Regional State Failure With Weak Institutions

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.

His approach attempts to consider deeper causes of intrastate violence than traditional case-studies have done (Newman 2014, 63). Newman identifies four general types of civil war: ethnic, political-ideological, weakened or failed state, and resource-based (Newman 2014, 63-65). Most intrastate conflicts can be characterized by a combination of these classifications and their influences. Newman defines four loose requirements for a conflict to be considered using this model. First, a conflict must mainly occur within the borders of an internationally recognized state to be considered “civil” rather than interstate (Newman 2014, 62). Secondly, civil wars are fought between organized groups rather than individuals or unorganized affiliates (Newman 2014, 62). Governmental military forces fit this mold, but are not required for a conflict to be deemed as intrastate. Third, there must be evidence of sustained violence. Newman defines this threshold as 1,000 fatalities (Newman 2014, 62). Last, belligerents must be fighting with a political objective in mind (Newman 2014, 62). This requirement is given a wide range of applicability, as almost any objectives of a group can be defined as political. The Nigerian civil war of the late 1960s fits all of these parameters, and can therefore be analyzed using the typologic system devised by

In the last decades, narco trafficking and organized crime had emerged as the main security threats in Latin America. Deviant globalization increase their power by establishing connections with similar organizations in other parts of the world, like cocaine distribution networks, for example. This perceived danger increases the pressure on the governments for effective solutions, and some of them consider that these problems had overwhelmed the capabilities of the local police. Consequently, the intervention of military forces would be necessary to secure the stability of the countries. However, the use of force as the only solution is the outcome of a misunderstanding of the root causes that generates them. This paper presents the research for a general pattern in the region that is helpful to understand how the civil society perceives the failures of governance and how the networks of illegal activities exploit this perception.

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 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

Following military acts of governmental authority or national warfare, a significant worry arises for nations. As stated in the powerpoint, especially when the state is large and diverse, it is much more likely that it is becomes fragile. The question of whether the nation will need national-building, or state-building has to be determined in the case of military acts. State collapse can be due to the failure of the nation to convey favorable diplomatic benefits to the nation. The collapse of a state can be due to a number of reasons, for example the vast amount of governmental goods. Also, the failure of a nation can be caused by the lack of providing protection and safety, a permissible organization that examines

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

Some scholars have acknowledged that some attempts at saving failing states have resulted in governments

Unlike Strange, Gilpin denies the notion that the nation-state has been undermined by the rise of international organizations and nongovernmental actors. While some research suggests that the market is wrestling with the state for control over the commanding heights of the economy, Gilpin disagrees and “argues that the nation-state continues to be the major actor in both domestic and international affairs” (Barma and Vogel, p. 535).

What’s Not? (And So What?)’ article has a liberalist view, they both describe the state or sovereign state as being the main structure within the world, and political power being the ultimate strength. Yet R.O.keohane and J.S.Nye Jr have a slightly different overview, they argue that all the other factors, are gradually become stronger, and through the increase of globalism concept interdependence is become evident. Kenneth N. Waltz has a more pessimistic description; he believes that there is a huge inequality between the politics of states, with America at the top, but that this will change. He believes that other states will take this power, as there will always be a struggle for power or at least the struggle for the balance of power

All these important questions about terror and insecurity are a considerable part of the subject of international politics. In this regard, scholars have dedicated decades for understanding the relations between states in political, economic, social, and other

Revisionist states are seen as “challengers” who wants a “new place or share for themselves in global society” proportionate with their power. Revisionist states are generally unsatisfied with their position in the international society. They have a wish to modify the rules by which affairs among countries work. Robert Gilpin who is amid pragmatist scholars, offers possibly the most precise discussion of revisionist and status quo positioning. He simplifies by breaking down the rules of the game into rather more operationalizable components: the distribution of power, the chain of command of status, rights and norms that oversee relations among states.

The rising power of transnational terrorist organizations post 9/11 has weakened the state-centric framework of the international system and challenged the structural realist’s conception of power. As one of the major theories, one would assume that the premises of structural realism would be more applicable in the 21st century. However, leaders of today are enveloping countries in a globalist mindset, contesting a state mentality that honors sovereignty. 9/11 represents a historical turning point; in which clashes between state and non-state actors increased the vulnerability of state actors and challenged their internal sovereignty. This paper will examine the premises of structural realism and explain how the rise of non-state actors

No global definition exists for states described as “fragile”, “failing”, or failed because they come in all shapes and sizes. Yet, countries that have failed at the basic responsibilities of governance and sovereign authority are generally lumped into this group. Fragile, failing, or failed states share similar characteristics including their inability to control their borders, loss of authority over insurgents, gangs, and warlords, and loss of legitimacy internally/internationally. Examples relevant today of countries that are fragile or failing, and on the path to failed status include Iraq and many of the Middle Eastern countries struggling to maintain their autonomy in the fight against ISIS. Other important indicators of failed states include:

Why Nations Fail takes an in depth look into why some countries flourish and become rich powerful nations while other countries are left in or reduced to poverty. Throughout this book review I will discuss major arguments and theories used by the authors and how they directly impact international development, keeping in mind that nations are only as strong as their political and economical systems.