AL QAEDA AS A NON STATE ACTOR IN CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

CHAPTER ONE

NON STATE ACTORS IN CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

INTRODUCTION

The tremendous increase in the number and significance of non-state entities in the second half of the 20th century is one of the most notable aspects of the global political system. These non-state actors play both the heroes and the villains in many international political storylines. They are not states, but rather international players. Assumptions of “Realism” and conventional theories of international relations, which contend that interactions between states are the main relationship of interest in studying international systems, are challenged or refuted by the rise of these transnationally organized non-state actors and their increasing involvement in global politics. While some scholars agree that these non-sovereign institutions and their actions have contributed to significant changes in global politics, others argue that the international system’s structure has not changed, system still has room for inter-state relations-based analysis.

Let’s now examine the many paradigms of actors to help us comprehend the idea of non-state actors in modern international relations. These theoretical stances are in conflict.

Actors in World Politics: Contending Theoretical Approaches

actors who follow the traditional Realist theory. Realism, often known as the power-politics school of thought, has dominated the area of international relations since the end of World War II. Smith claims that even while realism “faces ongoing opposition,” it nonetheless offers many academics and foreign policy decision-makers the fundamental presuppositions for the study of world affairs. 1

According to Evans and Newnham, Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War is considered to be the first work to attempt to explain the causes of international conflict in terms of the dynamics of power politics.

2 Yet, Smith explains that “Realism” evolved after World War II as a challenge to the Idealist school of thought as a distinctive paradigm thought that dominated the interwar period and whose overriding aim had been the prevention of another World War.3

World War II brought the realist perspective to the centre of Anglo-American thinking on international affairs. The pursuit of hegemony and world conquest by Nazism had put into question the effectiveness of international institutions and stressed the role of power in world politics. According to Kegley and Wittkopt, one of the main causes of the Second War was to be found in the naïve Legalistic and Moralistic premises of ‘Idealism’ as exemplified by such ideas as collective security.4 Although ‘Idealism’ continued to have a certain influence in world politics after World War II, as evidenced by the establishment of the United Nations, the realist approach superseded it, especially after the advent of the Cold War. At that time most states believed that peace could and should be attained, not through appeasement, but through military strength as the state’s inherent drive is the pursuit of national power.

The development of Realism as a distinctive paradigm in international relations has been most clearly identified with the ‘founding’ works of E. H. Carr, The Twentieth Year’s Crisis and Hans Morgenthau’s Politics Among Nations. These works developed what Morgenthau called “political Realism” in a clear effort to challenge idealist and liberal writers on international affairs. According to Keohane, this early or ‘Classical Realism’ may be said to be based on three fundamental assumptions, which are:

The idea that states are the main and only significant participants in international politics.

The presumption of rationality, which treats states as though they were a single, logical actor for the purposes of analysis.

The presumption of power, according to which states want power above all else—most frequently, military force—both as a tool and as a goal in and of itself. 5

Although these presumptions lack a solid scientific foundation, they had definite appeal since they could be immediately applied to real-world issues in international relations. They offer an easily understandable series of actions for anyone looking to comprehend and address potential dangers to the security of their states, as Keohane puts it. 6 This most likely also explains in part why “Realism” has been the most popular strategy.

The concept of power is the key to comprehending political realism’s underlying premises. “International politics, like all politics, is a quest for power,” claims Morgenthau. 7 Furthermore, “every political policy attempts either to maintain power, to acquire more power, or to exhibit power.” He claims that only states possess the resources necessary to wield power, making them the most significant actors. According to Morgenthau, a country’s military might serves as the clearest indicator of its authority. The position of state actors in the hierarchically organized international system, whose agenda is driven by security concerns, is primarily determined by this power.

Realists believe that this area of study is best evaluated in terms of the state because it is the sole major actor in international relations.

terms of interstate relations. According to Russett and Starr, the state acting through its government, is seen as a unitary and rational actor which pursues, above all, national interests and competes in this matter with other nation-states in an environment characterized by anarchy.10

Realists maintain that governments act rationally because they have ordered preferences. In interaction with one another, governments or states calculate the costs and benefits of all alternative policies so as to choose those practices that maximize their interests.

According to ‘Realists’, actors in world politics are defined on the basis of three main criteria:

Sovereignty
Recognition of state hood
And the control of territory and population.

Because they lack these three components of actornness, other entities on the global stage cannot be viewed as unique and independent individuals. International bodies like the United Nations are viewed as instruments or extensions of states with limited impact on relations between nation-states.

Actors in Liberal-Pluralist Paradigm

Through the course of the development of the study of international relations, the tenets of classical Realism have been questioned. According to Smith, “the history of the topic until the 1970s is basically one of self-conscious rejection of realism, with scholars perceiving themselves as engaged in an effort that was completely different from traditionalism of Morgenthau. 11 Yet according to Banks, it wasn’t until the middle of the 1970s that a serious challenge to “Realism” came from diverse scholarly advancements. 12 State-centrism, which holds that states are the only significant actors in international politics, has come under scrutiny in the post-World War II era due to the growth of non-state actors, particularly Multinational Corporations (MNCs), International Organizations like the United Nations, and transnationally organized groups.

Generally, scholars like Keohane and Nye argued that “Realism” no longer offer a comprehensive theory because of fundamental changes in the structure of the international system. With the technological revolution in communication and transportation, global politics was now characterized by growing interdependence, the spread of transnationalism and the appearance of new global issues within the economic, cultural and technical realm.13 These liberal pluralists asked for an alternative pluralistic paradigm to assess the complexities and transformations of contemporary world politics, arguing that “Realism” only provided ‘a narrow and incomplete description and explanation of world affairs. Keohane and Nye were among the first scholars to call for a revision of the state-centric paradigm, because it failed to recognize the importance of non-state actors. In their 1971 essay collection “Transnational Realism and World politics”, they identify the phenomena of ‘international interaction’ which they defined as:

“The movement of tangible or intangible items across state boundaries when at least one actor is not an agent of a government”

They concluded that neither the state is necessarily the only important actor in world politics nor the ‘gate-keeper between intra-societal and extra-societal flows of actions.

The Mixed Actor Paradigm

Despite being presented far earlier by Oran Young in his landmark article “The Actors in world politics” (1972) at the beginning of the 1970s, the idea of a mixed actor didn’t fully take off until the late 1980s. Young saw a shift away from “Realism” and put forth a theoretical framework that contested the state-centric perspective of politics’ single actor model. According to Young, the underlying idea of a system of mixed actors necessitates a move away from the presumption of actor homogeneity and, consequently, a retreat from the presupposition that the state is the primary unit in international politics. The mixed-actor world view, on the other hand, posits a scenario in which, in the absence of any, multiple quantitatively distinct sorts of actors interact with any settled pattern of dominance submission or hierarchical relationship.15

Rosenau contends that the greater interdependence of the international system and the increased interaction capacity that goes along with it has led to the bifurcation of global politics into world politics: An autonomous multi-centric world composed of sovereignty-free actors now coexists, competes and interacts with the old state-centric world characterized by states and their interactions.16 According to Rosenau, this multi-centric world can be said to exist because the importance of actors is determined by their capability to initiate and sustain actions rather than their legal status or sovereignty. Although they are located within the jurisdiction of states, the sovereignty-free actors of the multi-centric world are able to evade the constraints of states and pursue their own goals.17 Their adherence to state-centric rules is mostly formalistic.18

Rosenau tries to distinguish between two separate sets of complex actors that overlap and interact even as they also maintain a high degree of independence. Rosenau’s two-world concept presents an international system in which state and non-state actors co-exist. In this sense his model offers an interesting attempt to formulate a general theory of international relations because it takes a first step in merging Realist and Pluralist elements into a single theoretical framework.

However, a clear conception of non-state actors is needed more than ever, especially as a prerequisite for enhancing the understanding of contemporary international relations. Let us begin by proposing a definition of an Actor in world politics.

Oran Young defines an actor in international politics as:

“Every organized body that is composed, at least indirectly, of human beings, is not wholly submissive to any other player in the world system in effective terms, and participates in power interactions with other actors,” according to the World Economic Forum.19

This definition argues that rather than the legal and state-related status of sovereignty, the entity under examination needs to have some degree of autonomy and influence in order to be regarded an actor in global politics.

NON-STATE ACTORS

The relevance of non-state players acting internationally in this modern day must always be taken into consideration in the interpretation of international relations and world politics. One of the reasons why the cobweb paradigm in international politics has been theorized is the rise of non-state players in the post-cold war era. According to this paradigm, non-state actors now play complementary roles to fill up these gaps left by states, which causes the international Westphalia nation-state to experience a loss of power and sovereignty. Globalization has made it easier for non-state entities to question national borders and claims to sovereignty.

With advocating for societal issues like human rights and the environment, non-state actors are undermining the sovereignty of the nation-state over internal affairs. 20 Many armed non-state actors, such as opposition groups, operate independently of states and are involved in cross-border conflicts. The predominance of these organizations in armed conflicts has made managing and resolving conflicts more difficult than it previously was. Non-state actors frequently engage in conflict not just with states but also with other non-state actors. Because that international law and norms governing the use of force for intervention or peacekeeping objectives have generally been written in the context of the nation-state, any attempts at intervention in such conflicts have been exceptionally difficult. 21 Hence, non-state actors’ expectations at the local and international level have further complicated international relations.

There are various definitions of the term non state actors. But the definition of Daphne Josselin and William Wallace would be considered. They have both defined non state actors to include organizations:

Largely or entirely autonomous from central government funding and control emanating from civil society, or from the market economy, or from political impulses beyond state control and direction.

Operating as or participating in networks which extend across the boundaries of two or more states. Thus engaging in transnational relations, linking political systems, economics and societies.

Acting in ways which affect political outcomes, either within one or more states or within international institutions, either purposefully or semi-purposefully, either as their primary objective or as one aspect of their activities.22

PURPOSE OF NON STATE ACTORS

Taking into account how these non state players are arranged, the goal of these non state actors can be viewed from a variety of angles. These include non-state actors in the political, economic, humanitarian, social, cultural, and religious spheres. They therefore exist to achieve their desired goals or objectives. Listed below are a few of the objectives of non-state actors:

To achieve a balance between the north and the south in terms of commerce and economics.
To engage in conversation and communication in order to stop conflict from starting.
To aid in fostering global social cooperation.
To aid in bringing the issues facing a certain religious group to the forefront of global debate.
To contribute to raising and raising the standard of living.
To assist a state or group of states in achieving financial success.
To engender subtle inequalities of opportunity which includes economic, political, military, social, cultural etc. among states in the international system.
To help promotes and conduct the affairs of states in their relations with one another.
To check the excess of individuals and states in the international system.23

The purposes of non-state actors are very numerous to mention. But the purpose of this research would operate within the frame-work of the above listed purposes of non state actors.

TYPES OF NON STATE ACTORS

Following the traditional classification, non state actors are divided into two categories. They are:

International Governmental Organizations (IGOs)
International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs)
Both IGOs and INGOs are alike in having participants from more than one state. According to Jacobson, IGO is defined as an:
“Institutional structure created by agreement among two or more sovereign states for the conduct of regular political interaction”.24

