Mykola Fesenko, Ph.D. in Politics, Senior Research Fellow, SI «Institute of World History of NAS of Ukraine», Kyiv, Ukraine.


The article studies different approaches towards sovereignty and transformation of the institute of a “nation-state” in the context of globalization and formation of the new international order. In this context, it is proved that the state can no longer fully self-control and determine its domestic and international policies because it has to interact with a number of international actors, from international organizations to multinational corporations. Complex global systems, from financial to environmental ones, combine local communities in a single structural and functional network. The global infrastructure of communication and transport supports new forms of economic and social organization that go beyond national borders.

The author concludes that now the present-day phase of global changes is transforming the very foundations of world order through the reconstruction of traditional forms of established sovereign state, the political community and international governance. Nevertheless, it is possible to avoid these processes, which are not completely safe. After all, the globalization causes movement from independent policy of a country to the new and more complex forms of multilayer global, world policy. This is a reason why the mechanisms of political regulation should be introduced, and the international community is now trying to do. So as a result, the current world order is easier to understand as a complicated system, interconnected order, where the state is tightly integrated into the developed system of multiregional, global governance.

foreign policy, analytical center, «think tank», foreign policy strategy

Full text


  1. ANILIONIS G.P., ZOTOVA N.A. (2005) Globalnyj mir: edinyj i razdelennyj. Jevoljucija teorij globalizacii. Moskva: Mezhdunarodnye otnoshenija.
  2. DEMENT’EV V.E.(2008) Nanotehnologicheskaja iniciativa SShA – opyt politiki tehnologicheskogo liderstva. Teorija i praktika institucionalnyh preobrazovanij v Rossii. 12. [Online]. Avaliable from:
  3. BROWN M. (1999) Minimalist NATO. A Wise Alliance Knows When to Retrench. Foreign Affairs. Vol78. No.3. pp. 204-217.
  4. HUNTER R. (1999) Maximizing NATO. A Relevant Alliance Knows How to Reach. Foreign Affairs. Vol 78. No.3. pp.190-204.
  5. KAGAN R., KRISTOL W. (2000) The Present Danger. The National Interest. 2000, Spring. pp. 59-72.
  6. PHILLIPS K. (2008) Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism. New York: Viking Penguin.
  7. (2007) Productive Nanosystems: A Technology Roadmap. [Online]. Avaliable from:
  8. (2010) Science and Engineering Indicators: 2010. [Online]. Avaliable from:
  9. (2010) Supplement to the President’s 2010 Budget. Research and Development Leading to a Revolution in Technology and Industry: The Future of EU Competitiveness. From Economic Recovery to Sustainable Growth. [Online]. Avaliable from: http://
  10. (2007) The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Strategic Plan. [Online]. Avaliable from: http://
  11. (2008) The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Second Assessment and Recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel. [Online]. Avaliable from: