REDEFINING THE ROLE OF THE STATE AS A SECURITY GUARANTOR IN THE ERA OF GLOBALIZATION

Abstract

The beginning of the 21st century is defined by a series of paradoxes. In security terms, even though we are at a very high level of global interconnections and interdependences, this fact does not translate into a safer world, a less conflictual or more organized one. The present research is aiming to identify the nature of the connection between globalization and security, according to the literature and the consequences of this connection from the perspective of the risks and threats that globalization can pose to security. The last part of the research is reserved to the role of the state as a guarantor of security in the new architecture of the globalized security environment. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Headnote

The beginning of the 21st century is defined by a series of paradoxes. In security terms, even though we are at a very high level of global interconnections and interdependences, this fact does not translate into a safer world, a less conflictual or more organized one.

The present research is aiming to identify the nature of the connection between globalization and security, according to the literature and the consequences of this connection from the perspective of the risks and threats that globalization can pose to security. The last part of the research is reserved to the role of the state as a guarantor of security in the new architecture of the globalized security environment.

Keywords: globalization; security; effects of globalization; risks; asymmetrical threats; national state

1. Globalization and security. Conceptual delimitation

Globalization is perhaps one of the most actual, debated and even controversial worldwide phenomena, having repercussions on all the human activity areas and as a consequence on all the sectors and dimensions of security.

The literature offers an abundance of studies on globalization, but in most of the cases this is approached from economic perspective, this being easier to observe and measure, meanwhile the link between globalization and security is less exploited, being more difficult to observe and measure.

In order to establish the coordinates of this link between globalization and security, a scientific conceptual approach is needed, in an attempt to make a notional delimitation about what globalization is and is not, and then about what security is, all those reflecting on the nature of the previous mentioned relation.

The literature is abundant in defining the globalization process.

Thus, globalization can be defined as a reality of the contemporary world that puts its mark on every human activity area (economic, political, military, social, cultural, scientific, technological, ecological) an adds a distinction in prioritizing the levels of influence: "Above all, globalization is a geoeconomic process and then a geopolitical and geocultural one... globalization is a complex phenomenon that has a profound implication in all the human activity areas."1 Basically, the economic power is the first coordinate which transcends the spatial borders, creating interconnections and interdepen- dences and facilitating the evolution of technology, communications and means of transport.

Another definition confines the globalization concept as "not an event, but a gradual and ongoing expansion of an interaction process, forms of organization, and forms of cooperation outside the traditional space defined by sovereignty. Activity takes place in a less localized, less isolated way as transcontinental and inter regional patterns which cross and overlap one another."2 Also, he makes the difference between globalization and the simple interconnections by adding to this dimension the inter-penetrations, measured in terms of movement of goods and capital, to which the movement and the inter-penetrations of people and ideas is added.

Also, globalization could mean "the domination of ideas, products, powers, etc, but it is neither equal nor universal." the same author underlines, however, the lack of a rigorous definition, which increases the possibility of this process to "become a cliché, a grand idea that captures absolutely everything that happens around us and cannot be explained coherently, or the cause of all the problems that the world economy and the contemporary society are dealing with."3

Last, but not least globalization is "a controversial notion in the sphere of the economic, political and cultural studies"4, fact confirmed by reviewing the literature, controversy that brings positive visions based on the advantages of globalization, negative visions based on its negative outcome and also a moderate vision that combines the two approaches, making of globalization a process that brings both opportunities and vulnerabilities in all dimensions of international environment.

In our current research, we relate to a definition considered among the most used ones: "globalization represents the process by which the geographical distance becomes a gradually less important factor in establishing and developing cross-border economic, political and socio-cultural relations. The networks of relations and dependencies acquire a growing potential of becoming international and worldwide ones"5 a definition which is comprehensive enough, but also general and neutral enough in order not to point either the negative or the positive effects of this process.

Regarding the concept of security, literature offers a multitude of versions and definitions, comparable from this point of view to defining the globalization concept. It has been concluded that "this notion is not absolute, but relative and its projection at national and international level reflects a certain gradualist approach"6.

