Global challenges to state sovereignty in the 21st century

doi: 10.56294/sctconf2024.661

ORIGINAL

Global challenges to state sovereignty in the 21st century

Desafíos globales a la soberanía estatal en el siglo XXI

Nelia Makovetska¹, Gennadii Dubov², Taras Didych², Borys Malyshev², Olha Varych²

¹Department of State and Legal Disciplines, University of Economics and Law “KROK”. 03113, 30-32 Tabirna Str., Kyiv, Ukraine.

²Department of Theory and History of Law and State. Educational and Scientific Institute of Law. Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. 01033, 60 Volodymyrska Str., Kyiv, Ukraine.

Cite as: Makovetska N, Dubov G, Didych T, Malyshev B, Varych O. Global challenges to state sovereignty in the 21st century. Salud, Ciencia y Tecnología - Serie de Conferencias. 2024;3:.661. https://doi.org/10.56294/sctconf2024.661

Submitted: 24-02-2024 Revised: 20-06-2024 Accepted: 01-12-2024 Published: 02-12-2024

Editor: Dr. William Castillo-González

ABSTRACT

The purpose of the article is to analyze the modern concept of state sovereignty and the impact of globalization on it, in particular, to consider how global economic, political, technological and social changes are reformatting the traditional understanding of state sovereignty. The article explores how globalization promotes interdependence and integration of states into the world system, which often leads to transformations in internal and external aspects of state governance and control. In addition, the article analyzes the challenges faced by sovereignty through cyberspace, which require a new perspective on autonomy and self-government in a globalized world.

Keywords: Transnational Corporations; Cyberspace; Supranational Entities; Power; State Administration; State Security.

RESUMEN

El propósito del artículo es analizar el concepto moderno de soberanía estatal y el impacto de la globalización en él, en particular, considerar cómo los cambios económicos, políticos, tecnológicos y sociales globales están reformateando la comprensión tradicional de la soberanía estatal. El artículo explora cómo la globalización promueve la interdependencia y la integración de los Estados en el sistema mundial, lo que a menudo conduce a transformaciones en los aspectos internos y externos de la gobernanza y el control estatales. Además, el artículo analiza los retos a los que se enfrenta la soberanía a través del ciberespacio, que requieren una nueva perspectiva de la autonomía y el autogobierno en un mundo globalizado.

Palabras clave: Empresas Transnacionales; Ciberespacio; Entidades Supranacionales; Poder; Administración Del Estado; Seguridad Del Estado.

INTRODUCTION

Sovereignty represents the essential nature of the state as a political entity, and it is so intertwined with the concept of statehood that states lacking sovereignty are often seen as mere quasi-states. However, sovereignty is not just about the extent of a state’s military or economic might; it embodies both the authority and the capability to act. There are instances where a state’s capacity to act is so restricted that its sovereign authority becomes almost irrelevant. Conversely, there are situations where a state wields such significant power that it is informally acknowledged by others, even without formal recognition of its sovereign rights. These scenarios represent the extremes. Typically, sovereignty entails both the entitlement to exercise authority and the practical ability to do so, leading to sovereignty-related disputes often being about both jurisdiction and power (Oji & Ozioko, 2011).

The concept of sovereignty has often been more contested and less absolute than commonly perceived. While traditional notions of sovereignty include autonomy, control, and recognition, these have frequently been challenged across history. Major powers like the United States have generally maintained these attributes, but this has not been the norm for many countries. Weaker states have often experienced significant external interference, and even powerful nations have been subject to outside influence (McGrew, 2010) For instance, China experienced occupation, and after World War II, the constitutional frameworks of Japan and Germany were significantly influenced by the United States. Additionally, the United Kingdom, although it opted out of adopting the euro, was still a member of the European Union, indicating its integration into larger supranational structures.

Since the mid-20th century, state sovereignty has undergone significant transformations influenced by various international processes, particularly the integration of many states into the global economic and political arena, which today have gained particular momentum. The concept of sovereignty, rooted and legally established in the context of the Westphalian international system, has traditionally been closely linked to the state. The sovereignty crisis of national states at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries was triggered by events such as Operation Desert Storm, conflicts in Kosovo, Panama, Afghanistan, and the accelerated development of the European Union. These transformations are also associated with the crisis of political realism as a concept in international relations (Troyan, 2011).

In the 21st century, the concept of sovereignty reflects global political, economic and technological transformations. Traditionally, sovereignty has been understood as the full and indivisible power of a state within its territory, but in the context of globalization, the concept of sovereignty is expanding to include transnational influence and interstate interaction.

The essence of globalization is the increasing direct connection between individuals, groups, organizations, companies and initiatives from different countries, which is happening now more than at any previous time, often bypassing the traditional role of states. Thus, globalization can relegate state structures to the background in international relations (Spivak, 2010). International organizations, transnational corporations, and other non-state actors influence the internal affairs of states, which calls into question the absoluteness of national sovereignty and emphasizes the need for a balance between international cooperation and the protection of national interests. For example, the emergence of new forms of political organization, such as supranational associations (e.g., the European Union) and the increasing importance of local self-government, demonstrate the shift of sovereignty from centralized state power to a more complex and multilevel structure.

In addition, the development of information technology and cyberspace has created new arenas for sovereign interaction and conflict. States are actively working to protect their cyber territory and information space from external threats. The realization that no state, regardless of its power, can fully protect its citizens from global economic and financial crises, information threats (e.g., fake news and cyberattacks), and environmental problems has prompted a revision of traditional views of state sovereignty (Babarykina et al, 2022).

METHOD

The leading method used to obtain reliable results of the research was the method of analysis and synthesis. The authors used it to study the impact of globalization on state sovereignty. The analysis consisted of a detailed consideration of the impact of transnational corporations, international organizations, cyberspace, and the newest forms of state-building on the concept of sovereignty. The authors revealed how these factors interact with traditional notions of state power and autonomy. In turn, the synthesis in the article was achieved by combining these disparate data into a coherent view of how globalization is transforming national sovereignty, forcing states to adapt and rethink their roles and functions in a changing global environment. By synthesizing various aspects of the impact, the article presents a comprehensive picture of the relationship between globalization and state sovereignty, emphasizing the need to find a balance between global integration and the protection of national interests.

