At the turn of the millennia, the ideas of withering away of the Nation-State became, once again, widespread. The latest wave of globalisation was supposed to lead to a borderless world, where goods, money, capital and workforce would move without hindrance. Multinational companies, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), big cities, regions (e.g., California or Bavaria), supranational entities, like the European Union, and even individuals would replace States as important decision-makers. This should have also been a triumph of liberal-democracy and the end of history à la Francis Fukuyama. This was also meant to be an American century where the only remaining superpower would lead the world either by example, by persuasion, or, if necessary, by punishing those who disobeyed. However, this was not to be the case. Excesses of globalisation, marked by financial and economic crises, the arrogant and naïve triumphalism of the West that attempted to remake the world in accordance with its own image, often using military power to carry out regime change, soon made it clear that the world is too big, complex and diverse to have its rich tapestry to be flattened into a carpet where only one pattern, be it of a Judeo-Christian, Anglo-Saxon, Confucian, Muslim or even secular liberal-democratic, would dominate. Moreover, the Nation-State, as a cradle of democracy and the main subject of international law, has made its comeback even in the Old Continent where it had emerged and was meant to make way for more progressive political arrangements. In places where the State authority was weakened or had collapsed, often as a result of foreign interference, chaos reigned instead of democracy and attempts to replace international law with imperial rule failed. It is becoming more and more obvious that democracy can be restored and reinforced by strengthening Statehood, not weakening it, and peace can be best guaranteed by balance of power between sovereign States cooperating with each other notwithstanding differences in their domestic arrangements.

中文翻译：

---

民族国家：还没有为历史的垃圾箱做好准备？

在千年之交，民族国家消亡的想法再次变得普遍。最新一波全球化本应导致一个无国界的世界，货物、金钱、资本和劳动力可以畅通无阻地流动。跨国公司、非政府组织 (NGO)、大城市、地区（例如加利福尼亚或巴伐利亚）、超国家实体（如欧盟），甚至个人都将取代国家成为重要的决策者。这也应该是自由民主的胜利和弗朗西斯·福山历史的终结。这也意味着成为一个美国世纪，唯一剩下的超级大国将通过榜样、说服或在必要时惩罚那些不服从的人来领导世界。然而，事实并非如此。过度全球化，以金融和经济危机为标志的西方狂妄自大、企图按照自己的形象改造世界、经常动用军事力量进行政权更迭的狂妄自大，很快就表明世界太大、太复杂并且多样化，将其丰富的挂毯铺平成地毯，其中只有一种模式，无论是犹太-基督教、盎格鲁-撒克逊、儒家、穆斯林甚至世俗的自由民主主义者，都会占主导地位。此外，民族国家作为民主的摇篮和国际法的主体，即使在它出现的旧大陆也卷土重来，旨在为更进步的政治安排让路。在国家权力被削弱或崩溃的地方，通常是由于外国干涉，混乱取代了民主统治，以帝国统治取代国际法的尝试失败了。越来越明显的是，可以通过加强而不是削弱国家地位来恢复和加强民主，并且可以通过主权国家之间的权力平衡来最好地保障和平，尽管它们的国内安排存在差异，但它们相互合作。