"Discord and Collaboration", Arnold Wolfers reminds us "No corporate actor... has been able to rob a nation of the loyalty... of it's people." (Wolfers)
             The sovereignty of nation-states has been a part of international politics since over a hundred European princes signed the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, formalizing each ruler's legitimacy over his territory. This was not a new concept. The Romans, for instance, used sovereignty as justification for their wars of conquest, where the use of force is described as an "expression of nationalism" (Ruggie) The notion of Papal sovereignty has long been floated as an abstract form of the nation-state: the core of this idea being the Pope as leader and thus controller of all Catholics across the world. This may be true, but any authority is dogmatic, gaining legitimacy from a religious doctrine, not legal or political sources. Thus we discount it as irrelevant.
             Whilst in previous centuries nation-states have often been isolated or self sufficient, in today's modern world this is generally not the case. But why is this? We must look at the newly evolved threats to the sovereignty of states, as we are seeing a clear erosion of independence. I suggest that the factors involved are mainly seven-fold: Changing attitudes towards globalisation; development of multi-national firms; changes in culture; Internal diversification; Formation of alliances; Extensive peace and Advances in technology.
             A dictionary outline of globalisation is "The processes in which institutions start to operate on a global scale". Adam Smith, in his book "The Wealth Of Nations" discussed the idea of trade specialisation, a situation where countries produce only a small number of goods, then trade with other states to receive a full complement of products. This implementation of Comparative Advantage theory (coined and formalized by David Ricardo) leads to a...