The authors also used the systemic method. This method was applied by considering sovereignty in the context of a broader system of global relations and processes. This means that the author did not consider sovereignty as an isolated phenomenon, but as part of a complex system where different elements are interconnected and interdependent. The authors used the systemic method to obtain information on the impact of cyber threats on the sovereignty of states. In addition, this method was used to analyze and highlight the legal and political challenges posed by TNCs to sovereignty. The author examined how international economic, political, social and technological trends interact with each other and affect state sovereignty, taking into account such factors as globalization, international organizations, cyberspace and transnational corporations. Using a systemic approach, the author assessed how external and internal influences shape the behavior of the state and its interaction with other actors in the international arena. This approach made it possible to present national sovereignty as the result of the interaction of a large number of factors, providing a deeper understanding of the complexity and dynamics of global challenges affecting states in the modern world. Thus, the systematic method in the article helped to structure the analysis and present an objective and comprehensive picture of the impact of global challenges on state sovereignty.

The historical method is used in the article to express a retrospective of changes in approaches to understanding state sovereignty and globalization, demonstrating how historical context and events have influenced the evolution of these concepts.

The comparative method in the context of defining the concept of globalization was applied by analyzing and comparing different theoretical approaches and interpretations of globalization. The author examined how different schools of thought and researchers interpret globalization, highlighting key characteristics. Through a comparative analysis, the author explored different views of globalization, revealing its complex, multidimensional nature and impact on international relations and national sovereignty. This comparison helped to highlight the variable and constant elements in the understanding of globalization, as well as the impact of these interpretations on the theories and practices of public administration and international politics. This method allowed the author to provide his own definition of globalization.

The authors also used a predictive method. This was used to identify future trends and prospects for the development of state sovereignty in the context of globalization. This method allows the author to assess how current global processes and challenges will affect the future of state sovereignty. Based on the analysis of current trends, the author makes predictions on how states can adapt to changing global conditions. The predictive method in this article contributes to the understanding of potential future scenarios.

RESULTS

General characteristics of the impact of globalization on state sovereignty

Globalization is a multifaceted process that changes the traditional framework of international relations, economy and culture, prompting a rethinking of the concept of sovereignty. Its essence, the main trend of its development is the formation of a single interdependent world, interaction and mutual influence of different communities, cultures and civilizations. In a broad sense and ideally, globalization transforms the current world order on a global scale, embodies the idea of the future unity of the human community while preserving the identity of its components, which has been around since antiquity (Muntiian, 2012).

As noted by E. V. Prushkivska and J. O. Shevchenko (2012) the early stages of civilizational development were limited to local or partial manifestations of universalization in certain spheres of public life, but each of these stages contributed to the gradual achievement of the modern phase of globalization. Globalization, in turn, is the product of many subjective and objective factors that emerged almost simultaneously, and unlike previous periods, it has affected all aspects of social life, including economics, politics, culture, ideology, etc.

In the economic sphere, globalization is marked by the intensification of international trade, investment and financial flows, which increases the interdependence of national markets and contributes to the formation of a single global market space. Political globalization is manifested in the creation and development of international organizations and institutions that regulate global relations and promote international cooperation in solving global problems, from climate change to international security.

On the other hand, in the social and cultural context, globalization promotes the widespread dissemination of ideas, cultural values, and social norms through new media and communication technologies, leading to cultural convergence and the formation of transcultural identities. As a result of constant contacts between different civilizations throughout the development of mankind, they are gradually converging and intertwining. The activities of transnational corporations and the use of the latest telecommunication technologies directly affect changes in traditions, customs, and worldview (Prushkivska & Shevchenko, 2012). We can also distinguish the technological aspect of globalization, which encompasses innovative advances in communications and transportation that make the exchange of information and resources faster and more efficient, contributing to global integration.

Thus, globalization creates a complex and dynamic context in which states must constantly adapt and interact to respond to the changing conditions of the global environment. This requires new approaches from politicians, scholars, and the public to understand and manage the processes that shape the modern world. It is worth paying more attention to the definitions of the concepts used in this article, namely “globalization” and, more specifically, “sovereignty”. There is no universally agreed upon definition of globalization because it encompasses various interpretations. Thus, M. Marsonet (2017) defines globalization as globalization refers to the process that leads to increased interconnectedness and interdependence globally. This process is characterized by a growing number of issues shared among nations and an expansion in the variety and number of entities involved in integration.

A. Starostina (2011) noted that globalization is an objective process that entails the dilution of national borders as a result of the search for profitable areas for capital reproduction in all its forms (production, financial, labor, economic resources). This leads to interaction, interdependence, and interweaving of national economies, culminating in the formation of a global market and a world economic system. Researcher M. B. Steger (2003) describes globalization as a set of processes that generate, enhance, spread, and intensify global social interdependence and exchange, while simultaneously fostering an understanding among people of the deep connections between the local and the distant.

Among the more recent works is the definition by M. Andriienko and P. Haman (2021) that globalization is described as the process of forming networks between entities over a large geographical distance, enabled by a variety of flows such as people, information, ideas, capital, and products. This process leads to the blurring of national boundaries, the integration of economies, cultures, technologies and governance systems, and the creation of complex international interdependencies.

Thus, without claiming to be universal, based on the above definitions, we propose to define globalization as a dynamic process that facilitates the interconnection and interaction of different countries and cultures at a global level, fostering the creation of a single integrated world system. This process is characterized by the growth of transnational economic, social, cultural, and political ties, leading to the erosion of national borders and an increase in international interdependence. Globalization is driven by the spread of information technologies, global financial flows, international trade, and cultural exchange, thereby shaping a changed global environment in which states, companies, and individuals operate.

