Globalisation and the state system | Edexcel A-Level Politics
Updated: Sep 29
For Specification 9PL0
Edexcel A-Level Politics | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 55–65 minutes
Globalisation changes the environment in which sovereign states operate. Greater interconnectedness can make it harder for governments to exercise unrestricted control, while international law and intervention create direct challenges to traditional ideas of sovereignty. This Globalisation and the state system A-Level Politics revision page examines challenges to state control, the relationship between globalisation and international law, and humanitarian and forcible intervention. It builds directly on the process of globalisation [The process of globalisation] and the meaning of national sovereignty [The state: nation-state and national sovereignty].
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Explain how globalisation can challenge state control over citizens.
Explain the relationship between globalisation and the development of international law.
Analyse how international law may affect state sovereignty.
Define humanitarian intervention accurately.
Examine how humanitarian and forcible intervention challenge the traditional state system.
Analyse arguments that states nevertheless retain significant sovereignty and control.
Revision Notes 📚
Globalisation and its impact on the state system
The Edexcel specification identifies four closely connected effects of globalisation on the state system:
widening and deepening interconnectedness and interdependence
challenges to state control over citizens, including in areas such as law
the development of international law
humanitarian and forcible intervention
The key question running through all four is:
Does increasing global interconnectedness reduce the ability of sovereign states to exercise independent political authority?
To understand this debate, remember that sovereignty means absolute and unlimited power and authority. A nation-state is an autonomous political community held together by citizenship and nationality.
Globalisation therefore creates a potential tension between:
Traditional sovereign state | Globalised state system |
Ultimate authority lies with the state | Decisions increasingly take place within wider global networks |
The state controls affairs involving its citizens | International rules and institutions may influence state behaviour |
Other states should respect its sovereignty | Intervention may challenge non-interference |
States are the central actors | International organisations and other actors have growing influence |
No authority exists above the sovereign state | Global governance creates rules and institutions beyond individual states |
This tension prepares you for debates over globalisation [Debates about globalisation], where different perspectives disagree over whether these developments fundamentally weaken the nation-state.
Why interconnectedness can challenge state control
In The process of globalisation, globalisation is defined as the emergence of a complex web of interconnectedness involving people, states, institutions, economics, technology, culture and politics.
As this interconnectedness becomes wider and deeper, governments operate within increasingly complex relationships.
A traditional model of sovereignty suggests:
state → controls affairs within its jurisdiction
Globalisation makes the picture more complicated:
state ↔ international organisations ↔ other states ↔ international rules ↔ citizens and other actors
This creates the possibility that governments no longer exercise unrestricted authority in every area.
Challenges to state control over citizens
The specification particularly identifies state control over citizens in areas such as law.
This is important because national sovereignty traditionally implies that the state possesses ultimate authority over people subject to its jurisdiction.
Increasing globalisation can challenge this in several connected ways.
International rules may influence state behaviour
Political globalisation involves the growing importance of international organisations.
As states participate in international institutions, agreements and legal arrangements, their actions may increasingly be judged against rules developed beyond the individual state.
This can create a tension:
national sovereignty
The state claims ultimate authority over its citizens.
versus
international obligations
The state accepts, or is placed under pressure to recognise, rules operating at an international level.
This becomes particularly significant in relation to human rights.
The specification later requires detailed study of international courts and institutions and specifically asks students to consider their impact on state sovereignty.
You will develop this further in international human-rights law [International human-rights law and institutions].
Citizens and state law are no longer entirely isolated from global politics
Globalisation can make the treatment of citizens within one state a matter of international concern.
This is particularly important where human rights are involved.
A traditional interpretation of sovereignty might argue that:
A state has authority over its own citizens.
Other states should not interfere in its internal affairs.
Domestic law is therefore principally a matter for the sovereign government.
Political globalisation complicates this because human rights and international legal norms increasingly operate across national borders.
The 2025 mark scheme, for example, identifies the growth of human-rights institutions and legal arrangements as evidence that international judicial bodies increasingly act in areas that would traditionally have been subject to state jurisdiction.
Does globalisation remove state control?
Not necessarily.
This distinction is crucial.
A state can face constraints without completely losing sovereignty.
