“This transnational phenomena—specifically the hegemonized market—affect the traditionally held state-centric concept of sovereignty as it no longer is the sole significant actor in the already complex interdependence of the global society.”
I. Introduction
Sovereignty as a social construct
IN ORDER to establish how trade hegemony of the “borderless market” has threatened the access and control of Third World Nations’ (TWNs) own resource-rich patrimony, we need to dissect first the central concept that binds these two variables—trade and environment—a conceptual analyses of sovereignty.
On one hand, when we discuss global trade relations, as a means of global division of labor and accrual of wealth, we delve on the nuances of the interdependence of states in the international arena. Hence, we reiterate the
On the other hand, environment, as a source of raw material for the production of commodities which propagate global trade, is in fact also a discourse on a state’s sovereignty and patrimony.
Sovereignty is an inherently social construct that allows us to understand the relationships of nations, as well as the internal political dynamics within a state. It builds a social environment in which states can interact as an international society of states, where the mutual recognition of claims of sovereignty between states is a primal element to the construction of the states themselves.[1]
This becomes the political entity’s externally recognized right to exercise final authority over its affairs. The aspects then of sovereignty, territory, population, authority—recognition—are socially constructed, as is the modern state system. This is because the state is never the product of any solitary institution or discourse.
“The modern state system is not based on some timeless principle of sovereignty, but on the production of a normative conception that links authority, territory, population (society, nation), and recognition in a unique way and in a particular place (the state).[2]”
With the initial statement of arguments above, Philippines—as a duly recognized state—should have final authority over its affairs. We could even go further as to assert the indigenous peoples’ rightful juridical and empirical dominion over its resource-rich ancestral domains, under the premise that they (tribal nations) too, are internationally recognized as quasi-states within a state (e.g. national minority) having their own cultural identity, territory, population, authority and recognition.
However, since sovereignty is a social construct it transforms as global relations to trade and production changes on whose behalf it is reconstructed. Their meanings arise out of interaction with other states and with the international society they form. It is never a finished product; it is always on the process of being constructed and reconstructed.
The emergence of other significant non-state actors has subsequently reconstructed the conceptual definition of sovereignty and its traditional character as a frequently invoked statute for states for protection and defense, when violated.
“During the early 1970s, a number of scholars began to challenge what they characterized as the state-centric bias prevailing in the international relations theory and to stress the need to incorporate important non-state actors like multinational corporations, transnational corporations and international organization into the analysis of international phenomena.[3]”
This transnational phenomena—specifically the hegemonized market—affect the traditionally held state-centric concept of sovereignty as it no longer is the sole significant actor in the already complex interdependence of the global society.
This has eroded that state’s focal role in claiming sovereignty and authority over its patrimony.
(to be cont.,)
No comments:
Post a Comment