States make up the IGO’s constituent members, and governmental agents serve as its representatives, according to Evans and Newnham. 25 This kind of organization has regular meetings of the state representatives, certain decision-making processes, and a permanent secretariat. States create these IGOs to pursue a variety of goals they wish to collaborate on through a formal structure but are unable to achieve independently. In the modern world, there are hundreds of IGOs, most of which are important in their specialized professions. Treaties and agreements that primarily reflect the desires of more powerful states are what give rise to them. Stronger states, in particular, establish IGOs because they require them to safeguard their interests. IGO decisions are typically the result of discussions among the governmental representatives assigned to them. In general, it is not idealism, but the need of states which tend them to cooperate with other states in the context of IGOs. Therefore, they are part of the Westphalian state system in which IGOs are instruments of nation-states.26

IGOs may be classified by scope as:

Global
Regional

By function as:

Economical
Social
Environmental

Global IGOs includes the United Nations (UN), International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, International Labour Organization etc. IGOs monitor principles, norms and rules of international institutions and international regimes in nation-states. IGOs play effective role in economic issue areas. They decrease the cost of information gathering which is more important for poor and small countries. For example, the United Nation plays a key role for states, especially small states, in receiving information about international politics and systemic issues.

The Regional IGOs includes the European Union (EU), AFRICAN Union (AU), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) etc. they also play roles that are similar to the global IGOs to their member states at the regional level.

INTERNATIONAL NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION (INGO)
INGOs are classified as “any international organization which has not been founded by an intergovernmental agreement,” including organizations that admit ministers or agencies from governments as members. 27 In the early 1990s, their membership expanded by more than 23,000, and they were considered a “crucial participant in the international policy process” due to their effectiveness for transnational policies. 29 INGOs establish transnational organizations, gather data on global conditions through contacts all over the world, alert their global network of supporters to situations that require attention, organize global emergency responses, and enlist pressure from other states to create and mobilize global networks. Many of these INGOs include:

Multinational Corporations (MNCs)
National Liberation Movement (NLMs)
Religious and humanitarian Organizations
Terrorist groups and drug traffickers

The most prominent contemporary INGOs are multinational Corporations (MNCs), they are huge firms that own and control plants and offices in at least more than one country and sell their goods and services around the world. They are large corporations having branches and subsidiaries operating on a worldwide basis in many countries simultaneously. They are major driver of global economic integration and establish unprecedented linkages among economic worldwide.30 MNCs can be classified according to the kinds of business activities they pursue such as extractive resources, agriculture, industrial products, transportation, banking and tourism. The most notable MNCs are industrial and financial corporation (banks being the most important). According to Miyoshi, naturally the primary objective of MNCs is profit maximization.31 Examples of MNCs are Coca-Cola, Shell, Chevron, Guinness, etc.

NATIONAL LIBERATION MOVEMENTS (NLMs)

NLMs are made up of people who identify with and pledge their devotion to ethno-national groups rather than nation-states. Many people swear their primary devotion to their ethno-national group, which shares a shared culture, language, cultural tradition, and bonds of kinship, rather than the state and government that governs them. National liberation movements as a result are becoming more and more significant in the global context. NLMs have long had a significant impact on world politics, particularly in Asia, Africa, and South America. These include, for instance:

Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) which has been playing a key role in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

African National Congress (ANC) of Nelson Mandela of South Africa which eventually brought down the white

supremacist government.

SWAPO of Nambia

There are some stateless nations also that are effective actors of international relations. They are: Palestinians, the Catholics in North Ireland, the Tibetans in China, the Basques and Catalonians in Spain, the Quebecois in Canada, the muslims of Kashmir and Serbia, the Hindu Tamils in Sri Lanka, and the Kurds in the Middle East.32

THE EPISTEMIC COMMUNITIES

These groups offer technological expertise to advance global cooperation. These are groups of specialists who agree on a set of cause-and-effect linkages as well as the values that will guide the application of the laws governing these relationships.

