Does a state-centred view of world politics remains valid in the 21st century?

In recent years, due to non-state actors gaining more power in world politics, the state-centred view of this, has been challenged. Neorealism, or the state-centred view, believes that the state is the key actor in global politics, and that relations among states are the core of actual international relation (Korab-Karpowicz, 2018). A modern state, according to Weber, has three main aspects, territory, the monopoly of physical violence and legitimacy (Brown, et al., 2018). According to this, non-state factors such as non-governmental organizations or terrorist groups have little role to play in global politics. Nevertheless, many state’s foreign policy in recent years has been to combat and support non-state groups all around the world. This is clearly seen in the Syrian civil war, where only the Russian Federation assisted the government while other countries such as the United States or France supported non-state groups mainly formed by Kurdish people. Following on, all foreign powers military involved in Syria also attacked the non-state group of ISIS (BUREAU OF NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS , 2020). Therefore, this shows how non-state groups are important in global politics, and thus a state-centred view is no longer valid.

Moreover, global trade reached historical maximums in the 21st century (Giovanni & Tena-Junguito, 2016). A key organization in making this possible is the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), a non-governmental organization based in Switzerland. Therefore, it can be concluded that although states play the major role in world politics, as they have the most power, both military and politically speaking, many other factors have come into play in recent years, shifting world politics from state-centred to an environment where states interact with each other as well as with non-state factors, these being international or national non-governmental organizations or non-state groups such as terrorists groups or other insurgencies.

Nevertheless, states are the key players in global politics and the desire to stablish a state is what drives many of the global conflicts nowadays. The Israel-Palestine conflict, which has been on for many years, it’s all about territory and legitimacy. Palestinians want to stablish a sovereign state in land claimed and occupied by Israel. In the other hand, Israel sees that as a threat to its own sovereignty (Heywood, 2014). This shows how this conflict is based around the fact of both Israel and Palestine wanting to stablish a state in territory claimed by the other. The importance of state, in this conflict, has clearly been seen again in recent weeks with Israel managing to open diplomatic and trade relations with countries in the Middle East, thus widening its legitimacy.

Again, recent events in world politics, in this case, more to the north east of Palestine, have been centred around states. The Nagomo-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, where there has been violent clashes between the military of those countries, which has resulted in many civilian and military casualties shows how world politics is still state-centred. These two states are fighting for a territory at the border of those two countries as they both consider it their legitimate territory (Carroll, 2020). Moreover, a truce was agreed, although fragile and violated soon after the agreement, it was agreed thanks to the intervention of another state, in this case Russia (Aljazeera News, 2020). Therefore, this shows how the state-centred view still holds some validity in world politics as both interaction of states and intervention of third states is what determines how a conflict develops.

Following on recent events, the different conflicts in the northern part of India reiterate the state-centred view of world politics. Both the Indian-Pakistan and the clashes in the Sino-India border shows how all the states involved, Pakistan, The People’s Republic of China and India, claim legitimacy of different parts of territory. Again, in this conflict, there are states involved, and the core of the conflict is between the states and territory, therefore, it shows how neorealism is still, to some extent, valid.

Moreover, the international organizations, which have become the hub for world politics, are well dominated, if not completely, by states. The United Nations, which is the core of world politics, only admits as members, states. Therefore, this means that for any group of people to have a say, and power to decide, what actions the United Nations takes on different issues, those ranging from conflict resolutions or climate change proposals, one must be a state. Thus, although it can be argued that non-state factors are becoming or have become massively important in world politics, it is clear that states are still the core of international relations.

Although there are issues in world politics concerning between states, many conflicts are also between states and non-state groups such as terrorist groups or pro-independence movements.

This was clearly seen with the Turkish invasion of the northern Syrian region of Rojava. This invasion was not an invasion of Syria but rather an invasion into a terror controlled by the Kurdish people, whom the Turkish government considers many of them to be terrorists.

Moreover, although it has now been eradicated, for many years, world politics spined around the war against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). They weren’t a state, according to Weber’s definition, because they lacked legitimacy, nevertheless, they were the focus in current affairs. So big was the focus on them, that both Russia and the United States fought or attacked them. Although one supported the Bashar al-Assad government and the other did not, the fact that they had it as a common enemy shows how important was ISIS in world politics.

Moreover, many of the conflicts in Africa are not between states but rather states against armed groups. This is the case of Mali for example, where the legitimate government, as it is the one recognised by the other states, fought dissidents and radical Islamists groups in its territory with the support of France from 2013 to 2015 (Human Rights Watch, 2019).

Moreover, many of the challenges that global politics faces in the 21st century cannot be state focused. The prime example is climate change. Without the agreement of all countries and private companies, there is no way the crisis can be redirected as the emission of one country effects all. Moreover, the pressure for the international bodies to take actions has come from civil society, organized for a common goal, regardless of the state they lived in. Thus, this shows how a state-centred view is no longer valid as issues are global, and people unite through them regardless of their state. Although civil society has had a major impact, it has been the states, who through the Paris Agreement of 2015 have agreed to tackle climate change (United Nations, 2015). Therefore, although non-state factors have become more important in world politics, states still have a major role to play in it.

