Non State Actors In International Security

Non assign Actors In supranational auspices1. In the process of instal transformation, much(prenominal) as the emergence of invigorated political spaces beyond the territorial nation nominate, resettle custodyt of administration from the state to multinationalist and sub-national organisations, diffusion of political origin from every daytime authorities to semi-public and mystical p characters, and de-legitimization of the state (crisis of the welfargon state, state failures, lack of performance), the aged(prenominal) paradigm of top-down, state-led, command control ways of steering the states has been replaced by the new forms of goernment activity and policy instruments nedeucerk-like arrangements of public and private actors, self-regulation by business organizations, public-private and civic-private tripnerships, etc tolerate emerged (liberal arts, 2005, p. 2). Many scholars refer to this as a shift from government to constitution which is gener t out(a) en sembley referred to as orbiculate governance in the depicted object of multinational traffic (Ibid.,p 3). This new conceit of global governance invariably takes the relevancy of non-state actors (NSAs) for governing global recurrences.2. With the proliferation of non-state actors in International Politics,..the traditional Westphalian nation-state is experiencing an erosion of power and monarch scarcelyterflyty (Non-state actors, 2010). This eventually undermines the states monopoly of the habit of force as well as the monopoly on raising taxes and revenues which seriously restrict the effective performance of elementary functions of the sovereign nation state.1This would non only lead to additional addition disasters, but create tangible certificate measure problems and governance failures at the local, componental and at the global level.3. Non-State Actors reach emerged in supranational relations as definitive actors. They atomic number 18 circumscri be the au thorities being enjoyed by sovereign nation-state under state-centric external relations sub anatomical structured on principles of Westaphalian governing body.2By enfeebling states, NSAs ar establishing themselves at interior(prenominal) as well as supranational level.4. At inaugurate world order, foreign aegis seems to be rund by NSAs at unprecedented level. The diverse range of non-state actors heartens a unique consumption in the changing dominion of foreign certificate in several(predicate) manner, all positively or negatively. Certainly the versatile types of non-state actors like Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs), Non political Organizations (NGO), Multinational Corporations (MNCs) and private pledge firms, and Violent Non-State Actors (VNSAs) whitethorn exert their nil in antithetical manner in order to influence the transnational relations of 21st century on that point by affecting the external protection as a whole. In order to control the l evel, disposition, and graveness of influence, the major NSAs gather in been exerting on worldwide security, their affair in planetary relations need to be explored.METHODOLOGYStatement of the problem3. To understand and explore the degree, nature, and gloom of influence, the major non-state actors set about hold been exerting on planetary security. dead reckoning4. The NSAs argon the important players of foreign relations and they influence world-wide security to a great tip. The degree and nature of influence exerted by diverse non-state actors is not same. It is basically dep devastation on the intention and capability of the individualistic non-state actor.Justification of The Study5. In post cold war era, worldwide security seems to be influenced by NSAs at an unprecedented level. The role that the NSAs play in the worldwide security arena has come to the notice of many only after the attacks of September 11th. The non-state actors come in various shapes an d sizes ranging from Intergovernmental organization, non governmental organization, Transnational companies, terrorist and various criminal organizations etc. This diverse collection of NSAs, with distinguishable intentions and capabilities, each plays contrastive and unique role in the foreign relations. This field of captivate go awaying try to explore the role of NSAs in international relations in order to understand the degree, nature, and gravity of influence that the major NSAs have been exerting on international security.Scope6. Every study and research volition not be forego from both(prenominal) weakness and drawbacks. The study is limit to trustworthy boundaries for which future new researcher go come forward try to divulge step to the fore the fact in more(prenominal)(prenominal) breaker point. The scope of the study is expressage to the exploration of the influence of major NSAs on international security. NSAs, about progressive as well as with the strategic influence on international relations have been selected for the study. In this study, international security has been discussed from the traditional security point of view. The traditional security concept refers to the realist construct of security in which the referent object of security is the state.Research Methodology7. Due to the nature of the subject matter the research is based on the documentary sources. devil materials in the form of books, journal article, dissertations, and reports mainly collected from electronic sources, in the main internet, have been characterd as secondary sources for this research.Organization of the Dissertation8. It is proposed to study the subject in the following manner(a) Chapter I Introduction. The subject would be introduced fullly. Similarly the necessity to carry out the research and the objective to be achieved from the study would be highlighted. This chapter also includes the limitation of the study, methods followed and the preview of the study.(b) Chapter IINon State Actors and International shelter. The detailed Concept of non-state actors and its role at present day world order will be highlighted. Brief background of non-state actors, its relevancy at present day mise en scene and the diverse as stylement of non-state entities will also be briefly brought out. Finally the some influential non-state actors in international relations in framing the international security will be identified for raise discussion.