J. Indian Counc. Philos. Res. DOI 10.1007/s40961-015-0012-z

Ethics of Globalization: Challenges and Prospects Abha Singh 1

# ICPR 2015

Abstract Globalization has enormous implications. As convergence of technologies facilitated people to connect, people not only communicated but also started collaborating. A flat world that facilitates multiple forms of collaboration in sharing knowledge and work among billions of people without regard to geography, distance or language poses new challenges and problems for lawmakers and judges. When billions of people connect and collaborate and generate value in goods and services horizontally rather than vertically, complex issues are bound to arise. Such disputes emerge in the shape of challenges, which can be called global. Now global challenges demand global solutions as well. Individual countries find themselves unable to deal with such problems, and the problems are such that they cannot be ignored. Handling them together is the obvious and only way to ensure that they are properly tackled. It would be possible when the entire world’s people have a stake and all enjoy the opportunity to participate. We all share one atmosphere where overexploitation of the environment in the industrialized countries can result in ecosystem destruction. In developing a workable and effective international legal system, participation of all states is required. Lastly, we are all part of a human community. So we need to consider our actions accordingly. And to do so from a script that is written afresh every day by billions of human beings with whom we all share our planet raises demand for the formulation of a global civic ethic grounded in universally shared values and expressed in interlocking rights and responsibilities. Present paper intends to explore the possibility of such an ethics. Keywords Identity . Human rights . Categorical imperative . Ecology . Vishwa Maanava The term ‘globalization’, a buzzword of today, was not coined until the second half of twentieth century. Still the term has a long pedigree. The noun ‘globe’ began to denote the planet several hundred years ago, as the earth was determined to be round * Abha Singh [email protected] 1

Department of Philosophy, A.N. College, Patna 800013, India

J. Indian Counc. Philos. Res.

(Robertson 2001). In the late nineteenth century, the adjective ‘global’ began to designate ‘world scale’.1 Although the word ‘globalization’ with the verb ‘globalize’ appeared in 1940s (Reiser and Davies 1944), ‘globalization’ entered a dictionary of American English in 1961 (Webster (1961). The new entrant caught so much attention that the major languages, all over the world, included it in their vocabulary. 2 Recognition of the novel vocabulary across continents and culture speaks of a significant change in the world for which a new terminology was needed. It reminds us of the coinage of the word ‘international’ by Jeremy Bentham in 1780s (Bentham 1948; Suganami 1978), which resonated of a growing trend of the rise of nation-states and cross-border transaction of his day. The popularity of the term ‘globalization’ reflects a widespread intuition that contemporary social relations have acquired an important new character. In order to understand the social change in the contemporary world, the concept of globalization appears to be a lynchpin. At the very outset, we would like to make it clear that one must not confuse globalization with internationalization, liberalization, universalization or westernization. Globalization is wider than all the above-mentioned phenomena; it can be viewed as supraterritorial or transplanatory. It involves reductions in barriers to transworld contacts. The idea of ‘one world’ becomes paramount in this context as it helps to connect people physically, legally, culturally and psychologically. Hence, globalization refers to a shift in the nature of social space and identifies the earthly world as a whole—as a site of social relations in its own right. A change in spatial structure affects society as a whole. It is interlinked with shifts in pattern of knowledge, production, governance, identity and social ecology. Hence, globalization is enveloped in larger dynamics of social change. Martin Heideggar had discerned this reconfiguration of space when he proclaimed the advent of ‘distancelessness’ and an ‘abolition of every possibility of remoteness’ (Heiddegger 1971). Nevertheless, it is clear that globalization has enormous implications. As convergence of technologies facilitated people to connect, people not only communicated but also started collaborating. A flat world that facilitates multiple forms of collaboration in sharing knowledge and work among billions of people without regard to geography, distance or language poses new challenges and problems for lawmakers and judges. When billions of people connect and collaborate and generate value in goods and services horizontally rather than vertically, complex issues are bound to arise. Such disputes emerge in the shape of challenges, which can be called global. Now global challenges demand global solutions as well. Individual countries, finding themselves unable to deal with such problems, are not even able to ignore it. Handling them together is the obvious and only way of ensuring that they are tackled. It would be possible when the entire world’s people have a stake and all enjoy the opportunity to participate. We all share one atmosphere where overexploitation of the environment in the industrialized countries can result in ecosystem destruction. In developing a workable and effective international legal system, participation of all states is required. 1

The Oxford English Dictionary (1989). Oxford: Clarenton, p. 6254 For example, the term ‘Globalization’ is ‘lil’ alam’ in Arabic, ‘quanqiuhua’ in Chinese, ‘mondialisation’ in French, ‘globalizatsia’ in Russian, and ‘globalizacion’ in Spanish. In some minor languages also we come across the term – ‘globalisaatio’ in Finnish, ‘bishwavyapikaran’ in Napalese and ‘vaishvikaran’ in Hindi.

