{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0210667861945316, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007171671896010758, 'mean_word_length': 5.2521008403361344, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Attack on the State: A Comparison of the Arguments

Introduction In order to respond adequately to the challenges posed by globalization, it is necessary for national administrations to have a more specified insight into the consequences of globalization for the capacity of nation-states. Recently the sovereignty of the nation-state has been under attack from several sides, attacks sometimes erroneously summarized as globalization. Globalization has — according to many scholars — diminished the possibilities of nation-states to make public policies independently (Hirst and Thompson, 1996). It is claimed that globalization does not pose a threat so much to the external sovereignty of states, but rather to their internal sovereignty (Krasner, 1983; Reinicke, 1998). States exert external as well as internal sovereignty. The internal sovereignty of a state can be defined as the supremacy over all other authorities within its territory and over its population. Its external sovereignty refers not to supremacy but rather to its independence in relation to other nation-states. The internal sovereignty of states is said to be at stake, because what happens within their territory and among their population seems much less a consequence of the policies of the nationstates, but is rather becoming increasingly dependent upon international developments (Frieden and Rogowski, 1996). Four claims surface in the literature. First, globalization poses new problems, which states cannot handle on their own. International crime, international trade, foreign direct investments (FDI) and international finance are just some of the new policy areas in which the role of states is, at least, ambiguous. All types of firms have become much more mobile and now go to those places where they can profit most from the new developments. Nation-states adapt to these new circumstances to varying degrees and in different fashions. Some have adapted to the new situation to such an extent that the market ideology dominates their performance. They do everything to attract business and foreign investments. Others have tried to intensify their cooperation with other countries in order to standardize the boundary conditions within a