Realism effectively claims that no activities at any local, national or global level will make a significant amount of difference to any outcomes or decisions. Nothing meaningfully limits what the state can do because what may appear to be constraints of the state are actually rules written by the most powerful states and therefore reflecting their interests. Even small states such as Iraq have shown a remarkable resilience in resisting international rules that they do not like. Iraq seems to have resisted the entire world community for over a decade and now appears to be winning the sanctions battle. States ultimately are unwilling, understandably so, to submit to supranational constraints that expect them to act in ways contrary to their national interest. Supra national organisations such as the United Nations (UN) come under the sphere of non-state actors, however the UN’s categorisation as a NSA can be debated. Is it not the case that states compete within the UN, and consequently is the UN just another forum for state to state contests.
A question that must be posed in relation to NSA is as to whether these actors really reflect non national loyalties or are they simply reinforcing a system that benefits Western values, and hence the strongest Western’s state values, the US. If the latter of the previous statement is true, then it can be stated that the US is still enjoying primacy in its international relations. Strong states such as the US seem to be able to flout international order. The US bombed Kosovo without explicit UN authorisation, mined Nicaragua with impunity, and it failed to ratify CTBT for just a few examples of how a state as powerful as the US can choose to ignore to implement policies it didn’t like without fear of a backlash.
Having explored the reasoning behind realism and showing some examples of how that particular school of thought is still relevant, it is now necessary to explore the opposing side of the argument. It has been argued that realism no longer offers a contemporary theory because of fundamental changes in the structure of the international system. With the technological revolution in communication and transportation, global politics was now characterised by growing interdependence, the spread of transnationalism and the appearance of new global issues within the economic, cultural and technical realm. During the twenty-five years after World War II, non state actors, specifically transnational organisations: (a) proliferated in number far beyond anything remotely existing in the past; (b) individually grew in size far beyond anything existing in the past; (c) performed functions which they had never previously performed; and (d) operated on a truly global scale such as was never possible in the past. (Little and Smith; 1998,pp213) The state is not necessarily the only important actor in world politics nor the ‘gatekeeper between intra-societal and extra-societal flows of actions.’ (Keohane and Nye; 1971,pp720)
Keohane and Nye constructed a new model of international relations known as ‘complex interdependence.’ This model not only questions the main assumptions of realism, more in particular they claim states are not the sole players in world politics nor are they necessarily unitary actors as they are composed of competing bureaucracies. It was also noted that force itself may now be an ineffective instrument of policy; the traditional hierarchy of issues with military/security matters dominating economic and social ones is now replaced by an agenda in which a clear hierarchy of channels does not exist. (Keohane and Nye; 1971, pp 24-25) The existence of multiple channels of contacts among societies implies that transnational actors, trans-governmental relations and international organisations play an active role in world politics.
Due to much emphasis in world politics currently being placed upon the “war on terrorism” in Afghanistan, scholars of world politics have been revising previous research and adjusting it in order to examine terrorists influence in world politics and international relations. Its can be argued that terrorists have no place in world politics because they are peripheral actors and not legitimate and because of these factors can never have any genuine place in world politics. The appalling World Trade Centre and Pentagon bombing on September 11th and the events that followed however effectively result in that reasoning becoming defunct. The operations of criminals and other non legitimate groups have become more complex, spread over wider geographical areas and increased in scale, because the improvements in communications have made it so much easier to transfer people, money, weapons and ideas on a transnational basis. Government’s attempts to control such activities have become correspondingly more difficult. (Baylis and Smith; 1997, pp 298)
Globalisation and its technologies, a world of markets and networks, is interpreted as hostile to the world of the state and its bureaucratic mode of organisation. New transnational organisations whether economic or political use new network technology far more effectively than traditional states or corporations. Multinational Corporations (MNC) and their contribution to the economy have resulted in those bodies having an ever-increasing voice in the sphere of world politics. MNC’s bring financial resources into countries that the host governments and indigenous private sectors would otherwise not be able to obtain. Thus by the latter half of the 1980’s, some $20 billion annually in investments in developing countries (22% of all funds flowing in) were in the form of investments by MNC’s. (Spero; 1990,pp240). The importance of MNC’s as major actors in the world system is clearly evident. Leaders of finance and industry will not need reminding that markets may be moved, governments blown off course, and balances of power upset by big oil firms, by the handful of grain dealers, by major chemical or pharmaceutical makers. (Stubbs and Underhill; 1994,pp110)