2

J. Indian Counc. Philos. Res.

Lastly, we are all part of a human community. So, we need to consider our actions accordingly. And to do so from a script that is written afresh every day by billions of human beings with whom we all share our planet raises demand for the formulation of a global civic ethic grounded in universally shared values and expressed in interlocking rights and responsibilities. Now, let us consider the concept ‘ethics of globalization’. Several questions creep in one’s mind, such as the following: Why ‘ethics of globalization’? Why not just ethics? Is not ‘ethics’ itself, by its very nature, a global phenomenon? Many more questions may arise with the coinage of the concept of ‘ethics of globalization’, which has been formulated in accordance with the need of the contemporary world. Purely national interests very often guide discussions on ethics of globalization, especially in policymaking circles, social, economic, political or environmental. Vandana Shiva argues, quite rightly, that what is currently portrayed as the universal interest in the rhetoric of globalization is, in fact, not global. ‘The global’, she says, ‘does not represent the universal human interest; it represents a particular local and parochial interest and culture, which has been globalized through its reach and control, its irresponsibility and lack of reciprocity (Shiva 2000).’ As so, narrow interests take away the basic ethos of globalization. The domain of globalization is wide enough to take into account the cultural and ecological dimensions as well. Proponents of global studies, namely Manfred Steger and David Held, construe four dimensions of globalization—political, cultural, economic and ecological. Ecological globalization includes population growth, access to food, worldwide reduction in biodiversity, the gap between rich and poor as well as between global north and global south, human-induced climate change and global environmental degradation. Hence, the relation between ecology and globalization is that of part and whole, respectively. Today the pride, arrogance and power of a few scientifically developed countries have led them towards a blind alley. These nations desire to rule the entire world. The unethical pursuits of a particular nation over the other add to the cultural and civilizational crises and, thereupon, generate mutual hatred. Albeit, the fast growth of technology and global marketing have led the people to live like neighbours, the idea of one’s own cultural identity confine them very largely to one’s own group singularity. Today, big crises such as ethnocentricity have grown up in order to retain or establish the superiority and cultural identity of the people of a certain territory. There is global confrontation at every nook and corner of diverse civilizations because civilizations are face to face with one another. Every community has gained significance in the eyes of the entire world community; therefore, it is difficult to suppress one in the name of its being small or underdeveloped. Hence, such a civilization endeavours to assert its own identity and is in no mood to accept the dominance of other civilizations, which often lead to clash of civilizations. Although different ethnic groups share the common space, yet instead of learning to appreciate each other’s autonomy, become hostile and alienated from each other, as one notices around the globe. The same technology which links man vis-à-vis man or man vis-àvis nature alienates it as well and, consequently, produces dehumanizing results that can destroy the whole mankind. In spite of technological advancement, there is alienation. This is for the simple reason that man’s life is governed not only by industrial prosperity and financial soundness. The crux of alienation is sociocultural. Alienation starts from two points of view—financial and cultural. The gap created by

