Is the State Still the Most Important Actor in International Relations

The defining characteristic of the state is the ability to wield power. The use of power, both inside and outside of one’s border, directly speaks to the sovereignty of the nation. If a nation is incapable of disciplining or punishing its citizens it will invariably become a failed state. Moreover if a country isn’t recognized as powerful in the global political arena, that country stands a very good chance of being dominated by a nation who has the capacity to enforce its own will. The use, or at least the perception, of power is so fundamental in nationhood that those who wield the most power can easily dictate world events.

During the latter half of the 20th century, the realist theory has been criticized as an outdated method which can no longer sufficiently explain the actions of the global community. Critics point to liberalism, another widely accepted theory, as the successor of realism as the dominant theory of international relations. Opponents of realism assert that the Democratic Peace theory is evidence that the theory of realism is no longer complete. If realism were to stand alone, this accusation might have some validity. The development of neorealism helps to explain what realism could not, accounting for global developments since the creation of the theory of realism. Thus, the

Therefore, according to institutionalists, the core objective is to promote cooperation in anarchic and competitive international system. While realists assume that the core objective is how to survive in this system. However, institutionalists focus on the role that institutions play in international collective actions. In order to define international cooperation, institutionalists looked at the state-centric perspective, which is similar with neorealism, which regards state as rational, unitary, and utility maximizing actor to survive in global arena. Therefore, states are considered as the most relevant actors with specific goals. As pursuing specific goals, states are assumed to make decision-making based on rational strategy in order to prioritize themselves and maximizing benefits from all possible choices, reactions and

For hundreds of years state sovereignty has allowed for individual states to effectively handle their problems internally. However, with the current increase of globalism, which Keohane and Nye describe as “a state of the world involving networks of interdependence at multicontinental distances” (75), many of the world’s major concerns have moved beyond the level of individual states. This interdependence has affected economic, military, environmental, as well as social and cultural aspects of international relations and everyday life. These overlapping processes of globalization have allowed for a great deal of global progress, but progress is impossible to achieve without occasional setbacks. The problems we face today are rooted in the contradiction of solving global issues while relying on the state-based Westphalian system of governance. Governance “provide[s] a general way to formulate, implement, monitor and enforce social rules,” (Scholte 20) but it is no longer possible to rely on a state-based system, in which states act independently to pursue self-interest, to solve international problems, many of which have been created collectively. State sovereignty and the motivation of power in political realism continue to neglect the important issues we face with growing global concerns that can only be solved with an increased cooperation through the strengthening of international institutions and non-state actors. It is necessary to shift from a state-based form of

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 definition of ‘state’ is ambiguous. The meaning can change depending on the context. For instance, it could relate to agencies within the state such as government bodies, or the practices carried out by individuals. Furthermore, the state is part of everyday life and manifests itself through the combination of institutions, practices, people and discourses. This creates social order (Blakeley and Saward, 2009, p. 360).

The first view will be through the current predominant school of thought in international relations, realism. Although there are several different forms of realism the core ideas are that states are the central actors in international politics rather than individuals

States and the global community as a whole. This journal was envisioned by two Master of

The U.S. State Department uses U.S. Ambassadors for economic reforms designed to level the playing field in entrepreneurship development. They hold countries to their international trade commitments and help with global networks of law, telecommunications, and transportation. The U.S. Trade Representative handles developing and coordinating U.S. international trade and overseeing trade negotiations with other countries. They serve as the president’s principal trade advisor, negotiator, and spokesperson on trade issues. The U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of International Affairs supports economic prosperity at home by encouraging financial stability and sound economic policies abroad. They promote private sector development for long-term

Over the course of the 20th century a multitude of international organizations arose with the purpose of keeping international political, social, and economic peace. Organizations such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the United Nations, and the World Bank are all products of a 20th century push to create a more connected international community. Political scientists such as Thomas Weiss, David Forsythe, Roger Coate, Kelly-Kate Pease and Eva Bertram in their publications The United Nations and Changing World Politics and Reinventing Governments: The Promise and Perils of United Nations Peace Buildings are scholars who have observed the history of these international organizations and analyze their purpose and effectiveness. According to the arguments made by these authors, the exact purpose and effectiveness of organizations such as NATO, the UN, and the World Bank is unclear and constantly changing. However these international organizations have been effective at providing a place of discussion for international relations.

These institutions are not central governments that rule above the states and it will not stop states to wage war against one another. Cheating and relative gains prevents states from cooperation and it will be the cause of the downfall of the neo-liberal order (Grieco, 1988).

role in global politics, comparable to States influence, which does not burden the State but “deepens

The authors go on to explain the concept of international organizations, and their importance in terms of international relations, from a historical perspective. As Yi-chong and Weller

The conception is power in International Relations is a key to a better understanding of the discipline. In many cases the definition of power affects the way in which many issues are tackled in foreign policy or security. There are many theories that try to deal with the conception of power, however they make a rather large number of assumptions that might make them difficult to applicable in real life. Furthermore many of them does not take into consideration that power evolves, therefore if we want to understand and conceptualize power in the international sphere it is crucial to analyze different theories and conceptions of it.This essay will argue that power is a broad term that can best be conceptualized and explained in IR by a multiplicity of theories. In making this argument, this essay will first explain why power power is crucial in the study of International Relations. Then two theories of power from the realist tradition , one of the neoliberalist tradition, one of postmodernism and a critical theory of realism will be outlined. This theories of power will be explained and compared in order to create a complete conceptualization of the term power than can be applied to the twentieth first century

Intergovernmental organizations are an important facet of public international law. According to Margaret P. Karns, “intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) are organizations that include at least three states as members, that have activities in several different states and that are created through a formal intergovernmental agreement such as a treaty, stature or statute. Most intergovernmental organizations also consist of headquarters, executive heads, bureaucracies and budgets.” Karns also states that between the years 2013-2016 the “Yearbook of International Organizations,” identified about around 265 different intergovernmental organizations that varied from consisting of 3 member countries, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), to more than 190 member countries, such as the Universal Postal Union (UPU). In intergovernmental organizations, Karns explains, the members that compose these IGO’s can come from specifically one geographic area, the Organization of American States (OAS), for example. This is not the case for every IGO, though. Members of IGO’s can also come from all geographic regions, using the World Bank as an example. Karns also describes how some intergovernmental organizations are designed to achieve a single purpose, and others are developed in order to complete multiple tasks. When discussing intergovernmental organizations, it is safe to say that most of them are regional or sub regional, with a similarity of interests motivating