In turn, the definition of sovereignty is more established, referring to the supreme authority and independence of a state to govern itself without external interference. Sovereignty embodies the right and power of a state to make and enforce its own laws, control its own affairs, and determine its own policies, both domestically and in its relations with other states. This concept emphasizes the legal and political autonomy of a state within its territorial boundaries, ensuring its ability to act as an independent entity in the international community.

The term “sovereignty” in the context of state and legal meaning was coined in the 16th century by a group of French politicians and jurists. This group developed a concept that separated power and sovereignty, opposing the overarching influence of the Pope on national politics (Sarakutsa, 2010). Studying the understanding of state sovereignty formed by different constitutional and legal schools, it can be noted that in most cases sovereignty is defined as the internal supremacy of the state over other subjects and as external independence in relations with other sovereign states. The supremacy of state power, being considered as one of the types of social power, is one that has an absolute priority over other powers existing in society.

According to M. Marsonet (2017) globalization has led to the perception that the concept of sovereignty should be, and is, diminishing in strength. It is increasingly seen that states should voluntarily reduce their sovereign powers to better protect themselves from global influences and threats, as isolation from international developments is no longer feasible. The notion of sovereignty as a shield was challenged by international responses, such as the removal of Afghanistan’s Taliban regime, which harbored and supported al-Qaeda, by a coalition led by the United States. Furthermore, the U.S.-led preemptive action against Iraq, which was accused of defying UN mandates and possessing weapons of mass destruction, underscores that sovereignty does not guarantee absolute security. The global community’s likely reaction to a government intending to use or distribute a nuclear weapon further illustrates that sovereignty cannot safeguard a state that poses a global threat.

In general, globalization and sovereignty are often seen as contradictory in the current world order. Globalization contributes to the erosion of national borders and blurs clear lines of national statehood. On the one hand, globalization provides countries with access to global markets, new technologies, and international interaction, which can contribute to economic growth and social progress. On the other hand, this process can undermine traditional mechanisms of governance and control of the national state, limiting its ability to independently resolve internal and external issues.

Sovereignty, which is based on the principles of territorial integrity, political independence and the right to self-determination, can be challenged in an environment where international institutions and corporations have significant influence on the internal policies of states. This contradiction is particularly pronounced in cases where international economic and political decisions impose restrictions on national decisions, for example, through the requirements of international organizations such as the World Trade Organization or the International Monetary Fund.

Therefore, the coexistence of globalization and sovereignty requires the search for new forms of cooperation and a balance between preserving national identity and integration into the global economy and politics. A variety of elements contribute to the transformation of national sovereignty. These include technological and economic shifts, the desire to avoid warfare, global challenges that bring nations together, regional integration efforts, and the broadening of interactions across various spheres and levels between individuals from different countries. Additionally, the imperative to address numerous complex issues and resolve disputes, along with the rise in democratic governance worldwide, plays a significant role in this changing landscape of sovereignty (Marsonet, 2017). The challenge is to find the optimal combination of these often-opposing forces in shaping the current global reality.

Transnational corporations and state sovereignty

Transnational corporations play a significant role in the globalized economy and have a major impact on sovereignty. These corporations, which have branches and operating bases in many countries, can exceed the economic power and resources of individual states. The contribution of TNCs to globalization and transnationalization of the world economy began in the 1970s with the aim of facilitating business activities. One of these activities was the relocation of production facilities to developing countries. Another factor that stimulated globalization was the growing role of the service sector in the economic structure, especially the growing importance of TNCs in providing these services, particularly in the financial sector, trade, and information technology. The third factor is the oversaturation of the financial market and the mismatch between real and fictitious capital. The development of extraordinary competition in the 1990s led to mergers of the world’s leading companies in various sectors, from banking to automotive and oil and gas. Also important in this context is the role of e-business with the widespread use of electronic communications to manage production and trade, which also actively contributed to the development of globalization (Sarychev, 2011).

For many people around the world, TNCs are the embodiment of globalization, its hallmark. TNCs make a significant contribution to the global economy through foreign direct investment, job creation, and the use of advanced technologies. At the same time, they can circumvent national economic policies, use tax havens to minimize their tax liabilities, and put pressure on governments to make decisions that favor their interests. In addition, due to their economic power, TNCs have the ability to influence political decisions and legislation, which is sometimes perceived as undermining national sovereignty. This may include lobbying for deregulation, free trade agreements, and other regulatory changes that favor corporations.

TNCs can be defined as a group of companies consisting of a parent company and its affiliates that are spread over (many) countries and characterized by a unified business management and strategy. The principle of subordination between the parent company and its subsidiaries, and similarly between subsidiaries and possible exclusive suppliers, is apparent but not fixed. The element of unified business management and strategy plays a role of constitutive element of the definition and is thus the true essence of a TNC (Bureš, 2023). It is important to note that it is this element that undermines, devalues, and weakens the positive content of the sovereignty of state. When speaking about TNCs, the issue arises of a kind of paralysis of the state’s sovereignty, or, more precisely, of its jurisdiction to include or to grasp the transnational corporation as a whole.

Legally, TNCs operate in multiple jurisdictions, which calls into question their accountability and the ability of national governments to control their activities. This sometimes leads to situations where TNCs can avoid responsibility for human rights violations or environmental crimes (Crawford, 2019). They have an impact on cultural identity through the globalization of brands, products, and services. This can lead to cultural homogenization and the displacement of local traditions and industries. The activities of transnational corporations pose a number of legal and political challenges to national governments and the international community. We have divided these challenges into two categories: legal and political, which are described in more detail in table 1.

Table 1. Challenges to state sovereignty related to the activities of transnational corporations

Legal challenges

Political challenges

1. Regulation and responsibility.

It is necessary to ensure that TNCs comply with national laws, international norms and standards, especially in the areas of human rights, environment, labor rights and anti-corruption.

1. Influence on domestic politics.

TNCs can influence political decisions and legislation through lobbying and campaign financing, raising questions about political independence and transparency.

2. Tax issues.

It is advisable to combat tax evasion and the transfer of profits to tax havens, which undermine national budgets.

2. Economic influence.

Large corporations can have a decisive impact on a country’s economy by setting working conditions, prices, and even economic policies.

