# The Achievement of Globalization **URL:** **By** Sarah Thomas **Published:** September 2, 2026 --- Globalization has promoted lasting gains but also elicited criticism. In this essay, Sarah Thomas focuses on two achievements of globalization, peace through trade and global constitutionalism, in addition to examining criticisms of globalization. Though these concerns are legitimate, it is vital to appreciate the good that globalization has created: a world society of trading partners that embodies the best of liberal ideals. [Globalization](https://www.libertarianism.org/encyclopedia/globalization), or the free movement of people, capital, goods, and ideas on a worldwide scale, has generated lasting gains. It has promoted peace through trade and informed the rise of global constitutionalism, strengthening a peaceful world order. But globalization also has its critics. Many point to its environmental impact, persistence of war, demographic disruptions, and violations of territorial sovereignty. While these criticisms are legitimate, they fail to grasp the good that globalization has promoted. ### Peace Through Trade Globalization has advanced a peaceful world order that reflects the _doux commerce_ thesis put forward by Montesquieu and Kant: [trade enhances peace](https://www.libertarianism.org/videos/does-trade-promote-peace).[1](#_edn1) If countries are trading partners rather than geopolitical adversaries, they will tend to cooperate to get what they need, rather than wage wars that undermine prosperity. To understand trade’s link to peace, we can look to a foundational economic concept: the [division of labor](https://www.libertarianism.org/encyclopedia/division-labor). Global free trade is founded on the international division of labor, where countries specialize in industries to which their resources are best suited. As Ludwig von Mises notes, “the international division of labor will . . . result in every country’s finding its place in the world economy” through their comparative advantage.[2](#_edn2) An economic order based on comparative advantage is more efficient and productive than economic nationalism. As a result, societies that have liberalized economically have seen the strongest growth, where growth often drives democratization and, ultimately, peace. But comparative advantage has less to do with a country’s technical ability for production and more to do with the efficiency of its production—so even the countries with the fewest resources can grow. This dynamic intersects with [opportunity cost](https://www.libertarianism.org/encyclopedia/bastiat-frederic-1801-1850), meaning that even if a country had superior technical skills in producing, another country could produce and sell the good to the first country at a lower cost than if that country produced it itself. In doing so, the other producer can be said to have a comparative advantage.[3](#_edn3) A real-world example of this is Germany and Saudi Arabia. Germany has superior technical know-how but channels those skills toward the production of cars—its comparative advantage. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has the reserves and sufficient skill to extract and refine oil, giving it a comparative advantage as the world’s largest exporter of oil. Hence, comparative advantage drives the international division of labor, which cultivates a peaceful world order of trading partners. But this peace is not limited to the modern globalized era. Indeed, earlier societies also embodied the peace of commerce—even prior to the Industrial Revolution. As Johan Norberg notes in [_Peak Human_](https://www.libertarianism.org/podcasts/the-liberty-exchange/peak-human-lessons-from-the-rise-and-fall-of-golden-ages-with-johan-norberg), history attests to seven “Golden Ages” of civilization where economic dynamism and peace prevailed. From the Song Dynasty and Abbasid Caliphate to the Dutch Republic, these societies were pluralistic and economically open.[4](#_edn4) This history helps us to appreciate that globalization has early historical roots that were long associated with peace. Additionally, golden ages attest to the ways that economic openness—the basis of globalization—drives peace and cultural flourishing. Since trade is so evidently linked to peace, multilateralism has sought to preserve it through a rules-based order that prevailed during the decades-long Pax Americana. This is seen most notably in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), World Trade Organization (WTO), and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). However, classical liberals disagree among themselves whether global governance has been productive or harmful for a world of trade, especially considering its often centralized and bureaucratic regulations, in addition to its democratic deficit. Many of these treaties and international organizations had economically liberal origins—especially the WTO and its predecessor, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). A 1947 treaty that lasted until the WTO’s formation in 1995, the GATT promoted free trade by reducing trade barriers like tariffs and quotas. Its successor, the WTO, was also economically liberal for quite some time, though it has recently moved toward the Geneva Consensus, advanced by former WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy, humanizing and reforming globalization to better address the costs and distribute the benefits of trade opening.[5](#_edn5) Meanwhile, the OECD has supported open markets from the beginning, a key aspect of the Global North’s prosperity—and its peace. ### Global Constitutionalism Beyond the economic dimension of globalization, it is also worthwhile to consider the legal dimension. Global constitutionalism recognizes that globalization has implications for law. For global constitutional theorists, principles like rule of law, human rights, and democracy are universal and should be practiced at the global level. The ascent of this theory attests that globalization can deepen the rules-based international order in a way that reflects evolved liberal customs rather than positive legislation. Universal and liberal constitutional rules can exist at the world level, rather than being constrained by nation-states as in international law. But some have contested global constitutionalism’s rise. Anne-Marie Slaughter cautions against a global constitution because it might require a world state to enforce it.[6](#_edn6) To address this problem, we can look to [F. A. Hayek’s philosophy of law](https://www.libertarianism.org/articles/law-and-order-review-f-hayeks-law-legislation-and-liberty-volume-one). As principles of custom, Hayek’s rules of just conduct arise evolutionarily rather than being posited by a sovereign or world state, and they align with the spirit of global constitutionalism in being sufficiently general and liberal. For Hayek, the idea of a constitution fundamentally involves “a hierarchy of rules or laws,” where rules of a higher generality exert control over more specific laws—similar to the idea of rule of law obtaining at the global level.[7](#_edn7) Meanwhile, Hayek’s abstract rules of just conduct consist of “purpose-independent rules which govern the conduct of individuals towards each other, are intended to apply to an unknown number of further instances, and by defining a protected domain of each, enable an order of actions to form itself wherein the individuals can make feasible plans.”[8](#_edn8) The rules of just conduct generally revolve around rule of law, private property, [non-aggression](https://www.libertarianism.org/encyclopedia/nonaggression-axiom), and contracts. Since they developed evolutionarily, they reflect the effective functioning of spontaneous order—and exist beyond sovereignty. Furthermore, the rules have no purposeful end state in mind and merely govern the conduct of individuals, manifesting a priority of the right over the good—universal principles of justice rather than an imposed vision of the good. They also ensure self-ownership by “defining a protected domain of each” and allowing individuals to “make feasible plans” for their lives. These rules are general and relatively anodyne, yet also potent in the way they constrain sovereign violence through rule of law and non-aggression. As such, they can advance liberal principles of right at the global level while also precluding the emergence of a world state, since they merely reflect custom. This is the achievement of globalization in law. The rules of just conduct envision a liberal society that is a [spontaneous](https://www.libertarianism.org/encyclopedia/spontaneous-order) and global order rather than a planned and insular one. Rules like non-aggression support negative liberty, while rule of law and private property empower a society of open legal and economic principles. The recent rise of global constitutionalism, in dialogue with Hayek on customary law, posits a cosmopolitan vision closely aligned with the spirit of liberalism—and with the ideal of globalization. ### Criticism of Globalization Having laid out positive features of globalization, we can now examine criticisms of it. One potent criticism of globalization has to do with its environmental impact. Detractors of globalization readily accept that globalization has enriched living standards—but at what cost? Even though most of the global poor no longer live in destitution and now benefit from modern advances, globalization has significantly increased pollution in the atmosphere, especially through higher rates of production, consumption, and transportation worldwide. But as Johan Norberg rightly [demonstrates](https://www.cato.org/publications/globalization-race-bottom-or-top), the Global North states that have been most open to globalization also rank the highest in ecological sustainability. The wealthier and more economically liberal a nation becomes, the cleaner its air and water—as shown in the environmental Kuznets curve.[9](#_edn9) This could be due to well-defined property rights that prevent a tragedy of the commons and allow for innovation that lowers pollution. Many of the most prominent nations are also moving toward renewable energy sources. As Norberg shows, economies of scale have helped lower the cost of renewable energy, making it an attractive option for countries seeking sustainable growth. That said, renewable energy has its challenges. It relies on mining, while the variability of wind and solar requires additional sources of energy to keep the grid reliable. [Globalization, instead, can alleviate environmental problems](https://www.cato.org/publications/climate-change-globalization) since wealth generation opens access to reliable, affordable, and relatively clean energy sources, like natural gas, hydroelectric, and nuclear, though these are not a panacea. Another criticism of globalization contests the validity of commercial peace theory. It’s commonly assumed that globalization drives peace, arising from the _doux commerce_ thesis—though commercial peace theory does not proscribe non-liberal nations from trading in the first place. But as Pascal Lamy and Lorenzo Marsili have argued, this order is being upended by US-China rivalry and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, all taking place amid the backdrop of globalization.[10](#_edn10) Paul Dragos Aligica, too, maintains that “economic integration and strategic rivalry are not opposites” but instead “continuous participants in the same self-transforming process.”[11](#_edn11) Accordingly, a reconstructed liberal approach to globalization calls for appreciating rivalry rather than merely commercial peace. Aligica notes challenges to economic integration from within, such as “decoupling, weaponized interdependence, the return of tariffs, \[and\] the fragmentation of global supply chains.”