Globalization, Processes of Legislative

To determine the effect of globalization on legislative processes, one must consider multiple levels of analysis: the global, the regional, the national, and the local. At the national level, are lawmaking systems becoming homogeneous as the result of globalization? The democratic form of lawmaking is now the only form promoted by the international system, and countries do feel pressure to fall in line. Nevertheless, within democratic systems, much heterogeneity remains. Thus, the answer to the question depends on the level of abstraction employed by the observer.

At the intersection of national lawmaking with local and global interests, the important question is how globalization affects the structure and meaning of national legislative processes. Whether by coercion or by choice, many governments in the world today pay close attention to the edicts emanating from international and regional governmental organizations. This trend belies the idea that legislative processes are primarily linked to a local population.

Finally, at the international level, does international law really exist, and, if so, how is it made binding on nation-states? Because there is no international state, some argue that there cannot be international lawmaking. Considering the actions of the United Nations (UN) and the Bretton Woods Institutions (BWI), however, it is clear that some type of lawmaking does occur at the international level.

Before answering these questions, it is necessary to provide some definitions and a bit of history. Globalization here refers to the appearance of similar structures, constraints, assumptions, ideas, or values in different parts of the world. The term is not limited to economic globalization, but also includes cultural diffusion. For example, the spread of British common law from Britain to the United States is an example of globalization. Legislative processes are formal rule-making processes. Legislative processes include the lawmaking of national legislative bodies (congresses and parliaments) as well as binding rule making that emerges from other sources such as international organizations.

Globalization and legislative processes are linked in two distinct ways. At the national level, democracy has emerged as the legitimate governmental form and diffused to many nations around the world. This relative homogeneity is partly the result of colonialism and today partly the result of nations' active participation in global society. Homogeneity and heterogeneity coexist across states. Specifically, there are notable differences in form and substance across democracies.

At the international level, bureaucracies that emerged at the end of World War II developed their own systems of rules for creating, promoting, and monitoring international law. There is no global state, but global and regional institutions, such as the UN and the European Union, do engage in legislative processes. Furthermore, states engage in extranational legislative development when they draft conventions and negotiate treaties. In this way, the modern era of globalization has given rise to international legislative processes.

The relationship between globalization and legislative processes is important because it goes to key issues [Page 662]of power and modernity. Key assumptions mark the historic creation of European legislative systems, including the assumptions that nation-states are autonomous and that there is a natural link between local, bounded populations (“polities”) and formal politics. Both of these assumptions are questionable in the context of globalization. The poorest nation-states in the international system today are far from autonomous. Rather, they are caught up in an intricate web of global political and financial relations and international requirements. In addition, the most binding obligations of these states may be not to their local polities but, rather, to developed countries, international financial institutions, and transnational organizations. Importing “democracy” into these countries is no panacea for the problems they confront. Yet, it is common to blame the woes of these countries on their inability to perfect a democratic form of government.

...