Category: International Politics

Introduction

In the last two to three decades, the world has experienced unprecedented economic growth in all spheres of economy. Despite such encouraging progress in the economy, the gap between the poor and rich people has widened. The rich are getting richer as the poor get poorer.

Further, the world has moved to a more integrated and globalised economy where there is interrelatedness between nations of the world.

Although such globalisation might ideally mean more prosperity for nations based on their increased accessibility and market interaction levels, it has instead acted to increase economic inequalities among societies and nations. In addition, at the global political stage, the powerful countries have amassed more power.

Periphery countries are becoming less influential in the political and economic realms. While trying to explain the growing disparities in wealth and power in the global political economy, different scholars have advanced different theories.

Of the many theories and approaches, Immanuel Wallersteins world-systems analysis has been credited for its detailed analysis of the functioning of the world economy. The theory incorporates different arguments from the existing knowledge in sociology, political science, and economics.

However, it significantly shifts from the existing theories of economic development that focus on the nations as independent units that can traverse their own paths towards civilisation and modernity.

This paper will analyse whether the world systems analysis has been able to explain successfully the wealth and power inequalities in the world. Further, it will discuss various criticisms that have been put forward against the approach.

World-Systems Analysis

According to Makki, the world-system analysis, which is also referred to as world-system hypothesis, is a modern macro-sociological viewpoint that regards the changes of capitalism and world economy as a total collective system.

The theory draws from the tenets of historical sociology and economic history. It is also linked to Immanuel Wallerstein who is credited for building its credibility. According to Jones, developmental theorists have adopted the theory for its synthesis of developmental and unequal opportunities across the world.

Although the theorys views on capitalism and the global economy differ from those expressed by Marx and Weber, these two theorists have offered a great inspiration to the theory.

The main agenda of the theory is that the world as a whole plays an important role in determining the economic and social dynamics between and among nations. In other words, the theory emphasises the world-system as the main unit of social analysis.

The theory is a shift from Marxist approaches that viewed the nation as the main unit of analysis in the global political economy. By world-system, the theory indicates the inter-regional and transnational divisions of labour that divide the world between the rich and the poor, and the powerful and the weak as Macedo and Gounari confirm.

Accordingly, Wallerstein views the world-system as a social system with no boundaries, structures, coherence, or rules of legitimating but rather a body that comprises conflicting forces that hold it together or threaten to tear it apart as each group tries to remould it to its advantage.

Further, as an organism, the world-system has a life span. It changes over time while other characteristics remain constant. According to Harvey, its life is not only largely self-contained, but also has some internal developmental changes.

In the world classification, nations are joined together through market financial system rather than through affairs of the state. In this incorporation of nations, the relationship is based on the exchange of goods and products that characterise a market financial system.

According to OBrien and Williams, although there is competition among polities to dominate the system, none lasts forever.

As a shift from the thinking of the 19^th century with reference to society, politics, and economy, the world-system analysis criticises Marxist and other theories of economic development and approaches to modernisation. For instance, it criticises the modernisation theory for its focus on the state as the only unit of analysis.

It claims the existence of one path through which all nations experience economic development. It disregards the transnational structure that hinders local and national economic development.

World-system analysis is a shift from the modernisation hypothesis, which holds that nations follow a given course and stages of development from pre-modern to modern states and that nations are accountable for their individual growth.

Through small assistance to its internal strictures of economy, Wallerstein asserts that any nation can become modern just like other developed countries have.

As such, capitalism is an inevitable outcome of the previous failures of structures of economy such as feudalism since nations have progressed in their path to modernity.

However, world-system theorists disapprove this notion on capitalism. They view it as a deliberate move through which Europe came to dominate the world economy to create inequalities.

While explaining the inequalities in wealth and power, the world-system analysis views the world economy as having divisions based on the kind of labour each country or region offers and/or contributes to the system and market economy.

The theory regards the world economy as a body that comprises three groups of countries, that is, the core countries, semi-periphery, and the periphery countries.

Core nations concentrate on capitaldemanding and proficient work production as opposed to a wanting toil or raw-material assembly that is characteristic of semi-periphery and marginalised nations. By focusing on proficient production, the mainstay nations govern the sidelined or marginalised nations.

However, changes in the system mean that countries may lose or gain more on their status. In this case, Clark says that periphery countries may upgrade to semi-periphery and further to core countries.

At different periods, some nations may raise to hegemonic status in the system. For example, hegemonic status has passed from Netherlands to the Great Britain and then to the United States of America.

World-System Analysis Approach to Power and Wealth Inequality

As previously explained, the world-system analysis tries to explain the inequalities in the world by viewing the world economy as a single unit where division of labour among its members contributes immensely to inequalities in power and wealth.

In this case, the countries that fall under the core category dominate the world economy since they control the means of production while the peripheral ones control labour.

Tracing the history of the worlds economy from the start of capitalism, OBrien and Williams see a trend where the world is constantly in a core/periphery economic relationship that began with Europe.

In this case, Gareau reveals that countries that controlled production were always more prosperous at the expense of those that supplied labour.

For more than 5 centuries, many European countries have been in the core countries category while the others such as African, Asian, and South American countries, which have historically provided labour for European nations, remain at the periphery.

According to Harvey, the most important structure of the present-day world system is what he refers to as power hierarchy between core countries and the peripheral ones. In this affiliation, powerful countries govern and take advantage of the underprivileged ones.

Their driving force is to use unrefined ways of getting hold of the weak countries wealth. According to Goldfrank, in this equation, technology plays an important role in determining the category where each county falls.

The countries that have advanced technology such as the United States, Britain, Japan, and Germany among others form the core countries while the less technologically developed countries such as Kenya, Venezuela, and other third-world countries form the periphery.

Over the years, the core nations have used their advantaged positions to amass great power both economically and socially over their disadvantaged nations as Tarrow reveals.

According to the world-system analysis, the core nations access to enormous financial resources by controlling the highly lucrative means of production implies that they are able to finance other core areas of their economy and standings in the global stage.

For instance, looking at the hegemonic status of countries over the years, a peculiar trend emerges. For instance, during the reign of the Great Britain in the 19^th century, it controlled more than 85% of worlds industries.

Further, it amassed great powers through its advanced military and superior economic status that allowed it to acquire and colonise many territories across the world. One of the main reasons of establishing colonies was to have a ready access of raw materials and a ready market of the finished products.

