Globalization affects the nation-state in three ways. First, globalization, especially the global marketplace, takes certain powers away from the nation-state. Nation-states are not as in command of their economic futures as they used to be. The best example of this is the increasing inability of governments to control their currencies. Exchange rates are now determined by other people’s assessment of a country’s economic well-being.
At the same time, globalization creates new possibilities and motivations for local cultural autonomy and identities. This “push down effect” of globalization is the reason for the revival of local nationalism and local forms of cultural identity in all parts of the world. It may seem strange but the more we globalize, the more we localize.
The third effect of globalization is that it also pushes sideways. This is best seen in the emergence of regional groupings, which is called “regional states”.
Clearly globalization is a complex set of partly contradictory forces. It is not, as globalization critics suggest, a single force pulling in a single direction.
17、全球化對十大領域的影響
Globalization has various aspects which affect the world in several different ways such as:
1.Industrial （alias trans-nationalization）—emergence of worldwide production markets and broader access to a range of foreign products for consumers and companies.
2.Financial—emergence of worldwide financial markets and better access to external financing for corporate, national and sub-national borrowers.
3.Economic—realization of a global common market, based on the freedom of exchange of goods and capital.
4.Political—political globalization is the creation of a world government which regulates the relationships among nations and guarantees the rights arising from social and economic globalization.
5.Informational—increase in informationflows between geographically remote locations.
6.Ecological—the advent of global environmental challenges that can not be solved without international cooperation, such as climate change, cross-boundary water and air pollution, over-fishing of the ocean, and the spread of invasive species. Many factories are built in developing countries where they can pollute freely.
7.Social—the achievement of free circulation by people of all nations.
8.Transportation—fewer and fewer European cars on European roads each year （the same can also be said about American cars on American roads） and the death of distance through the incorporation of technology to decrease travel time.
9.Cultural—growth of cross-cultural contacts; advent of new categories of consciousness and identities such as Globalism—which embodies cultural diffusion, the desire to consume and enjoy foreign products and ideas, adopt new technology and practices, and participate in a “world culture”.
10.Technical/Legal—development of a global telecommunications infrastructure and greater transborder data flow, using such technologies as the Internet, communication satellites, submarine fiber optic cable, and wireless telephones.
18、全球化擁護者對現有政策的批評
Supporters of globalization are highly critical of some current policies, in particular, the very high subsidies to and protective tariffs for agriculture in the developed world. For example, almost half of the budget of the European Union goes to agricultural subsidies, mainly to large farms and agricultural businesses, which form a powerful lobby. Japan gave 47billion dollars in 2005
in subsidies to its agricultural sector, nearly four times the amount it gave in total foreign aid. The US gives 3.9 billion dollars each year in subsidies to its cotton sector, including 25,000growers, three times more in subsidies than the entire USAID budget for Africa’s 500million people.
This drains the taxed money and increases the prices for the consumers in developed world, decreases competition and efficiency, prevents exports by more competitive agricultural and other sectors in the developed world due to retaliatory trade barriers, and undermines the very type of industry in which the developing countries do have comparative advantages. Tariffs and trade barriers, thereby, hinder the economic development of developing economies, adversely affecting living standards in these countries.
19、對經濟全球化的批評
Most importantly, critics of recent economic globalization see that these developments are not at all occurring in a vacuum, but feed into ethnic, religious, and factional tensions that lead to wars and help breed terrorism. Furthermore, these terrorists, now globally interconnected and empowered with knowledge, create a whole new category of warfare based, in part, on the disruption of the interconnections which are both created by and necessary for globalization. Some commentators believe the nation-state is ill-equipped to deal with this emergent threat.
20、對全球化的批評
Critiques of the current wave of economic globalization typically look at both the damage to the planet, in terms of the perceived unsustainable harm done to the biosphere, and the perceived human costs, such as increased poverty, inequality, injustice and the erosion of traditional culture which, the critics contend, all occur as a result of the economic transformations related to globalization. They challenge directly the metrics, such as GDP, used to measure progress promulgated by institutions such as the World Bank, and look to other measures, such as the Happy Planet Index, created by the New Economics Foundation. They point to a “multitude of interconnected fatal consequences—social disintegration, a breakdown of democracy, more rapid and extensive deterioration of the environment, the spread of new diseases, increasing poverty and alienation” which they claim are the unintended but very real consequences of globalization.