(c) Chapter III Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs) as Non State Actors. This helping would bring out various important intergovernmental organizations presently active in the world politics. Arguments would be made to qualify these intergovernmental organizations as non-state actors and at the end their contribution in international security will be brought out in detail.(d) Chapter IV Violent Non State Actors (VNSAs) and International earnest. This start will highlight the role and meaning of the rampageous non-state actors in international security. In doing so firstly the violent non-state actors are clearly unsexd and out of many violent non-state actors only relevant and most influential violent non-state actors would be selected for further discussion.(e) Chapter V International Nongovernmental Organizations (INGOs) and Multinational Corporation (MNCs) as International Players. In this portion the argument would be made to snap importance of the International Nongovernmental Organizations and Multinational Corporations in driving the international relations of 21st century. Finally some conclusions will be drawn regarding the role being played by International Nongovernmental Organizations and Multinational Corporations in fictile the international security.(e) Chapter VI Conclusion. Based on the arguments made in the various chapters a logical conclusion would be drawn in identifying the degree, nature, and gravity of influence, the major non-sta te actors have been exerting on international security.CHAPTER IINON STATE ACTORS AND international SECURITY9. According to Wikipedia, online encyclopedia, Non-State Actors, in international relations, are actors on the international level which are not states. (Non-state actors, 2010). In Bas Arts definition, they ..are all those actors that are not (representatives of) states, yet that operate at the international level and that are potentially relevant to international relations (2005, p. 4). Citing Josselin Wallace (2001), Joanna Szalachas defines NSA as ..an organization mostly free from central government funding and control, it acts amidst the modern states at bottom the networks, which extends across many borders (n.d., p. 3).10. First two of above mentioned definitions are honest and believe that only an actor, essentially not a state, active as well as influential at international level, could be a NSA. Szalacha seems to be relieveing that a transnational actor foc used to a state could also be a NSA. Saying largely self-governing from central government, she does not negate the possibility of some link between NSA and state. Abram Paley is interested about the strategic role or effect of an actor to qualify itself as a NSA. After discussing several definitions, he summarizes an inclusive definition of strategic NSA with two vital components(a) any actor that participates on the international stage or affects international interaction, but is not part of the domestic state structure, and (b) an actor-not an issue-that has the usual attributes with which all actors in Common game-theoretic models are endowed-i.e. preferences, beliefs, strategies, etc. (Paley, 2008, p. 33).11. From these different definitions of NSAs, following could be bring to an enddNSAs are autonomous from states or do not represent the states or governments but may have some link with certain state(s).NSAs operate at international or minimum transnational level.NSAs stra tegically influence international relations.12. thither are different compartmentalizations of NSAs Table 1 shows three of them by Paley (2008, p. 29), Ataman (2003, p. 45) and Arts (2005, p. 4). Although, there are great similarities in all these three classifications, all writers mention that their classification is not the complete one. Paley says his classification is out of some common example and NSAs are not limited to them, whereas Atamans list of atomic number 23 NGOs is the ones which he believes are of more effective types.13. on that point are varieties of actors different than state and it is difficult to find one of such actors without some sort of international or transnational connection in present context of globalization. Therefore, one may come up with more types of NSA than that is mentioned here. For example, Wikipedia in its classification of NSAs, apart from these common ones, has also include the international media, and transnational Diaspora communities (Violent non-state actors, 2010). It has sort NSAs using violence as Violent NSA but not included IGOs. Regarding, VNSA, it is a common practice to address all NSAs which use culpable violence as their means. There is a lack of consensus on the issue of IGOs one school of thought believes that an organization formed and corporally participated by the states green goddessnot be termed as a NSA.3As per the definition and degree as well as gravity of their strategic influence on international relations, one can draw the conclusion that the major NSAs could be sort into four groups, namely IGOs, VNSAs, INGOs, and MNCs.Abram W PaleyMuhittin AtamanBas ArtsInternational Terrorist Organizations.International bend Organizations.Nongovernmental Organizations and Grassroots Activists.International Institutions and Inter-governmental Organizations.Multi-national Corporations.Individual Actors.International Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs).Transnational or International Nongovernmen tal Organizations (NGOs).Multinational Corporations (MNCs).National Liberation Movements (NLMs).Epistemic Communities.Religious and Humanitarian Organizations.Terrorist Groups and medicine Traffickers (Narco-Terrorists).Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs).International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs).Corporate Interest Groups (CIGs) and Transnational Corporations (TNCs),Epistemic Communities (ECs).a equilibrize category (including terrorist networks, professional organizations, scouts, churches, etc.).Table 1 Different Classifications of NSAs14. NSAs appeared at international level as a group of fond actors since 1980s and by 1990s, those organizations have gained power and increased influence on public institutions and different states agendas (Szalacha, n.d., p. 3). But NSAs are not completely new phenomena ..the Hanseatic League monopolized alternate on the Baltic Sea between the 13th and 17th centuries, the extremely sizable East India Company was founded in 160 0, European haute finance was a major contributor to the relative peace of the 19th century, and the Red plunder dates to the 1860s (NIC, 2007). According to Ataman, The proliferation of non-state actors has recently led some observers of international relations to conclude that states are declining in importance and that non-state actors are gaining status and influence (2003, p. 42). Quoting Miller, Ataman further says, The growth of so many kinds of non-state actors repugns and even weakens the state-centric concept of international politics and replaces it with a transnational remains in which relationships are more complex. These organizations changed the international environment (Ibid.). A report says, A globalization-fueled diffusion of finance and applied science has enabled non-state actors to encroach upon functions traditionally performed by nation-states, facilitating their evolution into forms unheard of even a few years ago (NIC, 2007).15. The NSAs have emerged in international relations as equal as the nation-states. It may compel states to adopt more complex transnational system but in reality, NSAs startle has greater impact in international relations. NSAs have changed the overall traditional concept of international relations, based on the principles of Westphalian system of sovereign states, as Schwartz writes, The influence of non-state actors in this globalized world is unquestionably stronger than at any point since the Westphalia system of state sovereignty was established in 1648 (n.d.).16. International security is the most influenced aspect of the changing trend of international relations due to the rise of NSAs. Under the traditional concept of international relations, international security is maintain by means of two types of organizations classical corporal security organization and protective security organization. The first type of organization is designed to promote international security through regulating the beha vior of its member states, whereas defensive security organization is to protect a group of states from threats emanating from a challenging state or group of states. (Gleason Shaihutdinov, 2005, p. 274). In present context, the role of traditional collective security organizations has expanded, if not changed those organizations have been transformed into NSAs as intergovernmental organizations. Similarly, defensive security organizations have lost their appeal in present unipolar world order but threat of violent NSAs for them has replaced that of formidable rival state or group of states.17. Non-State Actors have emerged in international relations as important actors. They are limiting the authorities being enjoyed by sovereign nation-state under state-centric international relations based on principles of Westaphalian system. By weaken states, NSAs are establishing themselves at domestic as well as international level and they influence the international security to a greater extent. The degree and nature of influence may vary from one NSA to former(a) it could be positive or negative as well as at large or small scale. Whatever role the major NSAs are playing in international relations, needs to be studied in order to explore their influence in international security.CHAPTER IIIINTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS AS NSAsDefining IGOs18. The term official web page of Harvard University defines IGOs as an entity created by treaty, involving two or more nations, to work in good faith, on issues of common interest. In the absence of a treaty an IGO does not represent in the legal sense. For example, the G8 is a group of eight nations that have yearly frugal and political summits. IGOs that are formed by treaties are more advantageous than a mere grouping of nations because they are subject to international law and have the ability to enter into enforceable agreements among themselves or with states. (Harvard justice School 2010, Intergovernmental Organizatio ns)19. The main purposes of IGOs were to create a mechanism for the worlds inhabitants to work more successfully together in the areas of peace and security, and also to deal with economic and social questions. In this current era of increasing globalization and mutuality of nations, IGOs have come to play a very significant role in international political systems and global governance.20. The number of IGOs is difficult to make up, but estimates range from 270 to more than 1000. They cover multiple issues and involve governments from every region of the world. Among the oldest IGOs are the United Nations, which replaced the League of Nations, the Universal Postal league, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Other well-known IGOs are the European Union (EU), the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the African Development Bank (ADB) and the globe Trade Organization (WTO).21. Since the creation of the UN and NATO, IGOs have become essential actors i n the international security. IGOs, such as the UN and the EU, have the ability to make rules and representative power within their member countries, their global impact continues to increase.22. Ataman cites Miller to define IGOs as ..voluntary associations of sovereign states established to pursue many objectives for which states want to cooperate through sort of formal structure and to which states are unable to exonerate by themselves (Ataman, 2003, p. 43). Sovereign states establish IGOs through a treaty4and accept its authority to make decisions regarding particular problems for common benefit. In other(a) words, the states voluntarily give up sovereignty to an IGO in order to achieve common