The Pluralists and Structuralists' View on the Role of Non-State Actors in World Politics - Literature review Example

The view of pluralists and structuralists on the role of non actors in world politics Introduction In general terms, an actor in world politics can be defined as an entity or any entity which plays a particular role in international relations (Arfi 2005). On the other hand, non-state actors may be viewed as entities or individuals who participate in politics outside government frameworks and who use their resources to exert influence (Taylor 1984)s. Structuralists hold the view that politics and decision making should be located in the government frameworks (Taylor 1984). However, since most of the international organisations fall under non-state actors, they can not be ignored due to their contributions in the world politics (Jeffrey 1997). Based on the contributions of non-state actors in the world of politics, pluralists approach the study of international relations differently and extend their views of both actors and non-actors role on dynamics of economic interests (Taylor 1984). However, structuralists view the role of non-state actors as driven by individuals with economic interests who use their resources to influence policy making. Pluralists view on role of non state actors in the world of politics By most and different accounts, non-state actors play a major role in the international policy-making (Arfi 2005). They broadly deal with global politics and specific country issues. If this assertion is something to go by, it can therefore be argued that currently, the independent behaviour of state actors is becoming additionally limited because of the compulsion to international agreements and institutions (Taylor 1984). One of the major problems associated with study of non-state actors in the international relations is lack of logical approach on their contribution to the world of politics (Jeffrey 1997). Extra attention is given to their general importance for their contribution to world affairs and interstate affairs, while very little attention is given to their contribution in policy making and organization behaviour. Pluralists argue that non-state actors functions as arenas for inter-state policy cooperation (Arfi 2005). They further argue that states are not the only actors in the world of politics and that security is not the only main issue to consider while dealing with politics and that non-actors help improve cooperation among states. According to pluralists, non-actors are not powerful actors to control states but rather enhance relations between states (Arfi 2005). However, it is evident that some domestic and international circumstances have in one way, or another made non-state actors shape the actions of states. These actors are said to have an effect on national security strategies. They include historical issues, socio-economic, military, and political issues (Rosenau 1990). The influence of non-state actors and the international community also plays a key role in shaping the behaviour of a country (Jeffrey 1997). As the country is pushed by domestic and international frameworks in order to offer national security and cooperation with other states, some intermediary challenges such as politics and personal interests of individuals in the government deter the state from realizing this dream. In this regard, the role of non-state actors becomes important. Ways through which non-actors contribute to world of politics Domestic factors Domestic factors constitute various issues that affect the running of political and social matters within the territories of a state (Arfi 2005). Issues such as economic inequalities, resource deprivation, and ethnicity triggers some conflicts which later leads to national insecurity (Taylor 1984). In this regard, the government through the help of non-state actors is forced to look into issues that cause the conflicts, and instill some measures that can curb the conflicts as well as national security. International factors The major concern on how non-state actors and the international community can shape the behaviour of a state is largely associated with international politics (Taylor 1984). In this case, the international bodies and organisations play a great role in putting a state in a task over political issues affecting the relationship of a particular state and other states (Taylor 1984). International human right organisations are believed to have a share in the fight for safety of all people across the world. For this reason, they push the governments to instill some measures that ensure the security of their people. Structuralists view on role of non-state actors in the world of politics Structuralists believe that non-state actors are set by states and serves in the interests of these states (Taylor 1984). Moreover, they believe that to some extent, the states serves the interest of some powerful individuals in the government. In this regard, they disregard the role played by non-state actors since they tend to serve the interest of states that formed or initiated their formation. However, this argument seems to be controversial because government institutions they claim to endorse constitutes individuals with self interests (Morgenthau 1949). In light with this argument, it is right to argue that state actors can not be entrusted with the mandate to oversee overall running of both political and social systems. To some extent, non-state actors act as states watchdog. Perhaps, states are considered to be more effective in management of politics due to their hierarchical structures of their institutions. They command power and influence unlike non-state actors who lacks such structures and power (Taylor 1984). One of the most notable functions of state is command of power through military and resources. However, in most occasions, the use military force by states would only constitute to increased conflicts and costs and fail to address the main issue that called for the use of military force by states (Morgenthau 1949). For example, when states resort to use of nuclear weapons, this increases costs associated with conflicts. Additionally, use of force on one issue could have a negative effect on other issues. Thus, use of military force can not guarantee comprehensive solution to problems (Taylor 1984). On the other hand, international organisations would apply their principles of states cooperation to seek their own goals rather than a state based desire. Moreover, international organisations would play a very important role of setting out security agendas and voicing of weak states. Evaluation of Structuralists and Pluralist view on non-state actors in world of politics If a thorough articulation of the role played by non-state actors is done, it can be seen that non-state actors act autonomously and that they have independent effects on the international politics and that state-centric approaches are irrelevant (Rosenau 1990). Many international organisations have evidently succeeded in mostly formulating and sometimes implementing policies that can not be termed as interstate bargaining products (Taylor 1984). Although structuralists may argue that most non-state actors like UN Security Council, WTO, IMF among others may reflect certain states interests, largely, their activities largely represents the international organisations interests