In this interaction between the Great Britain as the core and its overseas territories as the periphery, it is evident that the interaction was not mutually beneficial. The Great Britain benefited more. It amassed more wealth and more power at the expense of the periphery countries.

In another case, during the reign of the US as the hegemony after the World War II, the nation accounted for more than 50% of the global finished products.

The interaction between the poor and the wealth nations is characterised by unequal exchange. Unequal exchange refers to the systematic substitution of excess material possessions between sectors that lie in the peripheral category and the highly industrialised and powerful countries.

The powerful homelands amass immense resources using marginal surplus. On the other hand, the continuous deprivation of the peripherys surplus leads to stagnated or reducing capital for those countries.

The implication is that they are unable to break from the yoke of poverty to a higher economic status as a way of standing in the global arena.

In the process of domination by the core nations, three key processes ensure that these countries amass power and wealth in the end. Firstly, it starts with productivity dominance where the core countries have control over technology and other means of production, which are not accessible to the periphery countries.

In this case, as Macedo and Gounari confirm, with the superior technology and means of production, the countries can produce high superior products at a cheaper cost, thus tilting trade to their advantage.

As long as the periphery countries do not have access to such technology due to many factors, including capital resources, the core countries achieve dominance whereas the peripheral ones feed the core countries productivity with cheap raw materials in exchange of expensive finished products.

The core countries act of accumulating more productivity powers leads to the second process of gaining power and wealth, which is trade dominance. According to Moore, since the cost of production is cheaper and hence able to benefit more from international trade, core countries easily dominate the trade.

The core nations control trade by selling, as opposed to purchasing, more of their products to other states. Consequently, there is a favourable balance of trade for the core nations. With trade dominance, more money comes relative to the amount that goes out, thus resulting in economic supremacy.

For instance, the US and European countries get a large percentage of the global monetary possessions.

With strong financial resources, the core nations are able to invest more in activities such as education, economic diversification, healthcare, poverty elimination programmes, research and development, and military among other activities that ensure that they strengthen their dominant position in the world system.

On the other hand, as Harvey says, the peripheral countries are characterised by underdeveloped technologies, less industrialisation, large populations of poor people, and high levels of illiteracy. In addition, the peripheral nations are greatly influenced by the core nations through their multinational corporations.

In many instances, they have to adhere to the economic policies of the former, although such policies are obviously skewed to the advantage of the rich ones as Firebaugh confirms.

Due to their focus on few financial means that involve the processing and selling of materials, marginalised states enjoy less fiscal diversity as compared to the major countries. Further, there is a high availability of cheap and unskilled labour, which is exploited by the core nations through their multinational corporations.

Since the peripheral countries struggle to meet the needs of the people who have little financial resources, no surplus has been availed to invest in high-technology production activities that are done by the core nations.

Further, due to the basic nature of the technology that is available for these nations, the high cost of production makes it difficult for them to industrialise.

Consequently, such nations are locked in a vicious cycle where they are unable to expand beyond their focus on production of raw materials to feed the ever-expanding production capacities of the core nations.

Therefore, with all the odds against the periphery countries, McCarthy asserts that it is difficult for the poor nations to prosper in the highly skewed world system that benefits the rich while exploiting the poor.

In many ways, the world-system analysis presents the bitter reality of globalisation where issues such as free trade and elimination of previous barriers of trade are advantageous for the prosperity of the world-economy.

However, upon further analysis, world-economy is a tool that is supported by the core nations as long as it benefits their interests in the world-system.

It is evident that the notion that globalisation is beneficial to all countries is not valid in all its assertions as it has led to the increase of the difference between the underprivileged peripheral countries and the well-off major ones.

In this case, globalisation has provided an opportunity for the rich to exploit the poor countries in an arrangement that benefits the former while disadvantaging the latter. Hence, the world-system analytical approach provides a detailed and a convincing explanation of the present-day power and wealth inequalities in the world.

Criticisms of World-System Analysis

Like any other theory, the world-system analysis has received a lot of criticism from different theorists and economic experts who are not satisfied with its main assertions.

The first criticism is that unlike other social theories that explain the economy and inequality in the society, world-system theory focuses on the economy and less on other important issues such as culture.

While this criticism is strong, it does not lead to a disregard of key concepts other than the world-system analysis. However, there is a need to find a way through which culture can be incorporated into the theory to make it more reflective of the social dynamics of the world economy, power, and inequalities.

Further, the theory is criticised for being overly core-centric. In this case, the critiques such as Gregory assert that Wallerstein concentrates on explaining why and how the core nations have amassed wealth.

At the end, he does not focus on the plight of the peripheral nations. Further, he does not offer elaborate solutions of how such inequalities and power can be eliminated.

However, this claim is not a valid argument since his reference to a system is an indication of the fact that perfection can never be achieved.

The theory compensates for this argument by pointing out that just like a system, the various changes that occur with time change the balance where the periphery and semi-peripheral countries change their status up and/or down the classification.

Another valid argument by Hall is that by focusing on the world market and economy, the theory makes a great supposition by assuming the local class struggles and class divisions that play an important part in one way or another in the state and global economy.

Conclusion

The world-system analysis satisfactorily explains the main causes of disparities in wealth and power in the global political economy. The theory views the world as a unitary system that is divided into core, semi-peripheral, and peripheral nations as dictated by divisions of labour between them.

The core countries dominate the economy of the system through their focus on production of high-end finished products and high-skilled labour while others focus on low-skilled labour and production of raw materials.

Accordingly, due to these differences between nations in the system, core countries exploit the poor nations for their raw materials, which create surplus in productivity. In this way, the key countries dictate business and monetary wealth at the disadvantage of the marginalised states that remain underprivileged.

However, the theory has been criticised for its focus on the economy at the expense of other important factors such as culture and class struggles within individual nations. Further, it has been criticised for its focus on core nations whilst showing less attention to the peripheral nations.

As such, a room has been left for expansion of the theory to address valid criticisms that have been advanced by its critics. Overall, the theory has been able to capture and explain the politics of the global economy and the inequalities of power and wealth.

Bibliography

Clark, Rob. World Income Inequality in the Global Era: New Estimates 1990-2008. Social Problems 58, no. 1 (2011): 565-592.

Drainville, Andre. Resistance to globalisation: The view from the periphery of the world economy. International Social Science Journal 59, no. 2 (2008): 235-246.

Firebaugh, Glenn. New Geographies of World Income Inequality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003.

Gareau, Brian J. Theorising Environmental Governance of the World-System. American Sociological Association 18, no. 2 (2012): 187-210.