According to the Romanian Explicative Dictionary, "the term of security originates from the Latin word securitas-securitatis, notion that means "the state of being at shelter/ being protected of any danger; the feeling of confidence and peace of mind that the absence of any danger gives to someone"7... The security becomes real and effective when it acquires the dimension of certainty and for the collective security nothing can be more important than the certainty of the frontiers, the territorial unity and integrity of the states, preserving the language, culture and spirituality8.

At a practical level, a definition of this security concept, comprehensively enough, to which we will relate in terms of globalization and outcome of the link between security and globalization states that "security is a state represented by the system of favorable internal and international, ecological, social, economic, military, diplomatic, political, informational and cultural conditions, in which every human community activates." To this adds a classification based on the geographical environment in which it manifests: "national security (when we take into consideration the territory of a state), regional security (includes several states from a specific geographical area) and the international security (captures the whole Planet)"9. Also, the author acknowledges that national security can be considered a component of international security and consists in "guaranteeing the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens, protecting the sovereign and independent, unitary and indivisible national state, consolidating the rule of law and the democratic institutions, ensuring a decent standard of living for the population, protecting and promoting the national interests worldwide"10, meanwhile international security "consists in a state of dynamic balance, outcome of the multiple and complex interactions between the states of the world, in the pursuit of natural human activity". This involves "that state of normality for the planetary security environment in which the threats and risks that can affect the physical and mental integrity of a person, as well as their material goods, are under the effective control of those who manage human activity both at national and global level."11

Therefore, from the perspective of action areas, we can observe that the concept of security has been associated to different sectors such as: economic, political, military, environmental, etc; so concepts as: economic security, cultural security, social security, etc can be explained, concepts which make of security a concept with practicability in all the human activity areas. The same thing is valid in the case of the globalization concept.

Both globalization and security are concepts which lack a notional clarity, the link between these two being thus even more difficult to define.

In the security context, a very relevant definition is the one made by Philippe Delmas, stating that globalization is "an ensemble of ideologicalpolitical beliefs, having a consensus in the analysis of the planetary dimension which the political, technological, economic and social challenges humanity is facing at the present has gained."12

Therefore, it is essential for the security notion that globalization does not act unidimensionally, but in all the areas of human activity (economic, political, social, cultural, etc). National, regional, international security is unequal and capable of contracting the spatio-temporal dimension, increasing the degree of interdependence and interconnection between the groups that interact both at macro and micro level of decision locally, regionally and worldwide. Globalization is a process whose main characteristic is the paradox itself, explained as follows: "globalization unites and divides, approaches and separates, but it also disrupts; it enhances wealth, but also extends the poverty area."13

Other authors see globalization as a necessity of the modern age due to its possibility of decreasing the vulnerabilities created by "the accelerating technological advances and information technology, the deepening of the strategic fissures between the civilized world and its major effects of marginalization of some populations, regions and even continents, the combat against threats of all kind and the management of crisis and conflicts", but they point out that it has "a multitude of other effects, including negative ones, within the global, regional and national security."14

2. Risks and threats towards security posed by globalization

Globalization's effects on security are less approached for at least two reasons: first because since the end of superpower competition due to the end of the Cold War, these effects often merge with the changes in the international agenda and second, because these effects are harder to conceptualize and measure as opposed to the economic ones which, for example, are manifested and measured by means of the international capital flows or of the internet use.15

Globalization's effects on security are less approached for at least two reasons: first because since the end of superpower competition due to the end of the Cold War, these effects often merge with the changes in the international agenda and second, because these effects are harder to conceptualize and measure as opposed to the economic ones which, for example, are manifested and measured by means of the international capital flows or of the internet use.15

As previously stated, the effects, which we may consider in the present research as the security effects of globalization, are both positive and negative and they can be summarized as follows16:

* the feeling of belonging or of solidarity between states belonging to the same region may experience an accentuation. For example, Ignacio Ramonet claims that this actual situation is more of a chaos, one of its peculiarities being the rebirth of the nationalist sentiments itself and the increase of the fundamentalist ones17;

