How does the 9/11 terrorist attack link with globalisation?

Globalisation is the emergence of a complex web of interconnectedness, which means our lives are increasingly shaped by events, such as the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Therefore geographical distance is of declining relevance and that territorial borders are becoming less significant. In addition, rather than implying that the 'local' and the 'national' are subordinated to the 'global', globalisation highlights the broadening of the political process, where local and global events constantly interact.

The event of 9/11 was a coordinated series of terrorist attacks, launched against the thr USA, on the 11th September 2001 and were conducted by Osama bin Laden (Head of the al-Qaedo organisations). The 9/11 attacks included four hijacked passenger jet airliners, in which two had crashed into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Centre in New York. The third airliner crashed into the Pentagon (the headquarters of the Department of Defence), based outside of Washington DC, whilst the fourth airliner crashed in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, when the passengers on board tried to seize control of the plane: it was believed that this one intended to crash into the White House or the US Capitol. As a result, none of the passengers on the four flights had survived and a total of 2995 people were killed in these attacks.

The 9/11 attacks links with globalisation because they were carried out to exert a symbolic blow against the cultural, political and ideological domination of the West, rather than conquering territory. (Remember, territorial borders are becoming less significant in globalisation). Globalisation is where the world is shaped by events, which applies in the 9/11 attacks because it has sometimes been described as 'the day the world changed.' The world was changed by the terrorist attacks because it led to the unfolding of the 'war on terror' and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, which created more conflict between Islam and the West. This was due to actions of the US-led military where they launched an assault on Afghanistan, in November 2001, that toppled the Taliban regime within weeks. This war attracted broad international support and became only the second example of the UN endorsing military action. This enforces globalisation of security because it shows that the USA has the capacity for self defence, and therefore national security placed a premium on military power. However, on the other hand, 9/11 and the wider threat of terrorism has highlighted the emergence of new security challenges, which includes the fact that they arise from non-state actors, and the exploitation of the greater interconnectedness of the modern world.

 Nevertheless, 9/11 may have indicated that America would return to 'business as normal' instead of creating a new era in global security. The vital importance of 'national security' was underlined by the advent of a globalised world, thus the emergence of new security challenges and transnational terrorism, re-emphasising the core role of the state protecting its citizens from external attack. 9/11 also gave the USA a renewed significance because their response was building up state power at home by strengthening 'homeland security', and abroad through increasing military spending and invading Afganistan and Iraq. As a result of becoming more pronounced in its foreign policy, the USA were less concerned with international organisations of various kinds.

This dramatic shift in global security established the end of the period when globalisation and the cessation of superpower rivalry appeared to have been associated with a diminishing propensity for international conflict. For example, 9/11 illustrated how fragile national borders had become in a technological age, and showed that the 'external' threat came from a terrorist organisation, (that appeared to operate more as a global network), instead of another state.

The motivations behind the 9/11 attacks were carried out in the name of a religiously inspired ideology: militant Islamism, which disagrees with the culture and politics of the West. This provoked the establishment of the belief that 9/11 was evidence of an emerging 'clash of civilisation.'

Ultimately, the 9/11 terrorist attacks contributed to globalisation as it certainly shaped the lives of many people around the world and it did affect the politics and security of many countries. It could  be claimed that 9/11 was an example of cultural globalisation because these events did bring different
cultures, religions and nations together in time of such crisis. However, these attacks may have condensed cultural globalisation as it did expand the tension and conflict between Islam and the West.

What are the government's key areas of constitutional reform?

A key area of the government's constitutional reform is the Scottish and Welsh devolution. The Conservative manifesto is committed to implementing the the recommendations of the Smith Commission to devolve further fiscal and welfare powers to Scotland, which the House of Lords and and th House of Commons strongly criticise. The Coalition government announced devolution of income tax powers to Wales, using a referendum. However the offer was denounced by the Welsh First Minister Carwynm who condemned the proposals as lacking fair funding, pressing an unnecessary referendum and failing to match Scotland in powers offered . The Conservatives are committed to legislation on further Welsh devolution. In Northern Ireland, meanwhile, the Corporation Tax Act 2015 has given power to the Northern Ireland executive and Assembly to vary the rate of corporation tax from 2017 and the SNP have been quick to demand the powers.