3. Intellectual property

Participants in international relations should create a controlling framework that protects intellectual property rights, ensures fair competition and prevents market abuse.

3. Social responsibility.

It is necessary to ensure that TNCs are responsible for the social and environmental aspects of their activities and promote the principles of sustainable development.

Thus, the activities of TNCs require a comprehensive approach to regulation and control to ensure their positive impact on the global economy, while protecting national interests and global standards of responsibility. As a result, the interaction between TNCs and sovereignty is complex and multifaceted. On the one hand, TNCs contribute to economic development and integration, but on the other hand, they can weaken the ability of states to manage their own economy, politics and culture. Thus, governments need to find strategies for effective engagement with transnational corporations to ensure that such engagement benefits the national interest without undermining the sovereign capacity of the state to address domestic issues and preserve cultural uniqueness.

The first measure that governments should consider is to regulate investment conditions. Governments can develop and implement a clear regulatory framework for foreign investment that includes requirements for environmental responsibility, social responsibility of business, and corporate governance. Such measures help to create a stable investment climate, protect the local population and the environment, and ensure that investments from TNCs contribute to the economic and social development of the country. Another measure could be tax transparency and fairness, in particular the establishment of an effective tax system that requires TNCs to pay their fair share of taxes in the countries where they operate. This prevents capital from being diverted through tax havens and ensures that TNCs make a fair contribution to the host country’s economy. Increased tax revenues help finance public services and social programs.

Finally, it is advisable to promote the protection and support of local industry and culture, in particular, to develop policies that protect local industries and enterprises from uncontrolled competition from TNCs and to promote the preservation of cultural uniqueness. This may include subsidizing local enterprises, protecting local goods and services, and preserving cultural heritage. Such actions not only support economic diversity, but also promote cultural identity and social cohesion. In our view, such measures help to ensure that engagement with MNCs brings positive impacts to the national economy, strengthens political stability and maintains cultural identity, while protecting national sovereignty.

The role of international organizations in the formation of state sovereignty

International organizations play a critical role in shaping sovereignty, especially in light of ongoing globalization. They develop international norms and standards that serve as the basis for international relations and influence domestic policies. These standards, covering a wide range of issues from human rights to economic policy and environmental norms, force countries to adapt to the generally accepted rules of the global community. Supporting democratic values, the rule of law and human rights protection through the activities of international organizations helps to strengthen national institutions and improve governance, ensuring a more stable and efficient society. In this context, the first globalization impact of the IOs is manifested through the instruments of legal unification and harmonization. The IOs set global standards in a variety of areas, from trade to health and the environment. This helps to harmonize policies and legislation between countries, removing barriers to international trade and cooperation. At the same time, it makes the legislation of countries similar, which is evidence of globalization.

In this context, it is important to focus on the relationship between the sovereignty of member states and the supranationality of international organizations. For this purpose, let us consider the division of competence between the EU and its member states. When discussing the legal acts adopted by the European Union and their impact on national legal systems, it should be borne in mind that such acts have different degrees of legal force, which largely depends on their form. According to Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 2007), EU institutions use a variety of legal instruments, such as regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and opinions. Regulations requiring direct application are binding in all aspects and are immediately applicable in each member state, governing legal relations in areas such as the principle of non-discrimination, EU citizenship, competition law, as well as economic, agricultural, transport, customs and trade policy.

The researchers O. Shpakovych and S. Penkovska (2020) express the opinion that the regulatory acts adopted by the European Union should define legal relations only in the areas clearly defined in the founding treaties of the Union. In other words, the EU has no right to establish rules outside these defined areas. The member states have not only clearly defined the areas of EU competence, but also established a clear classification of legal acts that may regulate these relations. Such a classification is important because it helps to ensure clarity and transparency in the EU legislative process and prevents the overreaching of the powers granted. Without such a clear classification, situations could arise where different types of acts regulate areas outside the defined boundaries, which would create uncertainty about their legal force and contribute to the concept of supranationality of EU acts. In other words, a clearly defined and structured approach of the Member States to EU legal acts demonstrates that the sovereignty of the states is primary in this process. This sovereign choice of states contributes to the creation of clear and harmonized regulation in the necessary areas, reflecting a balanced combination of national sovereignty and EU supranational powers.

We partially agree with the authors’ view that integration into the EU and delegation of some of its powers is the right of each state within the framework of its sovereignty and its expression of will. However, we believe that although harmonization of legislation may look like a process aimed at aligning national norms and standards with international requirements, it does not exclude the influence of globalization. On the contrary, harmonization is often the result of globalization processes, when countries seek to unify their legal frameworks to meet global trends and facilitate international trade, investment and cooperation. Thus, globalization stimulates and often requires harmonization of legislation, as it contributes to the creation of a more integrated and effective international legal order.

Thus, it can be stated that international organizations and sui generis organizations, such as the European Union, exert globalizing influence on states, thereby affecting their sovereignty. These organizations, through the creation of common policies, standards and norms, facilitate the integration of states into the global system, which can change the traditional understanding of national sovereignty. They provide a platform for international cooperation that allows states to respond effectively to global challenges, but also requires a certain amount of national control over some domestic and foreign policies. International organizations act as vital platforms that promote multilateralism, offering spaces for countries to participate in diplomatic discussions and negotiations (Saaida, 2023). This is reflected in processes that require joint decisions or compliance with international treaties, which sometimes limit national autonomy in decision-making in certain areas.

In this context, it is worth noting the opinion of A. Meisar (2018) that self-limitation of sovereignty for the establishment and operation of an international intergovernmental organization cannot be considered a renunciation of one’s own sovereignty or deprivation of state independence. In this case, it is rather a matter of realization of sovereign rights and protection of its international interests. Monitoring and implementation of international law is another important aspect of the activities of international organizations. Through their supervisory functions, these organizations ensure that states comply with international treaties and obligations, which may limit national autonomy in certain matters.

