The Global Interstate System

Global Interstate System

- It is the whole system of human interactions. The modern world-system is structured
politically as an interstate system – a system of competing and allying states. Political
Scientists commonly call this the international system, and it is the main focus of the
field of International Relations
- Purpose of Global Interstate System is to contribute to peace and security by
promoting international collaboration through educational, scientific, and cultural
reforms in order to increase universal respect for justice, the rule of law, and human
rights along with fundamental freedom.
STRENGTHS
 It will make travel less cheap, faster and better.
WEAKNESSES
 Imposed long-term costs on the country
 Cut down on competition between shippers and passenger carriers.
 Rising consumption of gasoline led to air pollution and a dependence on oil that affected
consumers and foreign policy for generations to come.
INSTITUTION
Institution that governs International Relations
UNITED NATION
 United States President FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT coined the name united nations that
was used in the declaration of United Nation on 1 of January 1942. UN means allies to
fight against the Axis Powers in the Second World War II.
The three principal partners in the Axis alliance were Germany, Italy, and Japan. These three
countries recognized German domination over most of continental Europe; Italian domination
over the Mediterranean Sea; and Japanese domination over East Asia and the Pacific.
Only 26 nation’s representatives pledge their governments to:
1. Each Government pledges itself to employ its full resources, military or
economic, against those members of the tripartite pact and its adherents with
which such government is at war.
Tripartite Pact, agreement concluded by Germany, Italy, and Japan on September 27, 1940, one
year after the start of World War II. It created a defense alliance between the countries and was
largely intended to deter the United States from entering the conflict.
2. Each Government pledges itself to cooperate with the Governments signatory
hereto and not to make a separate armistice or peace with the enemies.
The United Nations officially comes to Existence 50 countries representatives met and held the
United Nations Conference on International Organization to officially make the United Nations
Charter.
International Financial Institutions
 World Bank
- the international financial institution that provides loans to countries of the world for
capital projects
- It was established by the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference or the
Bretton Woods Conference.
WORLD BANK GROUP
1. International Bank Reconstruction and Development (IBRD)
- Offers loans to middle-income countries to develop and improve their economy.
- advises countries that are interested in limiting poverty and enabling sustainable
development.
- Its main focus is on providing financing and economic policy advice to help the
leaders of middle-income countries navigate the path toward greater prosperity.
- Example middle income countries like Indonesia and India.
2. International Development Association (IDA)
- Provide loans and grants programs that boost economic growth, reduce inequalities
and improve people’s living conditions.
- IDA lends money on concessional terms. This means that IDA credits have a zero or
very low interest charge and repayments are stretched over 30 to 40 years.
3. International Finance Corporation (IFC)
- Providing loans to private sectors in developing countries to create markets that open
up opportunities for all.
- advances economic development and improves the lives of people by encouraging the
growth of the private sector in developing countries. We achieve this by creating new
markets, mobilizing other investors, and sharing expertise.
4. Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA)
- To promote foreign direct investment into developing countries to help support
economic growth, reduce poverty, and improve people’s lives.
- guarantees protect investments against non-commercial risks and can help investors
obtain access to funding sources with improved financial terms and conditions.
5. International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)
- Administered the majority of all international investment cases.
- It is the forum for investor in most of international investment treaties and in
numerous investment laws and contracts.
 International Monetary Fund (IMF)
- Ensure the stability of the international monetary system. It does so in three ways:
keeping track of the global economy and the economies of member countries; lending
 to countries with balance of payments difficulties; and giving practical help to
members.
 Asian Development Bank (ADB)
- provides assistance to its developing member countries, the private sector, and public-
private partnerships through grants, loans, technical assistance, and equity
investments to promote development.
 African Development Bank (AfDB)
- a multilateral development finance institution established to contribute to the
economic development and social progress of African countries.
TRADE AGREEMENT
 Trade agreements are when two or more nations agree on the terms of trade between
them. They determine the tariffs and duties that countries impose on imports and exports.
All trade agreements affect international trade.

IMPORT
 are goods and services produced in a foreign country and bought by domestic residents.
That includes anything shipped into the country even if it's by the foreign subsidiary of a
domestic firm. If the consumer is inside the country's boundaries and the provider is
outside, then the good or service is an import.
EXPORTS
 Exports are goods and services that are made in a country and sold outside its borders.
That includes anything shipped from a domestic company to its foreign affiliate or
branch. If the provider is inside and the consumer is outside the country’s boundaries,
then the good or service is an export.
3 TYPES OF TRADE AGREEMENT
UNILATERAL
 It occurs when a country imposes trade restrictions and no other country reciprocates.
 A country can also unilaterally loosen trade restrictions, but that rarely happens.
BILATERAL
 are between two countries. Both countries agree to loosen trade restrictions to expand
business opportunities between them. They lower tariffs and confer (have discussions or
exchange opinions) preferred trade status with each other.
MULTILATERAL
  are the most difficult to negotiate. These are among three countries or more. The greater
the number of participants, the more difficult the negotiations are. They are also more
complex than bilateral agreements. Each country has its own needs and requests.