Goldfrank, Walter. Paradigm Regained? The Rules of Wallersteins World-System Method. Journal of World-Systems Research 6, no. 2 (2000): 150-195.

Gregory, Robert J. What is World Systems All About? An Introduction for Human Ecologists. Journal of Human Ecology 16, no. 3 (2004): 193-196.

Hall, Thomas. A World-Systems Reader: New Perspectives on Gender, Urbanism, Culture, Indigenous People and Ecology. Oxford, UK: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2000.

Harvey, David. A Brief Introduction to Neoliberalism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Jones, Bary R.J. Globalisation and change in the International political economy. International Affairs 75, no. 2 (1999): 357-367.

Macedo, Donaldo, and Panayota Gounari. Globalisation and the unleashing of new racism: an introduction. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers, 2006.

Makki, Fouad. The Empire of Capital and the Remaking of Centre Periphery Relations. Third World Quarterly 25, no. 1 (2005): 149-168.

McCarthy, James. The Financial Crisis and Environmental Governance After Neoliberalism. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 103, no. 2 (2012): 180-195.

Moore, Jason. Nature and the Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism. The Journal of Fernard Braudel Centre XXVI, no. II (2003): 97-172.

OBrien, Robert, and Marc Williams. Global Political Economy: Evolution and Dynamics. 4th. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.

Tarrow, Sydney. Transnational Politics: Contention and Institutions in International Politics. Annual Review of Political Science 4, no. 1 (2001): 1-20.

Wallerstein, Immanuel. The West, Capitalism and the Modern World-System. Review 15, no. 4 (1992): 561-619.

Wallerstein, Immanuel. The Modern World-System I. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2003.

Wallerstein, Immanuel. The Uncertainties of Knowledge. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2004.

Introduction

A theory is a set of ideas which provide an explanation of something. Theories act as frameworks for guiding scholars and researchers in their work so as to avoid duplication of ideas or repeating the mistakes which were made by previous researchers or scholars.

In international relations, theories are used to explain the relationships between nations of the world. The theories look at the philosophies which shape the relationships between nations and the key interests of the nations which participate in international relations (Acharya & Buzan, 2009).

Various theories have different explanations about why, how and to what extend do nations interact. However, the overriding principle in all international relations theories is that nations relate for specific interests and in their relations, they usually try to create a win win situation which is characterised by a symbiotic kind of relationship.

One of the theories of international relations is neorealism which was derived from the classical realism theory (Brown & Ainley, 2009).

Realism

This is a state-centric international relations approach in that it looks at states as the key actors in international politics. The theory is based on historical writers such as the works of Rousseau, Machiavelli and Thucydides (Edkins & Vaughan-Williams, 2009). The main argument of realism is that international relations is characterised by anarchy, in which states interact for their selfish interests.

Realism therefore negates the mutual understanding of states in their relations but rather puts more emphasis on the struggle of nations to amass as much resources as possible in order to advance their own interests. With realism, economic success is the leading interest in international relations (Booth & Smith, 1995).

Neorealism

As mentioned above, neorealism is a reformulation of classical realism. Its key proponent is Kenneth Waltz, who outlined it in his book titled Theory of International Politics published in 1979 (Baldwin, 1993). For the last decade, the neorealist approach has gained popularity in the field of international relations.

The theory is critical of classical realism because of the persistence use of the concept of human nature in the explanation of relationships by nations. According to neorealists, international relations are shaped more by the structural constrains rather than human nature which includes motivation and strategy.

It is also shaped by the anarchic principle, which has been widely decentralized meaning that all states have similar needs but what separate them are their capabilities to achieve those needs. States therefore have to be very careful when choosing which state or states to partner with in efforts to increase capabilities of meeting their needs.

What this means is that nations have to enter into a relationship only with nations which have the potential of improving their capability of meeting thier needs. If this is not done carefully, the result is that some nations end up losing and others benefiting from the relationship thus creating a situation reffered to as security dilemma (Baldwin, 1993).

In order for nations to improve their capabilities of meeting their needs in the international platform, they engage in what is reffered to as balance of power which takes place in two forms namely internal and external balancing.

Internal balancing of power entails the acceleration of economic growth and investing more in military. External balancing entails entering into alliances with other nations so as to keep the power of other powerful nations or alliances of nations at check (Baldwin, 1993).

According to neorealists, there exist three systems of capability distribution in the international arena. They include a unipolar system, a bipolar system and a multipolar system. In international relations, polarity is defined as the distribution of power within the international system.

A unipolar structure constitutes of one state, whose capabilities (economic, military, cultural and geopolitical) are too high to be counterbalanced by other states. Bipolarity has to do with a situation in which two states are predominantly powerful over the others while muiltipolarity has to do with a situation in which more than three states are powerful and can act as centres of power in the world at the same time (Krauthammer, 1991).

Realists are of the view that the current international system is a bipolar one, pitting the United States (US) on one hand and the other nations on the other.

According to them, bipolarity is the least prone structure to war because the second tier states (those which are close to the super power in terms of capabilities) usually foster their good relationships with the super power, each of them having the interest of forming an alliance with the super power to outwit the others in the fight for supremacy.

The closest rivals in the supremacy for bipolarity include Britain, German, Japan and China. All these are known to partner with the United States in many ways, both as strategies for increasing their internal stability and increasing their supremacy (Kugler & Lemke, 1996).

However, critics of neorealsim are of the view that since unipolairity is characterized by one state whose capabilities are too high to be counterbalanced, it means that the threat of rivalry between power hegemons is not a possibility.

According to the hegemonic theory, the presence of a powerful state enhances international peace because there is no competition for supremacy. The given state therefore enhances international peace as long as it is able to retain its power differences and suppress any efforts by other states to close the gaps in power (Huntington, 1999).

References

Acharya, A., & Buzan, B. (eds). (2009). Non-Western International Relations Theory.London: Routledge.

Baldwin, D.A. (1993). Neorealism and neoliberalism: the contemporary debate. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.

Booth, K., and Smith, S. (eds). (1995). International Relations Theory Today, Oxford:Polity.

Brown, C., & Ainley,K. (eds). (2009). Understanding International Relations (4^th, Ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Edkins , J., & Vaughan-Williams, N. (eds). (2009). Critical Theorists in InternationalRelations. London: Routledge.

Huntington, S.P. (1999). The Lonely Superpower, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 78, No. 2, p. 36.

Krauthammer, C. (1991). The Unipolar Moment, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 70, No. 1 winter, pp. 2333.

