Hi everyone,
For my first GP SAC, we have to write a 600-800 word essay in 40 minutes, and I've started doing some practice essays to try and get my writing speed and quality up (11 words a minute, hurrah
)
I was wondering if anyone would be kind enough to read over this essay I wrote on the prompt "States are the most powerful global actor", and give me feedback/deriding comments/an explanation of why I decided to do this subject when I write like a turtle. Much appreciated!!
Aaaaaand here it is: (900 words, 1.3 hours, no references)
Since the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, states have been the central actor on the global political arena. They have waged war, conquered nations, changed borders and decided who got what, when and how in the territories they controlled, and outside them. However, over the past century various factors such as advances in global communications and technology have ensured that non-state actors are now in a position to displace (and arguably already have displaced) the state as the most powerful actor in international politics. Non-state actors now have more influence than the state in the three areas that states’ authority traditionally stems from – full sovereignty, the utility of violence and economic power. Regional groupings and bodies of global governance, terrorist organisations and increasingly powerful TNCs have all but overtaken the state in these three pre-requisites of power.
The very definition of the word ‘state’ must encompass the concept of sovereignty. However in a world where traditional alliances are becoming less and less meaningful, new forms of interstate support are emerging – ones which require the state to transfer an increasing portion of its sovereignty upward. Consequently, these institutions become more powerful than states themselves, as can be seen in the example of the actions of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). One of the central roles of the WTO is to settle trade disputes between states, and therefore member states must comply with the rulings. This, more often than not, leads to a state having to base its actions on WTO rulings, as is seen in the 2007 case of Australia’s ban on imports of New Zealand apples, put in place due to suspicions they contained a fungus that could spread to Australian products. The WTO, however rules that the ban was unfounded on scientific evidence, and Australia was ordered to revoke the ban. This clearly shows that through their increasing integration into institutions of global governance, states relinquish larger and larger portions of their sovereignty, and therefore power to groupings and institutions now placed higher than them on the global political arena.
A second defining factor in the traditional power of the state has been its ability to use violence to achieve its means more efficiently than any other global actor. But while states still possess this power, it is no longer exclusively in their hands. The rise of terrorist groups, accelerated by globalisation and therefore access to more advanced weaponry and the ability to reach out to potential members worldwide has taken away the state’s formerly exclusive utility of violence. This has given terrorist organisations, such as the ETA in Spain, the ability to overrule a state’s political decisions through the use of force. An example of this is the case of the Lemoniz nuclear power plant, which was due to be constructed in a region of Northern Spain which is seen as traditional Basque country. The ETA, a Basque liberation group seeking full independence, opposed the action through bombings of the construction site and kidnapping of the workers. Eventually, their actions led to the construction being abandoned. This exemplifies the rising power of terrorist groups, as they become more and more able to match and sometimes surpass the state’s utility of violence, and therefore assert the vast power this gives them.
The economy of a state is its backbone – a strong economy ensures stability and prosperity, and gives the state political heft and influence over other global actors. But while this traditional order remains, it is being pushed out of the spotlight, as a not-strictly-new, but more powerful than ever global actor takes its central place – the transnational corporation. In a world where if Wal-mart were a state, it would be China’s eight largest trading partner, the state is beginning to lose its control over both its own economic sovereignty, and its previously exclusive ability to use its economy to exert influence on the global political arena. A striking example of this is the case of Royal Dutch Shell in Nigeria, whose surreptitious activities, such as inserting staff into all the main ministries of the Nigerian government, and thereby controlling these ministries, were revealed by a Wikileaks report in 2010. RDS had extensive economical control over Nigerian oil, controlling 50% of the resource that provided 90% of Nigeria’s budgetary revenue. This made the state compliant and easily wielding to the power of the corporation. It is doubtful whether such extensive control could have been achieved by another state’s infiltration. This shows that TNCs have tipped the balance of economic power away from the states, and in doing this have become more influential that the states themselves.
While Niall ferguson’s claim that ‘non state actors now wield the power to decide who get what, when and how within global politics may disregard the power that states still hole through their traditional central roles on the global arena, it cannot be denied that the increasing power and influence of the non-state actors is rivalling the state for its place on the pedestal. States have now been matched and overtaken by non-state actors in the core areas of utility of violence and economic power, and the state’s sovereignty continues to be transferred upward to institutions of global governance. We may not be witnessing the fall of the power of states, but we are certainly at the dawn of a new age on the global political arena – the age of the non-state actor.
Home
Help
Search
Login