The critics of globalization typically emphasize that globalization is a process that is mediated according to corporate interests, and typically raise the possibility of alternative global institutions and policies, which they believe address the moral claims of poor and working classes throughout the globe, as well as environmental concerns in a more equitable way.
One of the key points made by critics of recent economic globalization is that income inequality, both between and within nations, is increasing as a result of these processes. It is found that significantly, in 7 out of 8 metrics, income inequality has increased in the twenty years ending 2001.Also, incomes in the lower deciles of world income distribution have probably fallen absolutely since the 1980s. Furthermore, the World Bank’s figures on absolute poverty were challenged.
21、反全球化
“Anti-globalization” may involve the process or actions taken by a state in order to demonstrate its sovereignty and practice democratic decision-making. Anti-globalization may occur in order to put brakes on the international transfer of people, goods and ideology, particularly those determined by the organizations such as the IMF or the WTO in imposing the radical deregulation program of free market fundamentalism on local governments and populations.
Anti-globalism can denote either a single social movement or an umbrella term that encompasses a number of separate social movements. In either case, participants stand in opposition to the unregulated political power of large, multi-national corporations, as the corporations exercise power through leveraging trade agreements which damage in some instances the democracy rights of citizens, the environment particularly air quality index and rain forests, as well as national governments sovereignty to determine labor rights including the right to unionize for better pay, and better working conditions, or laws as they may otherwise infringe on cultural practices and traditions of developing countries.
22、反全球化的動機
The motivations of the protesters are often questioned. Some claim key organizers are communists or anarchists who aim to start a revolution. The counter-argument is that the movement has a horizontal power structure, so that the power of individual organizers is limited, and that if violent revolution is considered a real possibility, then it is a clear sign that something is wrong with the current system.
Some critics have claimed there is strong anti-Americanism in the anti-globalization movement. They argue that protesters object to people voluntarily choosing American （or American-style） cultural products. Attempts to prevent the Americanization of French culture are held to be an example. In this sense, anti-globalization is perceived as cultural chauvinism directed against American products, corporations and individuals. These critics contend that anti-global groups routinely favor European-style economic, political and cultural systems, belying a cultural bias.
There is a small far right anti-globalization trend in the United States and some European nations, which exists independently of the much larger left-radical movement.
23、世界政府的概念
World government is the concept of a political body that would make, interpret and enforce international law. Inherent to the concept of a world government is the idea that nations would be required to pool or surrender （depending on point of view） sovereignty over some areas. In effect, a world government would add another level of administration above the existing national governments or provide coordination over areas national governments are not capable of adequately addressing as independent polities.
To date, no nation has officially put forward plans for a world government, although some people do see international institutions （such as the International Criminal Court, United Nations and International Monetary Fund） and various supranational and continental unions （such as European Union, South American Union and Asian Union） as the beginning elements of a world government system. An organization comprised of legislators from various nations known as Parliamentarians for Global Action has promoted ideas of democratic global governance, though such promotion has varied in its scope and intensity during the organization’s history.
24、國家的自主決定權
The principle of self-determination, often seen as a moral and legal right, is that every nation is entitled to a sovereign territorial state, and that every specifically identifiable population should choose which state it belongs to, often by plebiscite. It is commonly used to justify the aspirations of an ethnic group that self-identifies as a nation toward forming an independent sovereign state, but it equally grants the right to reject sovereignty and join a larger multi-ethnic state.
Although there is a consensus that international law recognizes the principle of self-determination, the principle does not, by itself, define which group is a nation, which groups are entitled to sovereignty, or what territory they should get for that purpose. Its application in international law creates a tension between this principle and the principles of territorial integrity and non-intervention in internal affairs.
25、國家自主決定權的原則
The principle of self-determination formally expresses a central claim of nationalism, namely the entitlement of each nation to its own nation state. It has itself become a typical demand of nationalist movements. However, the formal expression of the principle came later than the nationalist movements and the first nation-states. In the 20th century the principle was central to the process of decolonization, but its use was not limited to contesting colonialist or imperialist rule.