International law may influence the choices available to governments, but states may retain important control over:
whether they participate in particular arrangements
whether international rules are accepted
how rules are implemented
enforcement powers
military and coercive resources
The 2025 mark scheme recognises both sides of this debate. International law and human-rights institutions may place pressure on states, but international institutions often lack their own enforcement forces and depend upon state co-operation. States can also refuse to engage fully with particular institutions.
A useful distinction is therefore:
constraint ≠ disappearance of sovereignty
A state may have less freedom to act without consequences while remaining a central political authority.
Globalisation and international law
International law is defined by Edexcel as:
law that governs states and other international actors.
This definition immediately shows why international law matters to the state system.
Domestic law traditionally operates within a state's jurisdiction. International law creates rules that operate between states and other actors in global politics.
How globalisation encourages the development of international law
As interconnectedness increases, interactions between states become more extensive.
Greater international interaction can generate a greater need for:
common rules
recognised standards
agreements
institutions
procedures for dealing with disputes
The relationship can therefore be shown as a chain:
greater global interconnectedness
↓
more interaction between states and international actors
↓
greater need for shared rules and agreements
↓
development of international law and institutions
↓
possible constraints on independent state action
This is one of the central ways in which globalisation can transform the state system.
International law as an example of political globalisation
Political globalisation means the growing importance of international organisations.
International law and political globalisation therefore overlap.
As political organisations become more significant, they can contribute to the development, application and interpretation of international rules.
The specification later requires students to study:
the International Court of Justice (ICJ)
the International Criminal Court (ICC)
special United Nations tribunals
the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
At this stage, you do not need the full detailed study of each institution. The key connection is that their development illustrates a political world in which law is no longer purely domestic.
International law and sovereignty
International law creates an important sovereignty debate.
Argument: international law restricts sovereignty
If a government must consider international legal obligations before making decisions, its freedom of action may be reduced.
The reasoning is:
Sovereignty traditionally means ultimate state authority.
International rules create standards beyond national law.
International institutions may judge state behaviour against those standards.
Governments may consequently face pressure to change or limit their actions.
International law may therefore constrain state sovereignty.
The 2025 mark scheme identifies the growing number of international human-rights laws, treaties and institutions as evidence supporting the argument that states face increasing pressure to recognise rules beyond purely national decision making.
Argument: international law depends upon sovereign states
The alternative argument is that international law often depends on states for its effectiveness.
International institutions may lack independent:
military forces
police powers
enforcement capacity
ability to compel every state to participate
This means state sovereignty can remain powerful.
The reasoning becomes:
International law creates rules.
Enforcement often depends upon sovereign states.
States may decide whether and how far to co-operate.
Powerful states may sometimes resist or ignore international institutions.
State authority therefore remains highly significant.
This tension is explored in much greater depth in human rights and state sovereignty [Human rights and state sovereignty].
Global governance is not the same as world government
This distinction is especially useful when analysing international law.
Edexcel defines:
Global governance as the broad and complex process of decision making at a global level.
World government is the idea of a common political authority with legislative and executive power over states.
The existence of international law therefore does not mean that a world government exists.
A globalised system can contain extensive international rules while sovereign states continue to exist.
This leads to one of the most useful evaluation points in the whole topic:
International law may change how sovereignty operates without completely replacing sovereignty.
From international law to intervention
International law is not the only way globalisation affects the traditional state system.
In some circumstances, outside actors may become directly involved in events occurring within another state.
This raises the issue of intervention.
The specification requires students to examine both:
humanitarian intervention
forcible intervention
Both are significant because they raise a fundamental question:
Can action inside a sovereign state be justified despite that state's claim to control its own internal affairs?
Humanitarian intervention
Edexcel defines humanitarian intervention as:
military intervention carried out in pursuit of humanitarian rather than other objectives.
The purpose is therefore what distinguishes humanitarian intervention.
Military force is being used with a claimed humanitarian objective, rather than simply for territorial gain, economic advantage or another conventional national-interest objective.
Humanitarian intervention and sovereignty
Humanitarian intervention creates one of the clearest conflicts between two principles.
Principle 1: state sovereignty
A state possesses authority within its own political community.
Outside powers should therefore respect its independence.
Principle 2: humanitarian protection
There may be circumstances in which protecting people is treated as more important than respecting unrestricted state control.
