Political Globalization / Park chanyoung

1. summary

Political globalization can be understood as the interaction between global geopolitics, global normative culture, and multidisciplinary (multi-centrist) networks. One of the most widespread forms of political globalization is the global spread of democracy based on the National Congress. The first dimension of political globalization is the geopolitics of global power. Because the U.S. will not be able to establish global hegemony and will be challenged by many power centers, mostly the country. The second dimension of political globalization is the rise of global norm culture. As a result of global communication, popular culture, and political communication are no longer limited to borders, but are now conducted globally Combined with the global spread of democracy, political communication has become the basis of a global normative culture that supports it as much as opposing geopolitics he process of political globalization is associated with new sources of network and flow, mobility and communication, and represents new relationships among individuals, countries and societies. The multidisciplinary network is associated with a new type of global politics. The global political order represented by the United Nations is based mostly on countries, but the pluralistic network is associated with the concept of the global civil society. The concept of civil society refers to the political sphere between a country and a market in which informal politics is made. It goes beyond the realm of state and government and is a new space that has nothing to do with global capitalism. One of the characteristics of a global civil society is that it does not have a single space but has a lot of space; it is not based on any single organizational principle other than the fact that it is organized globally through loosely structured horizontal bonds and networks. Globalization presents the central logic of political modernity: autonomy versus division. Globalization can strengthen democracy, but it can also divide democracy by changing the autonomy of capitalism.

The state continues to be powerful actors, but it exists in a more globally connected world where they do not have complete control. Countries are said to have been encroached by the world market. Moving from the global economy dominated by the national economy to the global economy, a new economic force began to challenge the nation's power. In response to this, supranationalism has improved the power of a national nation and the regulatory state has risen. European integration is a movement that has resulted in gradual erosion of national sovereignty, which has ironically saved rather than undermined national sovereignty. The move against transnational authority has enabled the operation of a more functional national system.

Communication is the center of politics. Communication is the center of politics. Ethnic nations exert social influence and engage in political communication through white media. If the Enlightenment public is based on the argument of free discussion, today the public is based on professional political communication and public persuasion through systematic advertising and lobbying. Communication is an open field of political debate and is not fully institutionalized or fully controlled by the state. The public domain is the scene of politics, not just the spatial position, but the process of discourse. So far, this has largely been considered a national public domain. The public domain has been moved to a wider international perspective by international civil society and global civil trends. The world's masses are the domain of always-on discourse today, contextualizing political communication and public discourse.

The ‘civil societalization’ of politics is local, global, national, supranational and common code to mobilize various actors in the community in the form of politics.Means The important thing is that civil society has permeated international relations, and countries are increasingly choosing to participate in global civil society and compete with politics in the world's public domain. The global civil society has a commitment which is the contradictory tendencies that have become the center of the global experience. Civil society's ideas resonate most strongly with the need for checks and balances, especially the need to ensure that the state does not interfere too much or control too much. The tension between the national community and the world's civil society is a permanent feature. The traditional assumption of civil society was ahead of the world's civil society. However, it is not appropriate to view the global civil society as a previously existing collection of national civil society: it is based on non-native political imagination.

The perception of the possible transformation of globalization has led to a transformation of space in social politics. The spatial transition is not just about social conflict, institutionalization, governance, social transformation, but about the growing interest in the process of social space and the way space is constructed in social and political relationships. The relationship between the political space and borders of globalization revolves around two key spatial dynamics. The first is the argument that the network community is constructed by the space of the place and the flow of space that exists with the tension. The advent of a network society represents the decline of an industrial society. The emergence of new political spaces and accompanying border/business opportunities are given.  In addition, space and boundaries do not have to be considered single and exclusive; they can be plural, overlapping, and experiential. The important thing is, the state no longer controls spatial imagination and world space.

The civil ocialization of the governance structure is complex and sometimes contradictory. Everywhere there is a democracy, a democratic deficit is found. And It opens up the possibility of a new community of destiny, a new international community created from the perception that the needs of humanity come first over the needs of democracy, and the perception that we live in a world risk society. Third, the development of multi-point networks, especially global civil society, can create new opportunities for autonomy, new actors and new perceptions of governance, but at the same time create new instability and risks.

2. Interesting part

The content about the European Union was interesting. I had thought that the union would have greatly reduced the ability of individual states to govern However, through many independent regulatory powers in the EU, they were replacing each country's regulatory norms at a transnational level. With the loss of sovereignty, this did not necessarily translate into the loss of a loss of autonomy. It has made countries more functional and powerful. I was looking at the process of transnationalism as the demise of the nation's individual. But this was a change in the concept of a nation, not a extinction. It was also interesting that it was difficult to separate national and civic rights. Recently, South Korea also became controversial over the issue of accepting refugees. As the boundaries between national and international law become blurred, the extent to which international law interferes with and influences national law is growing.

3. Discussion Point:

Will there be a unified world law beyond international law if there are more migrants in the future and globalization proceeds and all countries are connected? So is it different from totalitarianism?