International trade, although it is usually between state or with the state supervision or agreement, it is based around the standardizations set by the International Organization for Standardization (IOS), which makes sure all the products have the same minimum standards. This organization, which is key to global trade, it’s a nongovernmental organization (Park, 2019). Therefore, this shows how world politics, which are influence by world trade, and vice versa, are more than states interacting with each other. If it wasn’t for NGOs such as the ISO world trade would be much tougher and unequal, making world politics more complicated. Therefore, non-state factors are key in world politics in the twenty-first century, and thus, a state-centred view of it is no longer valid.

Following on, in a world where capitalism is the main economic system, private companies have been taking more and more power. Apple Inc., the company with the highest market capitalisation, of $1.3 trillion dollars, is bigger than some developed countries such as Spain or Australia (The World Bank, 2019). Those two countries are relatively important countries in world politics, and nevertheless, they represent a smaller proportion to the World’s GDP than a private company. This means that many other companies, and to some extent, other countries, depend on the performance of Apple Inc. The different parts of their devices are produced all around the globe so world politics could really impact the performance of this and other companies. When the home country, in this case the USA, has trade talks with other countries, it will have not only the political ideals of the current administration in mind, but also the interest of large companies in mind, as they have a massive impact on the economy and thus, on politics.

Subsequently, the private sector has had a massive impact in world politics through the economy. The most recent example for this was the failure of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., which eventually brought many countries to their knees, and a deep economic recession which some countries were still recovering from when the COVID-19 pandemic began. Therefore, this shows how the state-centred view is no longer valid, as states do not always have the control of current affairs. Nevertheless, it would be unfair to say that who stepped in, and in accordance with each other, were the states, especially the G7 states. Thus, it could be said that it is clear that states are no longer the only players in world politics, but they still play a very important, if not the most important, role in it.

An international organization that since its creation in 1919 is not state-centred is the International Labour Organization (ILO). This U.N. agency is formed by governments, but also employers and workers of all the member states. In line with the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations, the ILO is determined to set standards and rights of work, create opportunities for decent employment and income among other things (International Labour Organization, 2016). This shows how the state-centred view of world politics is no longer valid or has not been for years because in organizations like the ILO, there is not only contacts and talks between states but also between organizations which are not states.

To conclude, states still play, and will continue to play the most important role in world politics because they have the most power and represent the majority of the world’s population. Nevertheless, it is clear that they are no longer the only players. With global issues arising, so have different platforms to vocalise those. Moreover, many states are now fighting non-state groups, both in their territories and outside those. In an increasingly massively interconnected world, we can expect other non-state factors to rise as people with similar goals or beliefs can collude throughout the globe easily. Yet, for a non-governmental organization, or non-state group to have a real impact in world politics, it has to be recognised or interact with different states. If the ISO was given no legitimacy by the states who follow its standards, it would lose any kind of influence it has on trade and world politics. Therefore, a state-centred view of the world is no longer valid, as states are no longer the only factors in world politics but still the most important one.

Bibliography

Aljazeera News, 2020. ALJAZEERA NEWS. [Online] Available at: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/10/19/nagorno-karabkh-fighting-resumes-despite-ceasefire-commitment [Accessed 21 October 2020].

Brown, G. W., McLean, I. & McMillan, A., 2018. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics and International Relations. s.l.:Oxford University Press, Incorporated.

BUREAU OF NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS , 2020. U.S. Department of State. [Online] Available at: https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-syria/ [Accessed 20 October 2020].

Carroll, O., 2020. INDEPENDENT. [Online] Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/nagorno-karabakh-where-armenia-azerbaijan-conflict-violence-war-ussr-nationalism-b716677.html [Accessed 21 October 2020].

Giovanni, F. & Tena-Junguito, A., 2016. 'A tale of two globalizations: gains from trade and openness 1800-2010'. London: Centre for Economic Policy Research.

Heywood, A., 2014. Global Politics. 1st ed. s.l.:Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Human Rights Watch, 2019. Mali; events of 2018, s.l.: Human Rights Watch.

International Labour Organization, 2016. International Labout Organization. [Online] Available at: https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/---webdev/documents/publication/wcms_510122.pdf [Accessed 21 October 2020].

Korab-Karpowicz, W. J., 2018. Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [Online] Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/realism-intl-relations/ [Accessed 12 October 2020].

Park, S., 2019. International organizations in world politics. In: J. Baylis, S. Smith & P. Owens, eds. The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. s.l.:Oxford University Press, p. 322.

The World Bank, 2019. The World Bank. [Online] Available at: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?end=2019&most_recent_value_desc=true&start=2019&view=map [Accessed 12 10 2020].

United Nations, 2015. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. [Online] Available at: https://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/convention/application/pdf/english_paris_agreement.pdf [Accessed 21 October 2020].