The tension can be expressed as:
Sovereignty argument | Humanitarian argument |
States possess authority over their own territory and citizens | The treatment of people can become an international concern |
Intervention interferes in internal affairs | Severe abuses may justify outside action |
Non-interference protects state independence | Humanitarian objectives may justify military involvement |
Intervention can weaken the state system | Intervention may protect individuals when their state does not |
This debate becomes the central focus of the later humanitarian intervention [Humanitarian intervention] lesson.
The growth of humanitarian intervention
The wider specification requires students to understand the rise and growth of humanitarian intervention during the 1990s, including successful and unsuccessful examples. It also requires study of selective interventionism and the development of Responsibility to Protect (R2P).
For this lesson, the important point is what this development means for the state system.
The traditional principle was that sovereignty protected states from outside interference.
Humanitarian intervention creates a competing idea:
sovereignty may not always provide an absolute barrier to external military action where humanitarian concerns are involved.
The 2019 mark scheme identifies interventions in Sierra Leone, East Timor and Kosovo as examples used to support arguments about humanitarian intervention. It also links the development of R2P to the idea that sovereignty involves responsibilities towards citizens.
You will examine these cases and the debate over successful and unsuccessful intervention in more detail later rather than treating all intervention as automatically effective.
Responsibility to Protect and the changing idea of sovereignty
The specification includes Responsibility to Protect (R2P) within its later study of humanitarian intervention.
Its importance for the state system is that it challenges a purely absolute interpretation of sovereignty.
The reasoning presented in Edexcel mark schemes is:
States possess sovereignty.
Sovereignty also carries responsibilities towards citizens.
Where a state fails to protect those citizens in extreme circumstances, pressure may develop for international action.
Intervention can therefore be justified as protecting people rather than simply violating sovereignty.
This changes the sovereignty debate.
Instead of asking only:
Does another state have the right to intervene?
the debate can also become:
What responsibilities does a sovereign state have towards the people under its authority?
Humanitarian intervention as evidence of globalisation
Humanitarian intervention connects closely with the wider process of globalisation.
Cultural and political globalisation can contribute to:
greater awareness of events in other states
growing acceptance of international human-rights standards
international pressure for action
involvement by international organisations
expectations that severe internal crises are not purely domestic matters
The 2022 mark scheme connects globalisation with increased awareness of human-rights abuses and the development of institutions designed to address them.
The basic chain of reasoning is:
greater interconnectedness
↓
events inside states become internationally visible and politically significant
↓
international expectations and legal norms develop
↓
pressure for international action may increase
↓
traditional state sovereignty is challenged
Humanitarian intervention does not prove sovereignty has disappeared
The existence of humanitarian intervention does not mean states are no longer sovereign.
Intervention itself usually depends heavily on states.
States may provide:
military forces
political support
diplomatic backing
resources
There can also be disagreement over whether intervention should occur.
The specification specifically requires students later to consider:
selective interventionism
conflict with state sovereignty
alleged Western double standards or hypocrisy
This means intervention itself demonstrates the continuing importance of state power.
A strong analysis can therefore argue:
Humanitarian intervention challenges the principle of unrestricted sovereignty, but the fact that intervention depends heavily upon decisions by powerful states may also demonstrate the continuing importance of states.
What about forcible intervention?
The state and globalisation section specifically refers to humanitarian and forcible intervention as impacts on the state system.
Edexcel gives a formal glossary definition for humanitarian intervention, but does not provide a separate glossary definition of "forcible intervention".
For revision purposes, the key specification issue is therefore the use of force that intervenes in the affairs of another state and its effect on sovereignty.
The important analytical point is:
forcible external action can directly override or challenge a state's ability to exercise exclusive control within its own territory.
Unlike humanitarian intervention, the phrase "forcible intervention" does not itself specify a humanitarian objective.
You should therefore avoid treating all forcible intervention as humanitarian intervention.
Humanitarian intervention and forcible intervention compared
Humanitarian intervention | Forcible intervention |
Has a specific Edexcel glossary definition | Listed in the specification but not given a separate glossary definition |
Military intervention pursued for humanitarian objectives | Focuses on intervention involving force |
Purpose is central to the concept | Use of force is central to the state-system issue |
Can be presented as prioritising humanitarian protection over sovereignty | Directly challenges another state's exclusive control |
Still raises questions of legitimacy and state sovereignty | Also raises questions of sovereignty and state independence |
The safest exam approach is to use humanitarian intervention precisely according to Edexcel's definition and discuss forcible intervention through its consequences for state control.
