Differences Between Non- State Actors And Nation- States

According to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk “Authority, without any condition and reservation, belongs to the nation.” (Abinader). Nevertheless, many individuals around the world fail to understand the real meaning of a nation in the 21st century. According to the Oxford dictionary, a nation is a large body of people brought together by uniting factors which include descent, history, culture, or language. However, this definition has changed over time, especially due to onslaught of ethnic and minority conflicts in addition to economic sovereignty. As a result, more nations in the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia, Latin America and Europe are undergoing significant changes thus leading to the emergence of new nations. This issue has been discussed in Michael Goldfarb’s article What Is a Nation in the 21st Century? Through a comprehensive analysis of his article the real meaning of a nation in the 21st century is revealed.

Although global actors can sometimes have considerable power over states, the extent of this power ultimately depends on the relative power and influence of the state in question. Large developed states, such as the US, are extremely powerful compared to most other global actors and are not often influenced by their actions. However, small and undeveloped states are not always completely powerless. To determine whether states are indeed the most powerful global actors, we must look at the relative powers of trans-national corporations (TNCs), non-government organisations (NGOs) and some of the institutions of global governance.

According to constructivism “The world of international relations is not just the world of material capabilities and materialistic opportunities it is also a social world”. Constructivists believe that actor states are occupied with both normative and material factors. They do not deny that the material world shapes their structure, but they believe that through reflections and discourse, actor states are malleable and influenced by each other. Constructivism thus deals with the process through which principled ideals become social norms. In being so, constructivism becomes a critical component for the international recognition of a state. This becomes crucial for actors, as the internationalization of social norms will ensure compliance over external pressure. Thus, democracy promotion can be subsumed under the socialization and internalization by actors. The persistence of democratic international institutions after the cold war as well as the mass identification of states as democracies and the absence of a strong alternative political ideology have contributed to a process of socialization promoting democratic cooperation. Therefore, after the Cold

The “state” is best understood in relation to a government’s power, influence and involvement with citizens’ rights in a given territory. The larger the state the more involved it is in the lives of its citizens.

The era of globalization has witnessed the growing influence of a number of unconventional international actors, from non-governmental organizations, to multi-national corporations, to global political movements. Traditional, state-centric definitions of foreign policy as "the policy of a sovereign state in its interaction with other sovereign states is no longer sufficient. Several alternative definitions are more helpful at highlighting aspects of foreign policy

In the international arena, there is no hierarchical rule to keep states in line or behaved; meaning that the international system is constantly in anarchy, aka the state of nature. This lack of rule enforcement puts states in a constant state of war, in a constant state where they need to stay on guard and in a tactical advantage otherwise the safety and well being of their state will be in jeopardy. In this scenario, the state’s number one priority is to protect itself and act in its self interest when need be, despite if it would typically be deemed immoral. (Donnelly 20)

The purpose of this essay is to inform on the similarities and differences between systemic and domestic causes of war. According to World Politics by Jeffry Frieden, David Lake, and Kenneth Schultz, systemic causes deal with states that are unitary actors and their interactions with one another. It can deal with a state’s position within international organizations and also their relationships with other states. In contract, domestic causes of war pertain specifically to what goes on internally and factors within a state that may lead to war. Wars that occur between two or more states due to systemic and domestic causes are referred to as interstate wars.

Analysts agree that TNCs have altered the international relations principles that were once dominated by nation-state relations (Kline, 2005).Transnational Corporations have in many ways exploited the weaknesses in the territorially guarded national laws. In many developing countries, organizations affiliated to external control have challenged and in some instances threatened government sovereignty. Economically stable countries such as the United States of America, have attempted to extend their influence to other countries of the world through TNC. This situation is what led to governments endorsing the non-interference policy in national political affairs (United Nations, 2003). Interesting to note is the role that non-governmental organizations played in this debate. Nongovernmental organizations have been known to not only exert political pressure on governments with little democratic space, but also collaborate with TNCs in this quest. (Heinrich, 2001). For example, many NGOs sort the active involvement of TNC in removal of the apartheid regime in South Africa. This in return, has created tension between these governments and the NGOs with the NGOs calling for the increased political involvement of the TNCs.

However, it can be argued that the motives behind intervention are not as important as the interventions themselves – the moral function of humanitarian intervention is to save lives and this can be achieved with or without altruistic motives. To this a possible reply is that seemingly unjust intervention may aggravate the receiving state, more so perhaps in military interventions than economic, political or social. A threatened state is arguably more likely to initiate a backlash. However, such an argument cannot be made against a UN-sanctioned intervention, where it can be agreed that the intervention is legitimate and in the interests of the global community. The issue of marginalising state sovereignty completely ignores the fact that sovereignty is granted by the international community , . The arguments that states such as China may put forward, that state sovereignty is absolute and deserving of unadulterated respect, rests on the idea that states grant themselves sovereignty, which upon reflection, one finds to be untrue. State sovereignty can only be realised if it is acknowledged by the global society of states. To this a realist might argue that theoretical sovereignty is separate from actual sovereignty, and that states will defend their sovereignty regardless of its

State is commonly referred to either the present condition of a system or entity, or to a governed entity, such as a nation or a province. The state itself consists of the society, government as well as the people living there. Before the Second World War, State is often seen as the main actor in international Relations as it can declare states of wars, control most of the economic influence within the region and larger states often dominant the role of international relations within the region or even in the globe. However, after the Second World War, the impacts on state influence as an actor has become less important than before, regarding to this point, there is

A nation is said to exist when it could traced its origins through the state, in which it associate itself with, histories. Additionally, the cultural elites must be established and well-versed in writing and speaking the national language. There must also be a valid reason for its claim on a certain territory. It is only when these three requirements are fulfilled will the international community consider their claim for a nation (Hobsbawm, 1990: 37). Disagreements, however, tend to arise in the political community over the definition of a nation. This essay will try to list out the different approaches employed in defining a nation starting from a nation being a natural cultural entity to it being politically and

While nation-states are not the only actors, they are the primary ones and form the structure of the international system.

states pursue different objectives and comply with different principles and norms, which affect and exert influence on state behavior.

Modern terrorists have come to the realization that “they cannot defeat the United States in a conventional war, but they can impose significant pain through acts of terrorism,” (Stern, p.5). After a century of American military, economic, and social success, the US has been elevated to the forefront of the global community. A defense budget of $401.7 billion makes the United States the dominant military force in the world, (2005 US Federal Budget). Furthermore, our history of success has established a general sentiment of invincibility among American citizens, and an attack on our civilian population would have tremendous ramifications, as was seen with the occurrence of September 11th. However, unlike al-Qaeda in Afghanistan under the Taliban, a nuclear attack may come from a group that does not enjoy the sponsorship of a state, making retaliation quite complicated. This sense of anonymity is another issue of terrorists with nukes that trumps a state with such capabilities. In the case of a state, there is a particular, defined, and easily identifiable party

The international system is a self-help system; states are obliged to look after themselves, because there is no one else to look after them. Waltz does not assume that states are pursuing the increase in their power and the importance of them between others states, necessarily aggressive body, but he does believe that they desire to preserve themselves. This means that they are obliged to be considered with their security, national defence and obliged to regard other states as potential threats (Brown, 2001).