Connection between the State and Non-State Actors - Case Study Example

The State Has Passed Its Use-By Date” Name: Course: Tutor: Date: Introduction The state has historically been regarded as a sovereign territory with a population and its own authority. This definition implies that a state has the capacity to manage its own affairs independently of other states that are also “sovereign” in their own capacity. The viewpoint of the term state also implies a territory whose own leadership is supreme and not subject to interference from any other regions outside the territory’s borders. It means that the population in the territory can do all the things required survival, including choosing its own leaders, without having to rely on other actors. The concepts of the state and sovereignty may have had a lot of significance in the past when nations tried to manage their own affairs and get rid of their colonial masters. Today, the importance of the state cannot be gainsaid, but with the rise and development of non-states actors in world politics, it is not possible to separate the activities of the states and those of other players. There are non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, international media, religious groups, environmental lobbyists and other societies whose role in global politics cannot be gainsaid (Knaap 2007, p.3; Biersteker & Weber 1996, p.8). In recognition of the aforementioned points, this paper will discuss the importance of the state in politics as well as the role that non-state actors have played in world politics, which inarguably have shaped the role of the “state” as its definition goes. The paper will thus critically assess the notion that “the state has passed its use-by date.” Connection between the state and non-state actors The state is essentially viewed as the core of the world societies. That is why people are identified by their nationalities. It also on the basis of states that bilateral relations are sustained between any two regions, thus facilitating international trade as well as other areas of development. Along this line, Hirst (2001) notes that the international system has three foundations: a world economy that is centred on the major triad regions, characterized with significant levels of trade and ventures between the two national economies; a population of the nations-state that differs in legitimacy and power, the most powerful of which are the key actors across the national frontiers; and an organization of functionally specific agencies of supranational governance that is sustained by principal nations states (p. 130-132). Hirst’s (2001) argument about the international system is perhaps based on the developed or developing nations such as the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Japan, and so forth; which have good governance systems is place, have legitimate power, and generally functional in all aspects of the state. The key reason for such states getting involved in bilateral relations may therefore be the search for investment opportunities, increasing international trade and other factors that are of the states’ interest. However, there are states that are characterized by collapsed governance systems, war, and where power is not defined to be legitimately held by the state as it is shared by the warring factions. It is for this reason that such states as Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and many others, cannot be left on their own as sovereign states. That is not to say that they are not sovereign; they are, but the survival of the populations in such states is depended on interventions from other states as well non-state actors. With modernization many complex issues have arisen, from defining global banking rules to supervising atomic safety. As such, intergovernmental relations and treaty-based agreements even between the most “powerful” states can no longer be considered to be enough. As such, there must be coordination as well as regulation by standing agencies that are not affiliated to any particular state. Such organizations have grown significantly since the end of World War II (Cable, 1995; Hirst 2001, p. 131). In would however be a mistake to surmise that international agencies, or international non-state actors, have superseded the significance of the state to a situation where it is viewed merely as a player among many. This is because the nation-state is distinct from other governing powers from two perspectives: One, that it is exclusively territorial and two, that the state defines citizenship. In view of this, Biersteker and Weber (1996) note that extended international governance needs the sovereign territorial state in order to be functional. The reason for this is that the state is the ultimate source of responsibility for any given territory (Hirst 2001, p. 131). The state can be held to account in the international perspective for whatever happens within its borders in a manner that no functionally specific body can. The state matters because it is the bearer of all liabilities, but it can also provide the enforcement that is crucial to the maintenance of international norms (Biersteker & Weber 1996; Hirst 2001, p. 131). It is for this reason that former despots in many countries have been exiled to or sought refuge in other states due to local pressures from non-state actors to have them account for their atrocities. States also provide the military required to enforce international law, within which many non-state actors play. From the points mentioned above, and from what is generally known, international relations as well as power and authority nave traditionally been exercised by states. But with globalization, this viewpoint can be scrutinized especially with regard to the fact that the global economy is progressively becoming “borderless,” and creating an economic playing field in which the major actors are transnational companies (Higgot, Underhill and Bieler 2004, p.2). Nevertheless, internationalists still consider states to be the major players in international politics and economics (Higgot, Underhill & Bieler 2004, p.2). What comes out clearly is that is that the role of the state as is no the same as it used to be in say, the 1940s and 1950s. The state has become weaker in some areas, but has been strengthened in others. In common parlance, the role of the state has been modified, but has not entirely diminished (Higgot, Underhill & Bieler 2004, p.2). The role of non-state actors There are many non-state