I believe states do lose their soverignity as a result of globalization and it is not only a matter of policies of international organizations. All the international interdependences limit the scope of states' possible activities. In theory they still may act independently, but as a result of globalization consequences of "irresponsible" acts might be devastating.

An essential link between globalization and the nation state is the concept of sovereignty, a term dating back several centuries, well before the nation-state system was established in 1648. Originally intended in reference to the establishment of order within a state, sovereignty has since been interpreted by some as a legal quality that places the state above the authority of all external laws.

Yet whenever a state exercises its sovereign right to sign a treaty, it is also willfully limiting that right by the very act of undertaking an international legal obligation. States are also bound by other rules, such as customary international law. With these formal legal limitations, sovereignty stubbornly persists even in an age of globalization -- and is manifested in such functions as the coining of money, the gathering of taxes, the promulgation of domestic law, the conduct of foreign policy, the regulation of commerce, and the maintenance of domestic order. These are all functions that are reserved exclusively to the state, a condition that the European Union is challenging today in many dimensions of governance, but has by no means overcome.

The nation state and globalization are surely not mutually exclusive concepts. Working together, they have the potential to be among humanity's most effective means of improving life on this planet for all and on an equitable basis.

I subscribe to George’s argument that national sovereignty and globalization are not mutually exclusive concepts. Yet, we should not forget that states have voluntarily ceded significant parts of their sovereignty to international organizations – we might argue for selfish purposes, but that is beside the point. In fact, most IO’s involved in global governance issues are composed primarily of sovereign states (or of other intergovernmental organizations) established either by treaty or other agreement that acts as a charter creating the group. However, as Barnett and Finnemore argue, “These organizations do much more than simple execute international agreements between states. They make authoritative decisions that reach every corner of the globe and affect areas as public as governmental spending and as private as reproductive rights. They now work extensively in domestic governance issues, overseeing matters that once used to be the prerogatives of states”. I believe this is one of the main challenges facing the modern State – i.e., deciding how much sovereignty it is willing to concede (even though in some instances states have no say in such issues, such as the case of R2P or international interventions). Current events emphasize this, whether we are speaking of the challenge in dealing with the migration crisis in Europe, the sovereign debt crisis in Greece and other countries, or the British referendum on the UE.

A State does not lose its sovereignty  by being a member of a world body or a signatory to various conventions. Conventions and other international regulations etc. assist in harmonising laws and procedures for the benefit of international trade, assistance, economic growth. A State has a choice to accept a principle or not and it has a further choice to implement international principles in accordance with its domestic needs. eg. The TPP has been the subject of much controversy and hard bargaining by independent countries. They also have a timeline for implementation. the objectives of globalisation are quite different. They do not impinge on the domestic laws of the country, justice system, constitution etc.

A good question and some extremely erudite answers. With the impending  Brexit referendum in the UK we see the term 'sovereignty' being abused and twisted to fit various agendas . 

Is there one universally accepted definition of sovereignty? Or, is it like asking a room full of economists to agree? 

The main reason of the observable global deterioration is well known - it is the degradation of the average human mentality, which reflects in increase of individuals' ignorance and lack in their minds of compulsory human, philosophical, and civil "ordinary" knowledge.

This degradation of human mentality raises the necessity to innovate the concept, purpose and content of common, but fist of all civic education according to the global era. To form a new human being with a global vision is necessary to inculcate a more sophisticated Universal Education on the planet - with philosophically oriented, modern, scientific, unified and uniform content.

Feeling this need and trying to improve the situation worldwide, UNESCO yet 10 years ago adopted its "Strategy on Philosophy" urging all to study true philosophical ideas and teachings at schools and universities.  8 years later, in September 2012, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon declared the new UN Global initiative "Education First": to improve the quality (content) of learning, to foster global citizenship, and to realize that "Education is more than literacy and numeracy - it is about citizenry."

Following this UN initiative, UNESCO put it forward in its "Medium-Term Strategy for 2014 - 2021" appealing to foster inclusive, quality and lifelong learning opportunities for all and promote a sense of global citizenship.