* the magnification of solidarity between the states of the world regarding the peacekeeping at regional and worldwide levels, preventing and controlling the conflict and crisis, solving the major humanitarian problems, the terrorism; etc.;

* the deconstruction and the rebuilding of the actual international system can generate some crisis of diverse nature (economic, religious, ethnic or national one, etc);

* the increased economic interdependence between the worldwide states can determine the increase in stability at a regional and global level;

* the increased sensitivity of the world economy towards any local or regional malfunction or difficulty;

* the reduced possibilities of anticipation and prevention of economic and financial crises and politico-economic syncopes can threat and disrupt the technological and military capacity of a country or even more than one;

* the decreasing level of national security due to the very high level of dependence between the resources, information and technologies of different countries; the international interdependences can affect the independence of the governmental decisions, according to national interests and to the negative repercussions towards other fields than the economic one (such as the cultural identity, controlling criminal groups and cross-border mafia, etc.);

* the appearance and proliferation of some asymmetrical threats and risks with negative effects felt by many countries such as: proliferation of the terrorist and human traffic mafia networks, drugs, weapons, military and nuclear technologies; breaking of the informational and banking systems; disinformation and manipulation of information, the decreasing authority of the state and the encouragement of creating autonomous, mafiatype structures with powerful international ramifications, which leads to the globalization of organised crime, the emphasis of economic, financial and political dependency of the developing states on the developed ones; the expansion of clandestine immigration; the environmental challenges.

We may assert that the positive effects of the globalization are given especially by the advantages of the high level of international cooperation, meanwhile the negative ones are the consequences of a much too fast development of the interaction between the humanity and the strategic resources (the information resources, the modern technological resources, etc.) - on one side - and on the other side, of the much too rapid interaction between civilizations and values

Regarding the source of those effects, some authors say these are occurring due to the globalization process: "globalization implies... biunivocal relations (between the states with the same level of development) and univocal relations (between the states with different levels of development), being active (in the first case) and passive (in the second case), taking into consideration the economic, political and cultural power of the states engaged in this process "18. KofiAnnan, former General Secretary of the UN, observes that "the benefits of globalization are unevenly distributed, meanwhile the disadvantages devolve upon all."19

Relating to the security risks, Ignacio Ramonet points out the fact that the most profound effects of globalization involve the complication of the "threat" notion: "the enemy has become a monster with thousands of faces that can mean arise of the demographic boom, drugs, mafia, the nuclear proliferation, ethnic fascism, AIDS, the Ebola virus, organized crime, Islamic fundamentalism, the greenhouse effect, the desertification, the population migration, the radioactive clouds, etc."20 Also, he draws attention to the fact that this threats do not have boundaries, so that retaliation cannot be made with the traditional weapons of war.

Regarding the territorial dimension of security, it will manifest as national security risks in the first place and then the regional and global risks. Practically speaking, all those threats first have implications at local dimension and then, based on their spreading potential, at regional or international dimension.

Globalization can also lead to an increase in the occurrence of risk materialization by the simple fact that this process has radically modified "the capabilities placed in service of the threats."21 Globalization creates opportunities for the insecurity generating actors by means of technology, diversification and expansion of communication and transport means.

Victor D. Cha appreciates that those who produce threats can belong to state actors, nonstate actors and individuals. The simple question that arises is: who is leftthe task to oppose them and what is the role of the state in this equation?

In the following lines, the present research is trying to find a possible answer to this question.

3. Globalization and the state's role in providing security

The security threats and risks arisen as a consequence of the globalization process bring forth the need for a "new order" that redefines the responsible actors for the individual, national, regional and global security. The process of remodeling the world can be explained through the following aspect: "in the last decade the events, phenomena and increasingly dynamic and complex mutations have accelerated the process of remodeling the world ... leading to that new order, a reset of the international system."22 Examples of this kind of manifestations are numerous: the 9/11 2001, the terrorist attacks from Madrid and London, but also the transformation of regional organizations (NATO and EU expansion to the East, reforming the EU through the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009 and NATO through adopting the New Strategic Concept in 2010), or China's rising influence, the global warming, the emergence of some pandemics such as H1N1, the Libyan war, the popular riots in North of Africa and the Middle East at the beginning of 2011, the increase in the frequency of the energy crisis.