J. Indian Counc. Philos. Res.

financial alienation is bridged by industrial advancements. But, the cultural differences and clashes cannot be overcome. Now the question is, should we get rid of globalization because it does not appear to be so good? Moreover, the invisible hand of market has proven itself unable to handle the traumatic integration of world economy. Corporate globalization is full of doublespeak and double standards. Double standards allow corporations to get global markets without global accountability, global rights to FDI without global responsibility for environment and health care. Consequently, environment and health apartheid is being created with pollution and health hazards being piled on poor and resources and wellbeing concentrated in the hands of global corporations. Such apartheid is inconsistent with the principles of earth democracy. In such a crisis situation, even the most hard line pragmatic would not hesitate in agreeing that we all need a global set of values. ‘Global markets, without having some kind of ethical basis are dangerous’ said Swiss theologian Hans Kung.3 One would not hesitate in agreeing with Kung that some of the turmoil we have got now in financial markets is due to the fact that a few believed that one can have world economics without also having a world ethics. But can economically connected nations remain separate and distinct ethically or morally? Or, are nations morally and ethically distinct entities? Or do the circumstances of morality and righteousness obtain for all humans regardless of origin? Raising such issues Peter Singer says, ‘to what extent should leaders see their role narrowly, in terms of promoting the interests of their citizens, and to what extent should they be concerned with the welfare of citizens everywhere?’ Almost all responsible parties and bodies in today’s world yearn to find some means of global conflict resolution and arbitration. One ponders upon a basic question as to: How are we to avoid a disastrous and unwinnable ‘clash of civilization’? Proponents of globalization enthusiastically acclaim the transformative potential of market mechanisms as a kind of universal panacea for all the ills of the world. Notably, markets have emerged as useful instruments for the allocation of goods and services to a certain degree and have also succeeded, to a certain degree, in connecting and integrating people across the globe. The earth has already taken on something of the character of ‘one country’ and the inhabitants of various lands and status of its consumer ‘citizen’. Still the market offers few positive answers to such fundamental questions as: ‘how do we achieve global governance?’ or ‘how do we sustain dialogue between cultures?’ After all we cannot hold the future of our emerging global society hostage to a total reliance on market forces. Moreover, the governments are responsible for their decisions regarding institutional design and, thereupon, the effects of such decisions on the fulfilment or frustration of human needs. With the focus of John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice, we are quite familiar with institutional moral analysis applied to the internal organization of a state. But institutional moral analysis extended to the realm of international relations has traditionally been conceived as much smaller and more surveyable. It was felt that we do not need institutional moral analysis for a world of a few dozen relevant actors in which it is not difficult to monitor the behaviour of the government of a particular territory. However, the demand of the day is formulation of basic principles on international and global relations. Such framework is nicely displayed by Mervyn Frost’s Global Ethics: ‘Questioning Globalization – a Forum 2000’ meeting in Czech Republic arrived at the consensus that world economic is not feasible without world ethics.

3

J. Indian Counc. Philos. Res.

Anarchy, Freedom and International Relations (Frost 2008) and John Rawls’ The Law of People (Rawls 1999), which is a book on international relations. This book exemplifies a proposal for what the rules governing a state’s conduct should be. Hence, it appears to be a sequel or complimentary to his earlier book A Theory of Justice. In a way, Rawls has complemented his domestic theory of justice in a theory, which can be called international theory of justice. Today, with the emergence and increasing structure of other agents on the international stage, such as multinational corporations, international organizations, regional organizations, etc., the traditional conception of the world of international relations as inhabited only by states, is unsatisfactory. Presently, it does not appear to be plausible that the interest of states or, in other words, governments, be the ground of morally relevant international relations. Moreover, international order recognizes rulers because they exercise effective power within a state. Such recognition accords international privileges to tyrannical, autocratic and dictatorial governments as well. It is, in a way, impoverishing because it does not possess the say of the people of the country in question because they are excluded from political participation. Besides, in this framework, generally, governments bear no responsibility for violence and poverty inflicted upon foreigners within their territory. Even the newly evolved concept of ‘global justice’ does not appear to be satisfactory. The WTO treaty, presently in vogue, permits the affluent countries to protect their markets against cheap imports through quotas, tariffs, anti-dumping duties and subsidies to domestic producers. Such measures reduce the export opportunities of firms in the developing countries by constraining their exports into the affluent countries. Also, by providing subsidies, enable less efficient rich-country producers to undersell more efficient poor-country producers in world market that causes severe poverty in developing countries and thereby affects negatively the living conditions of people worldwide. In this situation, it seems that Kant’s Categorical Imperative, which is a paradigm of cosmopolitanism, would vindicate us. Kant’s international ethics led to the development of different forms of cosmopolitanism, such as United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Convention, the International Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights, etc. However, today, in spite of these international forums, anarchy prevails in the international arena. Now a pertinent question crops up as to ‘Why Kantian universal ethics failed and why ethics of globalization would succeed?’ To my mind, Kant’s ethics applies to mankind as a whole, which must coexist within the limited system of earth, or, as Kant put it, ‘as (all men) have a title to the common possession of the surface of the earth and as – this surface being spherical – there is no possibility of an unlimited dissemination, they will have to put up with each other in the end.’ 4 Undoubtedly, what we are now slowly and steadily learning to understand in terms of ethics of globalization had already germinated in Kant’s thinking: the just participation of all in the unjustly distributed riches of the earth. However, the basic difference between the two approaches is that while Kantian ethics concentrates only to the sphere of humanity, globalization tends to embrace universe as a whole. Peter Singer disapproves the idea of differentiating people on basis of borders. He is of the view that as people in the world become increasingly and inextricably 4