The economic influence of international organizations, especially through financial support and lending provided by the World Bank and the IMF, is also important. This assistance is often accompanied by conditions that encourage countries to carry out economic reforms, which indicates a significant impact on the internal politics and sovereignty of states. A similar opinion is shared by I. Voroniuk et al. (2020), who emphasizes that each international organization has its own unique role and specialization, which is not limited to economic aspects, but each of them has an impact, directly or indirectly, on the economic strategies of states. This influence is increasingly evident with the development of globalization. Today, no country stands aside from participation in international treaties, memorandums or conventions aimed at defining and regulating specific sectors of international cooperation and acting as coordinators of such cooperation. Trade liberalization, which is being deepened by the efforts of global international organizations, has led to the adjustment of economic policy at the state level in accordance with the terms of international cooperation.

Thus, international organizations play an instrumental role in shaping and adapting national sovereignty to modern global realities. They not only influence the domestic and foreign policies of states through international legislation and standards, but also contribute to the formation of an international system that ensures coordination and mutual assistance between countries. This role is important for ensuring stability, peace and development at the global level, while at the same time requiring states to balance between preserving their national autonomy and adapting to the requirements of the international community.

Cyberspace as a challenge to state sovereignty: analysis and prospects

Cyberspace is a virtual interaction environment created by a global network of computer systems and information technologies. It is not only the physical infrastructure of the Internet, but also the virtual world where people interact, exchange information, conduct business and personal transactions, and where data processing and storage take place. Cyberspace encompasses a wide range of components, including network hardware, software, databases, websites, and other resources that make the digital world function (Garvey, 2021). It is a dynamic environment that is constantly evolving and changing due to innovations in information technology and communications. Cyberspace constitutes a global digital network that is intricately woven into all facets of our daily lives. It extends beyond just the Internet to include the critical infrastructure that underpins modern societies, such as power grids, water supply systems, financial transactions, and transportation networks.

In both the United States and the European Union, approximately 90 % of critical computer infrastructure is managed by the private sector (Dunn Cavelty, 2010). Cyberspace is home to processes that are important to modern society, economy and governance, including e-commerce, digital communication, social networks, access to information and services. It has also become an arena for new forms of crime, such as cyberattacks, cyberespionage, cyberwarfare and other cyber threats, which pose new security and legal challenges to society.

The initial problem of the study is to define modern cyberspace (or information space) as an object of geopolitical analysis and to develop approaches to its integration into the geostrategies of countries. The difficulty lies in the fact that there is still no single definition of the concept of “geopolitics”, which makes it difficult to understand its subject in modern conditions and its interaction with various geostrategies. The variety of definitions of geopolitics proposed by scholars reflects the depth and complexity of this discipline, both in the classical and modern scientific context, emphasizing its dynamic and complex nature (Dubov, 2014).

Cyberspace seems borderless, but is actually bounded by the physical infrastructures thatfacilitate the transfer of data and information. Such infrastructures are mostlyowned by the private sector and are located in the sovereign territory of states. There is no doubt that states are trying to overcome the so-called border paradoxand develop virtual borders (Demchak & Dombrowski, 2011). The perceived threat of cyberspace’s independence led to calls for government intervention to regulate it and safeguard national sovereignty (Lewis, 2010). This stands in contrast to the non-governmental perspective, which highlights the importance of individual efforts in structuring cyberspace. Concerns about the unbounded nature of cyberspace have compelled many governments to establish and implement policies, as well as design mechanisms, that enable them to oversee their digital domains and uphold state sovereignty (Adams & Albakajai, 2006).

Modern cyberspace presents a number of threats to national security that inevitably affect the sovereignty of states. Based on the analysis of a number of cybersecurity sources and doctrines, we have identified the following threats and the challenges they present to state security in table 2.

Table 2. Cybersecurity threats and challenges to state sovereignty

Cyber threat

A challenge to national security

Cyberattacks on critical infrastructure.

Attacks on energy systems, transportation networks, financial institutions, and other vital sectors can have devastating consequences for national security and the economy.

Economic losses and dependence.

Attacks on critical infrastructure can cause significant economic losses and increase dependence on international assistance for recovery.

Cyber espionage.

Adversarial states or malicious actors can use cyberspace for espionage to gain access to confidential information, military secrets, or intellectual property.

Breach of confidentiality and privacy.

Cyber espionage and phishing attacks threaten confidential information, which can lead to a loss of sovereign control over internal data.

Phishing and other types of cyber fraud.

Unauthorized use of personal information for fraud or identity theft.

Distribution of harmful software.

Viruses, Trojans, and other types of harmful software can be distributed to corrupt, steal, or destroy critical data.

Disinformation and propaganda.

The targeted dissemination of false information through social media or other online channels can undermine democratic processes, sowing confusion and conflict in society.

Loss of control over the information space.

Cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns can undermine public trust in government and institutions, weakening the state’s ability to ensure information security.

Cyberterrorism.

The use of cyberspace by terrorist groups to undermine national security, harm citizens, or create mass panic.

Undermining international relations.

Cyber incidents, especially when they can be traced back to other countries, can worsen diplomatic relations and provoke conflicts.

Challenges to national defense.

Cyberterrorism and large-scale cyberattacks require states to develop new defense strategies and technologies, which can also change traditional approaches to national security.

When a state’s national security is threatened by cyber incidents, it not only disrupts internal order and stability, but also calls into question its ability to protect itself and its citizens. Such incidents can serve as a sign of a state’s weakness in the face of the international community, reducing its authority and influence in the international arena. The breach of national security due to cyber threats also leads to the need to revise national security strategies and investments in cyber defense. This, in turn, requires significant resources and may limit the sovereignty of the state due to increased dependence on international technical assistance and cooperation in the field of cybersecurity. Thus, cyber threats pose a serious challenge to the national security and sovereignty of states. They require a comprehensive approach to the development and implementation of effective cybersecurity strategies that could protect critical infrastructure, strengthen the legal framework for countering cyber threats, and develop international cooperation in cybersecurity to strengthen national sovereignty.