Why forcible intervention matters to the state system
The traditional state system depends heavily on states possessing authority within their own jurisdictions.
Forcible intervention challenges this because an external actor may use military power to affect events within another state's territory.
The chain is:
external military action
↓
another state's internal control is overridden or constrained
↓
its ability to exercise exclusive authority is reduced
↓
traditional sovereignty is challenged
This provides particularly strong evidence that the state system is no longer based on completely unrestricted national control.
However, the counterargument remains significant.
Forcible intervention can also demonstrate state power
Intervention usually requires considerable hard power, particularly military capability.
This means that although the sovereignty of the target state may be challenged, the intervention can simultaneously demonstrate the continuing importance of powerful states.
For example:
State A intervenes militarily in State B
This may show:
State B's sovereignty is being challenged
but State A's military capacity gives it enormous influence
states therefore remain important actors within global politics
This is one reason why globalisation does not necessarily produce a simple decline of all states.
Instead, it can transform relationships between differently powerful states.
Intervention, international anarchy and global governance
The topic also links directly to the theories studied later.
Edexcel defines international anarchy as a world system with no universal sovereign or worldwide government. Realism views states as key actors and stresses state sovereignty, while liberalism places greater emphasis on complex interdependence, international organisations and global governance.
This creates two broad interpretations.
A state-centred interpretation
If no authority exists above states, intervention remains largely dependent upon powerful states.
International law may therefore be limited whenever states refuse to accept or enforce it.
This supports the importance of sovereignty.
A global-governance interpretation
Increasing interconnectedness can encourage:
international rules
international institutions
common norms
co-operative responses
greater willingness to treat events inside one state as matters of wider international concern
This suggests that the traditional state-centred system is changing.
You will compare these perspectives directly in realism and liberalism [Realism and liberalism compared].
The central sovereignty debate
You should be able to analyse both directions of the argument.
Globalisation weakens state control because:
international law creates rules beyond individual states
international institutions can scrutinise state behaviour
governments face external legal and political pressure
humanitarian intervention can prioritise protection over non-interference
forcible intervention can override control within a state's territory
growing interconnectedness means events inside states increasingly have global consequences
States remain powerful because:
international law often depends on state acceptance and enforcement
global governance is not world government
states retain military and coercive power
states may refuse to participate in some international arrangements
powerful states can resist international pressure
intervention itself is usually carried out through state power
there remains no universal sovereign above all states
This is why the question is not simply:
"Has globalisation destroyed sovereignty?"
A better question is:
"How far has globalisation changed the way sovereignty operates?"
A useful analytical framework
When asked about any challenge to state sovereignty, use four stages.
1. Identify the traditional state power
For example:
A sovereign state traditionally controls law within its jurisdiction.
2. Identify the globalising challenge
For example:
International law creates standards and obligations beyond purely national law.
3. Explain the consequence
For example:
The state's freedom to act independently may therefore be constrained.
4. Test how significant the challenge really is
For example:
However, if international enforcement still depends on state co-operation, the state retains substantial authority.
That fourth step is especially useful for evaluation.
Exam application example
Imagine an exam source describing a sovereign government accused of mistreating part of its population. An international institution condemns the government, and several states debate military intervention.
A weak answer might state:
"Globalisation has weakened sovereignty because other countries are involved."
A stronger answer would explain:
The case challenges sovereignty because treatment of the state's own citizens is no longer treated as exclusively domestic. International condemnation demonstrates the growing importance of rules and institutions beyond the state. If military intervention were then undertaken for humanitarian purposes, the state's exclusive control over its own territory would be challenged further. However, the need for other sovereign states to decide whether to intervene shows that state power remains central.
That develops a full chain of reasoning rather than simply naming globalisation.
