Should the world be organized into sovereign territorial nation-states?

To answer this week's question, I would like to highlight a comment made by the writers of The Nation-State and Global Order in the introduction; essentially, it is the thesis that elaborates on the book's succinct title. On page 2 it states: "...nation-states, having eclipsed all other types of politico-military rule that have existed on the planet, are, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future, the basic building blocks of the global order." The authors of this text articulate the supremacy and prevalence of nation-states in the modern day, and I must agree with their sentiments. The nation-state is the most logical form of rule for today's world; yet I am not entirely sure that it truly correlates with citizens' intentions. For example, according to the book's criteria for a proper nation-state, this type of rule must "[have] sovereignty over its territory, which means that its jurisdiction is theoretically exclusive of outside interference by other nation-states or entities." (3) I think the definition of "jurisdiction" in this context is worth discussing; does jurisdiction simply mean the creation and enforcement of laws? Or is it a broader term that encompasses not only legislation, but also cultural, ethnic, and political expectations that the government has for its citizens? If jurisdiction does in fact include the latter, then nation-states have become almost a laughable concept in today's globalized, interdependent world, where other countries have claims in their neighbors' fates based upon war, trade, etc. Just as countries looked to one another for a widely accepted standard of rule (sovereign territorial nation-states), they continue to look to one another as they evolve technologically, socially, and culturally as nation-states, as if nation-states are frightened of becoming too different from one another. 

Yet in this way, the nation-state is a perplexing contradiction. It is inevitably bound to other nation-states' actions and identities because of globalization and interdependence, but it fiercely protects its own sovereignty, independence, and distinction when compared to its fellow nation-states. This unique characteristic directly meets another criterion that the book mentions: “its population manifests, to a greater or lesser degree, a sense of national identity.” It is this nationalism that inspires nation-states to protect their borders, language, culture, and inhabitants from outside sources. This intense pride can also encourage a more serious reaction: the need to force that nationalism onto “lesser” nation-states, those that are radically different and therefore lacking in an “acceptable” identity. In this way, the basic fundamentals of a nation-state can prey upon one another depending upon the collective mindset of its citizens; are these people content to respect boundaries and varying identities, or are they easily frightened by the unfamiliar and “threatening”?

To reiterate, I do believe that nation-states are an essential part of global order. However, once we establish that perspective, the next question to consider is what does global order entail: order in terms of peaceful coexistence, or order in terms of a hierarchical, unequal structure? In today’s global society, our form of order seems to guarantee the latter interpretation, which suggests that global citizens are not part of nation-states at all, but something much more flawed and at times, even sinister.