Has globalisation rendered the state paradigm in controlling crimes, anachronistic?

Purpose - – This purpose of this paper is to explore the dynamics of globalisation on the state’s ability to fight crimes. Given the complicated dynamics of the global market influence on crime control and prevention, the paper has analysed the theory of globalisation and how it manifests itself across or within different states. While, it is internationally acclaimed that globalisation has become a fact of life, it needs to be noted that not all countries have been able to harness its benefits. Therefore, globalization has manifested itself differently in different states. This paper examines the dynamics of globalization on sovereign states in the context of their ability to control and prevent crimes, the influence of open border controls, the new crimes typologies, articulating whether modern state approaches are adequate to caution them against contemporary global challenges. Design/methodology/approach - – The paper is written drawing on experiences of the UK, the European Union and in other jurisdictions farther afield. I have used a range of secondary data sources such as analysing data in newspaper, journal papers, textbooks and online sources. The paper has also drawn on some of my earlier scholarly work but internalised to suit the purposes for writing it. Findings - – This paper finds that unless states first position themselves properly to pervasive global changes and challenges, they risk being continuously sidelined (swamped). Globalisation and its offshoot effects on traditional states approaches have elicited a wide range debates and controversies. The conclusion one draws in the analysis of the global influence in fighting traditional and non-traditional crimes would usually depend on where one stands/leans in contemporary debate on these twin issues. Research limitations/implications - – The study was undertaken using a qualitative research methodology, relying heavily on the analysis of secondary data sources. By the very nature of this methodology, it would have been better to carry out interviews and to gain a first hand experience on issues this paper was written on. This is because qualitative research methodology thrives in a natural setting where the researcher interacts with his/her constituent subjects directly. This would also have mitigated the potential for bias inherent in the use of secondary data sources. Practical implications - – The paper is important in demonstrating that states need to be more proactive to benefit from globalisation and its influences. They cannot afford to be laid back lest they are submerged by pervasive global influences in its various manifestations. The paper has highlighted that relaxing border controls could be bad for states because it has the potential to send wrong signals to dangerous criminals. The state needs to reclaim some of its lost sovereign space to remain relevant in asserting its influence on what happens and does not happen inside its borders. Social implications - – States have no choice but to come together and forge common interstate initiatives. This will enable them to deal with overlapping global exigences effectively. There is no state (whether it likes or not) that can afford to act unilaterally when it come to overlapping global exigences. Originality/value - – The analysis of the paper is based on contemporary challenges and narratives of globalisation and its influence on crimes control. It is nevertheless written in a distinctive way to foster the objectives of writing it.