Jenifer Daniela Garzón Casallas jenifergarzon@ustavillavo.edu.co Pregrado Negocios Internacionales https://scienti.minciencias.gov.co/cvlac/visualizador/generarCurriculoCv.do?cod_rh=0001886120
Juan Felipe Pérez Medina juanfperez@ustavillavo.edu.co Pregrado Negocios Internacionales
https://scienti.minciencias.gov.co/cvlac/visualizador/generarCurriculoCv.do?cod_rh=0001885716 Andrés Felipe Suárez Pérez
andresfsuarez@ustavillavo.edu.co Pregrado Negocios Internacionales https://scienti.minciencias.gov.co/cvlac/visualizador/generarCurriculoCv.do?cod_rh=0001885614
Revista InMagazine
To begin this article, it is necessary to understand what a Nation-State is: The union of government, population and territory unified under a single authority, which has the main function of guaranteeing the organized coexistence of the population (Ringmar, 2017). This concept of Nation-State arose in 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, in which the old feudal order was ended and territory and population organizations were defined under a government that recognized its territory and, therefore, their power limits were given way (Diniz & Proença Júnior, 2015).
Prior to this, at the beginning of the 16th century, Europeans colonized America. Their main objectives were the economic exploitation of the land and the appropriation of its precious metals, such as gold and silver. In addition, owning lands became the colonizers’ main goal (Álvarez, 2006). After the colonization, in the 18th century, the United States achieved its independence, which meant, a precedent of what would end up being the first “decolonization” of a wave that included the rest of the American continent half a century later (Godechot, 1974).
Likewise, independence evidenced the association that existed between the State and its Nation. We can see the result of such process in the Constitution of 1787 (Garcia Garcia, 2007), which refers to institutions and persons as responsible for what happens in the new State, that is, they should be in charge of administering justice, guaranteeing domestic peace, providing for common defense, promoting general welfare and ensuring the Blessings of Liberty to themselves and their posterity, in order to form a “more perfect union” (Philadelphia Convention Delegates, 1787, p. 1).
Furthermore, another important effect brought about by this independence is that it generated an anti-feudal and anti-colonialist characteristic and, in its demands, produced principles that guided the development of capitalism in the nascent Republic. Capitalism was created on the basis of common action, which kept the national will and character indivisible within a single nation (Dowd, 1993), and that is why some time later, all the workers in the country became free to sell their services to any employer in exchange for a salary or they could work on their own (Swanson, 2013).
After the independence and the creation of the Constitution, the U.S. international trade included different economic sectors. At the time of the independence, almost 90 percent of the workforce was engaged in agriculture, and much of the remaining laborers were in commerce. Soon after, the new nation began to diversify (Cameron & Neal, 2002). Although it is not a strong portion of the U.S. economy today, “agriculture played a dynamic role in the American process of industrialization and in the rise in the United States to the position of the world’s leading economic power” (Cameron & Neal, 2002).
Another important moment in the history of the United States becoming a great power was the signing of the Marshall Plan. At the same time;, European consumers and businessmen were impoverished due to the Second World War and led American economic advisors to think of a system of aid to help recover Europe economically and socially (Atienza, 2017). This was the postwar period, in which the Marshall Plan generated a resurgence of European industry and led to significant investment in the region as well as stimulated the American economy by establishing markets for American goods. (Jones, Talbott and Moreland, 2017)
In addition, the Marshall Plan provided a transformative force for European economic practice and a stimulus for political integration between the U.S. and Europe (Agnew & Entrikin, 2004). Since then, relations between both have historically been based on a convergence of interests, making the links between them intense and, to some extent, unique in the international context (McGuire & Smith, 2008). Currently, both countries are their main reciprocal trade partners (including goods and services) and their bilateral partnership is the largest in the world: together they account for almost 40% of world commerce (European Union, 2007).
Conclusions
In short, thanks to the emergence of the Nation-State, the United States consolidated and established itself as a sovereign State with authority that became recognized by other states and their inhabitants. The United Sates guarantees security, peace and tranquility, so that its inhabitants can live in a society. It also established a capitalist economy, which allowed it to better develop its economy and expand into new international markets, thus becoming one of the greatest world powers. Finally, , this country managed gradually to establish a strong commercial and diplomatic relationship mainly with Europe to the point that they have become major players in world trade.
References
Agnew , J., & Entrikin, N. (2004). The Marshall Plan Today: Model and Metaphor. En J. A. Entrikin, Introduction: The Marshall Plan as Model and Metaphor (pp. 21-27). New York: Routledge.
Álvarez, B. C. (2016). La conquista y colonización española de América. Historia Digital, 103-149.
Atienza, B. B. (2017). La apuesta de los Estados Unidos por la unidad europea en el marco del Plan Marshall. El apoyo norteamericano y la obstrucción británica en el umbral de la integración europea (1947-1951). El Derecho Comunitario Europeo, 164 – 166.
Cameron, R., & Neal, L. (2002). Development models: the first industrialized countries. En R. Cameron, & L. Neal, A Concise Economic History of the World : From Paleolithic Times to the Present (pp. 249-269). New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
Cameron, R., & Neal, L. (2002). Strategic sectors. En R. Cameron, & L. Neal, A Concise Economic History of the World : From Paleolithic Times to the Present (pp. 305-321). New York: Cameron, Rondo; Neal, Larry.
Diniz, E., & Proença Júnior, D. (2015). The collapse of the material foundations of Westphalian International Law. Revista de Sociologia e Política, 54-66.
Dowd, D. F. (1993). Capitalism. En D. F. Dowd, U.S. Capitalist Development Since 1776: Of, By, and for which People? (pp. 55-59). New York: M.E Sharpe.
European Union. (2007). The European Union and The United States Global Partners, Global Responsabilities. En E. Union, Unique bilateral relationship (p. 9). Brussels : European Comission External Relations. https://europa.eu.
Garcia Garcia, J. F. (2007). Tres aportes fundamentales de el federalista a la teoría constitucional moderna. Revista de derecho (Valdivia), 39-59.
Godechot, J. (1974). Una interpretación sugerente de la «revolución americana». En J. Godechot, Las Revoluciones 1770-1799 (pp. 31-39). Barcelona: Labor.
Jones, B., Talbott, S., & Moreland, W. (2017). The Marshall Plan and the Shaping of American Strategy. En S. T. Bruce D. Jones, The Marshall Plan Speech (pp. 21-26). Washington: Brookings Institution Press.
McGuire, S., & Smith, M. (2008). European Integration, Transatlantic Relations and the United Sates since 1945. En S. McGuire, & M. Smith, The European Union and the United States: Competition and Convergence in the Global Arena (pp. 6-34). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Philadelphia Convention Delegates. (1787). The Constitution of the United States. En P. C. Delegates, The Constitution of the United States (p. 1). Philadelphia: National Constitution Center.
Ringmar, E. (2017). The Making of the Modern World. En S. Mcglinchey, International Relations (pp. 8-19). Bristol, England: E-International Relations.
Swanson, P. (2013). The rise of capitalism in the United States. En P. Swanson, An Introduction to Capitalism (pp. 17-29). New York: Routledge.