The impact of global changes on the creation of new forms of statehood

New forms of state-building refer to the processes and models that emerge in response to current global challenges and changes, including globalization, technological development, changes in international relations and other socio-economic transformations (Egnell & Haldén, 2013). These new forms differ from traditional conceptions of the state and its organization, offering innovative approaches to governance, sovereignty, and interaction with citizens and other states. Among these new forms of statehood, we can distinguish certain categories. The first is digital or electronic states. The development of technology leads to the creation of “digital states” where e-government and online services become the basis for interaction with citizens. Estonia is a good example in this regard. It is one of the most digitized countries in the world, where most government services are provided electronically. It has introduced the concepts of e-citizenship and e-residency, allowing non-residents to do business online under Estonian jurisdiction.

Ukraine is actively working on digitalization and e-governance development, so it can be seen as a country moving towards becoming a digitalized state (Yasinska et al., 2023). Programs and initiatives such as Diia (Digitalization of Services and Processes) are an example of these efforts. The Diia platform allows citizens and businesses to access a variety of government services electronically, including business registration, reporting, and obtaining certificates and other documents. This is aimed at reducing bureaucracy, increasing transparency and efficiency of government services (Trushlyakova, 2018). Although Ukraine has made significant steps towards digitalization, there are still many challenges on the way to becoming a fully-fledged digital state, particularly in the areas of cybersecurity, infrastructure development, and legislative support for digital initiatives.

The second category is supranational entities. These are forms of intergovernmental associations where member states transfer part of their sovereignty to supranational institutions to jointly regulate certain areas of activity. These associations differ from traditional international organizations in that they have greater powers and autonomy in making decisions that directly affect the legislation and policies of member states. Earlier in the article, we wrote about the European Union as sui generis, which is an association of countries with the transfer of part of their sovereignty to supranational institutions for joint regulation of economic, political and social issues.

The third group includes city-states (or global cities). These are cities that are gaining importance in the international arena, fulfilling the roles traditionally belonging to nation-states in terms of economy, culture, and diplomacy. Cities with populations exceeding 10 million are commonly termed ‘mega-cities’ in both policy and academic discussions. However, such cities encompass a variety of types. Their size often depends on the demarcation of metropolitan boundaries, a subject of scholarly discourse, and their social, economic, political, and spatial structures vary significantly. Mega-cities in the developed world, like New York, London, and Tokyo, are mentioned in the same context as those in the developing world, including Guangzhou, Mexico City, and Mumbai. Yet, these examples represent distinct developmental dynamics and reasons for population growth, such as natural increase. In the developing world, significant urbanization drivers include substantial rural-to-urban migration within countries. Conversely, in the developed world, urbanization factors are more varied and frequently involve transnational migration. Nevertheless, in both contexts, cities have become central hubs for production and employment, which are critical social functions, driving the continuous urbanization process (Trushenko, 2011).

Global cities are unevenly distributed geographically, but they are closely linked to the most economically developed and wealthy countries in the world. There are three main areas of concentration: Western European, North American, and Asia-Pacific. For other regions of the world, the category of global cities is represented by single centers (Shklyar et al., 2023). Singapore functions as an independent state, but due to its compactness and urban nature, it has the characteristics of a city-state, being a global financial and trade center. Alternatively, large cities, such as New York, London, and Tokyo, have a significant impact on the global economy and culture, acting as informal actors in international politics.

These new forms of state-building reflect the need to adapt to the changing global context and to find effective ways to govern and ensure well-being in the face of modern challenges. The newest forms of state-building have a significant impact on the concept of traditional state sovereignty. New forms allow states to interact more effectively with citizens and the international community, improving governance, transparency, and response to global challenges. In the context of supranational entities, states can transfer some of their sovereign rights to common institutions, which can be beneficial for overall regional development and stability.

It is worth noting that new forms of state-building do not necessarily threaten the sovereignty of states, but they do change the conditions in which this sovereignty is exercised. Adapting to these changes requires flexibility and strategic planning to ensure that modernization strengthens, rather than weakens, national independence and stability. Ultimately, new forms of state-building can be a tool for strengthening state sovereignty if they are used for good governance, international cooperation, and responding to global challenges, provided that they do not compromise the basic principles of national autonomy and self-determination.

DISCUSSION

We find the opinions of the scholars A. Oji and M. V. Ozioko (2011) interesting. This article explores the impact of globalization on state sovereignty, analyzing how nation-states have adapted to the new challenges arising from this process. The authors focus on the shift in the traditional understanding of state sovereignty that has resulted from global changes such as the creation of monetary unions, the spread of global television, the Internet, and the influence of governmental and non-governmental organizations. They examine how institutions such as the UN, WTO, and IMF can exceed their authority by promoting universal standards that change the boundaries of state power. They provide detailed analyses of the impact of globalization on sovereignty and show how globalization is transforming international relations and domestic politics. Their insights can help us better understand how contemporary global processes affect national sovereignty and how states seek a balance between global integration and preserving their independence.

The authors of the article also analyzed the views expressed in the scientific work of I. Troyan (2011). This work examines the changes in the concept of state sovereignty in the context of globalization processes. The author analyzes how states with different statuses exercise their sovereignty in international practice and considers the causes and consequences of these transformations. Particular attention is paid to the impact of globalization on the Westphalian system of international relations, economic globalization, political interdependence, as well as changes in the concepts of legitimacy, subjectivity, political loyalty and identity. The work provides an in-depth analysis of the impact of globalization processes on state sovereignty, helping to understand both historical and contemporary changes in the functioning of states in the international system. The author’s views can enrich the understanding of international relations and political processes, especially in the context of preserving sovereignty and interaction of states in the context of globalization.

It is also important to pay attention to the work of M. Marsonet (2017), who explores how globalization is changing the traditional understanding of state sovereignty, in particular through the influence of international organizations, transnational corporations, non-governmental organizations and other actors. He argues that modern states may be forced to weaken their sovereignty to protect themselves from global challenges and views this not only as a loss, but also as a necessary adaptation to a changing world. His thoughts provide an in-depth analysis of the impact of globalization on the concept of national sovereignty, showing how these changes are shaping the new global political and economic reality. This is particularly important for understanding how states should balance the need to preserve their autonomy with the need to cooperate in a multipolar globalized world.