Kant, cited in Denker, R. (1974). Kant’s theory of the three-fold path of world peace—or the purposes of nature in history. In Eduard Gerresheim (Ed.). Immanuel Kant (p.12). Bonn-Bad Godesberg.

J. Indian Counc. Philos. Res.

interconnected, so too does the justice that governs relations between all of them. In the One World: Ethics of Globalization, he writes, ‘When people in rich nations switch to vehicles that use more fuel than the cars that they used to drive, they contribute to changes in the climate of Mozambique or Bangladesh – changes that may cause crop to fail, sea levels to rise, and tropical diseases to spread. As scientists pile up the evidence that continuing greenhouse gas emissions will imperil millions of lives, the leader of the nation that emits the largest share of these gases has said: “we will not do anything that harms our economy, because firsts things first are the people who live in America”.’5 For Singer’s utilitarian framework, nationalism plays a major role in creating global apartheid. Very often, nationalism is guided by the idea of cultural relativism. Apropos to it, cultural relativitists, maintaining that the circumstances of justice and morality are important components of the meaning of justice and morality, believe that what we may reasonably call just or moral is shaped by the situation in which the moral subject is situated. In this view, communities can shape what is right and wrong and any intrusion on native ways of life and, thereby, erosion of such culture would not be held proper and legitimate. In view of the challenges of ‘my citizen first’ ethics, is it possible to evolve such universal moral norms which no one (state or person) may disregard without being blameworthy from moral point of view? As Peter Singer states ‘we should be developing the ethical foundation of the coming era of a single world community.’ 6 Moreover, ‘there has been a long tradition – while still privileging the family bond – which has stressed the need to think ethically from the outside inwards, rather than the opposite. Conceiving ethics from what Henery Sidgwick called “the point of view of universe” (an all embracing perspective which accords strangers no less consideration than one’s own kind, however defined) has been a two-thousand year tradition’ (Booth et al. (2001). But presently, the situation has gone to the dogs. With the autocratic behaviour or, to be a bit softer, the forced big brotherly attitude of the super power nation, which has distanced itself from many of the institutions and mechanism designed to improve the global community (including International Court of Justice), the gravity of the situation is apparent. Even its so-called support to certain global institutions (WTO) is causing them to become weaker day by day due to the biassed policies of certain states. These global institutions are also losing the trust and confidence of people in the larger arena. Little concern shown by many nations, with their added irresponsible behaviour in the world today is pushing the globe towards disaster. Due to the myopic vision, there is a rush for immediate gains. People/states are careless towards the consequences of their actions, which have terrible after effects like global warming. Generally, people remain convinced that their little pollution contribution does not amount to much as far as the larger picture goes. Lest this unilateral disregard for the global community destroy the globe itself. Since the effect of pollution is not visible immediately (it costs the future generation), it is extremely deadly. As local actions and policies do have global consequence, therefore, one must not turn a blind eye to them. However, in other sectors, the profits of global outlook are 5

Peter Singer, One world: ethics of globalization, cited in Jeffrey Eisenberg, Ethics, morality and globalization. www.http://shalomplace.org/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/16110765/m/76410285. Accessed on 6 December, 2003. 6 Peter Singer, One world: ethics of globalization, cited in The complete review’s review. http://www.completereview.com/reviews/divphil/singerp1.htm. Accessed on 6 December, 2003.