Thus, the term global citizenship is being used since then more and more often, but little people know, what this term means in fact.

More details on the subject you can find at - http://glob-use.org/eng/socr-sch/socia-ed.htm - and at - http://glob-use.org/

The recent Panama papers scandals and the global sell off of farms, nature parks etc  to corporations and miners ruining water and health; the fact that popular protest is ever more violently put down,   the widening gap between rich and poor,  all this points to cross border theft and indifference to local communities.

Understanding what constitutes sovereignty and how it is defined on a state by state level is a necessary first step before  the events you describe can be seen as affecting sovereignty. Moreover, to what extent they affect a nation remains to be seen. Where it is in an economic cycle, what the home political situation is etc are all key points.

Until a common definition of what constitutes sovereignty can be agreed upon it is hard to monitor and limit (or encourage?) the various things you describe. For instance; is how the Australian police deal with public protest  a reflection of what makes Australia a sovereign state? Perhaps it is how it deals with the Aboriginal population? Or is sovereignty a measure of the state involvement in infrastructure management and raw materials exploitation regulation?

What I am trying to say is that until agreement on definitions is reached then my Freedom Fighter is another's terrorist. 

yes, of course. But globalization is not the only reason. As the evolution of the Westphalian system, some new notions are added to the sovereignty in different time, such as national self determination by US President Wilson, "responsibility to protect" by the delaration of human right in the framework of UN.. Stephen Krasner, in his book "sovereignty: organized hypocrisy" systematically clarifed the concept of sovereignty...

No. Not for major powers lile Russia,USA, China. Of course they participate in intenational organisations and sometimes they have to obey (as some experts think)  the will of non-state actors. But it does not concern the vital interests of the state, as they are understood by state's elite.

Gita the TTP certainly obstructs state freedom to eg tighten eco laws and health laws- now states are fined millions if a firm says its sales are hampered by regulations a state makes to protect its citizens.

Globalization has brought about a world in which borders as we know them do not exist anymore. This can especially be seen with cyber-space / the internet. The question we should first answer regarding sovereignty is whether cyber-space is counted as a nation's 'turf' or not? Also would attacks upon this 'turf' be counted as mining a particular countries sovereignty or not? With the current world system shifting, and technology advancing, the classical Westphilian system does not fulfill the requirements we currently need at the moment which is why we need to redefine the terms 'state' ad 'sovereign'. 

I think states are losing their sovereignty to some extend especially for some government policies that have been included into the regional policies schemes. Accordingly, sovereignty of state gives the highest authority to state to arrange and manage all of the domestic internal matters without interference from other states or international organizations. States are independent in deciding what ever the policies (economy, social, culture, and politic) for the benefits of their people. This authority  reflects the sovereign state. When a state joined an international organization, the state will then lose its' authority to manage its internal affairs that have been agreed as part of the agreement with the international organizations. In other words, the states that joined international organization, they have delegate their sovereignty to the international organizations.    

Yes, Technology and Non State actors are the examples

No. We need to know that sovereignty is. There are elements of sovereignty and all of them under process of transformation, because sovereignty is historical phenomena.  But, the reason is that this process depends on state will, especially the US. Of course, there are a lot of examples of objective changes and even the US has to adopt their foreign and domestic politics (trade partnerships as examples). But we can not say about losing of sovereignty. 

Or another example: Brexit. Why did it happen in EU in the context of sovereignty?

When states voluntarily subject themselves to international law, they give away a minute portion of their sovereignty. As it concerns globalisation, you cannot be a part of the changing world if you don't give something up.

Your question therefore should be, "to what extent are states loosing their sovereignty in the face of globalisation?"

This is because loosing it is a given.

The most interesting ideas on the subject you can read here - http://glob-use.org/eng/use/pap/constit.htm

Losing sovereignty is perhaps not so new; before states there were religious authorities who could censure rulers; there were struggles between states and these authorities eg banning the Jesuits. The EU both in part supersedes States and empowers sub state actors such as cross border regions. Plus there are nations that aspire to be states eg Kurdistan. There have been currency blocs and trade groupings past and present, too.  All this is well known I know,  but still is interesting to observe.