THE RELIGIOUS AND HUMANITARIAN ORGANIZATION

These are INGOs organized on religious basis and human rights lines. The most influential religious group is the Catholic Church. It was a major force in the middle Ages. Superior to kings and emperors. The most notable example of international human rights regime is constituted by the council of Europe. The European Commission of Human Rights receives, reviews, and evaluates complaints from individuals living in the member states, and the European Court of Human Rights makes legally binding decisions. Member states turned over their sovereignty to the organization on these issues. These non-state actors are mainly concern about morality, human rights, environment and social values. For example, International Red Cross, International Red Crescent, and Amnesty International are the most well known and influential NGOs among humanitarian international organizations that monitor human rights worldwide. The first two gives assistance to wartime prisoners and send help in areas affected by natural and man made disasters in peace time. They mainly work along with the United Nations and related organizations lines.

TERRORIST GROUPS AND DRUG TRAFFICKERS

This group use terrorism as the main instrument and largely lack large scale support from the public although national liberation movements and ethnic groups sometimes use terrorism, terrorist organizations are different from NLMs since terrorism is their main means of struggle. Individuals and groups engage in terrorism for different political, economic, social, religious, cultural and even personal reasons. Their goals are to publicize their grievances and aspirations to international community by hijacking, assassinating, kidnapping, and attacking on embassies. As long as the state system and the world system leaves some groups or states out of the system, terrorism will continue to be an instrument of those who are weak. However, strong states also use “state terrorism” against the powerless groups or states.33 The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on United States have made other states in the international system to be on security alert all over the world.

Terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda, Talibans are the most talked about groups in the world. Even though drug traffickers are engaged in profitable ‘transnational business’, they are similar to terrorist organizations because they use illegal means, including assassinations and kidnappings and deal with products banned by international community.

The role of non-state actors in the international system is so great that some states have given away part of their economic, military, social and even political sovereignty to these non-state actors. Non state actors have been able to cover up for states in the areas where they are facing problems or where they have failed. Also some non-state actors have created some problems that the international system is trying to solve now. By and large, the role of the non-state actors cannot be ignored, whether positive or negative.

ENDNOTES

S. Smith, “Paradigm Dominance in International Relations: The Evolution of International Relations as a Social Science,” in The Study of International Relations: The State of the Art, edited by H. C. Dyer and L. Mangaserian. 1989, page 5, McMillan, London.
The Dictionary of International Politics, by G. Evans and N. 1990, Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York, p. 339.
Paradigm Domination in International Relations: The Evolution of International Relations as a Social Science, S. Smith, pp. 5–6.
Global Politics, Trend and Transportation, by Ch. W. Kegley and E. R. Wittkopt, New York: MacMillan, 1989, p.
International Institutions and State Power by R. O. Keohane, Boulder: Westview Press, 1989, p.
Neorealism and its Critics, R. O. Keohane (ed. ), New York: Columbia University Press, 1986, p. O. Young, “The Players in Global Politics,” in J. N. Rosenau and M. A. East, editors, The Study of International Politics, The Free Press, New York, 1972, p. 140.
For more information on “The Effects of Non-state Players on Global Politics,” visit Google.com.
Ibid.
Ibid
The Substance of Politics in India, by A. Appadorai, Oxford University Press, 1968, pp. 147–150.
Networks of International Organizations and the Global Political System, H. K. Jacobson. Knopf, New York, 1984, p.
The Dictionary of Global Politics by Evans and Newnham, Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1990, p. 168.
World Order: Values and Power in International Politics, by L. H. Miller, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1994, p. 67.
1990, page 1643, Union of International Association.
Networks of Interdependence: Global Political System and International Organizations, by H. K. Jacobson. Knopf, New York, 1984, p.
J. T. Rourke and M. A. Boyer, International Politics on the World Stage: Brief Fifth Edition, New York, McGraw Companies, 2004, p.111.
The Impacts of Non State actors on world politics. See: http:www.google.com.

AL QAEDA AS A NON STATE ACTOR IN CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

AL QAEDA AS A NON STATE ACTOR IN CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Related Contents

Leave a Comment X