J. Indian Counc. Philos. Res.

more visible. In the developmental matters, the financial as well as technological help tendered to the needy benefits both parties. Such international human intervention brings about better condition for populations. It paves way for establishing certain standards of behaviour ranging from not harbouring terrorists to not manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. Local concern and commitment pave way for betterment at a global level. It takes care of everything, right from larger markets for foreign products to the states being less likely to become favourable to terrorists. In the same manner, as far as the international trade regulation is concerned, a concentration on equity, which, in long term, would look beyond the immediate gain and would take care of proper distribution of adequate foreign aid, produce markets in which all the participants would be better off. Globalization also raises an international fairness issue. As globalization is concerned with redistribution of benefits and burdens, it affects the social aspect as well. Notably, social and economic aspects are intrinsically connected. An organized market economy raises social questions concerning redistribution aspects of the gross national product. This is understood to be fair and compelling, whatever the redistribution mechanisms may be. In other words, the economic space is globalizing, so is the social space. Thus, globalization invites to broaden (territorially) the redistributive questions, while at the same time, it weakens the potential for redistribution because of the primacy of the market and the weakness of the state. Hence, although global ethics tends to keep a watch on ‘global market economy’, issues concerning ethics such as those related to justice, equality, dignity, rights and culture are allied to it in an important way. Apropos to it, one basic social problem is that it is troublesome to create enough job for every potential worker on the right level. This is because of a couple of factors. Firstly, due to technological innovations, labour market structures are changing: lowwage job for the low educated become scarcer, the amount of low-paid jobs for highly educated grows. This, in turn, causes a mismatch between available labour and demanded labour. Those with a lack of vocational training are excluded. It becomes difficult for such persons to maintain their individual capacity in the same pace as that of demand of the market. At the same time, because of globalization, the supply of labour from less-developed countries affects the market position of the place from where they migrate. In short, under the formula of survival of the fittest, only the economically strong ones can have an upper hand. Even middle class people are losing out in comparison with those who have income out of capital, as well as those who can take profit from their positions in management, scarce labour and training in new technologies. On the other hand, in less matured economies, a number of people are still excluded, being exploited or living in poverty. This phenomenon is not limited to income. An additional problem is very bad labour conditions wherein some of the labourers are compelled to work. Particularly in the so-called free trade zones in Mexico and Sri Lanka, but in most of the places of the former third world, labour conditions are unacceptably low in comparison to the Western standards. Child labour is rampant; safety measures are nominal, working hours are very long, pay is minimal and the freedom to labour organizations is non-existent. Of course, such places are quite lucrative for the Western companies for it is in those countries that they (Western companies) can manufacture cheaply and from where they can buy cheap parts and

J. Indian Counc. Philos. Res.

services as well. All this is undoubtedly painful in real facts and figures. The experienced social deficit is even larger. In the West, people can now realize the injustice done to the workers and the poor in the less-developed countries. As a natural corollary arises a general feeling of discontent. In the less-developed countries people have an opportunity to know the ‘rich life’ of the West via tourism, advertisement, TV and other such means. One can very well presume that such information aggravates the feeling of ‘relative deprivation’. As so, social space becomes more ‘one’ because of transboundary communication and information. Most of these people view globalization as an extension of capitalism. They argue that globalization is the cause of several ills like poverty and environmental degradation. Their grievance would broadly stem from the social effects of economic globalization. These concerns have dominated globalization debates so much so that people commonly assume that economic globalization harms social agents. Moreover, the impact of globalization on women needs to be assessed carefully. Will globalization help women to overcome social limitations ranging from lack of nutrition to limitations in participation in social, economic and political life? Especially, in developing countries, women do not possess skills for the global market place. It appears that globalization is already hurting them. Now, in order to go beyond the narrow identities, an intercultural dialogue, which looks at man as man, would be helpful. It would be possible only when we go beyond scientific rationality and open the vistas (dimensions) of human rationality. Such rationality would find partiality legitimate so long as it is in the context of a level playing field that includes fair rules impartially administered. It would find promotion of one’s (group’s) interests quite legitimate as long as it is done in the context of fair competition. Moreover, people who are partially in favour of their own group must also be impartially concerned for preserving the fairness of the larger social setting. In other words, partiality of concern is legitimate within a minimally fair setting, but not so when it seeks to undermine the minimal fairness of this setting itself. To make it clearer, it would be proper to state that the minimal fairness of the terms of the competition must not itself become the object of it. In the global context, the justice limit, i.e., the institutional limit to a government’s partiality in favour of its own citizens is that its partial conduct must not undermine the minimal fairness of global institutional order. In this way, nations can overcome their bias towards nationalism that explains the gap between the rich and the poor in terms of causal factors that are internal matters of the society in which they occur. We have to find out ways by which our industrial progress vis-à-vis other countries may not completely alienate one country from other countries so far as cultural difference is concerned. One way out is not to allow the industrial and technological advancements to clash with or alter the cultural ethos of the country. We have to appreciate each other and not simply oppose. As explained above, such nationalistic explanations, which are natural, and at times also valid should be reviewed in terms of its comparative effects on global institutional order. In this way, extending institutional moral analysis beyond the state focuses attention on how the massive incidence of extreme poverty and violence in the world today might be alleviated not only through better government behaviour on national and international levels but also and more effectively through global institutional reforms. Such reforms should be based on the cultivation of intrinsic values, which would lead the humanity towards