Another key area of the government's constitutional reform is the English Votes on English Laws. This is where the Conservative manifesto made no fewer than four separate commitments to introduce English Votes on English Laws, since 2001, which the Liberal Democrats in the Coalition government resisted. The Conservative government's White Paper on The Implications of Devolution for England set out 3 options for implementation from the Conservatives. The English Votes on English Laws could prove that there are divisions within the Conservative Party as they could not agree before the election on which model of English Votes on English Laws to support.

The issue of the UK's relationship with the EU is another key area of the government's constitutional reform. The Conservatives have promised an in/out referendum by 2017 on the EU. However, Cameron's narrow majority means that his Eurosceptic backbenchers are in a strong position to hold him to his promise. Therefore the government will not be able to prevent Eurosceptic MPs campaigning to leave the EU.

Human rights is the government's key area of constitutional reform where the Conservatives have committed to repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights, which is likely to face difficulties with the devolved governments, who want to stay in the ECHR and the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg Court. The House of Lords will resist this proposal because of the presence of senior lawyers on the Crossbenchers and the implacable opposition of both Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

Another key area of the government's constitutional reform is the electoral reform. The Conservative Party opposed the Alternative Vote and Proportional Representation vote and their manifesto promised to 'keep FPTP.' This will be strengthene following an election that gave them 51% of the seats on 37% of the votes. They also pledge to change electoral boundaries and reduce the number of MPs, which will attract resistance from the House of Lords, Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

The House of Lords Reform is another key area of the Conservative government's constitutional reform. Before, the Coalition government were committed to a largely or entirely elected second chamber. However many Conservative MPs had fears that such a chamber may become a rival to the Commons. Therefore the progress on developing a Lord reform bill was withdrawn. Despite this the current Conservative manifesto stating that House of Lords reform 'is not a priority in the next Parliament', it also commits the party to 'addressing issues such as the size of the chamber and the retirement of peers.'

How would leaving the EU affect sovereignty and therefore the UK's consititution?

In the UK, Parliament can be said to have given up some of its sovereignty when it passed the European Communities Act 1972, which enabled the UK to join what was then the European Economic Community, at the beginning of 1973 and required courts in the UK to apply EU law.


As a result, a great deal of legislative power has moved to the EU, meaning that European law is superior to British law. Therefore if there is any conflict between EU law and UK law, EU law must prevail and Parliament do not have the power to pass any law that conflict with EU law. In this sense Parliament has lost some of its legal sovereignty to the EU. However, if the UK was to leave the EU, Parliament would get full legal sovereignty back, meaning that British law would no longer be inferior to the EU and Parliament would be able to pass any law, even if it conflicts with EU law. So British law would be more flexible and easier to pass and prevail.


Since joining the EU, there has been significant shifts of legislative authority over trade, the environment, employment rights and consumer protection. This means that Parliament has lost its sovereignty over these areas of policy to the EU, so Parliament do not have as much sovereignty over them, than they do over criminal law, social security, health and education (which have not been passed to Brussels). Therefore, if the UK was to leave the EU, Parliament would have legal sovereignty over trade, the environment, employment rights and consumer protection, and would not have to consult or abide by EU law over these areas of policy. However, this may be a disadvantage because EU laws provide for refunds or other remedies for consumers, and some jobs linked to trade with the EU could be lost. There would also be less agriculture trade between the UK and the EU, and the UK would have to replace the trade deals which the EU already has with some non-EU countries, such as Korea.


There is controversy over the status of the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights, as it is not legally binding on Parliament, therefore Parliament retains its sovereignty over this. Despite this, Parliament treats the European Convention on Human Rights largely as if it were supreme. Therefore sovereignty over this would not change, however the UK would no longer have to treat the European Convention on Human Rights as superior and would be able to do what it like with it.

Where does sovereignty lie in the UK

There are three types of sovereignty that lies in the UK which are exercised by different political bodies: legal, popular and political sovereignty.

Legal sovereignty lies with Parliament which means that no other body has the power to make laws or to overrule laws made by Parliament. Statutory powers can be granted to a subsidiary body or to a minister only by Parliament. Elected MPs in the House of Commons alongside the House of Lords makes the law in Parliament which is legally sovereign as it is not bound by laws, made by previous Parliaments. The laws made by the government cannot be entrenched by each Parliament and future Parliaments cannot be prevented from repealing or amending them, by each current Parliament. 