Also worthy of special attention is the article by P. Bureš (2023), which focuses on the interaction between state sovereignty and the activities of transnational corporations. The author discusses how TNCs, which are both the result and the creators of the globalized economic reality, affect the traditional understanding of statehood and its sovereignty. Particular attention is paid to the legal and economic aspects of TNCs’ activities, such as self-restriction of states in matters of administrative jurisdiction over foreign investors, human rights and the concept of corporate citizenship. The author’s insights were useful for our work, as they allowed us to gain a deeper understanding of how TNCs interact with national legal and political systems and what challenges this poses to traditional notions of sovereignty. Understanding this relationship is important for assessing contemporary international relations and the impact of globalization on public policy and governance.

Despite the large number of scholarly works on this topic, the impact of globalization on sovereignty remains an important area of research, as global processes continue to evolve, bringing new changes and challenges. On the one hand, increased international integration contributes to economic growth and development, but on the other hand, it calls into question traditional parameters of state power and autonomy. Thus, it is necessary to continue analyzing how states can maintain their control and influence while adapting to the demands of the globalized environment.

An analysis of the impact of global challenges on sovereignty reveals that the current international context is generating significant changes in the traditional understanding and exercise of state sovereignty. Globalization and the challenges it brings with it in various spheres are weakening the control of states over their borders, economies, and information space. As a result, while global challenges may seem to threaten national sovereignty, they also provide opportunities for greater international cooperation, innovation in governance and strategic planning, contributing to new forms of state-building and responses to contemporary challenges.

I would also like to note the reasonable and appropriate opinion of the group of researchers N. Babarykina, N. Horlo, M. Zabolotna, O. Kindratets and T. Serhiienko (2022) and others: “Aggressive policy has no justification, because global problems are now “at war” with humanity. Their solution requires the unification of all countries of the world. Neither faith, nor culture, nor economic or geopolitical interests should prevent us from understanding the dangers that can only be overcome together. A condition for such unification is the recognition by the countries of the world of the principle of state sovereignty, as this will ensure the trust that is so important for joint action. A country is weak if political forces in the struggle for power try to destroy each other, ignoring external threats. This also applies to humanity, which is facing the threat of destruction. However, some countries do not notice this and try to seize other sovereign states.”.

Without pretending to be completely accurate and relevant, we will take the liberty of predicting certain future trends in the development of national sovereignty. In this direction, we can identify several key areas based on current global challenges and changes:

1. Greater interdependence and supranational integration. Globalization will continue to encourage states to participate in international agreements and supranational associations, which may partially limit sovereignty in certain aspects, but at the same time strengthen it through collective interaction and cooperation.

2. Digitalization and cybersecurity. Sovereignty in cyberspace will become even more important as states develop and implement policies to protect their digital borders, infrastructure and information from cyber threats.

3. Environmental challenges and sustainable development. Climate change and other global environmental challenges will contribute to the formation of new international treaties and policies aimed at protecting the environment, which will also affect national policies and sovereignty.

4. Political and social transformations. Rising populism, nationalism, and other socio-political movements can affect national identity and politics, which in turn affects the internal and external expression of sovereignty. Populist and nationalist movements often emphasize ideas of self-identity, sovereignty, and national pride, which can lead to increased centralization of power, restrictions on immigration, reassertion of control over national resources, and changes in domestic political strategy. This may increase state control and autonomy in certain aspects. Given these trends, it can be predicted that sovereignty will continue to evolve in response to complex global changes, retaining its basic importance but adapting to new conditions of international interaction and domestic governance.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, the process of globalization is a natural movement of humanity towards forms of coexistence under new conditions. On the one hand, it is globalization, unfolding against the backdrop of the development of technological, information, and knowledge-intensive spheres, that strengthens integration and unification processes, gradually leading to an understanding of the interdependence of humanity. In the 21st century, the sovereignty of states faces unprecedented challenges posed by globalization, technological progress, and global economic and political changes. Globalization is increasing interdependence between countries, which, on the one hand, can increase the effectiveness of international cooperation and promote economic development, but on the other hand, it also challenges the traditional framework of state sovereignty.

Technological development, in particular in the field of information technology, has an equally significant impact on state sovereignty. Cyberspace is becoming an arena for new forms of international conflict, where traditional defense and security mechanisms are often ineffective. This requires states to develop new cybersecurity strategies that include the protection of critical infrastructure, measures to counter cyberespionage and cyberterrorism, and cooperation with international partners to ensure collective security.

International organizations and sui generis entities, such as the European Union, play a key role in shaping the new parameters of sovereignty by creating supranational structures that are able to respond to transnational challenges. While this may seem like a threat to the traditional understanding of sovereignty, in practice it often contributes to strengthening the state by deepening international integration, ensuring more effective solutions to common problems.

State sovereignty in the future will largely depend on the ability of states to adapt to these changes and to interact effectively both domestically and internationally. States that successfully integrate into global processes, using technological innovations and international cooperation to strengthen their security, economy, and social stability, will be able to maintain and even strengthen their sovereignty. At the same time, ignoring or rejecting these global trends can lead to isolation, vulnerability to external and internal threats, and loss of influence in the international arena.

Thus, in a changing world, sovereignty is transforming, requiring states not only to protect their traditional rights and interests, but also to develop new forms of governance that take into account global changes and challenges. In this context, states that demonstrate flexibility, innovation and openness to cooperation will be best able to adapt to new conditions and ensure sustainable development in a globalized world.

REFERENCES

1. Adams, J., & Albakajai, M. (2006). Cyberspace: A new threat to the sovereignty of the state. Management Studies, 6, 256-265.

2. Andriienko, M., & Haman, P. (2021). Problems and prospects of public administration of Ukraine in the conditions of economic globalization. Scientific Bulletin: Public Administration, 1(7), 6-25.