J. Indian Counc. Philos. Res.

a humane culture. This eclectic culture would encompass various dimensions— cognitive, emotional, moral and spiritual—of human life. Hence, the establishment of a universal standard of justice is of paramount concern. Justice is the essential foundation of unity, and without unity, there can be no peace. The problem is not with globalization but with how it is being managed. Globalization can be reshaped in ways that will help ensure that this is accomplished. Globalization is a two-way street that fosters competition rather than domination by any one country. It leads us to the idea of global governance that would elaborate consensual global norms and to establish universally applicable rules for the benefit of all. But, what is the basis of this conception of global governance? Nevertheless, cultural boundaries are flexible. On the one hand, man endeavours an exercise in the development of human solidarity, but on the other hand, man/society has the natural inclination for self-interest. Still, for the sake of natural instinct of co-existence, man/society needs to regulate their interests. This is for the simple reason that human beings, ‘irrespective of their culture and histories, share certain basic values; our common humanity grounds the adoption and acceptance of such ideas, values and perceptions, as well as the appreciation of the significance of events taking place beyond specific cultural boarders (Ebejuwa 2004).’ Apropos to it, the United Nations recognized human rights as a basic value in 1948. Global human rights campaigns do not measure their support for a cause as a function of the territorial distance and territorial borders that lie between advocates and victim. Human rights recognize that man vis-à-vis man shares a certain common moral ideal, and it is the obligation of everybody to comply with it regardless of territories. Thus, it (human rights) paves way for another basic value and that is regarding ecology. Ecology envelops the planet as one place at one time. The causes and consequences of ecological depletion cannot be divided between territorial units. Climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, certain epidemics and losses of biological diversity unfold simultaneously on world scale. International organizations, such as the United Nations, World Trade Organizations, World Bank and International Monetary Fund, should involve themselves in lawmaking, policy drafting and budgeting exercises. It would lead us into a world that is, at one and the same time, diverse and unified, a world suffused and guided by a vision of unity transcending all human and territorial differences. Let us end with the hope for a democratically controlled system of regulation that promotes minimum standards for environmental protection, worker safety and animal welfare That, of course, would pave way to globalizaton and the realization of the concept of universal man, Vishwa Maanava, an ideal dreamt by Rabindra Nath Tagore.

References Bentham, J. (1948). An introduction to the principals of morals and legislation (p. 326). London: Hafne. Booth, K., Dunne, T., & Cox, M. (Eds.). (2001). How might we live? Global ethics in the new century (Introduction, p. 1). New Delhi: Cambridge University Press. Ebejuwa, T. (2004). Towards universal values. Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research, XXI(2), 56. Frost, M. (2008). Global ethics: anarchy, freedom and international relations. New York: Routledge. Heiddegger, M. (1971). The thing. In Poetry, language and thought (pp. 165–166). New York. Rawls, J. (1999). The law of peoples. Cambridge: Harward University Press.

J. Indian Counc. Philos. Res. Reiser, O.L. & Davies, B. (1944). Planetary democracy: An introduction to scientific humanism (pp. 212, 219). New York. Robertson, R., Smelser, & Baltes, P. B. (2001). Globality. In International encyclopedia of social and behavioural sciences (p. 6254). Oxford: Elsevier/Pergamon. Shiva, V. (2000). Ecological balance in an era of globalization. In N. Low (Ed.), Global Ethics and Environment (p. 48). New York: Routledge. Suganami, H. (1978). A note on the origin of the word “International”. British Journal of International Studies, IV(3), 226–232. Webster. (1961). Webster’s third new international dictionary of the English language unabridged (p. 965). Springfield: M.A. Merriam.