Recently Parliament has delegated its legal sovereignty to the Scottish Parliament which has primary legislative power under the Scotland Act 1998; however this could be repealed which shows that UK Parliament still has the ultimate sovereignty. 

It can be argued that the central government is legally sovereign between elections because it has been granted through the people's mandate. However it has no ultimate power because it can be overruled by Parliament. Therefore legal sovereignty lies in the UK Parliament except where it has conceded some powers to the EU. This is known as pooled sovereignty where ultimate power is exercised by the members states collectively.

Popular sovereignty lies in the power to the people which is exercised in three senses. Firstly, popular sovereignty is exercised through General Elections where British citizens elect a Parliameny and a government. The people have power in this sense as their verdict cannot be challenged. Secondly, popular sovereignty is exercised through parties' mandates to carry out the policies in its election manifesto. This way people have granted authority to the government to have power. Lastly, referendums are now held more frequently, where its results are not binding on Parliament. Therefore it is argued that they are not sovereign. However it is inconceivable that a government or Parliament would refuse to accept the verdict of a referendum as it gives power to the people (popular sovereignty).

Political sovereignty is exercised through the UK government and the prime minister because these political bodies hold most power in reality. Therefore, political sovereignty can be seen in the following circumstances. The UK government is politically sovereign because it has a mandate from the people, where most of its proposals are almost certain to be accepted through Parliament. The prime minister in the UK, has prerogative powers which are exercised on behalf of the monarch. This cannot be overruled by Parliament without passing a special Act of Parliament. The Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish governments and assemblies have political sovereignty over certain areas of policy  making, because the devolution laws have granted them wide powers. Popular sovereignty exercised by the people can also be political sovereignty as it increases political participation. 

What are the core principles of the UK constitution?

The UK constitution has many core principles that have been established through time.

Firstly, the UK constitution is uncodified which means that, instead of being written in a single document (codified), it is written in a variety of sources. These include conventions, statutes, historical principles and authoritative works, commom law, tradition and its relationship with the EU. Therefore it is not entrenched and is flexible, compared to a codified constitution, such as the US, which is rigid and entrenched.

An entrenched consitution is one that is specially safeguarded against changes, so it has more complex arrangements for amendment than the normal legislative process. However, the UK constitution is not entrenched because it is flexible, therefore it can be amended easily and quickly by Parliament. This is because there are no restrictions on how Parliament can amend the constitution, which comes to an advantage in times of emergency as it doesn't take a long time to change the constitution.

Britain is a constitutional monarchy, which means that many actions are taken in the name of the monarch, but the Queen does not actually make any decisions; she just signs the Royal Assent when a Bill is passed. Before 1688, the monarchy enjoyed the royal prerogative where they had all power over Britain. However, after the 'Glorious Revolution' in 1688, the Crown's prerogative powers have been gradually eroded: passing all law making power to Parliament and then to the head of government (the Prime Minister). Therefore the monarchy now play a largely ceremonial role which is limited by the firm constitutional rules.

Another principle of the UK constitution, is the system of Parliamentary Government where parliamentary accountability is combined with executive power. As a result, Parliament grants authority to government ministers to dominate it and rule the country, and they must be accountable to do so.

Parliamentary sovereignty is another principle of the UK constitution, in which Parliament is the ultimate source of all authority, all law and power within the political system. Therefore there is no higher legal authority than Parliament, meaning that the UK has a one tier legal system; unlike the US where they have a two tier legal system because their constitution is codified and federal.

Party government is a principle of the British constitution where the constitutional system can only operate in the context of party control. In particular, the arrangement concerning the operation of both the cabinet and the House of Commons, depends on the fact that a single political party is in control of the executive branch, and is usually able to control its majority in the Commons. This is completed by that political party winning a majority of seats in the General Election which supports the collective responsibility, mandate and manifesto, government and opposition, and patronage of the government.

Britain is a unitary political system which means that legal sovereignty lies in one place: Parliament. This contributes to the single tier legal system as Parliament has the final say in all political and constitutional matters, even though a great deal of power has been decentralised through devolution.

In your opinion should the UK adopt a codified constitution, if so why?