Kugler, J., & Lemke, D., eds., (1996). Parity and War: Evaluation and Extension of the War Ledger. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Introduction

The world is changing around us with national boundaries breaking and becoming a small place. A global revolution is changing the world. Traditional command and control structures are being replaced with groups of communities and social networks.

Non-governmental organizations have emerged as one of the most visible forces in developing countries. They have directed their efforts toward social development initiatives by working with disadvantaged groups and communities. They have become one of the three primary institutional sectors of human society alongside government and business (Shamima 2006, 34).

NGOs have a comparative edge over local government agencies. They have been known to promote institutional pluralism by working with government and private agencies. They can work with any marginalized section of society. Their aim has been development strategies that promote responsibility, autonomy and self sufficiency. They have encouraged social responsibility which has been helpful for many sections of society. They also play an important part in global politics to spread democracy and human rights (Shamima 2006, 44).

Main body

NGOs in east and southern Africa for instance have contributed to democracy by preparing poorer sections of society to be represented in the policy making process. Since the membership of NGOs rests on commitment, they are said to possess a greater level of integrity and show greater seriousness of purpose than private and public sector agencies. It can be argued that NGOs constitute crucial pillars of civil society, playing as they do an integrative role while contributing to institutional innovation. NGOs tend to be highly motivated and usually view hardships as a challenge rather than punishment. Unlike business organizations, their smaller sizes, the selective nature of their tasks, and personal leadership allowed them to be innovative and adapt themselves to new circumstances and to experiment and accept risks (Mendelson 2004, pg 29).

Some observers have however advised caution while viewing NGOs. The lack of homogeneity also means that NGOs incorporate different ideologies, approaches and values. In some countries they have been accused of being spy networks and agents of Western imperialism. There is a wide range of NGO types existing in a great diversity of biophysical and socioeconomic conditions which affect their manner of operation and the type of clientele they serve (Mendelson 2004, pg 29).

Their values influence the relationship with their clients from two perspectives. One perspective is concerned with the issue of power in decision making, design, and adequacy. The other relates to how the issue of value preference is managed. Here, considerations of self-determination, interdependence, freedom of choice, dignity and autonomy influence the nature, content, and design of developmental programs. More often than not there has been variance in terms of values and expectations between stakeholders and NGOs, a situation that has led to failure in developmental undertakings. NGOs are said to adopt the ideologies of their sponsoring agencies or states which may not necessarily coincide with those of the stakeholders. The differences in ideology may create hardships in terms of approach, perception, and solutions to the problems of social development.

Ideally, NGOs should come to the aid of the poor on their terms. The poor should state the type and nature of assistance, and define the specific objectives, activities, inputs, outputs and outcomes. In reality, however, NGOs tend to come with a specific agenda. In most instances this does not coincide with the specific needs of the poor. This discrepancy often leads to the problem of divergence (Hillhorst 2004, 34).

Where locals have failed to reject the agenda, they have been turned into passive recipients without leverage to alter any content of the agenda. Besides the problems of lack of fit between the NGOs agenda and the felt needs of the poor, there is virtually no participation by the latter which leads to lack of ownership, misdirection of resources, wrong choice of priority areas, lack of sustainability, and poor coverage (Hillhorst 2004, 34).In numerous instances, this has created suspicion about NGOs as self seeking instead of caring for the interests of the poor. Also, this may in part explain why NGOs are regarded to be proxies of their funders. NGOs do what they do not for reasons of altruism at all. They are not in the business of providing charity, though the activities appear humanitarian and lead people to regard them as altruistic. These activities are simply a front which allows them to carry out their hidden agenda which confirms a popular belief that NGOs working with the poor have their own interests to fulfill other than those of the beneficiaries. In this case, therefore, the interests of the poor become secondary. Seemingly, their primary obligation is not to the poor, but to themselves.

The rising influence of NGOs is one of the most significant developments in international affairs over the past 20 years. Social movements have been part of the political and economic landscape for centuries. A range of NGOs, including church and community groups, human rights organizations, and other anti-apartheid activists, built strong networks and pressed US cities and states to divest their public pension funds of companies doing business in South Africa (Hillhorst 2004, 44).This effort, combined with domestic unrest, international governmental pressures, and capital flight, posed a direct, sustained, and ultimately successful challenge to the white minority rule, resulting in the collapse of apartheid (Hillhorst 2004, 44).In the USA, because of the decentralized structure of the US political system, based on federalism and the separation of national powers, access points for NGOs are numerous and include the executive, legislative, and judicial branches at the national level, and comparable entities at the state and local levels. It is also important to recognize that the pertinent level of government for decision-making in a particular policy area is often shifting. Although Europe exhibits a quasi-federal political structure in that the EU, member states, and local governments are responsible for certain policies, the direction of policy-making over the past two decades is clearly towards the EU level.

The percentage of EU-motivated contentious protests rose rapidly after the 1993 Maastricht Treaty, suggesting the architects of social movements saw new opportunities for influence via the evolving structure of the EU itself.

The expansion of the EUs policy-making powers has been followed closely by NGOs. The primary actors within the EU  the Commission, Parliament, and Council of Ministers  provide multiple opportunities for access to the policy-making process. The Commission (a quasi-executive branch) is responsible for introducing legislation and administering existing programs, whereas the Parliament and Council possess legislative functions (although the Council is widely regarded as the most powerful of the three entities). For NGOs, the main access points are the Commission and Parliament, and both are attractive for different reasons. NGOs attempt to influence the Council by accessing member state governments in national capitals (DeMars 2005, 46).

Globalization has generated six constraints relevant to NGOs: new forms of global poverty, new waves of complex emergencies, new pressures for greater efficiency and accountability, weak global institutions, a decline in the capacity of national governments, new pressures to respond globally and greater financial competition. The internationalization of humanitarian NGOs enhanced their credibility and authority, and legitimized their voice at the global level, recognized as full-fledged representatives in discussions with international organizations. It was this global expansion of NGOs that gave them the right to speak out from the front ranks in international bodies, and to demand a role in making the strategic choices of the European Union and UN agencies.

Substantively, NGOs have been active and successful in the promulgation and enforcement of international environmental law, human rights, labor rights, childrens rights, gender and racial equality struggles, and sustainable development, to mention a few. Nongovernmental organizations engage in issue identification, value setting, and pressure other actors to take or abstain from taking particular causes of action. In particular, NGOs have exerted great influence in negotiations of regimes regarding the protection of oceans, ozone layer, and Antarctica, and have been actively monitoring and exerting pressure on states to comply with their international legal obligations (DeMars 2005, 46).

