The first group of factors refers to the legitimacy of the rules and process. A given rule or law’s legitimacy suffers if nonmember states do not generally accept or apply it coherently. Usually nonmember states do not participate in the process of rulemaking. Therefore the way in which the EU rules are transferred and communicated is relevant for the adoption of the established rules. EU must engage the target states in a deliberative process which pays attention to their concerns and need when it comes to the interpretation and application of EU rules.
In the absence of information on specific issues of public interest, government representatives are sometimes called to guess which policy proposals deserve to be carried forward and which ones do not, often making the wrong decision. It is therefore in the very interest of governments to protect and regulate lobbying activity. In the US, the right to petition the government and thus to exert pressure on public officials is enshrined in the Constitution itself, while in some European countries, interest representatives are granted ‘hall-passes’ which allow access to legislators. However, despite the original purpose of lobbying, to intercede on behalf of the public and promote common interests, this practice has acquired a negative connotation. Lobbying can in fact undermine the goodness and legitimacy of government activity.
Only states can become members of international organizations, and states are the principal units in world politics and the dominant mode for organizing human and physical resources. Cox and Jacobson recognize that this focus on states has some limitations, since it excludes transnational corporations, religious groups, or other "emerging forms of behavior and value." Aside from this specific treatment of the impact of environments on influence, work on international organizations has generally neglected this world of external conditions. The more common treatment is found in Jacobson's general work, International Organizations: Networks of
Deleuze (1992) has described this shift as a transition from disciplinary societies to ‘societies of control’. Irrespective of the specific form of government that has emerged observers of neoliberalism and theorists of governmentality have however tended to overlook a critical feature of contemporary state practice. This characteristic is the retention by the state of a very strong, indeed dominant, capacity to determine not only the mode of government that is to be deployed but the discursive basis for that deployment. Indeed the state remains the primary site for the articulation of governmental discourse, irrespective of its other activities. The production, articulation and implementation of housing policy, for example, continues to be the domain of the state, irrespective of whether the policy specifies a social or a market mode of action.
When agreements and co-operation takes place with third countries, the EU demands countries to be in line with these policies and the same goes for the EU itself, that is to say, it is bound to respect these policies in its external relations. The EU developed its external human rights policy by, inter alia, insisting on the insertion of specific human rights clauses in all agreements with third countries. In the event that countries would not insert them, the EU provided itself with the right of imposing economic sanctions. As can be seen this evolution spans a long period of time, though it has still not become as effective as one would have hoped. The main obstacles relate to that, in some aspects, the enforcement mechanism seems to be ineffective and the mechanism lacks, what EU lacks most often, an appropriate sanction and suspension system.
Parliament sovereignty in its simplest form means the right to make, change or abolish any law (Haywood ???). Haywood (???) also discusses legal sovereignty as the ‘right’ to command obedience and political sovereignty as the ‘power’ to command obedience. Haywood goes on to discuss internal sovereignty as being the power authority within a given state such as the UK. External sovereignty would relate to the state/UK within the international spectrum and how the state uses its power to influence or be influenced by other states.
Author suggests that today, international order and the conditions of coexistence are not based only on anarchical nature of the world. Hurrell thinks that we need to capture common interests, the imperatives to manage unequal power and the essential need to take such concepts as cultural diversity and values conflict into account to understand the main challenges of the international order. “Contemporary international society is characterized by a complex of plurality of ideas, views and values” (Hurrell, 2007). For the author only analyzing the differences in ideas, views and principles can provide a better answer to the question of the future challenges of global order. He also considers the declining importance of sovereign states because due to globalization the world is becoming a global village.
After its independence, the democracy in Macedonia has become stronger. One issue which remains a challenge for the country is the inter-ethnic relations ,because there is no trust between different communities and in order for the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to be part of the European Union ,it must be a functional multinational country. The government is committed to the program of democratization that the European Union set for them by maintaining the good relation between different communities according to the ‘Ohrid Framework Agreement’. This agreement however has yet to be fully implemented especially when it comes to the minorities’ rights. On the other hand, even though LGBT are protected by law, the school books still consider homosexuality as an illness.
It is accurate to say that the Commonwealth Caribbean finds itself in a precarious position as it attempts to balance sovereignty and legitimacy in the global political arena. An arena where sovereignty is being blurred due to a recent stride towards internationalism termed globalisation. Such strides have significant implications for the states and their ability to implement policies and laws without intervention by foreign entities. Such intervention is further encouraged by the concept of globalization; both contested and supported it encompasses “…all those processes by which the peoples of the world are incorporated into a single world society.” These processes are encouraged by international trade, investment and information technology and result in the integration and interaction among people, governments, cultures and economies. Such interdependence and interconnectedness creates complications for sovereign states who in their rightful capacity are entitled to act independently and autonomously on the world stage.
They have their own legislations, statutes, precedents, doctrines etc. One such doctrine of Separation of Powers was established in various countries. This doctrine emphasizes the mutual exclusiveness of the three organs of the government. According to this doctrine, the legislature cannot exercise executive or judicial power; the executive cannot exercise legislative or judicial power; and the judiciary cannot exercise the other two powers. This theory is U.S.A. based as they believe that there should be separation between the executive and the legislature.