The UK's constitution is currently uncodified which means it is written in different sources and is easily amended because it is not entrenched. The constitution is also unitary as it lies in one place which is why Britain has a single tier legal system with no form of higher laws; just Parliamentary sovereignty. The constitution is not judicial meaning that no political bodies can declare whether certain actions are constitutional or unconstitutional.

Whereas codified constitutions', such as the US constitution, features are opposite to the UK's constitution: they are written in one single document, so they can be entrenched, and they are usually federal constitutions which allows the state to have a two tier legal system: constitutional laws (being the highest laws) and then common laws. Uncodified constitutions are also judicial which means that all political bodies are subject to the authority of the courts and supreme courts.

Changing the UK's constitution from uncodified to codified would create stronger safeguards needed for individual and minority rights. Britain has adopted the European Convention on Human Rights, but they can be overridden by Parliament as they have the right to do whatever it wants. The Liberals argue that the executive power of the government is excessive in the UK because it threatens individual rights, minorities and influence of public opinion; having a codified constitution would enable Parliament to control the government on behalf of the people. It would also increase public awareness and support as British citizens don't fully understand the concept of a constitution, so changing it would allow citizens to understand our relationship with the EU and would make the UK a modern democracy.

Although I agree with these advantages of codified constitution, I believe that the UK's constitution should remain uncodified, however, because it can be easily adapted to the changing world without confusion, in a short amount of time. This can be done by Parliament simply passing a new Act, or developing new unwritten conventions. For example, this comes to an advantage in times of emergency, such as the 9/11 terrorist attack, when Britain had to pass a wide range of anti-terrorist measures. If Britain's constitution was codified and entrenched, it would have been extremely difficult and long to pass these measures. Although uncodified constitutions allow the government to be more powerful, which can be a disadvantage to the people, but it makes sure that the government are not prevented from acting against the constitution. In addition, the UK's uncodified constitution has served Britain well for centuries because there have been no violent revolutions or major political unrest, therefore there is no need to change it. Adopting a codified constitution would involve the supreme court and would become judicial. This means that unelected judges would interpret, re-interpret and resolve political issues of the constitution, so they would not be accountable; such decisions should be resolved by an elected Parliament, which would improve the UK's democracy.

What is a constitution and why is it important?

A constitution is a set of rules that govern the country: citizens and the government. It determines how political power should be distributed within the states. For example, federal settlements divides the power between central governments and regional institutions, such as America, and unitary States have power in one place, such as the United Kingdom. They also determine the balance of power between government and parliament, president and prime minister, or between the chambers in the bicameral system: the two Houses of Parliament. 

Constitutions establish the political processes that make the system work and establishes the relationship between political institutions. They also have to be amended as changes occur through time. Therefore it is essential that a constitution contains the rules for its own constitution to be able to amend it. For example, the UK is unusual in regards to amendment, because its constitution changes in two ways: through parliamentary statute and through the evolution of unwritten rules, called conventions. Ireland and France are also different because they use referendums to approve change. 

They also give rights to citizens (civil liberties) against the state, such as in the form of a Bill of Rights, which is a statement that prevents a government from 'stamping on citizens', or by establishing rules in regards to nationality. This is important because it protects the people from the government and prevents dictatorship. 

Constitutions are the most important things in politics as without them, the government could do what it wanted, such as oppressing minorities and violating people's freedom. Citizens cannot trust the government and anyone who has power, because having too much power could lead to corruption.  Having a constitution not only prevents dictatorship, it limits the power of the government, which means that the government are also being controlled. However, in Britain there are no limits placed on Parliament, as it is sovereign. Therefore it has the legal right to do what it likes, whereas the U.S. constitution sets the rules that the government needs to abide by. 

Codification is the process of setting out a constitution in an organised way, which is in a single document. Codified constitutions are constitutions that are organised or written in a single document which is the only source of constitutional rules. Whereas an uncodified constitution has several different sources and has no single document. 

An example of a codified constitution is the US constitution, set up in September 1787, under the Independent 13 former British colonies. This constitution establishes America's national government and fundamental laws, and guarantees certain rights for its citizens. Another example of a codified constitution is the constitution of Norway which was established in 1814, when they were free from Danish rule. The French constitution is another codified constitution which was established in 1958, which happened after a coup d'état, when the new president named Charles de Gualle took over. The most recent codified constitution is of Iraq, established in 2005 following the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime.