States are as old as human civilisation. Territorially-based political systems in which a ruler (usually a king) claimed supreme power and authority go back to the 4th millennium BC. From the 17th century, states have become the backbone of the international political system, based on the principle of sovereignty, which implies that all states are formally equal (regardless of their size) and exercise supreme power within their (more or less precisely defined) borders. Starting in Europe, the number of sovereign states gradually expanded, and more rapidly so after World War II, as a result of decolonisation, to become a globally encompassing system of more than 190 states.
Reasons for global transformation
There are many reasons why this global state system is problematic. First, notwithstanding the principle of sovereignty, states have not refrained from interfering in each other’s affairs. In particular, the most powerful states have commonly imposed their will on smaller, less powerful states in pursuit of political, economic and other interests. Unsurprisingly, this has led to many conflicts, wars, and suffering. Second, given the absence of a global authority with supreme and absolute power, reigning in the exercise of power by “bully states” is very difficult and relies foremost on powerful coalitions of states. However, this reliance on a “balance of power” has often failed, leading to conflict and war on an even larger scale. Third, given these two reasons, it is also highly problematic to get states to agree and address issues of common concern, especially at the global level. At best, global agreements get officially signed but are only partially or poorly implemented by governments as they are not given the weight or priority they deserve.
The failure of this system to cope effectively with the environmental challenge has been amply demonstrated since the beginning of the environmental era. Moves towards environmental integration at the international and global levels have been modest and largely ineffective, with the occasional exception. The reasons for this mirror the socio-cultural, political-institutional, and political-economic factors at the national level, compounded by the competitive nature of the global state system and the rivalry for dominance or hegemony between major powers, both regionally and globally. Economic globalisation has served the interests of US-based and EU-based capitalism well at the social, environmental, economic, and political expense of many of their own citizens and those of other states, eroding their sovereignty.
A turning point in globalisation?
However, since the late 1990s, the heydays of globalisation, the global situation has changed markedly. First, economic globalisation has lost much of its lustre as many so-called developing countries have decided that there is little, if any, benefit in (further) opening their borders to foreign capital and trade if such measures are not reciprocated sufficiently by high-income countries. Concerns about the adverse social, economic, environmental, and political effects of economic globalisation on societies (as pointed out by the anti- or alternative globalisation movement) started gaining broader recognition. Second, the financial-economic crises of 1997 (the “Asian crisis”), the 2008 financial-economic crisis, and the crises in Argentina, Mexico, and other countries, exposed the vulnerability of the globalised financial system and the structural nature of economic stagnation in the rich countries (the absence of new significant drivers of economic growth in the real economy). Third, the rise of China as a global economic and military power, facilitated by economic globalisation, was increasingly seen as a threat by Western powers, particularly by the United States, to its hegemony. Fourth, the deindustrialisation and socio-economic decline brought about by economic globalisation in the United States, the United Kingdom, and other European countries, along with the sharpening of inequalities in wealth and income, eroded support for and legitimacy of economic globalisation. Fifth, the global COVID-19 pandemic that began in 2020 not only caused enormous economic and social disruption around the world but also put the spotlight on the crucial role of states in providing comprehensive security (health, social, and economic) to their citizens. In combination, these developments indicate that the pendulum has swung back from globalisation towards the rediscovery of the importance of the state’s role, functions, and capacities for meeting (more or less effectively) the needs of their citizens and dealing with the risks, problems and pressures facing societies.
While it is impossible to predict where these global political-economic and geopolitical developments will lead, and views about the possibility of global transformation can only be highly speculative, this should not deter debate about these matters. However, what seems clear is that, for the foreseeable future, (nation-) states, especially the major powers, are not going to disappear or voluntarily subject themselves to a world government or other global institutions (rules and organisations) that they perceive to be (potentially) damaging to their power and interests. They may cooperate in matters and in ways that serve their interests, as the Institutionalist school of thought emphasises, but their foreign policies and actions are more plausibly explained based on a mix of the Realist and Political-Economy perspectives. Cosmopolitanism hardly gets a look-in.
Transformation from the bottom up
The political reality described above implies that global transformation (rather than weak or symbolic reforms) aimed at environmental integration and/or advancing global social justice must come from bottom-up rather than top-down initiatives. Citizens and countries have no other option: they cannot impose global transformation unless they are or become a globally hegemonic power, like the US has been for about half a century following World War II. However, apart from whether the US is still a global hegemon, it is doubtful that any global hegemon (or a world government) would be willing and able to impose an effective global environmental protection regime. Rather than waiting for a global hegemon to create a sustainable world, it is more realistic and desirable for the citizens of countries to work towards transformational change within their own borders.
Despite globalisation, states remain very important to the well-being of people. Restoring economic sovereignty is crucial to meet their core functions more effectively. But transformation at the national level does not imply taking an isolationist path and/or aspiring to complete autarky. Few countries could become self-sufficient at more than a basic level, even though this would be far preferable to the societies commonly depicted in apocalyptic literature and movies. Countries can enhance their resilience and productive capacity by cooperating with like-minded states that have also embarked on the transformation path, especially if they have spare environmental space that can be utilised sustainably for a complementary exchange of goods. There is no a priori reason why all trade should be rejected as long as the countries involved ensure that the use of their resources is and remains within truly sustainable limits. The respective societies may deem trade in particular goods and services desirable or essential.[1] In principle, the more extensive the network of countries engaged in trade on that basis, the greater the range and diversity of sustainably produced goods and services their populations will enjoy. At the same time, these countries are likely willing and able to forge more effective international agreements (aimed at sources and causes of environmental pressure) among themselves, the effects of which may become more meaningful as more countries join them.
Ultimately, international or global economic cooperation between all major countries will be necessary if humanity is to create a much less unsustainable world. Levels of production and consumption, as well as their associated resource use and environmental impacts, must be brought to globally sustainable levels. Sustainability in one country is impossible if the rest of the world continues on an unsustainable path. If, and that is a big if, countries with a critical mass of power (economic, political-institutional, physical, social, cognitive) behind them adopt fundamental transformation as a path towards sustainability, and if they do so in a coordinated manner, the chances of bringing about global transformation will be significantly higher. No one can tell whether this possible scenario has a real chance of happening. This will depend on how many and which countries put themselves on the transformation path, as well as unforeseen events and developments.
One might object that the path towards global transformation sketched above is based foremost on an appeal to realism and its underlying assumption of (national) self-interest. Appealing to people and governments to prioritise moving towards less unsustainable systems in their own countries may seem selfish. However, as noted above, it is the only feasible and realistic way for people to make meaningful progress towards creating a sustainable and desirable society within their borders. At the same time, this can involve cooperation with other countries that have also chosen to adopt this approach. To go one step further, it can be argued that this bottom-up approach can only be successful if combined with a cosmopolitan orientation and ethic. This does not imply advocating for a world government, but rather a recognition of shared humanity and a common interest in protecting the planet as humanity’s shared home. While countries that put themselves on a transformative path may do so because this is, for now, their only realistic choice, from the beginning, they will have to do so based on a cosmopolitan perspective if they are genuinely concerned about long-term sustainability.
Priority areas for cooperation
What this means, in practical terms, is open to debate. However, at least three interrelated areas where humanity shares a common interest must be incorporated into a cosmopolitan ethic and values system. These are the recognition of global environmental limits, the need to equitably share the world’s resources (and environmental space) within those limits, and the need to build a global comprehensive security system.
Environmental imperatives
There is no need to elaborate on the first area of common interest, respecting global environmental (ecological, resource, and human) limits, as this imperative has already been widely recognised, at least in principle. In practice, it means that countries pursuing a transformative path cannot only examine what is genuinely sustainable within their borders, but also need to respect, for instance, global ecological limits such as those linked to greenhouse gas emissions and various forms of pollution that cross borders. Any activity in a country with adverse environmental effects (on the biophysical and the human-made environment) beyond its borders must be addressed as equally unacceptable as those within its borders. The same standards must apply. This also means not harming another country’s biophysical environment and people for the benefit of a country’s citizens, even if such practices are condoned by the governments of these countries. This has nothing to do with paternalism or not recognising another country’s sovereignty. Instead, it is about making it clear that the citizens of one country do not want to be complicit in practices that are damaging to humans (wherever they live) and the environment.