Key Words 🔑
Key word | Student-friendly definition | How it may be used in an exam |
Sovereignty | Absolute and unlimited power and authority. | Use when assessing whether globalisation restricts independent state control. |
International law | Law that governs states and other international actors. | Use when explaining how global rules can constrain or influence state behaviour. |
Humanitarian intervention | Military intervention carried out in pursuit of humanitarian rather than other objectives. | Use when analysing conflicts between humanitarian protection and state sovereignty. |
Global governance | A broad and complex process of decision making at a global level. | Use to explain why international decision making can grow without creating world government. |
Interconnectedness | Mutual reliance between two or more groups. | Use when linking globalisation to international law, shared norms and pressure for intervention. |
Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡
Examiner hint: Keep sovereignty at the centre of a sovereignty question. The 2025 examiner report found that some candidates discussed whether international law and human-rights institutions were successful or unsuccessful without explaining their impact on sovereignty. Those answers could not reach the higher levels.
Examiner hint: Use detailed examples to support analysis rather than simply naming institutions or events. The 2025 report noted that stronger candidates showed real depth of knowledge of relevant cases and actions, often using contemporary examples.
Examiner hint: Cover all important parts of the question. In the 2022 examiner feedback, stronger responses were more likely to address all the elements identified in a question rather than focusing narrowly on only one aspect.
Examiner hint: Turn knowledge into a consequence. Examiner mark schemes consistently reward logical chains of reasoning. Do not stop at "international law exists". Explain why that matters for state control.
A useful structure is:
development → effect on the state → counterargument → judgement
For example:
International legal rules increase → governments face more external constraints → this appears to reduce independent authority → but enforcement may still rely on states → sovereignty is constrained rather than necessarily eliminated.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Saying globalisation means states have lost all sovereignty
Why this is incorrect: International law and intervention can constrain state control, but states remain central to enforcement, military action and many international decisions.
How to improve: Distinguish between sovereignty being challenged, constrained or transformed, and sovereignty disappearing entirely.
Mistake: Treating international law as the same as domestic law
Why this is incorrect: Edexcel defines international law as law governing states and other international actors.
How to improve: Explain that its significance comes from creating rules beyond the purely national level.
Mistake: Assuming international law proves world government exists
Why this is incorrect: Global governance and world government are different. International institutions can develop without a universal sovereign authority existing above states.
How to improve: Use the distinction between global governance and world government explicitly.
Mistake: Calling every military intervention humanitarian
Why this is incorrect: Humanitarian intervention has a specific definition. The military intervention must be carried out in pursuit of humanitarian objectives.
How to improve: Always identify the claimed purpose of the intervention before using the term.
Mistake: Ignoring the humanitarian objective
Why this is incorrect: Simply saying that one state uses military force in another does not establish that the intervention is humanitarian.
How to improve: State the full definition: military intervention for humanitarian rather than other objectives.
Mistake: Treating humanitarian intervention as automatically successful or legitimate
Why this is incorrect: The specification requires study of successful and unsuccessful interventions, selective interventionism and conflict with sovereignty.
How to improve: Separate three questions: why intervention occurs, whether it challenges sovereignty, and whether it succeeds.
Mistake: Discussing international institutions without linking them to state control
Why this is incorrect: For this lesson, the central issue is their effect on the state system.
How to improve: End each paragraph by explaining whether the development increases or reduces independent state authority.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
Define international law. (1 mark)
Question 2
Define humanitarian intervention. (2 marks)
Question 3
Explain one way in which international law can challenge state control. (4 marks)
Question 4
Consider the following hypothetical situation:
State X signs an international agreement governing its treatment of citizens. An international institution later finds that one of State X's domestic policies conflicts with the agreement. State X argues that the issue should be decided entirely by its own government.
Analyse how this situation illustrates a conflict between international law and national sovereignty. (6 marks)
Question 5
Consider the following hypothetical situation:
Large-scale human suffering occurs inside State Y. State Y's government rejects outside involvement and argues that the situation is an internal matter. Several other states propose military action which they say is intended solely to protect civilians.
Analyse how this situation creates a conflict between humanitarian intervention and state sovereignty. (6 marks)
Question 6
Examine how globalisation has challenged state control through the development of international law. (12 marks)
Question 7
Examine the significance of humanitarian and forcible intervention for the traditional state system. (12 marks)
Question 8
Evaluate the view that the development of international law and intervention has significantly reduced state sovereignty.
