The Role Of State In The International Relations System And The Emergence Of Non-State Actors
It is a common opinion that the state plays the primary role in international relations (IR). The IR discipline is fixated on the state, its actions and its relationship with other states. It is also one of the main units of analysis amongst IR theories. The state is fundamental to realism and neorealism with one of the core tenants being that the state is the primary actor. It is also key in many constructivist, critical, postmodern, or feminist theories. The state is accepted as a central construct even when opposed to the state being problematic. However, over the course of the 20th century series of events with the World Wars, technological advancement, trade liberalization with the aim to expand the global economy have led to rise of non-state actors. Globalization being the most prominent reason contesting the importance of the state’s role. What has facilitated globalization is the intervention of international organizations such as the World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund and World Bank. The organizations challenge the ‘state-centric’ stance because of its heavy influence into the social, economic, cultural aspects of states. This essay will investigate the notion of the state acting as the central construct of the International relations system, the emergence of non-state actors using relevant IR theories.
To begin, it must be stated that what has prompted the momentum of “state-centrism” is the influence of the dominant IR theories of realism and neo-realism One of the foundational tenants emphasizes the state performs the most important role in the international arena. Classical realism was established in the post-World War II era highlighting how human nature impacts international politics, considered to be pessimistic nature. According to Gilpin (1986), all realists, the neo, classical, structural, share the main assumption that the state is central actor. Realist tenants of anarchy, survival, national interest and self-help, showcase how realists believe that human nature is consumed with distrust and are unwilling to operate under standards imposed by anyone outside of the state. Thus, for states to able to focus on their own interests, they must depend on her own resources and abilities or form alliances to further that interest.
On the point of alliances which imply a level of cooperation, Baldwin (1993) remarks that both realists and the liberals agree on the value and importance of cooperation among nation-states on the hand differing on the sustainability of such cooperation. The realists believe that “it is harder to achieve”, “more difficult to maintain and it is dependent on state power” Waltz (2001). Realism conjectures that dishonestly and mistrust are a facet of how the state operates, making the possibility of cooperation very difficult. Moreover, when applying realism to reality, it is seen to be applicable in explaining the war incidents such as World War 1, World War 2 and the Cold War, the three most impactful wars over the 20th century. Yet with the end of each war, movements began shifting into the realm of cooperation. World War 1 was a catalyst for the formation of League of Nations and the end of World War 2 resulting in the establishment of the still-standing United Nations and Brenton Woods Institutions. The end of the Cold War in 1991 marked a momentous shift in the global arena. For several decades after the end of the Second World War, realist thought was apparent over Cold War politics under the ideological divide and global tension lead to several conflicts such as the wars in Vietnam, Korea and Afghanistan as well as forceful and unlawful government change in several countries. The almost never-ending conflict resulted in realism emerging as the dominant theory in the field of international relations because of its ability to accurately explain the events at the time. During this time prior to the end of Cold War, realism had an advantage over liberalism with the heavy influence of alliances, warfare, military might all in favor of satisfying each state’s national interests to survive. However, the end of the Cold War in 1991 and the dissolution of the Soviet Union led to a paradigm shift in international relations with circumstances in conflict with realist thinking.
In the advent of the post-Cold War, liberalism serves as a more accurate theory to explain the current state of affairs. Liberal notions started appearing on the forefront with the heightened priority placed on the welfare of citizens and democracy. Liberalism had definitely increased in its significance yet there is still a lack of emphasis placed on human rights and a preference still exists towards the state-centric approach when addressing international affairs. Since the end of the Cold War, many cooperative agreements between nations have demonstrated that international cooperation is possible. I offer on the other hand present a counter standpoint to this widely accepted realist thinking using the fellow dominant theory of liberalism and neo-liberalism to show that state cooperation is currently successful in the International arena due to other primary actors outside of the state. When confronted with the growing importance of globalization, realist Kenneth Waltz claimed that ‘globalisation is a fad of the 1990s’ and that no non-state actor with the same importance as a state actor exists. Liberalism, a respected theory promotes the practice of mutual benefits and international cooperation. To achieve these mutual gains, there must be the implementation of international organizations and nongovernmental actors to influence state policy decisions and state preferences. One of the strong factors used under neo-liberalism is complex interdependence. Interdependence “affects world politics and the behaviour of states”. However, “government actions of the nation-state equally influence patterns of interdependence”. Here, we see that the state is definitely considered as one of the primary forces operating the IR sphere. The argument being presented is not to undermine the relevance of the state but to credit the role of non-state actors in state affairs. The state itself is the most common object of analysis as they conclusively decide on what agreements they make such as whether to adopt trade barriers, whether to establish environmental standards or even interact with other states. States will continue to possess a level of sovereignty due to the longstanding Treaty of Westphalia, allowing each state their own right to govern their own internal state affairs. When nations cooperate, they do so on a voluntary basis and are able to abandon agreements at will. Globalization can be defined as, “the widening, deepening, and speeding up of worldwide interconnectedness. ”
It has transformed the global economy through privatization and trade liberalization, creating a real interdependence between states’ imports and exports. This interdependence is not limited to the economic aspect but the political side with a greater focus being placed on the authority of international organizations and the enforcement of global standards and regulations, global security. A very important role in this process was played by the various Intergovernmental Organisations (IGOs) which gained increasing significance through the process of globalisation. Before the age of globalization, states solely promoted their own national interests. Survival was the priority, investing in their military resources however the security issue is not occurring on the domestic level rather on the international level. States cannot depend on themselves alone to defend their nationals and have therefore opted to take collective measures through intergovernmental organizations (IGO), a type of IO. In order to be a part of an IGO, states to some extent sacrifice a part of their sovereignty for a consensus in decision making, implying that on occasion that states may have to comply with the majority decision in spite the initial preference of the individual state.