Tackling inequality
The second closely related area in which countries pursuing sustainability should adopt a cosmopolitan perspective is the equitable sharing of the world’s resources and the benefits derived from them. Recognising the need for this can be based on ethical principles (respecting the basic human needs, potential, and equal rights of all humans) and on realist political grounds. A world that does not respect these social imperatives and accepts the continuation (or even worsening) of the enormous inequalities within countries and at the global level not only tramples on the principle of common humanity but will never be sustainable and at peace. Humans will always resent and fight the inequality that they see as unjustifiable and resulting from exploitation (based on power differentials).
While addressing inequality at the global level may seem like a pipe dream in the current world, countries that put themselves on a transformative path should not simply ignore this imperative. Again, they can respect and implement it within the scope of their capacities through their choices and actions. Even if there is no global agreement, this does not imply that they cannot and should not adopt a cosmopolitan orientation. One way they could achieve this is by reducing their consumption of resources to within what can be regarded as globally sustainable levels, calculated on a per capita basis. Given the strong link between the level of income and resource use (as reflected in research on material flows and consumption, environmental space, and ecological footprints), and the extent to which existing levels of resource use are deemed unsustainable, it is possible to determine what can be considered a globally sustainable average level of income. This income level could serve as a basis for adopting national-level (and, if possible, global) income policies. Countries committed to sustainable transformation could use this to calculate their degree of over (or under) consumption and for transferring a fair amount of finance to a global fund from which equitable allocations (rather than aid) would be made to under-consuming countries. Again, at least initially, this does not have to be a global fund, and it can be gradually built up by countries that sign up for such an international arrangement. However, it would be logical to expect transfers to occur only between countries that have adopted and are implementing fundamental transformation policies and institutions. Although societies may differ on the degree of inequality deemed desirable or acceptable within their own borders, all countries committed to transformation should adopt the globally sustainable average level of income and wealth as the basis for transfers. Although this idea will need much work and deliberation before it can be implemented, the willingness to globally share income and wealth derived from the Earth’s resources is, in my view, a more genuine measure of cosmopolitan thinking than advocacy for world government or disempowering or even eliminating states.[2]
Enhancing security
Security is the third area in which global thinking and collective action are imperative. Security can be interpreted narrowly (in the sense of military or national security) and/or comprehensively (including human and environmental security). While these different forms are interrelated, and ultimately security can only be achieved if they are all realised, the narrow interpretation (still) tends to dominate in definitions of the security function of states, as reflected in government discourse on security and the importance or priority assigned to government expenditure on the military (including research) and police. Although the protection of a country’s economic interests is also commonly included in this interpretation (for instance, secure access to vital resources and protection against attacks on critical infrastructure), these are also foremost defined from a national rather than a global perspective. Yet, as noted before, even in the narrow sense, efforts aimed at achieving security at the nation-state level increasingly make no sense given the vulnerability of all states to the direct and indirect effects of large-scale military conflict. They are also objectionable because of the enormous human suffering caused by such conflicts and the wastefulness and environmental damage associated with military expenditure and action. If there is one area in which the erosion of state sovereignty and the establishment of a strong global agency (perhaps under the control of a Global Citizens’ Authority) is warranted, it is that of the control of physical (military) force. If all states (including all the major powers) were to accept the creation of such an authority, responsible for preventing military conflict between states, this state function would be fulfilled much more effectively and at far lower costs.
There is no need to point out that this idea is utopian in the present geopolitical and political-economic reality. Nonetheless, or perhaps for this reason, countries that are seriously committed to advancing sustainability have no choice but to try to advance security from the bottom up. Specifically, this may involve advocating for global agreements on military expenditure (gradually reducing military spending), strengthening the role of the United Nations (among others, by creating a more inclusive Security Council), and shifting military expenditure towards protecting human and environmental security globally. Also, when and where the countries that have put themselves on the transformation path feel or are threatened by other countries, they could form alliances to pool their military resources and adopt collective strategies to (try to) deter such threats. It speaks for itself that the latter’s effectiveness would largely depend on the collective power of such alliances. However, this capacity can be built and expanded from the bottom up, becoming increasingly significant and effective.
Threats to a bottom-up approach
Yet, there should be no illusions about the reactions of capitalist interests and elites to the perceived or actual threats of the transformation initiatives of countries. Any country that breaks with capitalism can expect to encounter a hostile reaction from the centres of capitalism. At the very least, these will depict such initiatives as foolish and disastrous, thereby deterring other people and countries from following in their footsteps. There are likely to be economic retaliation measures, sanctions, and boycotts (as illustrated by the way Cuba has been treated by the United States). In this context, handling the reactions of the capital markets will be crucial. Countries that issue their own currency and have minimised international debt are in a stronger position in this respect, as they can rely on that currency to meet many of a society’s needs.[3] The greater the number of countries that adopt a transformation pathway, the more problems this will pose to capital accumulation and profit maximisation by transnational businesses (TNCs, banks and other financial institutions). Closing off these opportunities in a growing number of countries may instigate the dominant political-economic classes or elites in these countries to threaten or use force to bring about regime change. At worst, reactions may involve foreign intervention and military force to bring the deserters back into the capitalist camp or even to destroy them if they resist this more or less effectively—wars and manufactured disasters can open up significant new opportunities for capital accumulation.[4]
One hardly wants to contemplate this scenario, but history has shown that this possibility cannot be ruled out. This emphasises the importance for countries that have chosen the transformation pathway to be active in international diplomacy and forge strong alliances rather than withdraw into isolationism. Such efforts should contain any inclinations by militarily powerful countries to use force against those engaged in fundamental transformation.
However, realistically, the chances of global transformation hinge on what happens in the major powers, notably the United States, China, India, and the European Union. If one of those polities were to embark on a path of fundamental transformation, this would significantly enhance the chances, especially if much of the world were aligned with that power in a progressive bloc. If two of those global powers were to join such a coalition of forces, that might be sufficient to practically force the remaining powers onto a more self-sufficient path. Thus, ultimately, the success of a bottom-up approach to global sustainability rests on the ability of a coalition of smaller countries to gradually expand their global influence and to persuade (one or more of) the major powers to accept that fundamental transformation is the only pathway towards retaining a planet suitable for the survival of the human species. At some stage, this might imply maintaining global (military) security through a global agency under the control of a Global Citizens’ Authority. But this seems a long way off, even though this is one area where globalisation is an absolute imperative and priority.
Conclusion
The chances of a fundamental global political-institutional and/or political-economic transformation being initiated and effectively implemented from the top, driven by environmental and/or social concerns, are slim. Realistically, global transformation driven by social and environmental concerns and priorities can only be pursued with some chance of success from the bottom up and by transformed states and their cooperative networks. This does not mean that all efforts aimed at international and global environmental protection on all kinds of issues should be abandoned. These sometimes lead to agreements and actions that are better than nothing. However, they do not address or tackle the sources or causes of the problems. The necessary global transformation is only possible through a bottom-up process in which states take their own fundamental transformation seriously. The more states that do so, the greater the chances of global transformation, although this will remain a big challenge for some time.
References
[1] This approach aligns with that advocated by Hines, who proposes that countries conclude a “General Agreement on Sustainable Trade” and set up a “World Localisation Organisation” to strengthen their economic sovereignty and capacity. Hines, Colin (2017, ebook ed.), Progressive Protectionism: Taking Back Control. Park House Press, Loc 92.
[2] For an exploration of this idea, see Bührs, Ton (2011), “Global Environmental Justice and Global Income Policy”, Paper presented at the 10th Global Conference: Environmental Justice and Global Citizenship, Mansfield College, Oxford, 8-10 July.
[3] For further discussion on how a country can regain control over its own economy see Mitchell, William (2016), “Eurozone Groupthink and Denial on a Grand Scale”, World Economic Review, 43-55; Mitchell, William and Thomas Fazi, Reclaiming the State: A Progressive Vision of Sovereignty for a Post-Neoliberal World. London: Pluto Press. The authors argue that most EU members would be better off abandoning the Euro, given its stifling effects on their economies.
[4] As Naomi Klein has documented in her book on “disaster capitalism”. Klein, Naomi. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. New York: Picador.