Week 1
Globalisation and State Sovereignty
One of the greatest aspects that needs to be considered when discussing globalisation is the erosion of state sovereignty with the reconfiguration of states. Globalisation is seen as the process in which the world becomes a global society, but this ultimately means a ‘border-less’ world.
Stephen Kobrin brings up the fact that “a critical issue raised by globalisation is the lack of meaning of geographical rooted jurisdictions when markets are constructed in electronic space. (Nederveen, p4 2004)”
This is not to argue that Microsoft or Goldman Sachs should be given seats at the UN General Assembly, but it does mean including representatives of such organizations in regional and global deliberations when they have the capacity to affect whether and how regional and global challenges are met. (Richard Haass)
However, crossing borders in the act of giving aid to countries that cannot help themselves is seen as both a good and bad thing. NATO’s Kosovo intervention saw a number of governments break the state sovereignty of Kosovo to prevent any further genocides and ethnic cleansings. This was controversial due to the bombings on state owned factories seen as a way for a free market-based reconstruction by wealthy foreign powers.
On the other hand during the Rwanda Genocide when the UN chose to stand idly by and not intervene, they were criticized over letting the slaughter of thousands happen under their watch.
NATO bombing of Kosovo
References
Haass R, Feb 2006, Taipeitimes: State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era, np
Nederveen Pieterse, J 2004, ‘Globalisation: consensus and contreversies’. Globalisation and culture: global mélange 2004, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanman, Md, p 4
globlogisation 
When it comes to breaking national sovereignty, it all comes down to national interest from the other countires considering breaking it. Not many countries are going to risk hundres of millions of dollars and soldiers life, plus press scrutiny when they get no profit or gain from them, they are not going to help another country for the sake of it. There was absolutely no financial gain from helping Rwanda or even Sudan, yet Iraq has rich oil resources and America only fought in the Vietnam war to stop Russia spreading communism, they thought little for the people.Same with the Afghan/Soviet war, once communism fell in Russia, America no longer funded the Mujahadeen.
Expecting countries to put hundres of millions of dollars into saving countries where they have to financial gain to earn will aways be a fantasy and never a reality.
I agree PistolPete, even the Kony 2012 campaign illustrates your point, none of the world’s superpowers would have any interest in Uganda and would never fold to public pressure. Sudan and Somalia as well, i think countries act purely out of trying to benefit themselves, not to give aid.