actors as was mentioned in the introduction, but two principal ones will be discussed in this paper. These are the multinational corporations and the nongovernmental organizations (NGOS) (Higgot, Underhill & Bieler 2004, p.2). Multinational corporations use their influence around the world to avoid the risks associated with trading blocs. On the other hand, NGOs play an increasingly significant role to influence various aspects of states as will be discussed. The wearing away of economic sovereignty thus leads to a question as to whether the future of the nation-state as the central building block of governance will prevail (Cable, 1995). Production in the world is underpinned by a pattern of transnational monetary relations and financial markets that provide key infrastructure for investment, more production, as well as trade in goods and services. Such operations represent the neo-liberal course that focuses on liberalization and deregulation of markets, thus dismantling the role of the state in trade. Viewed from all perspectives, the transfer of authority from the state to the markets is not only inevitable, but it is also beneficial. The major players in international trade and which enjoy the liberalized markets are therefore multinational corporations rather than states. Such corporations regard citizens of the respective states, rather than the states themselves, as the representatives of the civil society (Higgot, Underhill and Bieler 2004, p.2). Many organizations have also shown that state and class-based politics are not dead given the tax regimes they generate and the impact they have on a wide range of issues that occur within national boundaries of the states involved (Andreopoulos, Arat & Juviler 2006, p. 274). Many organizations are involved with environmental as well as social issues in the process of carrying out their activities, and have ultimately become key players in both national and international forums. Unlike states that are led by elected political parties, these organizations are not elected, and neither are their influences limited to particular territorial constituencies (Andreopoulos, Arat & Juviler 2006, p. 274). With the influence of multinational corporations, many nations that rely on the extractive industry have become rentier states. The concept of rentier state implies that a given country has no autonomy vis-à-vis multinational investors (Frynas 2000, p. 29). A rentier also implies an economy that relies primarily on external rent; hence the domestic production or manufacturing industry has peripheral significance. With such an economy, production is cantered on a few firms, the rest of the population providing services in distribution and consumption (Yates 1996, p.232). Many states such as Iran and Nigeria rely on such corporations to extract their oil, hence, these corporations have a large say on the political affairs of the affected states. Revisiting NGOs, civil societies have been instrumental in world politics for a long tome although they are not state elements. A good example is the success of non-party organizations in challenging the role of Communist parties in Eastern Europe during the 1980s (Owen 2004, p. 200). This point stresses the role that vibrant non-state actors can play in curbing state power, and it has quickly spread as a prerequisite in many other non-European states undergoing transition from single-party statehood to a more plural political system. Today, the significance of organization such as Amnesty International, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the Peace Movement in world political, social and environmental affairs cannot be gainsaid (Owen 2004, p. 200). The Cato Institute in Washington defines the role “civil society” as “fundamentally reducing the role of politics in society by expanding free markets as well as individual liberty (Edwards 2009, p.2). The definition leads back to the role of multinational corporations in politics; they also fundamentally play the same role. A civil society can also be viewed as a society that protects those people who organize to challenge power (Edwards 2009, p.2). Whether NGOs are viewed to reduce a state’s politics or to challenge its power, the key point is that they serve to control in some way the manner in which a state exercises it power. Nevertheless, such organizations can only achieve their role if states allow them to carry out their operations within their borders. States still have the ability to use “legitimate force” to implement law within their territories, and it is no wonder that some states are opposed to being hosts to a host of NGOs in the name of civil organizations – some states even go to the extent of ejecting members of the organizations. Conclusion The emergence of non-state actors in world politics has tremendously changed the role of the state. Nevertheless, this does not connote that the state has lost its significance. States still use legitimate force within their territories, and identities of people are recognized with regard to their being members of particular states through citizenship. For that reason, the function of the state has only changed with time, but it has not diminished. In essence, the state has not “passed its use-by date.” References Andreopoulos, G J; Arat, ZFK & Juviler, P H 2006, Non-state actors in the human rights universe, Kumarian Press, New York. Biersteker, T J. & Weber, C 1996, State sovereignty as social construct, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Cable, V 1995, The Diminished Nation-State: A Study in the Loss of Economic Power, Daedalus, Vol. 124. Edwards, M 2009, Civil society (2nd edition), Polity, New York. Frynas, JG 2000, Oil in Nigeria: Community Rights and Corporate Dominance in Conflict, LIT Verlag Berlin-Hamburg-Münster, Berlin. Higgot, RA; Underhill, GRD & Bieler, A 2004, “Globalization and non-state actors” in Non-state actors and authority in the global system, New York, Routledge. Hirst, P 2001, War and power in the 21st century: the state, military conflict and the international system, Wiley-Blackwell, New York. Knaap, G 2007, Incentives, regulations and plans: the role of states and nation-states in smart growth planning, Edward Elgar Publishing, London. Owen, R 2004, State, power and politics in the making of the modern Middle East (3rd edition), Routledge, New York. Yates, DA 1996, The rentier state in Africa: Oil Rent Dependency and neo-colonialism in the Republic of Gabon. Africa World Press, Lagos. Read More