Reorganizing the international system is likely to change the position of the national state both aatt the level of actions against the actual security risks and in terms of security structures of transnational organizations which are undergoing a redefnition process..

Traditionally, the state has been considered a security guarantor, power being measured in terms of military capacity, economic power and natural resources. The ability to transform these assets in exercise of influence determined Sean Kay to claim the fact that globalization forces states to redefine the meaning of the power concept.23 In his vision, globalization brings important changes in the nature of power dynamics: the asymmetrical power, the state power, the role of human resource, the role of ideas and the power of media. Therefore, new coordinates have been added to the power, such as: human resource, informational resource and technological advance.24 Given the international dynamics, flows and movements of these sources of power and the fact that they exceed the frontiers of the national state and its ability to have total control over them, the traditional position of the state is now in a process of redefinition. Basically "no state, regardless of its size (area and population), level of economic development, political regime, military power can oppose this process" of globalization and that there are trends towards "realizing a global community" which changes "the whole life of the nations".25 Relating this aspect to the concept of security translates into modifications of the state's implication in ensuring and supporting security.

Analyzing the role of the state in this new architecture generated by globalization, the following finding is particularly relevant: "the globalization theories present either hyperglobalist scenarios, or state-centered scenarios."26. It is thus emphasized that the sovereignty of the states is being questioned, arguing "the lack of relevance of geographical anchored jurisdiction" in the circumstances that "globalization cleaves the geographical borders more and more", focusing on the influence transfer from geographical space to cyberspace.27 "Sovereignty is becoming relative" is another finding and this supports the idea that "the fundamental problem faced by any state remains identifying a new balance between international competition and preserving the national cohesion; between the new geoeconomic requirements and those belonging to the traditional geopolitics and geostrategy." As a solution to the inability of the state to avoid the globalization effects, "replacing the state concept understood as a whole sovereign state by the meaning of a state understood as a place of concentration of influence networks and relationships"28 is estimated the only possible one.

At the level of international action, it is a real and visible fact that the national state is not at its end of existence, but what has changed is the space in which security actions are applied: "a postsovereign space whose spectrum ranges from nonstate to sub-state and trans-state arrangements" and that the state has less control, globalization acting in both ways: "widening boundaries, but also weakening them." To the traditional security role (defending the territory and its sovereignty) globalization adds the necessity of defending the technological and informational assets.29

These statements are reinforced and justified: the state does not go down; the "state remains, in terms of economy, society and culture, the main actor both in globalization and regionalization, its position being more full of interdependent processes that allow it to achieve its goals only through cooperation with the third parties."30

Another idea focuses on transferring "a series of specific characteristics of the traditional concept of state sovereignty ... to the competence of regional and/or international organizations with recognized powers in human security area" 31.

The globalization process makes out of states "agents of the so-called planetary village"32, in which the individuals and societies are no longer protected, stopped and constrained by borders, meaning that people and goods are freed of the geographical context. On the other hand, negative connotations are being associated to the concept of planetary village: the global village remains at least for the future an utopia because, in the opinion of many, it is not even something to desire.33 In this context, the authors call for the concept of global governance, a new world order as a response to globalization, finding that the nation state is too small to effectively cope the global challenges alone; they claim its corrosion, its being no longer able to fulfill some of "its important functions (e.g. safety of its citizens in this age of mass destruction weapons)."34

By means of the global governance concept, the state is maintaining its regulatory functions and its filling the gap of regulatory deficit by: cooperation, creating some political forms, involving the civil society (at a global level) and strengthening the international organizations35.

We may thus observe how actual and important the discussion about the role of state in the age of globalization is. Being in a continuous reconfiguration, the international environment is shaped by paradoxes in which chaos and order, the state and the geopolitics, international organizations and global governance are coexisting in a tandem manner.