security, cooperation for collective goods, economic rearwards and political influence.23. In Atamans view IGOs could be classified by their scope (global and regional) or by their function (political, economic, social and environmental) (Ibid.). Wikipedia has classified them as worldwi de global organizations, regional organizations, Cultural, linguistic, ethnic, religious, or diachronic organizations, Economic organizations, organizations for collective security or mutual defense aliment (Intergovernmental organization, 2010). Among these organizations United Nations (UN) and its specialized agencies as well as some regional organizations such as European Union (EU) and collective security organization such as NATO play significant role in international security (Ibid.).Types of IGOs24. IGOs are typically organized by their membership and by their purpose. For example, the UN is called a global organization because all countries are allowed membership. There are currently 192 member states in the UN. Some IGOs are regional and limit their membership to states within the designated regions. Other IGOs are referred to as selective organizations because they base their membership on criteria other than geography. The Organization of the Islamic Conference, for exa mple, bases its membership on religious affiliation. OPEC, on the other hand, is comprised only of countries that produce oil. Specialized IGOs, such as NATO, limit their activities to a particular field. General IGOs have expertise on a wide variety of topics. The UN is also a superior general IGO as it is involved in a wide range of issues, including security, destitution reduction, health, telecommunications, international criminal justice, human rights, economic development, and environmental protection (Ibid.). use in International Relations and Effects on International Security25. Quoting several constructivist views, Susan Park writes. IGOs ..are norm diffusers or transmitters within the international area teaching states their interests (Park, 2004). They ..do this through establishing regimes, forming international agendas, constructing discourse, enforcing rules, and mediating between states (Ibid.) Park believes that these important roles ..show the significance of th ese organizations as the glue of the international state system, binding states together in various regimes (Ibid.). She argues that the IGOs .. act as official gate-keepers, determining which non-state actors and groups within civic society are deemed rule-governed, thus de-legitimizing others, thereby shutting the latter out of the global governance structure (Ibid.).26. IGOs are the main shaft of lights of global governance in true sense and they are legitimate NSAs. They are amenable for collective security and defense, and they have been contributing a lot for the nourishment of international security. IGOs, formed out of common interests of the member states, maintain international security or stability by keeping member states united. On the other hand, especially collective defense oriented IGOs maintain balance with rival state or group of states.27. UN is the key player of international relations in present context. The primary mission of UN is to maintain internationa l peace and security.5To fulfill its mission UN has a strong mandate which it exercises through the Security Council. Since its inception, UN has continuously been trying to prevent conflicts, keep and enforce peace, and disarmament as well as proliferation of WMDs.28. Regional organizations are also winning big steps, especially on the field of Human Security. EU is integrate entire Europe, which now is un likely to spark other Great War. structured Europe can maintain a balance with any other power which may emerge in future. However, regional alliances for comprehensive security are replacing the traditional military alliances NATO is still effective. NATO, the only be major defense organization after the disintegration of former Soviet Union and demise of rival Warsaw Pact, is no more concerned for balance of power, but it is still significant for US and its allies for their defense. NATO is subservient for US led War on Terror in Afghanistan. reproof29. The role played by I GOs at the international level is not out of controversy. There is always a question mark over their effectiveness. Some scholars argue that there problem lies on the fundamental structure and changed role of IGOs, mainly security organizations according to Gleason Shaihutdinov,Throughout the world, the major inter-state security organizations continue to be essentially Westphalian in nature. They assume the primacy of state actors. plot of land collective security organizations have re-focused to their objectives to confront challenges emanating from below the level of the nation-state, they have not yet reorganized their operational programs to achieve these goals. (2005, pp. 274-275)30. IGOs like UN have been blamed as tool for powerful countries to impose their principle on the weak countries. ..the UN Security Council cannot accept any decision against the interests of the five standing(prenominal) members and those of their allies, i.e., the UN Security Council decisions on the Palestinian question against Israel have often been vetoed by the United States (Ataman, 2003, pp. 44-45). The stability achieved on the cost of a states principles could not be long lasting since it creates discontent and hatred among the people, which could be the seed of a future conflict.31. Other IGOs, such as WTO and IMF, have been criticized for their role in globalization. Many people believe that globalization further weakens the weaker nation-states whereas strong states take maximum benefit out of it. The increasing gap between powerful states and weak states can gradually lead them to a conflict, jeopardizing international security.Overview32. Security always puts its stakeholders under a predicament states need to think rationally while joining organizations or alliances. Barry Buzan portrays a picture of such dilemma in following wordsSecurity cannot be achieved by either individuals or states acting solely on their own behalf. Some