Empire

Abstract Debates over globalization in the 1990s typically posited one of two assessments. Either globalization and the nation‐state exist in a zero‐sum balance such that increases in globalization necessarily mean that the sovereignty of the nation‐state is weakening. Or globalization does not indicate a weakening of the nation‐state's sovereignty because nation‐states are represented within the institutions promoting globalization. Therefore, if some complain that market liberalization policies are being forced upon developing countries against their will, we can analyze this phenomenon using familiar concepts or arguments. Those who claim that globalization is not a dramatically new development for the international system can argue that imperialism – projections of national power beyond a nation's territorial boundaries for economic or political advantage – has long been part of world politics. They can point to the political reality that some states are hegemonic and others are weaker, hence vulnerable to the assertion of a strong state's interests. In other words, they would say that legal “sovereignty” has long been circumscribed in the international system by the political realities of national interest and unequal power. “Globalization,” according to those who claim that nothing much has changed, is nothing other than stronger states (sometimes acting through international institutions) imposing policies that suit their interests upon weaker states, and this is nothing new for the international system.