You must consider this view and the alternative to this view in a balanced way. (30 marks)
Answers and indicative mark scheme
Question 1
1 mark for:
International law is law that governs states and other international actors.
Question 2
Award up to 2 marks for an accurate definition:
Humanitarian intervention is military intervention carried out in pursuit of humanitarian rather than other objectives.
One mark may be awarded for identifying military intervention, with the second for identifying its humanitarian purpose.
Question 3
Possible explanation:
International law establishes rules that operate beyond purely national law. If governments are expected to follow these rules when dealing with their citizens or other international actors, their freedom to act entirely independently can be reduced. This may therefore challenge the idea that a sovereign state possesses unlimited authority.
Credit any accurate developed explanation based on the lesson.
Question 4
A strong answer could explain:
State X traditionally claims sovereign authority over domestic policy.
The international agreement creates an obligation operating beyond purely national law.
The international institution is therefore judging State X against an external standard.
This may constrain State X's ability to act independently.
However, the extent of the sovereignty challenge would depend on whether the international decision can be enforced and how far State X accepts the arrangement.
Higher marks require a clear chain linking international law → state control → sovereignty.
Question 5
Possible points include:
State Y invokes sovereignty and non-interference by claiming the crisis is an internal matter.
The other states treat treatment of civilians as an issue of wider humanitarian concern.
Proposed military intervention would interfere directly with State Y's control within its territory.
If the military action is genuinely pursued for humanitarian rather than other objectives, it fits Edexcel's definition of humanitarian intervention.
The case therefore places humanitarian protection in tension with unrestricted national sovereignty.
However, intervention would itself depend upon the actions and power of other states, showing that states remain important global actors.
Question 6
Indicative content may include:
globalisation creates widening and deepening interconnectedness
political globalisation increases the importance of international institutions
increasing interaction creates pressure for international rules and agreements
international law governs states and other international actors
international legal obligations may constrain independent state action
international institutions can become involved in issues previously treated as domestic
human-rights law may affect the relationship between states and citizens
international law nevertheless often depends upon states for acceptance and enforcement
global governance should not be confused with world government
Higher-level answers should analyse how each development alters state control rather than merely listing examples.
Question 7
Indicative content may include:
Humanitarian intervention
military intervention carried out for humanitarian objectives
creates tension between humanitarian protection and sovereignty
may treat events inside states as matters of international concern
can override the traditional principle of non-interference
development of R2P further challenges an unrestricted view of sovereignty
Forcible intervention
involves the wider issue of external force affecting affairs within another state
can directly challenge a state's exclusive territorial control
demonstrates that some states may be unable to prevent outside involvement
Counterarguments
intervention depends heavily upon state military power
disagreements over intervention demonstrate continuing sovereignty
selective interventionism suggests no universal authority determines when force is used
the continued importance of states means intervention may transform rather than eliminate the state system
For high marks, candidates should develop several focused logical chains of reasoning.
Question 8
A balanced response could develop the following arguments.
Arguments supporting the view:
International law creates rules that operate beyond individual states.
States increasingly face international legal obligations.
International institutions may scrutinise behaviour previously regarded as internal.
Humanitarian intervention challenges the principle that states possess exclusive authority over their internal affairs.
Forcible intervention can directly override territorial control.
Increasing interconnectedness creates pressure for common rules and responses.
R2P challenges the idea that sovereignty provides an absolute defence against outside involvement.
Arguments challenging the view:
There is no world government or universal sovereign above states.
International law frequently relies upon state acceptance and enforcement.
International institutions often lack their own coercive forces.
States retain military and policing power.
Powerful states may resist international pressure or refuse full participation in particular institutions.
Intervention itself usually depends on the decisions and capabilities of states.
Selective intervention demonstrates that sovereign states retain considerable discretion.
Judgement: Globalisation has significantly changed the environment in which sovereignty operates. International law, global institutions and humanitarian intervention can constrain governments and challenge the idea that events within a state's borders are entirely its own concern. However, the state system has not been replaced by world government. States remain central to law enforcement, political decision making and the use of military force. The strongest judgement is therefore that globalisation has qualified and constrained traditional sovereignty more clearly than it has abolished it. This debate forms the foundation for the next topic, competing interpretations of globalisation [Debates about globalisation].
Comments