The role of the state in the new security architecture is that of ensuring the security of its citizens, and, together with other actors of the global architecture, preventing transboundary security risks from happening. It is certain that the state can no longer act as the only responsible guarantor of security, needing to act together with and according to a series of international, regional, national and local actors such as: international organizations (UN, World Bank, IMF etc), regional blocks (EU, OSCE, etc), media (from the international channels such as CNN, BBC, to the social networks), NGOs (The International NGO Safety and Security Association «INSSA», International Crisis Group, International Federation for Human Rights etc.), civic society.

Taking into account the direction traced by the previous analysis of the literature, we can make the following remarks:

* the state alone can no longer cope with challenges that go beyond the national borders;

* the reality regarding the connection between globalization and security is midway between the state-centered and the hyperglobalist approaches;

* the age of the state does not end having in mind that in terms of security, the state should be the umbrella under which "a concentration of influence networks and relations"36 takes place;

* the security in a globalized age must be the result of cooperation between the state and other international, regional and national actors;

In this context, what is crucial for the security is the way in which the state will be able to strike a balance between global environment transferable tasks and the imperative task to remain national

Conclusions

Globalization and security are two concepts as actual and expanded in terms of the area of action as lacking of clarity in their notional delimitation. This brings up the difficulty in measuring the effects of globalization within the security dimension, for which the connection between the two concepts is relatively less approached by the literature, generally those approaches being centered on the economic dimension of globalization. It is no doubt that the repercussions of globalization on security are carried out both at the level of security challenges and at the level of guarantors of security actors.

In terms of challenges, this paper's aim was to show that they result primarily due to the mark that globalization has on the term "threat" itself which becomes a concept increasingly difficult to delimit, acting in all spheres of the human activity (economic, social, cultural, political, military), but also at the level of environment through its ecological dimension. Threats of various kinds occur both at the individual, local, national, regional and international levels.

From the perspective of security ensuring actors, a crucial aspect for the current security environment, emphasized by this research, is the change that occurs due to globalization at the level of the role that the state has in providing security. The age of the state does not end, but it is redefining, the state being no longer the only guarantor of security, but acting along with other globalized actors or actors of globalization such as: international organizations, regional blocks, global media, NGOs , etc.

Currently, the 21st century world is in full process of reshaping the international security environment, a context in which the debates and concerns on globalization and security are more than necessary.

Footnote

NOTES:

1 Mircea MURESAN, "Globalization and Insecurity", in Strategic Impact no. 4/ 2005, pp. 5-9.

2 Victor D. CHA, "Globalization and Study of International Security", in Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 37, No. 3/2000, p. 392.

3 Teodor FRUNZETI, "Globalization or Regionalization", in Strategic Impact no. 2/ 2011, p. 8.

4 Sven BISVEL, "Globalization, State Transformation and Public Security", in International Political Science Review, 2004, Vol. 25. No. 3, 281-296, p. 284.

5 Eugen SITEANU, "Globalization and Political and Military Decision", in Strategic Impact no. 1/ 2006, pp. 22-24.

6 C. PANAIT, A. PASOL et all, "Dimensiunea de securitatea a globalizarii", in Evolu"ia arhitecturilor de securitate sub impactul globalizarii - noi vremuri, noi actori, G. TOMA, T. LITEANU, C. DEGERATU (coordonatori), Editura A.N.I, Bucuresti, 2007, p. 81.

7 DEX online, http://dexonline.ro/definitie/securitate (accessed on March 14, 2013)

8 Cf. C. PANAIT, A. PASOL et all, op. cit., p. 81.

9 Petre DU$U, "Globalization and the Relation Between National Security and International Security", in Strategic Impact no. 14, 1/ 2005, pp. 11-15.

10 Ibidem, p. 13.

11 Ibidem, p. 12.

12 Philippe DELMAS, apud Eduard Vitalis, "The Globalization and the Effects of Projecting it into the Regional Security Field", in Strategic Impact no. 2/ 2005, pp. 50-52.

13 Teodor FRUNZETI, op. cit., p. 8.

14 Eduard VITALIS, op. cit., p. 51.

15 Cf. Victor D. CHA , op. cit., p. 393.

16 E. HEDESIU, C. STOICA, G. TOMA, Securitatea interna"ionala sub impactul globalizarii - Realizari, provocari si schimbari, Editura Academiei Na%ionale de Informa%ii, Bucuresti, 2007, pp. 15-18.