[12](#_edn12) These challenges, made more explicit by China’s rise, expose flaws in the framework of mutual gains. In response, we must acknowledge that much of the Pax Americana since 1945 was peaceful largely due to the globalized, rules-based international order that had formed. But that did not stop the violence of genocide and war in places like Rwanda and Iraq, or, more recently, America’s geopolitical rivalry with China. The question then becomes: can globalization actually prevent war and violence? The answer seems to be no, especially considering global governance’s failure in Rwanda, but globalization can still deter and quell war through commerce. If countries like the US see China as a trading partner rather than trying to dominate and undercut its power, more peace and less geopolitical friction will likely result. This is the idea of mutual gains through specialization, in which we can still maintain some faith while acknowledging Aligica’s realism. If the system worked for so long, it will likely endure, though imperfectly. Additionally, many recent wars have been driven by nation-states’ loyalty to sovereignty above all, which globalization undermines. Hence globalization can attenuate the desire and effects of war, though China’s rise tests American commitments to it. Globalization further faces critics with respect to demographic disruptions from [migration](https://www.libertarianism.org/encyclopedia/immigration) on a world scale. This criticism arises especially in debates over mass migration into Europe. Globalization has made migration much easier, but this migration is often life-threatening, while raising questions of assimilation, citizenship, and welfare for those culturally other. In response, ethnic nationalisms are on the rise in Europe, often invoking the idea of Europe. But one could respond that the free movement of labor still has economic benefits, though concerns about profound cultural differences are legitimate—a tension at the heart of European integration, especially given the Schengen Agreement’s history.[13](#_edn13) Relatedly, the final criticism of globalization deals with sovereignty. Many stakeholders critical of what is called “globalism”—the supremacy of global governance, rather than the mere dynamics of globalization—point to the primacy of territorial sovereignty. Nation-states should have the power to decide on production, they argue, while limiting their interactions with the world economy and especially with global governance. For these advocates, often linked to nationalism, the nation-state is the fundamental and supreme unit of economic and political activity. This leads to a rejection of global governance and liberal internationalism, both of which have historically allied with globalization. The classical liberal could counter that while sovereignty is our reality, it is still very new—as is global governance. As Rana Dasgupta notes, in 1900, only 25% of the world’s states were nation-states or a national people together with a state structure, while empires were the norm for most of history—though this does not vindicate the superiority of empire. Nation-states only became dominant recently, as ninety-nine percent of the world’s population now lives in a nation-state.[14](#_edn14) But even if this is the dominant political form, one that has supported democratic legitimacy and accountability as well as [constitutional constraints on power](https://www.libertarianism.org/encyclopedia/constitutionalism), there are still legitimate economic and political reasons for going beyond sovereignty, as in multilateral treaties on trade facilitated by the WTO, without returning to empire. Meanwhile, surpassing sovereignty need not mean abolishing the national form and submitting entirely to global governance—what some call “globalism”—but merely advancing a cosmopolitanism of nations in Giuseppe Mazzini’s formulation.[15](#_edn15) Sovereignty is necessary and good, its partisans rightly note. How else could we organize a democratic order accountable to a demos? Meanwhile, nation-states are tasked with preserving civil and political rights in a way that a post-sovereign order could not. Therefore, advocates of sovereignty are on to something. But nation-states need not be totalizing. A world order of sovereign states that did not trade together would likely be less pacific and more adversarial. ### Concluding Remarks Globalization has advanced peace through trade and the notion of universal constitutional rules, ideas reflected in the work of Montesquieu, Kant, and Hayek. But it has also elicited criticism. These concerns are legitimate but ultimately transcended by the prosperity that globalization has created. And even if globalization’s claim to peace is now being contested by US-China rivalry, we can still appreciate the high point of this era. Open economic principles drove what globalization has come to mean: a civilizational achievement, one that empowers a world society that embodies the best of liberal ideals. ## Endnotes [1.](#_ednref1) Montesquieu, _The Spirit of the Laws_, book XX, chapter 2; Kant, _Perpetual Peace_, First Supplement. [2.](#_ednref2) Ludwig von Mises, _Liberalism_, trans. Ralph Raico (Mises Institute, 2010), 132. Originally published in German as _Liberalismus_ (Gustav Fischer, 1927). [3.](#_ednref3) Donald J. Boudreaux, “Comparative Advantage,” _Defending Globalization: Economics_, Cato Institute, September 12, 2023. [4.](#_ednref4) Johan Norberg, _Peak Human_ (Cato Institute, 2025), 3. [5.](#_ednref5) Pascal Lamy, _The Geneva Consensus: Making Trade Work for All_ (Cambridge University Press, 2013), 17. [6.](#_ednref6) Anne-Marie Slaughter, _A New World Order_ (Princeton University Press, 2005), 10. [7.](#_ednref7) F. A. Hayek, _The Constitution of Liberty_ (University of Chicago Press, 1960), 178. [8.](#_ednref8) F. A. Hayek, _Law, Legislation, and Liberty, Vol 1: Rules and Order_ (University of Chicago Press, 1973), 85–86. [9.](#_ednref9) Johan Norberg, “Globalization: A Race to the Bottom—or to the Top?,” _Defending Globalization: Economics_, Cato Institute, October 10, 2023. [10.](#_ednref10) Pascal Lamy and Lorenzo Marsili, “Why Globalization Can’t Stop War Anymore,” Berggruen Institute \& Futurology, September 2, 2025. [11.](#_ednref11) Paul Dragos Aligica, “Liberalism in the Age of Weaponized Interdependence,” _Liberalism.org_, June 17, 2026. [12.](#_ednref12) Aligica, “Liberalism in the Age of Weaponized Interdependence.” [13.](#_ednref13) Isaac Stanley-Becker, _Europe without Borders: A History_ (Princeton University Press, 2025), 8. [14.](#_ednref14) Rana Dasgupta, _After Nations_ (Viking, 2026), 1. [15.](#_ednref15) Giuseppe Mazzini, _A Cosmopolitanism of Nations_ (Princeton University Press, 2009), 240.