The tremendous success of NGOs in the environmental movement, in spite of lack of legal personality, is particularly noteworthy. Another remarkable success has been NGOs efforts and willingness to assist developing countries, which do not have adequate regulatory infrastructure, to move toward complying with their international environmental obligations. NGOs have been successful in playing this role, in part, because they are in most cases seen as grassroots organizations, which engage people at the level at which they feel the most immediate effects  their own environmental and economic conditions. In doing so, NGOs disseminate an ecological sensibility that is neither restricted to governments nor exclusively within the domain of government control (Edwards 2001, 56).

The ability of NGOs to exert influence at the grassroots level acts as a form of governance. By acting at the local level, NGOs help define the parameters of acceptable behavior, which eventually become the basis from which norms are generated.

NGOs can succeed in making their voices heard in global politics if they take care of certain factors. There are many procedures and laws which NGOs have to adhere to. In nuclear arms control talks and many other areas, governments have relied on these to restrict or exclude NGOs with agendas opposing their own national objectives. In more unusual instances, rules and procedures can pave the way for non-state actors to play a role. The Ottawa process leading to the 1997 Convention banning anti-personnel landmines restricted full participation to states with a demonstrated commitment to a strong treaty, and permitted other countries to attend as observers only. This goes a long way to explain the considerable input which some NGOs, notably the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), could have in this case by virtue of their support among the fully participating states (Edwards 2001, 56).

If the aims and agendas of some participating governments overlap with those of aspiring NGOs, the former may naturally be prompted to seek to include representatives of the latter on their own delegations or in an independent role. Problems framed as larger humanitarian, global or societal concerns rather than the affairs of particular governments clearly facilitate the involvement of NGOs, supposedly as representatives of civil society. Technically or scientifically complex issues about which NGOs possess information and expertise which governments do not have, or are not willing or deemed credible to use in an objective manner, also favor their engagement. Reduction of acid rain emission has been successfully negotiated by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) (Edwards 2001, 56). Researchers believe that NGOs can play a positive role in international negotiations. There has even been discussion of new types of agency and representation (Edwards 2001, 56).

Conclusion

Guidelines are required to ensure the level of participation of NGOs in international negotiations. A standard criterion must be established to give the NGOs a greater say in international negotiations. Some matters are clear, however. Firstly, at a time when peace and security are threatened by global and humanitarian problems and intra-state conflicts as much as by inter-state disputes, the traditional criteria of statehood and sovereignty governing admission to international negotiating should be expanded. Ignoring NGOs does not make sense on the basis of them not being states.

References

Shamima Ahmed (2006). NGOs in International Politics . US: Kumarian Press. 34

Sarah E. Mendelson (2004). The Power and Limits of NGOs. London: Columbia University Press. 29.

Dorothea Hilhorst (2004). The Real World of NGOs: Discourses, Diversity and Development. US: Zed Books. 34.

Michael Edwards (2001). Beyond the Magic Bullet: NGO Performance and Accountability in the Post-Cold War World. US: Kumarian Press. 56.

William E. DeMars (2005). NGOs and Transnational Networks: Wild Cards in World Politics. US: Pluto Press. 46.

Introduction

Political issues always have more than one aspect to consider when it comes to making vital decisions. In that sense, political issues in the context of international relations is more sensitive, as the image of the international relations is shaped by the political affairs, and military actions which often involves the participation of more than one party.

This paper analyzes a political issue on the basis of the aforementioned that I do believe is affecting the international relations arena, which is the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

Discussion

The withdrawal of troops is not only a logical stop in military actions, where soldiers will be able to return safe to their homes. Not only a discontinuance of enormous financial expenditures that can have a better usage. Its a return to the language of diplomacy which is the essence of politics. The relations among countries all over the history of civilizations were dependent on the art of diplomacy, while the contemporary situation is featured by the fact that the essential part of these relations depend on mass media and the populations of the countries.

Starting from the congress passing the withdrawal bill (Cnn.com) and the President-elect Barack Obamas approach to scheduled troop reductions in Iraq (Julian E. Barnes), it can be seen that the direction of implementing pure diplomatic decisions is starting to take place.

This issue is of special significance to my generation, because we believe that words, i.e. diplomacy are capable of solving political issues. This is not addressed to situations of high alerts, rather than a course of peaceful existence marked by a new millennium where older generations memories of world wars remain in the past.

This issue is also important, because it implies that political involvements in international incidents will keep its main goal in solving the problem, rather than directly participating in them.

Despite that the desire for peace in the entire world seems mythical, I can assess that this desire is reachable when the first priority is kept as conversation and dialogue. In that context the international relations are not merely having a representative in an embassy in another country helping their citizens. In my understanding, its a multilevel process that keeps the relations between countries based on mutual benefits coexisting peace.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is necessary to mention that international relations stay among the most essential components of the world welfare, as international trade, mutual support, tourism and etc. Additionally, diplomacy is an essential part of that component as a mean of finding common grounds for negotiation. Therefore I believe that the aforementioned political issue is important as a confirmation of international relations importance.

Works Cited

1. Barnes, Julian E.. Gates on board with Obamas Iraq plan. Los Angeles Times. 2008.
2. Nolfo, E.D. History of International Relations 1918-1999. Unknown Binding publishing, 2000.
3. Senate passes Iraq withdrawal bill; veto threat looms. Cnn.com. 2007.

Religion is a phenomenon that has a great impact on human society. Religion is an aspect that has facilitated changes in families, relationships, communities, and political lives. Religion affects human beliefs and values and triggers them to behave in a certain manner.

According to Johnstone, religion influences human action as it interprets their experiences based on the underlying religious meanings. Sociologists in this case have studied how religion influences different spheres of human life. In this context, we will review how religion has influenced politics and religious fundamentalism. In addition, we will review how social classes and gender differences influence religious expression.

Many religious studies have concerned themselves with secularization. They study how secular institutions such as politics affect society. The relationship that exists between religion and politics presents itself in speeches, roundtables, and congregations all across the globe.

According to Christian, religion relates to politics in more than one way. It has affected political circles by bringing about legitimacy in different regimes. It has also triggered social changes by facilitating understanding in justice systems. However, the relationships that exist between the two social institutions depend on the content and level of the political system and religion. The two social institutions comprise of various subgroups of people who follow certain norms (17).

