Before 1648 and the Peace of Westphalia, states were grouped in geographical blocks, with a focal point usually being the capital of the empire. However, following the treaty, which recognized the territory and sovereignty of each state, the conception of the state shifted to bounded states. At the time, this conception of territory and state sovereignty encouraged individual states’ development over exploitation of larger areas, or colonialism . Now, the implications of that treaty are still very relevant. It suggests that each state is responsible for its own actions, not to other states, successfully paving the way for the breakdown of collective action.

This is a problem when states are confronted with global problems such as global warming. This issue in particular is extremely important given the consequences and costs of inaction – high human costs and essentially an unlivable Earth. A graphic by the CNA Corporation, a think tank funded by the Pentagon , illustrates the impact and probability of impact of the Cold War compared to climate change. For the Cold War, there is on “X” in the quadrant, indicating that while the impact was high (nuclear war), the probability was low. However, in the quadrant for climate change, there are two “X’s” showing that both the probability and impact are high . Regardless of states’ decisions to act politically, everyone will ultimately pay a cost that is greater than any short-term economic gain. In all three perspectives, states’ decisions are constrained by a variety of factors, including economic cost, competing interests and simply, the difficulty of collective action – as evidenced by the tragedy of the commons game. If national interest continues to drive states’ actions under realist theory, then the collective action necessary to combat climate change will not be achieved. However, if there is a readjustment of national interest to include climate change, states’ interest will be redefined to include the common interest, as identity theory suggests, and finding a solution to global warming will ultimately become a rational choice for the state, solving the tragedy of the commons.

Global warming has been researched and analyzed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 2,000 climate change experts. Since the late 1990s, the IPCC has reported about the causal relationship between human activity, or the increase in greenhouse gases, and global warming, with 90 percent confidence . The effects found are disastrous: ocean levels will rise and entire towns will sink, crops and wildlife will not survive, and weather patterns will cause unnatural and frequent disasters . However, the costs are not limited to the environment. If the arctic ice continues to melt, there could be a resource scramble for its methane-rich polar caps, and the possibility of war to gain access to the drastically shorter trade routes . In addition, global warming could threaten already unstable regions, such as Afghanistan and many parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, and further exacerbate the crises already in place. Clearly, these consequences will dramatically affect, and possibly threaten, the national security of many countries, including that of the United States.

All of the aforementioned effects will also prompt mass migration of populations due to unlivable environments. Not only will wage and economic prosperity be pull factors for these immigrants, but also quality of life and habitat. However, realists tend to object liberalization of immigrant flows unless it offers a national advantage. In this circumstance though, forced immigration will not contribute to any gain in relative national power and may even be a burden. Even the liberal perspective does not favor immigration unless there is a specific opportunity to match labor skill and economic need . Also, the common rules and standards that liberals desire to govern immigrant flows will be eroded as the cost of protecting borders comes at the expense of human life.

In the same way that states’ actions are constrained by the global economy in that it needs to accepts the costs of integration or be left behind, states’ action in regards to global warming is also constrained by the immediate economic opportunity costs of addressing an abstract and distant problem. This directly conflicts realist theory stating that the states’ primary interest is to advance their own power, economically and politically. If the start of the Industrial Revolution marked the exponential increases in greenhouse gases, then globalization and the increased transport and trade of goods have continued to contribute to that increase. However, if the increase of greenhouse gases is proportional to increased trade and thereby, economic growth, then each state will, rationally, oppose to sacrifice its own growth. The states’ decision remain a compromise between the international community’s desires and its own. The result, therefore, will always be a decision between what is necessary to combat global warming, which is the global interest, and what is less than necessary, or the desire of the state to fulfill its own interests – or simply, the result will always be less than what is necessary . Therefore, it is in the interest of each state, especially the developed countries, to redefine how global warming will affect their political and economic interests.

Since climate change is a global problem, it is a problem of the commons, which can be demonstrated through the tragedy of the commons game, similar to the prisoner’s dilemma quadrants. What is specific to the commons in regards to global warming is the effect of time and enough iterations. There will ultimately be a tipping point, where the commons reverts to tragedy and the consequences listed previously, such as mass forced immigration and environmental disasters, will be irreversible. In essence, the goal is to play the game – before it is too late. The commons, viewed through the realist perspective, will focus on the states’ desire to increase their own power, at the expense of combating climate change – thereby, states eliminate themselves in the game by trying to survive. The quest for power will prevail according to the realist perspective. Through the liberal perspective, similar to the process in the prisoner’s dilemma, negotiations can be made through incremental changes in reducing emissions by each state signaling to the other states that they are collaborating or until both actors recognize the common goal and continue until they’ve both lowered emissions to the necessary levels. Finally, the commons in regards to the identity perspective proposes simply analyzing the intentions of other states and whether their decisions will benefit itself or the good of the collective.

