As the world evolves, globalization sparks intense debate, revealing much more to explore and understand. It is undoubtedly important to attain the knowledge regarding the concept of territoriality from a historical perspective and current state system, conception of exterior space, and states undergoing transformational change. The main intellectual interests should be the idea of modernization and how it has affected the interconnectedness of the globalized globe. Let’s begin with the idea of territoriality in the medieval era and how it differed from modern conceptions. Additionally, how the incompatibility of medieval territoriality with current ideas and problems posed by governance and globalization is considered.

Concept of International Relations:

Before the development of nation-states with well-defined borders and national markets, the concept of international relations was irrelevant. It is a distinctly and exclusively contemporary idea. However, International transactions in cross-border economic and political exchanges that assumed the presence of properly defined, delimited, and distinct domestic markets and politics have emerged.

Modern and Postmodern States

It is vital to highlight that the author labels modern and postmodern with a very limited meaning as he refers to the Post-Westphalian age of territorially and geographically defined sovereign nations by using the term “modern.” The terms “pre-modern” and “imperial” relate to earlier non-territorial political systems. 

Postmodern theory presupposes a shift to a brand-new, as-yet-undefined form of political organization that is not based on place. Naturally, it is impossible and undesirable to clearly distinguish between postmodern political governance and postmodernism. Fragmentation undoubtedly plays a significant role in any debate on globalization. However, people are not ready to write off meta-narratives just yet.

The Transition from the medieval to modern eras is commonly acknowledged to have occurred at the start of the sixteenth century. So several questions are raised: 

• What might it resemble if we were once again at a watershed, about to enter the postmodern era?  
• Can we identify the form and structure of the new, global international political economy if the post-Westphalian era is coming to an end?

But with the emergence of a globally integrated economy, it has become harder to define what constitutes a National product, a National technology, or even a National firm. The most significant roadblocks to unrestricted cross-border trade and investment flows today are national laws governing intellectual property, workplace rights, health and safety regulations, and environmental standards. Again becoming confusing and muddled is the distinction between domestic and international commerce.

For example, One industry where exports have increased significantly over the past ten years is

Indian software. Nowadays, real-time satellite links make it common for programmers in Bangalore to work on computers in New York and London. It is beyond a doubt that economic value is added when an Indian programmer updates a software system in a New York bank. On the contrary, it is truly hard to say whether the transaction occurs in India, the US, or both at once. 

Context of cyberspace:

Further, the question of whether the fundamental notions of geographic space and geographic markets still have value in the context of cyberspace transactions is raised. The newly connected digital world may end up resembling little cells or clearings encircled by an electronic forest. There is nothing tangible, geometrical, or geographical about cyberspace, as electronic networks make space relational, symbolic, or metaphysical.

The lost meaning of Geography as the Foundation for the structuring politics and Economy:

More esoterically, the concept of geography as the foundation for the structuring of politics and economy may be losing its significance. The global network of thousands of monitors that make up the international financial system is built in a very real sense in digitized electronic space. Although it is the first global electronic market, it won’t be the last. The Internet is present simultaneously everywhere and nowhere. The Internet has been accurately defined as “a nightmare scenario of every government censor” because it “recognizes no national barriers and has no physical existence.

Metamorphosis

The state is currently undergoing a “metamorphosis” due to structural adjustments in the global economy, politics, and society. States’ borders are no longer seen as clear-cut divisions of authority or “lines in the sand,” where movements of people, products, cash, and information can be easily managed. It is once more becoming difficult to distinguish between internal and exterior concerns.

Context of Pakistan:

Regarding how nations responded to a world that was quickly globalizing in the 1990s, three main paradigms can be identified. One example is Russia and its former satellites in Eastern Europe, which adopted the “shock therapy” advocated by then-radical free-market theorists and failed for almost a decade. The other example was China, which followed a planned, state-led strategy of opening up gradually while state-owned businesses took the lead. For Western capital, breaking into the Chinese economy continues to be a formidable obstacle almost up to the present. Then there was India, which was much more open to private investment but kept trade barriers in place with the use of complex systems like quality checks, obligations for the transfer of technology and local content, and updated patent law. 

Conclusion. Analysis and Recommendation:

States must make themselves compatible to the extent that they can fulfill international criteria. Instead of bickering and disputing over warnings regarding border difficulties, they should focus more on technical growth. In contrast to economically undeveloped and technologically backward nations, stable economies around the world benefit from sovereignty.

Around the world, the technology revolution has had a significant impact on industry, government, and the labor market. Small players can now compete with established giants in manufacturing and other industries because of advancements in telecommunications. As a result, governments must undergo re-articulation in order to comply with international standards.

However, this does not imply that globalization is over, as this is obviously not the case. Trade between nations will continue, but they will choose their partners more carefully and be cautious about opening up strategically crucial industries to competition from nations seen as a threat. Every nation in the world needs to respond to the procedure, which started 25 years ago. While some can change, others can miss the opportunity.