The functions of the two institutions overlap each other. This brings about a conflict of interest as they both involve same parties. The same parties have expectations in relation to commitment and involvement to their followers. According to Christian, the difference that exists between the two institutions is an aspect of secularization.

The difference between the two has widened with time specifically in the west. For instance, the institutions that were once constituents of religious organizations have separated from the religious groups (15). Religious groups are no longer the providers of health, social welfare, and education. These functions through political influences have become independent. The distinction between secular spheres such as politics and religion results to secularization (Christian 19).

According to Putnam, religious fundamentalism is a phenomenon that has influenced international politics as well as events occurring in the 21^st century. Religious fundamentalism is a movement that concerns itself with the religious erosion as well as the role of such erosion in society (4). According to Johnstone, religious fundamentalism involves the protection of certain religious contents or protection of norms associated with religion.

Relative to traditions, fundamentalism does not exist to defend its aspects (57). It accepts and re-modifies some of these aspects. Relative to modernity, fundamentalism accommodates some aspects but refuses others. For instance, it accommodates the technological and organizational aspects of modernization. On the other hand, refuses the ideologies of pluralism as well as relativism.

Religious fundamentalists believe and view the world as an avenue of light and darkness. They believe that they represent the light. They also believe that their world is pure. The world that is outside the group represents darkness. This world accommodates sin and it is contaminated. According to Putnam, religious fundamentalists exist as small sects that do not have connections in politics (9).

According to Christian, the social class has an influence on the religious expressions and involvement. On a sociological point of view, the truth-value of religion is not the only factor that entails belonging to a religious group (17).Lower class persons are less likely to associate themselves with religious groups compared to the upper class persons.

A survey carried out in the year 2005 revealed that the income of the Baptists compared to the Unitarians was less than two thirds. The Unitarians are a denomination popular among the upper class members of the society. In addition, five percent more Unitarians graduated from college compared to the Baptists. This data reveals that a social class has an impact on a person’s religious affiliation (Christian 19).

Gender differences have an influence on the religious expression and affiliation. According to Christian, gender difference exists as a factor that greatly determines a person’s association with religion (16). According to Johnstone, women have a tendency to associate with public as well as private religious practices compared to men.

The magnification of the difference comes about in relation to the age, educational status, and religious denomination. Relative to men, college students are skeptical towards religion and belonging to a religious group. On the other hand, men sought spirituality and religion as they advance with age. In other words, men seek religion and spirituality as they mature and take up permanent roles in the society. For example, family oriented roles trigger men to seek religion and spirituality.

In conclusion, it is important that we acknowledge the impact religion has on the international political scene. Religion has become the basis of most conflicts both at the local and international scene. Religion is a tool that fuels hatred and facilitates violence when exploited maliciously. Usually, this involves protection of political interests. Here, religion and politics integrate to form destructive tools of violence and distraction.

Works Cited

Christian, Smith. Souls in Transition: The Religions and Spiritual Lives of Emerging Adults. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.

Johnstone, Ronald. Religion in Society, Sociology of Religion. Pearson: Prentice-Hall, 2007. Print.

Putnam, Robert. American Grace. How Religion Divides and Unites Us. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2010. Print.

Introduction

Daniel Dresner is one of the scholars who conducted a critical review on theories of international relations, including realism. The scholar notes in his works ‘Theories of International Politics and Zombies’ that powerful states are always in search of effective ways of conquering enemies.

He observes that the emergence of the Zombies would be the perfect solution to the problems facing powerful states. The scholar observes that Zombies are more dangerous as compared to Vampires and witches since they can eradicate humanity from the face of the earth.

The emergence of Zombies threatens world security. Therefore, it calls for the attention of both state and non-state actors. Zombies are unstoppable since they have the capability to cross state borders.

Therefore, Zombies can affect the governance structures of various states. In chapter eight, Dresner compares Zombies to other global problems facing states, such as climate change, political instabilities, and endemics.

From the chapter, it is evident that the tenets of realism are brought out clearly. However, some aspects of the theory are not explored. This article aims at evaluating the views of Dresner as regards to realism.

Strengths

From a realist perspective, the state is the unit of analysis implying that other actors are not considered. The behavior of a state in the international system is influenced by the superpower.

If there is change in polarity, the state tends to adjust its foreign policies to reflect the changes. In other words, this means that the international system is anarchical whereby the most powerful states will always use force to ensure compliance from weak states.

In chapter eight, Dresner observes that unstable cooperation among states is always the order of the day in the international system. The scholar uses various movies to show that human beings rarely unite when faced with Zombies.

In the same way, states are simply concerned about national interests. They will only intervene to solve a problem in the international system if their national interests are at stake.

Furthermore, the scholar notes that the threat of Zombies may force individuals to form alliances. In the international system, realists believe that states form military alliances only to strengthen their military power but not to liberate other states.

In chapter eight, the scholar observes that states form alliances but they do not commit themselves to the treaties formed. For instance, the meeting between Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan in 1985 was meant to solve common problems.

The US president claimed that Russia had to form an alliance with the US because they were both faced with a common problem, which was terrorism. Terrorism is currently treated as a global problem affecting the stability of many states.

Terrorism is an example of a Zombie because no state is spared. However, powerful states seek the assistance of weak states to enhance their national security. For instance, weak states such as Kenya, are adopting anti-terrorist policies.

In Kenya, the bill legalizing anti-terrorist policies is ready. In fact, it has already been approved by parliament. This does not exist to benefit Kenyans. It exists to serve the interests of powerful states since they have heavily invested in the country.

In the international system, realists argue that states rarely cooperate due to mistrust and suspicion. States use all available means to maintain sovereignty. Just like in the state of nature where life was anarchical and short-lived, states are selfish and brutal.

States do not consider ethical implications of their behavior. In fact, states do not consult the electorate on matters related to foreign policies. Foreign policy is considered high politics implying that politicizing it would expose the state to enemies.

Dresner notes that states would use Zombies to maintain state sovereignty. For instance, states such as Spain, which faces resistance from secessionist group, would use Zombies to discipline long-term rivals.

Some states, such as Congo, Sudan, Uganda, India, China, and Mexico, would as well use Zombies to censor irredentist movements. Some states have been sharing state powers with terrorist groups.

Rebel groups demand that national governments must consult them before implementing important policies. In Spain, Basque has been controlling some parts of the country.

The government is forced to engage in peaceful negotiations with such groups because of lack of alternatives. Zombies would offer a solution to states facing opposition from irredentist movements.

