current European regional comparative context reveals that, while the UK Government has legitimised the Scottish Government and supported the Scottish Independence referendum as being a highly democratic exercise, Spain stands out as remaining normatively inflexible without, so far, even contemplating any dialogue with the presidents of the Catalan and Basque Autonomies.

The article offers an overview of the push and pull factors characterizing the contemporary exodus from Italy (since 2012 the country has experienced a reversal in its migration flows since more people leave the country rather than entering it). Along with the analysis of social, economic, and political factors playing a role in the outbound migration since the 1990s, the article offers an illustration of the books written on the subject and argues that they reflect over time the different characteristics of the contemporary diaspora to different continents (especially Europe and the Americas). The article is interested in exploring the tensions at play between national agendas, the role of Italian descendants in the country's affairs (citizenship and electoral law), and globalization forces.

This provocation shows how five emerging digital citizenship regimes are rescaling European nation-states through a taxonomy: (i) the globalised/generalisable regime called pandemic citizenship that clarifies how post-COVID-19 datafication processes have amplified the emergence of four digital citizenship regimes in six city-regions; (ii) algorithmic citizenship (Tallinn); (iii) liquid citizenship (Barcelona/Amsterdam); (iv) metropolitan citizenship (Cardiff); and (v) stateless citizenship (Barcelona/Glasgow/Bilbao). I argue that this phenomenon should matter to us insofar as these emerging digital citizenship regimes have resulted in nation-state space rescaling, challenging its heretofore privileged position as the only natural platform for the monopoly of technopolitical and sensory power. Calzada, I. (2022), How Digital Citizenship Regimes Are Rescaling European Nation-States, Space and Polity. DOI: 10.1080/13562576.2022.2072197.

The outbreaks of major pandemics have historically been associated with the proliferation of conspiracy
theories. This article explores what role conspiratorial narratives have played in the development of different
“imagined communities” in the premodern, modern, and contemporary worlds. I argue that the premodern
conspiratorial narratives were mostly focused on eschatological and theological images, aiming to blame and
delegitimise the religious Other. In these imaginary plots, spread of disease was interpreted as an attack on
one’s religious beliefs. The prevalence of religious conspiracies helped reinforce religiously based, yet
temporary, “imagined communities.” With the rise of nation-states and the decline of empires and
patrimonial kingdoms, the periodic outbursts of epidemics gradually attained more nationalist interpretations.
Hence in the modern era, pandemics often triggered the growth of nationalist conspiracies. In these
narratives the threatening Other was usually nationalised, and even traditional religious groups became
reinterpreted as a threat to one’s national security. In recent times, new technologies and modes of
communication have created space for the emergence of global conspiracy theories. The onset of Covid-
19 has been associated with the dramatic expansion of such conspiracies. Some scholars have interpreted this
as a reliable sign that the nation-states and nationalisms have lost their dominance. However, this article
shows that many global conspiracies in fact reinforce nationalist ideas and practices and, in this process,
foster the perpetuation of national imagined communities.

In the modern world, as states find it increasingly difficult to manage their territories, politically and economically, territory – in a new form understood as the ‘city-region’ – has re-emerged as an important element in political life. The interests of these city-regions are bound up with a wide range of territorial strategies, including devolution processes and independence referendums, cross-border cooperation, economic renewal and governance efficiency.

To cite this book:
Calzada, I. (2021), Benchmarking City-Regions, Regions and Cities Series, London and New York: Routledge. ISBN (Hardback): 978-1-138-93258-2 and eISBN: 978-1-138-93258-6 [Forthcoming].

This paper argues that new city-regional configurations are emerging and establishing a regional order beyond nation-states, not only as a consequence of certain nationalistic political devolution claims but also due to the economic renewal and nation-state re-scaling trend advocated by the ‘new regionalism’. Based on the author’s findings , which elucidate the distinction between four nationalistic (Scotland, Catalonia, the Basque Country and Iceland) and four non-nationalistic city-region cases (Oresund, Liverpool/Manchester, Dublin and Portland), this paper highlights that there is no single model for city-regions and emphasises that this trend has become increasingly complex due to its wide range of causes: political devolution and nation-state re-scaling processes (Scotland, Catalonia, Basque, Liverpool and Manchester), flow of commuters (Oresund), democratic regeneration (Iceland) and economic renewal (Dublin and Portland).

This paper benchmarks eight city-regions by systemically investigating their social innovation processes to better understand their dynamics beyond their respective nation-states.

This article explores the failure of democratic nation-states to regulate corporate Internet intermediaries who essentially provide access to websites containing illegal and legal pornographic content. Existing literature credits this apparent diminishing regulatory role of states to neoliberalism. Drawing on Wacquant’s theory of ‘neoliberal statecrafting’ can explain the paucity of state media regulation while also accounting for when states do engage in alternative forms of regulation. Through a thematic analysis of key documents, media and interviews with ‘elite’ stakeholders in Australia and the United Kingdom, this research shows that private actors are generally exempt from state regulation, while individuals are simultaneously subject to punitive mechanisms for problematic and illegal uses of the Internet.