collective measures are necess ary among the members of the system if each is to achieve security. Just as security cannot be achieved by individual actors, neither can it be created by concentrating all powers and responsibility at the upper levels. When such density happens, as we have seen in the case of individuals and the states, the collective institution becomes major source of threat to those smaller actors it was supposed to protect. (1987, p. 253)33. Schwartzs following view on UN reflects importance of such IGOs amid their own drawbacks,While the UN is certainly not the elevated institution for international security simply because it is the sum of its parts, states the world would doubtless be far more insecure without it. There is no other forum in the world in which every state that wishes can participate. The implication of this should not be underestimated. Communication is essential for averting crises. And there is no other organization in the world with as broad and sweeping a mandate as t he UN (Schwartz, n.d.).34. The criticism of IGOs, exposed drawbacks and their likely consequences are not baseless accusations, but these needs be sorted out through reforms. As the key actors of global governance, IGOs play most significant role on regulating international relations and make huge positive contribution to the maintenance of international security.CHAPTER IV cerise NON-STATE ACTORS AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITYGeneral35. Even a cursory global survey suggests that violent non-state actors (VNSA s) have become a pervasive challenge to nation-states. In the 21st century, the state monopoly of the use of force is increasingly being reduced to a convenient fiction. No nation state is free of VNSAs. Relatively few of the sovereign states can truly claim a monopoly of force within their territorial borders.36. ane of the most striking features of VNSAs is their manifest variety. This suggests that there is some danger in lumping them together under a single rubric. Yet, it is clear from the preceding analysis that they do have certain things in common they all emerge in response to inadequacies, deficiencies or shortcomings in many states and to one degree or another try on to compensate for those shortcomings. At the same time, there are important differences in motivation, purpose, power structures and the like. One of the dangers, however, is that they will increasingly form alliances with one another. There are certainly examples of linkages between organized crime and terrorist networks.Identifying VNSAs37. VNSAs are those NSAs which use illegitimate violence as their means, they might be having some tie in with a state(s), and their objective could be political or economic. In Ulrich Schneckeners view VNSAs armed non-state actors willing and able to use violence for pursuing their objectives, and not integrated into formalized state institutions (Schneckener, 2006, p. 25). Following statement portrays a detail picture of VNSAsVNSA are a disti nct form of non-state actor, which distinguishes them from police forces and militaries. It is their use of collective violence that most clearly distinguishes Sendero from Starbucks, but their goals and methods also add together to their illegitimacy. They are illegitimate vis--vis the classical state system in part because the essence of being a state is having a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. By definition, VNSA resort not only to random or opportunistic aggression, but to collective violence as a tool to achieve goals. Collective violence is really an extension of collective action, which is unified action by the members of the group in pursuit of common ends. (Bartolomei, Casebeer, Thomas, 2004)38. Williams says One of the most striking features of VNSA s is their sheer variety. This suggests that there is some danger in lumping them together under a single rubric (2008, p. 17). VNSAs could be found being treated separately or as a group on the study of NSAs. Ta ble 2 shows two different groupings of VNSAs by Ulrich Schneckener (Schneckener, 2006) and Phil Wiiliams (2008). However, there is no significant difference between these two groupings on the basis of degree of activity as well as impact at international level, only terrorist organizations, insurgents, organized criminal groups, and private security agencies or private military companies (PMCs) could be considered as major VNSA for this study.Ulrich SchneckenerPhil WilliamsRebels or guerrilla fightersMilitias or paramilitariesClan chiefs or big menWarlordsTerroristsCriminalsMercenaries and private security companiesMaraudersWarlordsMilitiasParamilitary forcesInsurgenciesTerrorist organizationsCriminal organizations and youth gangsTable 2 Different Classifications of VNSAsThe functions VNSAs fulfill for members and supporting constituencies39. A key part of this is the extent to which the VNSA becomes an alternative form of governance and fulfils functions normally the responsibility of the state. It is important to determine what kinds of capacity gaps and functional holes are filled by VNSAs. These can include the provision of state functions such as imposing and maintaining security and order and can extend to what might be described as paternal forms of social welfare. Indeed, for VNSAs filling functional spaces is often even more important than filling territorial spaces. This analytical framework is helpful in considering a wide variety of VNSAs. These include warlords, terrorist organizations, organized crime groups both domestic and transnational, transnational youth gangs, militias and insurgencies.VNSAs in International Relations as Security Threats40. VNSAs directly challenge and affect individual nation-state or number of states through networking of violent operations. According to Fraiman, they ..pose significant challenges to the administration of states, mainly by laborious their internal monopoly on the use of force. However, at times, these groups can also present considerable external security threats to other states in the international system (2009, p. 1). The most of the modern major conflicts are betwee