Weaknesses

Even though Dresner addresses some important issues regarding international relations theory, some parts of his works need further development. The scholar posits that the carbon footprint for Zombies is very low.

He further notes that Zombies have the ability of walking but they cannot drive. Since he compares Zombies to serious problems facing states, the statement is inaccurate. Serious problems, such as those related to terrorism and climate change, are circulating at a high rate.

This means that Zombies can actually drive. Global warming started as a minor problem in 1980. In fact, states never cared about coming up with strategies on how to conserve the environment. In the current international system, the issue of environmental conservation threatens world peace.

Developed states argue that developing states should adopt sustainable development policies whereby industries should follow strict environmental laws.

However, developing countries claim rich states should fund programs aimed at conserving the environment. Since national interests always guide states, none of the sides is willing to give in to the demands of the other.

Another weakness is that Dresner recommends states to convert some individuals into Zombies (Drezner 80). As already noted, Zombies are dangerous creatures that have the capability of destroying the world.

If individuals are converted into Zombies, terrorist groups could as well acquire their services. This would therefore pose a great challenge to governments.

Converting a section of the population into Zombies means training people to be terrorists. Some scholars claim that the world’s most dangerous terrorist groups, such as Al Qaeda, obtain its training from powerful states such the US and Russia.

Terrorist groups have sufficient resources that might help them procure the services of government experts. Since governments are reluctant to offer huge allowances to individuals, terrorist groups would take this advantage to lure experts trained by the government.

Some reports claim the world’s deadliest terrorists, such as Osama bin Laden, trained in the US. Therefore, the views of Dresner regarding converting a section of the population to Zombies are misplaced. If governments are to fight terrorism, efficient strategies must be employed.

The government cannot employ similar strategies as those of terrorists to protect lives. The government represents public interests implying that it must provide security to each person using conventional means. Converting people to Zombies would be considered unethical.

Works Cited

Drezner, Daniel. Theories of International Politics and Zombies. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011. Print.

A civilized society is often divided into classes where each has its specific and unique characteristics. Political divisions are adjusted by every nation, but some are thought to be global views. As a result, there are layers of civil masses and the conditions for existence are not always equal.

One of the most important aspects of any society is the connection between politics and economics, and the intricate social network which is established by the environment. Even though there are several political parties some norms are similar.

Marxists and liberals share some assumptions about economics, politics and their connection to the social make-up. Even though each school has contradicting views, the common strand can be found in the direction of the social unity. The end result of Marxism is the cooperation between people and classes.

The equality and unity of all people can also be found in liberalism. The cooperation is key in the two schools of thought where governments and classes work on the common goal. The economy is defined by the interaction of individuals, corporations and governments.

Politics exist to reflect the order of the nation which comes from social regulations and norms. Both doctrines base the development of economics and global politics on material benefits of society. This is thought to be a criterion of progression of a nation towards economical efficacy through production or industrialization. As a result, an individual becomes a participant of economics and politics.

Marxists and mercantilists have given equal support to trade and international economic relations. As the internal economics are supported by the amount of finances, the nation should strive towards cooperation between countries which in turn, will lead to a healthy development of trade and economics.

The government will be interested in bettering the relations with other countries, so the politics will be aligned with economics. The shared interests in increasing cooperation will lead to the development of a more stable economy.

The decision and laws made by the government will be dictated by mutual gain, thus creating a society where people’s unification is pursued as a resource of wealth. An active balance in trade will nullify any conflict, as nations will be dependent on others.

Mercantilism is much different from liberalism, as it bases itself on monetary gain where the government and economics are one thing. Liberal school is not based on material possessions and accumulation, whereas mercantilism is.

In Marxism, the actors are people who are all of the same class. As the end result is socialism, individuals become interconnected and evolve for a common good. The international conflict is nullified through cooperation and mutual economic goals. In liberalism, the individual is valued higher than the social division.

The individual will develop personal wealth, thus increasing social status and bettering the whole of society. The international change will lead to respect and understanding between nations because every person will be considered unique and needed. In mercantilism, the actors are corporations and financially successful individuals.

The government is closely connected to the corporate world, so it will strive to better trade and international economics. Even though mercantilism is the modern and dominant school, it excludes large portions of the population. Liberalism is the desired outcome, as people will have an equal opportunity and access to finances (Art and Jervis, 2011).

Overall, each school has its benefits and negative sides. The best choice would be to unite all the positive regulations and build a new political and economic interrelation. Individual and international success must be the end goal of all politics.

Works Cited

Art, Robert, and R. Jervis. International Politics: Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues Tenth Edition. Boston, MA: Longman, 2011. Print.

Introduction

In his book chapter, The anarchic structure of the world politics, Waltz argues that the domestic power structure is defined by the principles that govern it as well as the specialisation of its various functions (Waltz, 2010). He posits that while certain rulers may make laws, governments have the final word.

In his opinion, the international political structure is highly de-centralised and anarchical since various powers have individual autonomy, making the world fundamentally chaotic because it has no organised political power structure.

This would, therefore, imply that the world is an un-orderly place by virtue of being anarchical, but apparently this in not the case. Waltz attributes this to the fact that the world exits in independent units that tend to unite with each other to eliminate some of the anarchies and secure themselves, which account for the many global organisations, such as the UN, the EU, the AU and others.

However, from a globalised context, he contends that there is no de facto government and, as such, the world essentially has no rulers. This paper focuses on discussing important aspects about international politics as highlighted by Wendt and Waltz.

Body

From a non-critical viewpoint, Wendt’s work appears to be a stark contrast to Waltz’s ideas. His key argument is that international political issues are not actually granted, but they are products of a variety of social interactions of agents, who are the people and the overall structure in a mutually constructive manner.

He contends that the mutually interactive process takes place at both a macro and micro levels, with the latter being engendered in individual states. This lends credence to the supposition of contrast with the neorealism interests and preferences proposed by Waltz.

A second instance of contrast between the two thinkers’ ideas is the fact that Wendt applies a chronological approach to studying issues, which is the assumption in which a theory is deemed valid based on a temporal model (Wendt, 2010). While Waltz’s model is structured to make predictions and foresee possible outcomes, Wendt’s analysis is based on contingencies as well as outcomes.

I think Waltz belongs to structural realism school of IR, which he is credited for having created in understanding international affairs he has explained. Some of the recurring patterns in IR that he has tackled are the resemblance between the USSR and US relations, and retrospective Athens and Sparta one.