Some Replacements to the Outdated Nation State

The most momentous development of our era, precisely, is the waning of the nation state: its
inability to withstand countervailing 21st-century forces, and its calamitous loss of influence
over human circumstance. National political authority is in decline, and, since we do not know
any other sort, it feels like the end of the world. This is why a strange brand of apocalyptic
nationalism is so widely in vogue. But the current appeal of machismo as political style, the wall-
building and xenophobia, the mythology and race theory, the fantastical promises of national
restoration – these are not cures, but symptoms of what is slowly revealing itself to all: nation
states everywhere are in an advanced state of political and moral decay from which they cannot
individually extricate themselves.
In brief, 20th-century political structures are drowning in a 21st-century ocean of deregulated
finance, autonomous technology, religious militancy and great-power rivalry. Meanwhile, the
suppressed consequences of 20th-century recklessness in the once-colonised world are erupting,
cracking nations into fragments and forcing populations into post-national solidarities: roving
tribal militias, ethnic and religious sub-states and super-states. Finally, the old superpowers’
demolition of old ideas of international society – ideas of the “society of nations” that were
essential to the way the new world order was envisioned after 1918 – has turned the nation-state
system into a lawless gangland; and this is now producing a nihilistic backlash from the ones
who have been most terrorised and despoiled.
For increasing numbers of people, our nations and the system of which they are a part now
appear unable to offer a plausible, viable future. This is particularly the case as they watch
financial elites – and their wealth – increasingly escaping national allegiances altogether.
Today’s failure of national political authority, after all, derives in large part from the loss of
control over money flows. At the most obvious level, money is being transferred out of national
space altogether, into a booming “offshore” zone. These fleeing trillions undermine national
communities in real and symbolic ways. They are a cause of national decay, but they are also a
result: for nation states have lost their moral aura, which is one of the reasons tax evasion has
become an accepted fundament of 21st-century commerce.
More dramatically, great numbers of people are losing all semblance of a national home, and
finding themselves pitched into a particular kind of contemporary hell. Seven years after the fall
of Gaddafi’s dictatorship, Libya is controlled by two rival governments, each with its own
parliament, and by several militia groups fighting to control oil wealth. But Libya is only one of
many countries that appear whole only on maps. Since 1989, barely 5% of the world’s wars have
taken place between states: national breakdown, not foreign invasion, has caused the vast
majority of the 9 million war deaths in that time. And, as we know from the Democratic
Republic of the Congo and Syria, the ensuing vacuum can suck in firepower from all over the
world, destroying conditions for life and spewing shell-shocked refugees in every direction.
Nothing advertises the crisis of our nation-state system so well, in fact, as its 65 million refugees
– a “new normal” far greater than the “old emergency” (in 1945) of 40 million. The
unwillingness even to acknowledge this crisis, meanwhile, is appropriately captured by the
contempt for refugees that now drives so much of politics in the rich world.
The first step will be ceasing to pretend that there is no alternative. So let us begin by
considering the scale of the current crisis.
Let us start with the west. Europe, of course, invented the nation state: the principle of territorial
sovereignty was agreed at the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. The treaty made large-scale
conquest difficult within the continent; instead, European nations expanded into the rest of the
world. The dividends of colonial plunder were converted, back home, into strong states with
powerful bureaucracies and democratic polities – the template for modern European life.
By the end of 19th century, European nations had acquired uniform attributes still familiar today
– in particular, a set of fiercely enforced state monopolies (defence, taxation and law, among
others), which gave governments substantial mastery of the national destiny. In return, a moral
promise was made to all: the development, spiritual and material, of citizen and nation alike.
Spectacular state-run projects in the fields of education, healthcare, welfare and culture arose to
substantiate this promise.
The withdrawal of this moral promise over the past four decades has been a shattering
metaphysical event in the west, and one that has left populations rummaging around for new
things to believe in. For the promise was a major event in the evolution of the western psyche. It
was part of a profound theological reorganisation: the French Revolution dethroned not only the
monarch, but also God, whose superlative attributes – omniscience and omnipotence – were now
absorbed into the institutions of the state itself. The state’s power to develop, liberate and redeem
mankind became the foundational secular faith.
The destruction of state authority over capital has of course been the explicit objective of the
financial revolution that defines our present era. As a result, states have been forced to shed
social commitments in order to reinvent themselves as custodians of the market. This has
drastically diminished national political authority in both real and symbolic ways. Barack Obama
in 2013 called inequality “the defining challenge of our time”, but US inequality has risen
continually since 1980, without regard for his qualms or those of any other president.