The problem of the commons directly applied to addressing and combating global warming is more complex and shows the obvious disagreements between perspectives. As Nau suggests, realists emphasize the scarcity of resources and competition, and individualized solutions, not blanket proposals . A single set of rules will not suffice because it implies a single hegemon will govern. This will fail in the realist perspective due to the states’ unwillingness to give up their own sovereignty and the clear imbalance of power. The realist perspective warrants two options: to consume as much fuel to further economic growth, or if technology to reduce emissions is in demand, to produce more technology to lower emissions and gain economic power that way. In both situations, the main goal is to seek more power. However, if the latter option is emphasized, power can be reconceptualized to include combating global warming. Therefore, lowering emissions and greenhouse gases will be included in the states’ national interest, and will be a rational choice.

The liberal perspective again proposes the use of international institutions to seek broader solutions by emphasizing absolute gains. However, the problem lies in the two groups that gain and lose through cooperation and each group will advocate the use and disregard of said international institutions. The biggest struggle for liberals in proposing international institutions to overcome the collective action problem is to bypass each state’s individual interests for the common goal – this is where the liberal perspective and realist perspective come at direct odds with one another. Identity theorists propose ideas that transcend borders, specifically the idea of sustainable development.
The identity perspective complements both the liberal and realist perspective separately in combating global warming. First, through the realist perspective: changing the idea of national interest and power to conform to the desire to reduce emissions and greenhouse gases by including it into national security policy makes it a possible policy solution. By emphasizing the economic benefits of technological innovation to lower emissions, the state may pursue it as part of its national interest to gain power. Second, through the liberal perspective: ideas are built upon language and language is one of the easiest signals to send in the international arena. To successfully complete or avoid the commons tragedy, each state needs to signal to one another that it is willing to compromise and collaborate. By changing the language and redefining the identity of each states’ goals in regards to global warming, the incremental changes can continue until the goal is reached. Overall, the necessary force to escape the tragedy of the commons is collective action, which is not probable in the near future. Instead, a very plausible alternative is a redefinition of the goal to include national interest and the pursuit of power, incorporating both realist and identity perspectives.

The problem with proposed solutions is the concentration on the liberal perspective and organizing successful international institution and consensus to address the problem. Take, for example, the problem with nuclear disarmament. It has been discussed for years on end and there is still no solution or drastic progress on the proposal. This is because realism prevails over liberal desires to institute global and blanket policies that threaten the balance of power. The liberal perspective in both the commons and the prisoner’s dilemma requires successful signals to continue the incremental changes, but changes in the international arena are clouded and often difficult to interpret. Therefore, global warming, like nuclear disarmament, will not be solved through liberal proposals, or at least, not in the near future. The liberal process is a very long process of action and legitimizing. Unlike nuclear disarmament, global warming is time-sensitive. This is why the Kyoto Protocol, which groups developing countries, or Non-Annex I countries, such as Burkina Faso and China, which have very different emission outputs, together will not succeed. However, the cap and trade proposals already enacted by several cities and countries, which emphasize market incentives and economic benefits, have been relatively more successful. It, again, embeds incentives for power within the national interests, but in an effort to combat a global problem.

The solution must be a fusion of both realist and identity perspectives. The liberal approach to prescribe a blanket solution to all has failed or made minimal progress in the past, as evidenced by the Kyoto Protocol. Waiting for an international institution to find consensus among all states is not a practical solution to a problem that is time sensitive. Similar to the lofty goal of complete disarmament, universal agreement to cut carbon emissions will not come into fruition unless there is an international body that is willing and able to regulate and penalize those who defy the rules. Instead, by reimagining global warming as a security threat to everyone, we change the definition and consequently the identity of the problem to each state. By taking preventative measures now, despite short-term costs, the state will still be acting within its self-interest and continue seeking power, congruous to the realist perspective. It is through these two strategies that states will have a chance against global warming. In a globalizing world, global problems require transnational state cooperation, but this will only be achieved if it is in each states’ national interest.

When the United Nations was created, it was seen as a forum for international relations—a place for nations to come together and strive towards a common goal, a “potential nucleus of a world state” . This aim, however, comes at the price of each nation forfeiting some of its sovereignty. But, by no means does this make the nation-state irrelevant in our globalizing world, as Kenichi Ohmae and Susan Strange have argued, albeit for different reasons. The United Nations, as an international organization and as a society of nation-states, pronounces the relevant, but changing role of the nation-state in a globalizing world.

In 1648, the Peace of Westphalia brought an end to the Thirty Years War. These collections of treaties defined the concept of a nation-state’s sovereignty based on the principles of territoriality and a strictly domestic authority. Following the Peace of Westphalia, individual states were given complete sovereign right to their land and people. It was this Westphalian system that has influenced many polities, such as Europe. However, after 1945, following World War II and signaling the creation of the UN, this idea of sovereignty began to shift as nation-states were willing to transfer some of their sovereign rights to a supranational institution. It is this erosion of interdependence and Westphalian sovereignty that began to overturn the realist models of international relations. However, the institutional form of the UN, built around the concept of a post WWII and bipolar world may be obsolete now that each day looks less like 1945. When political domain supersedes the nation-state, through the rapid use of technology and markets, there is a space created for International Organizations—such as the UN.

