World Politics

Introduction to hypothetical division

The solution to the question of whether states can be comprehended as the only relevant players in world political relation, or whether a more holistic framework of the present-day international systems is essential to precisely reflect on the actors and dynamics of the worldwide political domain, therefore depends upon the theoretical view acquired. Conceiving the present-day dynamics of domain politics on the ground of an abstract meso-level analysis, the relevance of nation versus other non-state doers in the outside political domain can be comprehended in aggregate ways.

Elevating a highly state-centric visual modality of outside relations, classical realist academicians would connote that advanced, market oriented and concern aimed nation-states are indeed the only pertinent actors in world politics. On the other side of the theoretic spectrum nevertheless, the liberal philosophical system would controvert that the realist “carelessness of actor mutation and diverseness” depicts an incomplete and erroneous observation of the empirical realism (Mansbach and Vasquez, 1981:26), endorsing instead a cooperative exemplar of international and multinational channels of fundamental interaction between state and non-state actors.

As observed, established on a conceptual meso-level off analysis pointing the radical – administration level that comes between the micro and macro analytical levels and which covers the constitution of contemporary states, this essay will center on the dissipation between the two briny ideological approaches, Realism and Liberalism, highlighting central facets of the traditional positions and their conceptual mutual opposition on the issue of relevant actors in outside relations. Emphasizing the ubiquitous increase in numbers and importance of non-state actors absorbing with and molding world political sympathies, the essay will conclude by prioritizing the tolerant approaches to state activism, as broodier of the contemporary power relations and composite dialogues at play on the planetary degree.

Aim and objective

The aim of this paper is to determine if the states the only relevant conceptual actors in world politics and what possible influence of this topic has articulated so far from diverse research as acknowledge from various pollsters.

Background information

Liberalism, Realism and State Relevance

As observed, the two conventional comings in international relations are naive realism/neo-Realism and Liberalism/neo-Liberalism. Having formulated along opposite sides of the theoretic spectrum, referable their ontological and epistemic deviations and divergences on the rightness of deductive versus inductive methodological analysis in politics (Landman, 2008:17), both naive realism and Liberalism declare oneself diverging aspects on the empirical truth of international political relation.

To add up of this plurality, Lim (2006) compares the customs to “looking through different sunglasses”, whereby “dissimilar lenses allow us to focus on different aspects of the equivalent larger reality” (2006:68). Even though both views have at present taken footmarks to admit the weaknesses of their customs by incorporating facets from other fields, as attested for example in Waltz’s neo-realist ‘hypothesis of International Relations’ (1979) or Keohane and Nye’s neo-liberal ‘ability and Interdependence’ (1977), the problem approximately abides as academicians hold on that their ‘lenses’ and ‘informations’ are more advantageous, reflective and authentic (Lim, 2006:67).

Conceived as intellectual autonomous interest-maximizers, operating on an accounted cost-benefit basis, states are principally implicated on security issues, engaging their national military machine interests to safeguard power and ascertain over their territory. In denotation therefore, as states are the only units that possess the capability to gain and exercise power, they are deemed as the alone relevant conceptual doers in world political relation (Geeraerts, 1995). External asylums are then comprehended as simple instruments, emulating hegemonic power politics beyond the sea (Cox, 1981).

Maintaining that the international form of government can be sensed on the foundation of inter-state coitions, realist academicians encourage a state-centric anarchical world view. As Hans Morgenthau formulates in his book ‘political sympathies among Nations’ (1948), Realism is established upon the presumptions of rationality, national reign and pursuits, and interest of ability. Delimitated against and in opposition to Idealism, Realism impersonates the international system as an area of “lawlessness” and “extreme inequality of nations” (Morgenthau, 1948:8), whereby a balance wheel of exponent and relation peace are only attained through endless state struggle for powerfulness and accomplishment of military capability against each other.             Nonetheless, with the recent mass shifts in power relations, decentralization and “transit to afresh power balance” caused predominantly by globalization and trans-nationalization processes of the 21^st century (Cederman, 1997:4), liberal and neo-liberal critics have fought back the preceding highlighted aspect, arguing that a narrow state-centric view is no more legitimate and cannot account for the composite, interrelated and multi-faceted nature of planetary governance. Boosting a more affirmative depiction of the International System of Units, the liberal school controverts realist hypothesis as certifying the Cold war status-quo and legalizing immoral behavior.

Accenting rather the primal changes in the structure of the International System of Units, from the scent of non-governmental organizations electioneering on an array of sociable, environmental and ethical issues other than security, to the realization of homeless nations as substantial actors in world politics, liberal academicians suggest that traditional nation-states are giving in to so-called ‘hollowing’ processes, as the post-Westphalian equilibrate of power diffuses over multiple layers and disperses among range of variegated actors. The state thus mislays its hegemonic emplacement as the briny actor in world politics absorbing in, from time to time cooperative, now and again powerful, power play with various non-state actors and forces, ranking from civic society groups and non-governmental administrations to private market actors (Geeraerts, 1995).

This all the same is not to allege that under Liberalism, states are no more crucial actors in domain politics. Alternatively, what results is a fresh political framework of “composite interdependence” (Keohane and Nye, 1977:24), whereby the “western hemisphere overlaps and rests on the traditional world” in which power is divided between geographically dependent state actors and fluid non-governmental actors with equal implication (Keohane and Nye, 1998:82).

Conclusion

Whilst the number of politically-engaged non-governmental and community-based establishment has developed quickly in the past decade, multinational events and movements, such as the anti-globalization dissents of the 1970s or the so-called ‘Arabian Spring’, have had substantial wallop on shaping the insurance policy process and elevating knowingness of world issues.

Strengthened by incontrovertible attest from current world affairs, where state index is endlessly challenged by biotic community groups and activists from bottom-up, in addition to top-down by outside global administration bodies, this attempt sides with the latter openhanded view, proposing that the twenty-first Century dynamics of word politics allow for space and chances for a assortment of actors other than states. According bounded attention to the variety of non-state actors and self-regulating economical processes, the realist hypothesis consequently proves erroneous in asserting that states are the lonesome relevant conceptual actors in world political relation.

Bibliography

Buzan, B. (1996). ‘The Timeless Wisdom if Realism’ in Smith, S. et al (ed) International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. UK, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cox, R. (1981). ‘Social Forces, States, and World Order’ in Millennium, 10(2), pp. 128 – 130.

Cederman, L., E. (1997). Emergent Actors in World Politics. USA, New Jersey: Princeton           University Press.

Geeraerts, G. (1995). ‘Analysing Non-State Actors in World Politics’ in Pole Paper Series, 1(4). Available at: http://poli.vub.ac.be/publi/pole-papers/pole0104.htm

Higgott, R., A. et al (2000). Non-State Actors and Authority in the Global System. UK, London: Routledge.

Keohane, R., O. and Nye, J., S. (1998). ‘Power and interdependence in the information age’ in     Foreign Affairs, 77(5), pp. 81 – 94.

Keohane, R., O. and Nye, J., S. (1977). Power and Interdependence. Glenview: Scott Foresman.

Lim, T., C. (2006) Doing Comparative Politics: An introduction to Approaches and Issues. UK,   London: Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc.

Landman, T. (2008). Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics. UK, London: Routledge.

Mansbach, R., W. and Vasquez, J., A. (1981) In Search of Theory: A New Paradigm for Global   Politics. USA, New York: Columbia University Press.

Morgenthau, H. (1948). Politics Among Nations. USA, New York: Alfred Knopf