17 Ignacio RAMONET, The Geopolitics of Chaos, Algora publising, New York, 1998, p. 6.

18 Mircea MURESAN, "Globalization and Insecurity", in Strategic Impact no. 4/ 2005, p. 7.

19 Ibidem.

20 Ignacio RAMONET , op. cit., p. 18

21 Cf. C. PANAIT, A. PASOL et all , op. cit., p. 88.

22 Teodor FRUNZETI , op. cit., p. 7.

23 Cf. Sean KAY, "Globalization, Power and Security", Security Dialogue, vol 35, no. 1/ 2004, SAGE Publications, p. 14.

24 Ibidem.

25 C. PANAIT, A. PASOL et all, op. cit., p. 80.

26 Liviu Bogdan VLAD, Gheorghe HURDUZEU, Andrei JOSAN, "Geopolitics and globalization - The Nation-State in the Postmodern World", in Strategic Impact no. 1/ 2009, pp. 71-76.

27 Ibidem, p. 75.

28 Gheorghe NICOLAESCU, "Globalizare, regionalizare si stat", in Impact Strategic nr. 4-5 / 2002, p. 59.

29 Cf. Victor D. CHA , op. cit., pp. 392-395.

30 Teodor FRUNZETI , op. cit., p. 8.

31 Petre DU$U, op. cit., p. 13.

32 Marshall McLuhan - the concept of "global village" Marshall McLUHAN, Understanding Media, The extensions of man, London and New York, 1964, apud Eduard VITALIS, op. cit., p. 51.

33 Cf. C. PANAIT, A. PASOL et all, op. cit., p. 80.

34 Ibidem.

35Ibidem, p. 85.

36 Gheorghe NICOLAESCU, op. cit., p. 59.

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1. BISVEL, Sven, "Globalization, State Transformation and Public Security", in International Political Science Review, Vol. 25, No. 3, 2004.

2. CHA, D. Victor, "Globalization and Study of International Security", in Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 37, No. 3/2000.

3. DU$U, Petre, "Globalization and the Relation Between National Security and International Security", in Strategic Impact no. 14, 1/ 2005.

4. FRUNZETI, Teodor, "Globalization or Regionalization", in Strategic Impact no. 2/ 2011.

5. HEDESIU, Emil; STOICA, Constantin, TOMA Gheorghe, Securitatea Interna"ionala sub Impactul Globalizarii - Realizari, provocari si schimbari, Editura A.N.I, Bucuresti, 2007.

6. KAY, Sean, Globalization, Power and Security, SAGE Publications, Security Dialogue, vol. 35, no. 1/ 2004.

7. MURESAN, Mircea, "Globalization and Insecurity", in Strategic Impact no. 4/ 2005.

8. MURESAN, Mircea, "Globalizare, Integration, Development - the Pillars of a Lasting World", in Strategic Impact no. 1/ 2005.

9. NICOLAESCU, Gheorghe, "Globalizare, regionalizare si stat", in Impact Strategic no. 4-5 / 2002.

10. PANAIT, C.; PASOL, A. et all, "Dimensiunea de securitatea a globalizarii", in Evolu"ia Arhitecturile de securitate sub impactul globalizarii - noi vremuri, noi actori, G. TOMA, T. LITEANU, C. DEGERATU (coordonatori), Editura A.N.I, Bucuresti, 2007.

11. RAMONET, Ignacio, The Geopolitics of Chaos, Algora Publising, New York, 1998.

12. SITEANU, Eugen, "Globalization and Political and Military Decision", in Strategic Impact no. 1/ 2006.

13. VITALIS, Eduard, "The Globalization and the Effects of Projecting it into the Regional Security Field", in Strategic Impact no. 2/ 2005.

14. VLAD, Liviu Bogdan, HURDUZEU, Gheorghe, JOSAN, Andrei, "Geopolitics and globalization - The Nation-State in the Postmodern World", in Strategic Impact no. 1/ 2009.