The practice of human rights is an additional area where NSA are making progress in limiting the dominance of the state. Amnesty International, which began in 1961 with letter writing efforts to free individuals imprisoned for the non-violent expression of opinion. Since then and especially within the past two decades, Amnesty International has developed the capacity to research, report and analyse global patterns of human rights violations, empowering it to be a source of record in UN sessions and national halls of power. They have become skilled at mounting pressure by feeding information into pertinent public and governmental channels for discussion on the one hand and distributing and promoting new human rights instruments on the other. It is often through such activity by non-governmental organisations (NGO) that newly created norms become formalised and develop meaningful impact. This process changes the scope of state sovereignty as it “reconstitutes the relationship between the states, its citizens and international actors.” (Clark; 199)
The practice of the variety of NSA as has already been proven is wide and far-reaching. Governments are usually characterised by having military capabilities and legal authority. They may also have high status, control and economic resources, possess specialist information and have access to communications, but all of these four capabilities can also be attributes of transnational actors and international organisations. (Baylis and Smith; 1997,pp306) Within world politics and the arguments and debates that surround it, one of the most important capabilities is that of the skill of communicating effectively in a fashion that will achieve observance of the NSA by other important actors, including states. Transnational corporations (TNC) gain influence through the control of economic resources. NGO’s gain influence through possessing information, gaining high status and communicating effectively. TNC’s and NGO’s have been the main source of economic and political change in global politics. (Baylis and Smith; 1997,pp308)
After Keohane and Nye introduced the idea of complex interdependence, the concept of the mixed actor system gained considerable weight. The basic notion of a system of mixed actors requires a movement away from the assumption of homogeneity with respect to types of actor and, therefore, a retreat from the postulate of the state as the fundamental unit in world politics. States are currently in the process of receding from their earlier role as important but not dominant, actors in world politics. (Young; 1972,pp 136-137)
In conclusion it is relatively easy to distinguish the state as the most dominant actor in world politics when viewing various states actions. The US is perhaps the most important state in the world and an example of their influence on world politics is shown through their refusal to sign the landmine treaty. Additionally there is Iraq a comparatively small state that due to its statehood employs practices of flouting international regimes, such as resisting the non-proliferation regime, which a NSA would never have the power to do. However it is clear, that many state practices and diplomatic relations would not be able to occur without the participation of the NSA’s that are relevant. This is where although classic realism is no longer applicable, states still achieve dominance as they participate in world politics regardless of the issues at hand. NSA only generally participate in the issues that have relevance to them, therefore never really allowing them as a whole to gain equal standing with states.
The mixed actor system perspective seems to be the way in which world politics will continue to be practised. Subsequently, the response to initial question would have to be that although states are still the dominant actors, within their particular area of expertise NSA can influence and participate in world politics at the highest level possible.
‘
Bibliography
Baylis, J and Smith, S (1997) Globalisation of World Politics, New York: Oxford University Press
Clark, A.M, Non-Governmental Organisations and their Influence on International Society
Dicken, P (1998) Global Shift: Transforming the World Economy, 3rd edition, London: Paul Chapman Publishing
Hocking and Smith (1995) World Politics, 2nd edition, New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Huntington, S.P (1973) Transnational Organisations in World Politics in Little, R and Smith, M. (eds) Perspectives on World Politics, 2nd edition, pp. 212-228, London: Routledge.
Keohane, R.O. and Nye, J.S. (eds) (1971) Transnational Relations and World Politics, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Spero, J.E. (1990) The Politics of International Economic Relations, New York: St Martins Press.
Stubbs, R and Underhill, G.R.D. (1994) Political Economy and the Changing Global Order, London: Macmillan.