and acts as agents of change and socialization (Stopford 1994). Widespread insecurity and endemic violence in the world for the last decades, has presented the global community with formidable challenges. Worldwide, states have embarked on attaining global security and peace by use of force as well as other means acceptable internationally (Morgenthau 1949). International laws and norms have been made for the last decades, towards achieving this. Problems do exist in the process of developing and maintaining these norms, in one way or another impacting global security and international relationships between states (Stopford 1994). In this regard, non-actors have largely contributed to enhancement of these norms. Presence of problems as a result of changing norms within states has led to establishment of rules and laws to solve and counter these problems and related issues (Stopford 1994). This is in order to save the present and succeeding generations from the scourge of use of force, war and violation of human rights. However, some of these problems are largely contributed by varying political and economic interests of different states (Keohane 1989). With the help of international organisations, some of these problems have been eliminated and others contained while inter state relations are enhanced (Stopford 1994). Also, there is need for settling international disputes through peaceful means of relationship and day to day activities within individual states. Use of force has led to exposure of states to global threats and concerns. These includes several military conflicts, illegal immigration, drug trafficking and terrorism among others (Brysk 2007). Political instability on the other hand threatened western interests in economic welfare, thus encouraging growth on international organization interventions. If what structuralists argue to be ‘important aspect of states’ is any thing to go by, it therefore means that more problems would engulf most states. For example, the end of cold war affected peace and security globally over the last decades. Until that time of war sovereign countries or states controlled and managed their resources with no interference from any other state (Keohane 1989). With the emergence of war, states interfered with others and kept domestic ethnic tensions from turning into manageable violence. This was characterized by use of force, like Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and the disintegration of Yugoslavia (Stopford 1994). Collapse of the USSR left the US as the sole global power. Crises became the order of the day, with unparallel power between the states and other emerging forces (Stopford 1994). With such examples in place, it can therefore be argued that though states independence and power is paramount, it would only amount to uncontrollable chaos unless international organisations come in. Based on the present global technology and social norms in general, the use of Force paradigm model has been in force over the last few decades. Thus, considerations, reasons and limitations in the use of measures of force are categorized, ordered and also interrelated. Rules against use of force based on history should be effected by non-state actors whose interest is to unsure good interstates relations (Keohane 1989). In order to have peace and order maintained globally, some reforms are required to be made and implemented to the latter. Additionally, successful implementation ensures protection of human rights which is another sensitive matter regarding peace and order in any sovereign state. Proper respect and understanding for human rights require a radical transformation of the international system; describes a group of sovereign states together with the laws governing them (Keohane 1989). It is a system which respects and protects the individual human rights of citizens within the states. Additionally, it incorporates international relations, normative theory and international law, in turn emergence of influential developments. These developments include introduction of norms like humanitarian intervention, the main purpose being protection of human rights and acknowledgement of threats within the states as a result of conflicts (Rudolph 2006). This could affect peace and security in the state. There is need for adopting structural and direct prevention measures; structural “Root cause” prevention and direct prevention methods. Root cause prevention consensual methods include economic growth and investment, training and capacity building, poverty alleviation, security sector reform and democratic development, while direct prevention involves mediation and arbitration, preventive deployment and economic incentives which can only be accomplished through intervention of non-state actors who serve a common interest of all states (Arfi 2005). In addition, nonconsensual measures are important for protecting human rights, law and order. These are war crimes tribunals, threat of military force, economic and diplomatic sanctions. More over the concept of humanitarian intervention should be put into consideration during reforms process. It’s referred as the reliance upon force for the justifiable purpose of protecting an individual of a state from arbitrary treatment abusive life style (Rudolph 2006). It’s the states responsibility to utilize intervention according to the international law in institutions responsible for protecting human rights and maintaining international order (Morgenthau 1949). In this regard, since not all states are considered to have harmonious relations based on their different interests, the role of non-state actors is very important. Therefore, pluralists’ view of the role of non-state actors on politic world is much far better than the view of structuralists view. Conclusion Although the state is recognised as the only institution with power and authority in the political world, it is evident that not all states can hold their dignity and rule of law in ensuring harmonious relations with other states. Powerful states would continue to dominate weak states unless something is done. Since there is no other institution with power to command power in the political world apart from states, it is important to welcome the role played by non-state actors in world politic. Bibliography: Arfi, B 2005. International change and the stability of multiethnic states. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Brysk, A 2007. National insecurity and human rights: democracies debate counterterrorism. Berkeley u.a: Univ. of California Press. Rudolph, C 2006. National security and immigration policy development in the United States and Western Europe since 1945. Stanford, Calif. Stanford Univ. Press. Jeffrey, C 1997. “Bridging the Rationalist—Constructivist Divide”. European Journal of International Relations 3, no. 4 (1997): 473-495. Taylor, Ph. 1984. Nonstate Actors in International Politics: from transregional to Substate Organisations. Boulder: Westview Press. Stopford, J.M. 1994. ‘The Growing Interdependence between Transnational Corporations and Governments’. Transnational Corporations, 3(1): 53-76. Keohane, R.O. 1989. International Insitutions and State Power. Boulder: Westview Press. Morgenthau, H. 1949. Politics Among Nations. New York: Knopf. Rosenau, J.N. 1990. Turbulence in World Politics. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf Read More