3. Babarykina, N., Horlo, N., Zabolotna, M., Kindratets, O., & Serhiienko, T. (2022). State sovereignty in the context of globalization: Theory and practice. Zaporizhzhia: Zaporizhzhia National University.

4. Bureš, P. (2023). Sovereignty and transnational corporations. Gdańskie Studia Prawnicze, 2(59), 99-108.

5. Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. (2007). Protocols, Annexes to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Declarations annexed to the Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon, signed on 13 December 2007, Tables of equivalences. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A12016ME%2FTXT

6. Crawford, J. (2019). Brownlie’s principles of public international law (9th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

7. Demchak, C., & Dombrowski, P. (2011). Rise of a cybered Westphalian age. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 5, 32-61.

8. Dubov, D. V. (2014). Cyberspace as a new dimension of geopolitical rivalry. Kyiv: NISS.

9. Dunn Cavelty, M. (2010). Cyber-security. In P. Burgess (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of new security studies (pp. 94-103). London: Routledge.

10. Egnell, R., & Haldén, P. (2013). New agendas in statebuilding: Hybridity, contingency and history. London: Routledge.

11. Garvey, M. D. (2021). A philosophical examination on the definition of cyberspace. Retrieved from https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789811233128_0001

12. Lewis, J. (2010). Sovereignty and the role of government in cyberspace. The Brown Journal of World Affairs, 16(2), 55-65.

13. Marsonet, M. (2017). National sovereignty vs. globalization. Academicus International Scientific Journal, 15(1), 47-57.

14. Machaca MH. Relationship between physical activity and quality of work life in accountancy professionals: A literature review. Edu - Tech Enterprise 2024;2:13–13. https://doi.org/10.71459/edutech202413.

15. McGrew, T. (2010). Globalization: A critical introduction. New Political Economy, 6(2), 293-301.

16. Meisar, A. A. (2018). Self-restraint of the sovereignty of the member states of international intergovernmental organizations. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/386930624.pdf

17. Muntiian, V. (2012). Globalization: Origins and prospects. World of Finance, 2, 28-35.

18. Romero-Carazas R. Collection Management Model for Late Payment Control in the Basic Education Institutions. Edu - Tech Enterprise 2024;2:12–12. https://doi.org/10.71459/edutech202412.

19. Oji, A., & Ozioko, M. V. (2011). Effect of globalization on sovereignty of states. Nnamdi Azikiwe University Journal of International Law and Jurisprudence, 2, 256-270.

20. Prushkivska, E. V., & Shevchenko, J. O. (2012). The globalization essence and its peculiarities in the post-crisis period. Bulletin of Zaporizhzhia National University, 3(15), 131-140.

21. Fidel WWS, Cuicapusa EEM, Espilco POV. Managerial Accounting and its Impact on Decision Making in a small company in the food sector in West Lima. Edu - Tech Enterprise 2024;2:8–8. https://doi.org/10.71459/edutech20248.

Saaida, M. (2023). The impact of international organizations on global governance. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372676644_The_Impact_of_International_Organizations_on_Global_Governance

20. Sarakutsa, M. O. (2010). The concept and content of state sovereignty: Definition, formation, development. Forum of Law, 4, 784-791.

21. Sarychev, V. I. (2011). Theoretical foundations of the globalization of the world economy in the context of the human development trends study. Effective Economy, 10. Retrieved from http://www.economy.nayka.com.ua/?op=1&z=1701

22. Shklyar, V., Strilok, I., & Kuzmenko, O. (2023). Global cities as centres of global economic management and international information communications. In Collection of scientific papers “Economics and Management” Vol. 53 (pp. 128-142). Kyiv: DUIT.

23. Shpakovych, O., & Penkovskа, S. (2020). The relationship between the sovereignty of member states and the supranationality of international organizations. Journal of the Kyiv University of Law, 3, 349-353.

24. Spivak, V. M. (2010). Globalization and its impact on the national state and law. Actual Problems of Politics, 39, 636-647.

25. Starostina, A. (2011). The essence and practical application of the methodology for constructing the categorical apparatus of economic science (on the example of the concepts of “globalization” and “entrepreneurial risk”). Bulletin of Taras Shevchenko Kyiv National University, 128, 5-10.

26. Steger, M. B. (2003). Globalization: A very short introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.

27. Troyan, I. (2011). Transformation of state sovereignty in the conditions of globalization. The Ukrainian National Idea: Realities and Prospects for Development, 11, 158-164.

28. Trushenko, O. (2011). Global cities and their role in sustainable development of the world economy. Bulletin of the International Nobel Economic Forum, 1(4), 430-437.

29. Trushlyakova, A. B. (2018). Development of digitalization in Ukraine: Factors of influence, advantages and challenges of today. Economic Horizons, 4(7), 186-191.

30. Voroniuk, I., Iarmosh, O., & Aiorinde, M. (2020). The influence of international organizations on the economic policy of the countries all over the world. Effective Economy, 11. Retrieved from http://www.economy.nayka.com.ua/pdf/11_2020/83.pdf

31. Yasinska, A., Reka, V., & Kizlyak, Y. (2023). The influence of digital transformation on the construction of the company’s information and accounting system. Economy and Society, 57, 1-9.

FINANCING

No financing.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

None.

AUTHORSHIP CONTRIBUTION

Conceptualization: Nelia Makovetska, Gennadii Dubov, Taras Didych, Borys Malyshev, Olha Varych.

Research: Nelia Makovetska, Gennadii Dubov, Taras Didych, Borys Malyshev, Olha Varych.

Methodology: Nelia Makovetska, Gennadii Dubov, Taras Didych, Borys Malyshev, Olha Varych.

Resources: Nelia Makovetska, Gennadii Dubov, Taras Didych, Borys Malyshev, Olha Varych.

Software: Nelia Makovetska, Gennadii Dubov, Taras Didych, Borys Malyshev, Olha Varych.

Validation: Nelia Makovetska, Gennadii Dubov, Taras Didych, Borys Malyshev, Olha Varych.

Display: Nelia Makovetska, Gennadii Dubov, Taras Didych, Borys Malyshev, Olha Varych.