Who are the Most Important Actors in the International System? (Dominic
Wells)
It is first necessary to establish exactly who the actors in the political system are, and
secondly to establish the various schools of political thought that argue which of these actors
are the most important in the international system. Scholars of International Relations
generally agree that there are three main types of actor in the international system: Nation
States, Non Governmental Organization (NGOs such as TNCs and human rights groups
etc.) and finally International Organizations (such as the UN or League of Nations). By far
the two most popular approaches to the subject of international relations are the Realist
approach and the Liberal approach (though there are some less popular branches-for
example Marxist theories which originally had larger subscribers). Although Realism has
been (and largely continues to be) the most popular school of thought throughout the
history of this discipline, the relatively recent accentuation of the theme of globalisation has
challenged the theory somewhat. The improvements in technology, combined with the
increased interconnectedness between different societies within and indeed between Nation
States have broken down the boundaries between countries, giving NGOs and International
Organizations much greater access to States across the planet. In order to find an effective
answer to the question, in the following paragraphs I will compare the significance of
Nation States to that of NGOs and International Organizations respectively, using examples
from history and also looking briefly at the cases in the contemporary World.
Firstly, it would seem suitable to compare thoughts regarding the thoughts on
bureaucracies within States and their influence as international actors. The ‘Realist’
argument has always firmly believed that State nations are by far the single most important
actors in the international system. Whilst Classical Realists and Neo-Realists differ slightly
in their theories as to why States are so driven by the hunger for power and resources, all
realists affirm that States are the highest form of authority in the international system, and
that World Politics (as is internal politics, for that matter) is merely a struggle for power
against other Nation States. This stands in stark contrast to Liberal thought, which attests
that whilst States are important, they aren’t key actors as no State has a single National
Interest which drives it in a linear fashion towards its goals- instead, since there are so many
separate bureaucracies (NGOs etc.) within a country, each with its own separate interests, a
State does not have ultimate influence- its influence is tempered by the influence of these
bureaucracies. Resultantly, the international system becomes more of a complex system of
bargaining that is less focused on the use of military force. However, if we are to look at
early-mid 20th Century history, we can see that the Realist argument has the strongest roots.
The 19th Century brought with it a wave of industrialisation to the Western World along
with revolutions in thought processes, and along with it a surge in population and the
coalescing of populations in Cities. In order to organise the huge levels of industry and
citizens of these countries, many separate bureaucracies were installed within these
countries: for example, corporations, local governments etc. which emerged with the
increase in the power of the individual and the disposable income of families. Undoubtedly
therefore, the number of separate bureaucracies within States grew at perhaps its greatest
level during this period, yet war continued to ravage the World until well into the 20th
Century. This particular Liberal argument therefore arguably fails to explain the presence of
numerous wars that ravaged this period of history. It is for this reason that the Realist
argument has dominated the history of the International Relations discipline. In the years
after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Liberalism however has seen a great revival in
popularity, and in turn Realists have had to adapt some of their ideas. The opening of
markets all across the World following its collapse allowed TNCs to grow and become even
more powerful within countries and indeed across the world, and the fact that some
corporations now have a higher value than the GDP of some poor Nation States pays
testament to the Liberal belief that NGOs are more important actors than States. Yet Realists
continue to stress that despite the growth of these corporations, their influence on
government has not changed, and States are just as likely to go to war over key resources as
they were before. This debate remains a very dividing issue to this day.
Lastly, the comparison between States and International Organizations is perhaps one
of growing significance today. Another, more recent Realist argument suggested by Kenneth
Waltz in his 1979 work is that States are constantly at war not simply because of the
aggressive and greedy nature of humans, but instead the anarchic nature of the international
system itself- meaning that they believe there is no overarching international power. Whilst
liberal would contend this, arguing that it is not the anarchic system but rather a failure in
the balance of power. It is here that the two approaches differ greatest, as whilst Realists
believe that war cannot be prevented, Liberals counter that the establishment of a powerful
World Government could prevent war. Throughout history, the adoption of various
International organizations has largely led to failure and the outbreak of war. The Liberalists
who drafted the League of Nations was adopted to prevent an outbreak of war again in
Europe, yet countries continued to wage war as they pleased regardless. With the onset of
the Second World War, the Realists were again seemingly triumphant, arguing that the
desire for power of the state was, in the eyes of leaders, worth the price paid by wars.
(though liberals contended that the League failed only because it lacked the teeth needed to
ensure the balance of power was kept stable). In the more modern, post Cold War period,
the issue is still very much up in the air.
In conclusion, Realist thought has been very much the more popular of the two
political approaches, at least up until the unexpected breakdown of the bipolar war that
Realists argued would continue. In this respect, it could be argued that Nation States were
the most important State actors at least up until the Cold War ended. Though Liberals failed
to explain as effectively as the Realists on the events of much of the 2oth Century, the onset
of globalisation and the subsequent breakdown of many barriers between States has led to a
revival in Liberal thought that now strongly contends Realist ideas. Though no one can
ultimately predict the future of World Politics, many still believe that States are the most
crucial actors. Yet it has only been a short time since the end of the Cold War.