Wendt on the other hand can be considered to belong to the neoclassicism school of IR. He states that power is socially constructed and not given or controlled by nature. Therefore, humans can actively transform their societies. For Waltz, it emerges as the product of rational assumptions he applies to the IR theory.

On the other hand, Wendt assumes that given the natural attributes of humans who make up human societies and states, they personify the presuppositions of psychoanalytic social theorists (Wendt, 2010).

Conclusions

From the texts, I have learned some key lessons that would go a long way in impacting my understanding of international relations and politics. First, I have known that international affairs could be applied to impact economic growth trends of nations, which could be long-term or short-tem.

Second, I have learned that the field of IR is highly dynamic, and there exists numerous ways through which its underpinning factors can be understood. Finally, I have learned that the two authors are renowned scholars in the field of IR.

References

Waltz, K. (2010). The anarchic structure of the world politics. In K. Waltz (Eds.), international politics (pp. 35-56). Illinois, IL: Waveland Press.

Wendt, A. (2010). Anarchy is what states make of it. In K. Waltz (Eds.), international politics (pp. 65-72). Illinois, IL: Waveland Press.

According to the Marxist theory, the key factor that predetermines the development of international politics is capitalism. It is believed that capitalism will spread all around the world, replacing in such a way the international state system with a global capitalistic society. Capitalism is viewed by Marxists as the global expansion of industrial technologies throughout the world. According to the classical Marxist theory, the market laws predetermine this global expansion of capitalism.

Moreover, within the development of competitive trade and its universalization, the borders between the states will be of less importance. Marxists believe that the processes, which are taking place in international politics, are predetermined mostly by the class conflicts.

The great importance in the international relations concept is given to Westphalian Peace. The great part of the researchers attributed all the existing norms and values in international relations to Westphalia. The generally accepted vision of this problem is the idea that the Westphalian Peace has established the common principles of sovereignty and secularism (Kayaoglu 195). By sovereignty here, it is understood the restriction of the dominant aims of the Holy Roman Empire. It is believed that the Westphalian arrangements have given the possibility to other states to maintain their international policy independently.

The secularism implies the diminishment of the influence of the Catholic Church and its intervention in the internal affairs of the country. Moreover, it is recognized that the newly established principle of religious non-interference and tolerance promotes the peaceful coexistence of the countries. All these factors have been idealized as the basic principles that had transformed Europe into a civilized and democratic society.

At the same time, many scientists consider the influence of the Westphalian Peace to be a myth. They assert that all the mentioned above norms and institutions has been existing before the Westphalian arrangements. Turan Kayaoglu in his article uses such term as the Westphalian narrative (197). He argues that this myth has been elaborated by the “nineteenth century imperial international jurists” (Kayaoglu 193) in order to perpetuate the importance of the European countries in the theory of the international relations.

Many researches are apt to think that all the processes in the international politics may be explained by the influence of the capitalism. At the same time, the political structure of the modern world with its territorial subdivision was not caused by the its impact. Rather capitalism has become an integrated part of it. As Benno Teschke puts it “capitalism did not cause the territorially based state-system, nor that it required a state-system, but that it is nevertheless eminently compatible with it” (37).

The circulation of the capital on the world market is possible without the breaking the governmental sovereignty. Nevertheless, the functioning of the world market is strictly subdued to its laws. The contemporary idea of the international relations lies in the transnational political management of the capitalistic processes and in the control of the global world economy by the leading capitalistic countries.

The capitalistic nature of the international relations in the 18^th century was the reason of the stringent colonial policy of the leading states. The aim of this policy was the domestic marketing development and the national currency support. Now the concept of the international relations is not “the war-assisted accumulation of the territories” (Teschke 37). The acquisition of the territory is no more the necessary condition for the successful functioning of the market.

From the point of view of the Marxist theory, the processes that are taking place in the capitalistic economy demands the transition of the productive forces to the economical organization on the basis of the public ownership. Such a transition will give an opportunity to subdue the economic to the public interests, to make efficient the use of resources and to improve the process of production.

Works cited

Kayaoglu, Turan.“Westphalian Eurocentrism in International Relations Theory.”International Studies Review 12 (2010): 193–217.Informaworld. Web.

Teschke, Benno. “Theorizing the Westphalian System of States: International Relations from Absolutism to Capitalism.” European Journal of International Relations 8.1. (2002): 5-48. Informaworld. Web.

The recent rapid growth of the range of globalization resulted in the establishment of new relations between states. The modern information relations promote the evolution of tools used for the international communication. The combination of these facts also influences the sphere of the international relations and foreign policy of states. Being altered by the new tendencies, the sphere of this relations evolve and cover new aspects of the interaction between the states. Nowadays, the international cooperation of states includes the relations between banks, society and organizations which play the most important role in the functioning of a state.

A number of scientists tend to prove the idea that the progress in the evolution of the international relations results from the growth of companies and organizations which become influential enough to act at the international level (Willets 328). The scale of the influence of these companies is so significant that some researchers tend to consider the organizations of this sort to be the main actors of the relations between states (Willets 329).

However, a state also plays an important role, providing the background for these relations and establishing the norms and limits. Accepting the impact a state has on the global relations, researchers outline five main categories of political actors in this sort of relations, which are governments, transnational companies (TNCs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), and international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) (Willets 329).

These categories evidence that the state serves as the determinator of the nature of the an organization and the impact it has on the world. The term state also initiates a number of ardent discussions. It is vital to accept the fact that state is not the same as the nation and that both “international relations and transnational relations cover relations across ‘state’ boundaries” (Willets 330). This evidence proves the importance of the government in the system of these relations. However, it could be compared to TNCs, INGOs, and NGOs which continue their growth and act as very powerful agents. Being directed by the government, IGOs could serve as the markers of the states interests and its priorities while INGOs and NGOs might pursue their own interests at the international level.

One of the main peculiarities o the modern world financial system is its overwhelming dependence on the international companies which control the money flows. For this reason, the sphere of the global relations becomes more unbalanced. The increase of the activity of the NGOs at the international level could have a great negative impact on the further evolution of the global environment as it might introduce several threats to the security of the society.

In this regard, the role of the state is still investigated by researchers who try to create the efficient model of the interrelations between the government and IGOs and NGOs. At the current stage of the evolution of the given sphere the situation is balanced; however, the growth of the role of various agents could change it.

Works Cited

Willets, Peter. “Transnational actors and international organizations in global politics”. The Globalisation of World Politics. Ed. John Baylis and Steve Smith. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. 356-383. Print.