Some interpretations of the principle in ethics treat it as a translation or extension of universal rights of individuals （political freedom, freedom of religion, freedom of speech） to a group. Sometimes it is treated as a specific collective right, distinct from individual rights. It is a disputed principle in ethics, with some arguing that no such entitlement exists, other than perhaps the right to resist or secede from tyranny.
26、國家特征與自然生存狀態
To trigger off any philosophy on what should be the characteristics of the state, we must first imagine living in a State of Nature （living with the lack of a state）. Since we cannot trace back to any time that we’ve been without government, we must imagine what it would be like in a State of Nature. What are people like with the absence of a state? There have been many views in answering this question, therefore there have been many differences in views about what the ideal state should be and serve as. A character of a state is described to be the best remedy for the deficiency of the State of Nature.
The pessimistic view of State of Nature depicts life as solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. The first principle of human behavior is egoism, or self-interest, and it is this egoism, that is the root of all social conflict. Although all people are roughly equal, still, if someone has more, others have less. The insecurity regarding what you can keep leads to violence. There are no restraints on people’s actions, so it leads to war. Therefore, any state is better than the State of Nature. Even if it is a corrupt state, you can still benefit more from the corrupt state than you would from the State of Nature which is completely lawless.
27、洛克觀點：自然生存狀態
In Locke’s State of Nature, the State of Nature is ordered by the Laws of Nature, including your Natural Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property. If a man works a piece of land and makes it better and more valuable or useful, it becomes his property. This possession can only be freely contracted away to others, and government. Although the political society is the result of agreements made between people living in a State of Nature, the state must have permission of a person to enforce the law on him. However, if you acquire any property which falls under the jurisdiction of the state, you thereby become a tacit member of that state. Thus, by using the benefits of the state, you have consented to being a member of the state.
28、盧梭觀點：自然生存狀態
Rousseau maintained that human beings were essentially good and equal in the State of Nature, but were corrupted by the introduction of property, agriculture, science, and commerce. People entered into a social contract among themselves, establishing governments and educational systems to correct the inequalities brought about by the rise of civilization.
All of the differences in Rousseau’s theories, when compared to Locke, begin with different interpretations of the State of Nature. Locke believed that most people got along pretty well for the most part by rational intuition, but there were always a few bad apples in the group that forced others to give up their natural rights in a law system in order to be able to punish the exceptions in the society. Rousseau criticizes Locke by saying that he wasn’t really looking at the real State of Nature and that all of the negative qualities of human beings that he had mentioned to be present in the State of Nature were, in fact, a quality brought on by the state of his time.
Rousseau’s version of the State of Nature differs greatly from Locke’s, in which he made no mention of the constant fear which would control man’s life in the state of Nature. Rather, he described the State of Nature as pleasant and peaceful. He described the people in this primitive state as living free, healthy, honest and happy lives, and felt that man was timid, and would always avoid conflict, rather than seek it out. So why a form of social organization? Rousseau asked. He recognized simply, that it would be impossible for man to shake the society and return to a State of Nature.
29、無政府主義觀點：自然生存狀態
Now for the least popular view of all, the anarchist view. It is the most optimistic view of all because it simply states that the State of Nature would be the best state to live in, and that a state would not be necessary. Anarchists view that there are no rotten apples. So far as there are rotten apples in the society, they are the a creation of the government. Anarchists propose that governments are a cause of anti-social behavior, even though they are created in order to remedy it. In the anarchist’s system, the anti-social person will be abandoned, in a sense left out of the cooperative society. In the anarchist’s view, people become perfected because they become cooperative and non-aggressive. But if there were bad apples in a state of anarchism, wouldn’t they become a threat to the society if their anti-social behaviors lead to violence? And it leads to even more questions of insecurity like:without coercion or authority, would people obey the law or does the threat of punishment work to promote more crimes? Would you want to live in a society where there were no punishments for crimes? Maybe public opinion would be enough to keep the society in line. There is always a lot to think about and the arguments go around in circles forever, just because no system works out to be perfect because, there are arguments for every gap or flaw in every rule or theory.