Are nation-states still the most important actors in global politics?

(This has nothing to do with nation-states I just love Christmas)

Following the Peace of Westphalia (1648) the conventional approach to global politics has been state centric, i.e. the state is the most prominent actor on the world stage. However, one of the by products of intensified globlisation is a proliferation of non-state actors. These non-state actors (be they NGOs, TNCs, or other non-state bodies) now exert a varying degree of influence in the global system. Liberals see globalisation as the main weakener of state sovereignty (and therefore the significance of states). They prefer a mixed-actor model as opposed to states as the only actors. Realists on the other hand emphasis the role of the state in global politics in that they are the fundamental building blocks of the system. Furthermore, there is an argument for the middle ground, in that the role of nation-states in global politics has changed- but this does not necessarily mean the power of states has become redundant.

The growth of international organisations and the move towards regionalism can be seen as weakening the importance of nation-states. For example, the trend towards global governance has seen elements of supernationalism in some organisations like the EU. The debate as to whether the EU has eroded the sovereignty of it's member states has been exhausted, one conclusion to draw from it is that while the EU does appear to be a higher authority than nation states (e.g. UK Parliament cannot pass any statute that conflicts with the existing EU laws as seen in the 1990 Factortame Case). Having said that, member states reserve the right the exit the EU- we may very well see a vote for 'Brexit' in the upcoming EU referendum. This surely indicates that, ultimately, states are the predominant actors in the political arena as they choose to be a part of these organisations to boost their own power by through pooling.

The growth of TNC's can also seen to be a threat to the dominant position of nation-states in global politics. For example, of the 100 largest economies in the world, 51 are corporations; only 49 are countries. Wal-Mart (12th biggest) is bigger than 161 countries, including Israel, Poland, and Greece. Naturally, these corporations have a sizable influence over states, as Susan Strange put it "where states were once masters of markets, now it is the markets which, on many issues, are the masters over the governments of states". Although it can be argued that states are still important in that they provide legal and social order in which these corporations can operate.  

While it may seem as though the status of states has reduced in global politics, it can be seen that they have merely changed in nature. Instead of a billiboard model of states all competing in their own interests, we see a new multilateral era where states recognize the benefits of working within an international organisation- for example national interest has become international interest, such as global climate change or the global terror threat. Furthermore, the success of supernationalism (i.e. states surrendering sovereignty to a central authority) is, arguably, grossly exaggerated as Europe is the only region that follows this concept.

Has an effective system of global governance now become a reality?

So, global governance- not to be confused with the Orwellian 'World Government' theory- is a complex process of decision making at a global level between governmental (sometimes non-governmental) bodies through formal or informal mechanisms, like the UN. It is different to world government in that world government refers to the centralization of authority in a supernational body-  essentially all of humankind united under one political body. Thankfully this is now considered unrealistic by both liberals and realists, but the concept of supernationalism that underpinned it can be seen to still exist in certain areas of global governance.

Liberals argue there is a distinct trend towards global governance in modern politics. They look to the growth of international organisations (e.g. we can't even keep up with the members of the WTO- is it 162??) as evidence of a greater willingness of state to cooperate with one another. Supposedly, this has also meant a build up of trust between states, but this can be countered by the fact that the security dilemma still prevails in today's politics, such as the apparent "need" for Trident in the UK. The prominence of global governance can be seen to fluctuate, but all in all the evidence suggests it's on the rise. It is unlikely we will return to a world without global governance as it has become essential in responding to the issues brought about by globalisation (transnational terrorism, global warming, etc.).

However, to suggest global governance has become an effective system can be seen as an exaggeration. Realists would argue that in reality, global governance is largely a myth as it only seems to operate in the 'postmodern' world of Europe. Furthermore, the existence of rogue states like Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, etc. demonstrates the shortcomings of the system.

Furthermore, global governance can be seen as ineffective in a number of areas. For example climate change, global conferences have largely been unsuccessful in tackling climate change over the years. However, could we be seeing evidence of cooperation in the recent COP21? Obama has been quoted as saying he feels "very optimistic" that a global agreement will be reached this time.The Director of Climate Programme at World Resources Institute has said the alignment of politics, e.g. America and China cooperating, has allowed for an agreement to become possible. Having said that, she has also highlighted the fact that countries are primarily concerned with their own interest -state egoism- and this could hinder the process of global governance in this case. Addtionally, the agreements reached are unlikely to be legally binding.

The trend towards global goverance is most prominent in Europe. Supernationalism can be found in the EU with countries effectively pooling their sovereignty, and certainly there is much evidence of cooperation within the EU over the years. However, whether or not it is an effective system of global governance can be debated. For example, while liberalists may see the EU's resettlement scheme as an act of successful global governance it has received backlash from some member states who are not willing to cooperate with the quotas set. For example, Slovakia is launching a legal challenge against mandatory resettlement quotas. Surely this reinforces the realist concept of state-centrism, that the state is the key international actor and global governance doesn't work?

The UN can also be seen to have it's short comings when it comes to global goverance. For example, the veto power of the P-5 meant Russia consistantly blocking UN action in Syria in case we upset Putin's pal, Assad. However, we have recently seen a rare example of cooperation in the UN with all member states agreeing to tackle ISIS. Since then the US and Russia have been cooperating in drafting up resolutions to cut off ISIS's sources of financing. The US Ambassador has said the resoultions "will consolidate and streamline the council's recent efforts on ISIL financing" and introduce "new steps to make the sanctions more effective."

In terms of economic global governance we can certainly see progress. The so called 'three sisters' (the IMF, WTO, and the World Bank) are all examples of institutions of global economic governance. Liberals would argue this is evidence of cooperation, however the dominance of the USA in the system suggests a hegemonic system, not a process of multilateral cooperation. Furthermore, the New Development Bank contradicts this idea of global economic harmony- it has caused tensions with the US who worry this is the first step in China setting the global economic agenda. This has led to the Obama administration trying to minimise the bank's influence, therefore global governance is clearly not a reality.

So, has an effective system of global governance now become a reality? Not yet. We have certainly progressed over the years, but state centrism hinders the process as states will always put themselves first. However, with globalisation forcing national interest to become collective interest (e.g. global warming) global governance is going to be the only way to resolve matters, and therefore we will inevitably one day see an effective system of global goverance as the reality of global politics.

(This post is copyright ©Me -i'm calling you out for plagiarism, Dan.)

Bibliography/Further reading

• COP21: Constructive conference or a waste of time? (Aljazeera)
• Beijing's rival to World Bank: Why US is worried (EconomicTimes)
• US weighing new measures to choke off ISIS  (IsraelNationalNews)