The UN may be the closest existing form of a truly international society. It aims at creating a more horizontal organization—the General Assembly being an example of this. In the GA, where all 192 countries are represented, each state is granted one vote, “favor[ing] coalitions of the small and powerless” . A simple majority is required of all member states in order for resolutions to pass. Using this organ of the UN as an example, the GA seeks to redefine the power of the state by allowing every state one vote, independent of GDP, internal politics, or etc. Ideally, this would allow a more wholesome agenda, with nations such as Vanuatu and Tuvalu able to impact the topics at hand. This is misleading, however, because GA resolutions are generally “recommendations” to member governments and the Security Council. Said resolutions are non-binding, “but up to a point the norms of the institution make opposition look more harshly self-interested and less defensible” . Even in the GA, where the playing field is most even amongst the member states, participation is still entirely dependent on the action of its member states “to enforce compliance with its resolutions and sanctions against misbehaving states” , only countered by the general stigma of a nation-state seeming self-absorbed.

It is only the SC that has the power to make binding decisions, given that the member states have agreed. The SC is comprised of 15 members, five permanent members (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States) and 10 non-permanent rotating members (Currently this includes: Belgium, Burkina Faso, Costa Rica, Croatia, Indonesia, Italy, Libya, Panama, South Africa and Vietnam). The five permanent members hold veto on all substantive matters. This means that China, France, Russia, the UK and the US must agree upon all resolutions or statements issued by the SC. This can result in a lot of stalemates, further reinforcing the power of each of the five nation-states.

In refining their identity, the UN is sometimes misrepresented as simply a group of 192 member states, as opposed to a cohesive organization with similar goals. “… All sorts of collectives have learned to organize their claims around a nation-state identity, and the consolidation of the UN system has provided a central form for identity recognition” thus further allowing for the UN as an IO to gradually take on an identity of their own as a whole . An IO, the UN, is simply a venue within which nation-states interact. Once an IO is introduced and credited this power, there is a possibility that the centrality of the norm of sovereignty and the nation-state could be weakened. If an IO successfully develops an identity, it is predicated on the fact that it has developed specific interests and incentives—layers of authority, new venues for cooperation and conflict and new channels of influence. Each IO sets up its own rules, norms and procedures. However, this power to potentially weaken the norm of sovereignty, as illustrated with the example of the SC, the hard power, as defined by the power to demand and/or take action to regulate resolutions passed, rests in the votes of the Big Five or the five permanent members—the nation-states that have endlessly reasserted their own sovereignty.

The effectiveness of the UN has been questioned for this very reason. Aside from the concentration of the power in the Big Five, the UN is financed through voluntary contributions from its member states, with the US contributing 22.00% of the UN budget, Japan at 16.624%, Germany at 8.66%, the UK at 6.13% and France at 6.03% in 2006 . Through this voluntary donation system, the UN puts itself at risk to be highly influenced by these states, further reinforcing the still evident power of the nation-state. However, it must be noted that the exclusion of Russia and China from the top donors list (they do not even make the top 10) shows that the dynamics of the nation-state are changing. These Big Five countries were chosen at a volatile time in our world, following the war, when military power was the dominant power. Now, it is evident that the role of the nation-state is shifting relative to this 1945 timeframe and that economic might may take the reins.

This does not dismiss the clout of a powerful military though. The UN does not maintain its own military, instead forces are voluntarily provided by member states. While realism is becoming less relevant now, we cannot deny the fact that the nation-state is still the only power that can make war and tax, thus retaining some power as a sovereign nation. This begs the question—“is the UN paralyzed by its own diplomatic culture?” Diplomacy is the currency of the UN, but not of the world and of nation-states. When this gap is rectified, the UN will be infinitely more effective. The power of the nation-state is still the driving force at the helms of international relations. The UN and other IOs are not a substitute for the nation-state; IOs are not autonomous and therefore, there is a finite domain of authority that must be wrestled with. However, the nation-state is in good company, as more and more actors are becoming prominent players in the field, namely Non-Governmental Organizations. IOs and NGOs seek to redefine norms that have been set dating back to the Westphalian system.

While nation-states have not lost their significance despite these new players, that does not necessarily equate to a deadlock in progress. International organizations such as the UN are trying to alter the course of international relations and politics by providing a global forum for issues to be discussed. “The UN mandate from the beginning was much broader than the issues of security and peace … [becoming] the focal point for global governance in many domains” . After all, it was after gaining legitimacy on a global arena through the World Health Organization, a sub-committee of the UN, that female genital cutting was recast as a human rights issue, not exclusively a feminist issue.
When we weaken the analytical importance of borders, how does this affect our traditional way of understanding world politics? The conundrum lies in the role of the nation-state and the emerging IOs and NGOs. If IOs and NGOs perform the functions of the nation-state, does that mean one is replacing the other? If a large part of the success that IOs and NGOs have accrued is due to advances in the market allowing access to information technology, does that threaten the nation-state? If trade allows culture to be transmitted and translated throughout the world, does this threaten the nation-state? Does globalization undermine the nation-state? No, not necessarily. The idea of a nation-state still persists and is still desirable, e.g., Palestine. The United Nations is an essential facet to understanding globalization because it highlights the shifting power of the nation-state and allows for these dynamic interactions between the three pillars.