Are Non-State Actors Disrupting the Power Dynamics of International Relations and Diplomacy?
Introduction
State actors have typically dominated bilateral and multilateral relations. Meanwhile, the dynamics and complexities of globalization, internationalization of domestic policy, and increase in global connections have extended the focus of governance beyond the state to incorporate global governance interests. The growing impact of non-state actors (NSAs) in international relations and diplomatic activities underscores the crucial contributions that NSAs make to reduce the perceived legitimacy deficit in global governance at both the international and subnational levels. Conceptually, a state actor is an entity that represents a recognized government, such as a nation-state or its institutions, exercising authority and sovereignty. On the other hand, a non-state actor refers to organizations or individuals not affiliated with or controlled by any government, such as NGOs, corporations, or insurgent groups. Both play roles in domestic and international affairs. On many policy issues and thematic areas of national and global interest, non-state actors play a significant role at the societal, state, and international levels. Given that democratic governance is fundamentally participatory, it allows civil society organizations, as well as non-governmental and intergovernmental organizations, to provide input and constructive policy alternatives into both international and government apparatus and other areas of global concern. Respect for and acknowledgment of the legitimacy of quasi-governmental entities driven by specific goals across multiple global economic and political sectors are critical to international relations.
This study assesses and reviews non-state actors’ growing impact and roles in international relations and diplomacy. Two publications relevant to “The Growing Influence of Non-State Actors in International Relations and Diplomatic Activities” will be reviewed, analyzed, and critiqued for this review essay. This review process will be interested in examining critical aspects of a journal article and a scholarly book whose themes correspond with the subject matter of this study.
Normative arguments for non-state actor participation in international policymaking processes: Functionalism, neocorporatism, or democratic pluralism?
According to functionalism's assumptions, NSAs have a wealth of expertise devoid of political “indoctrinations” and provide solution-focused inputs to international policymaking processes, which contributes significantly to output legitimacy and, hence, strengthens global governance legitimacy. While this is a significant step toward a more collaborative international system, it raises questions about the inadequacies of NSAs' conflicted self-interests and how this can limit their options and technical expertise on a given policy issue. A possible remedy is a consultative approach that establishes the boundaries and scope of NSA expertise contribution to international policymaking in a manner devoid of a potential ‘cultural penchant’. Second, neocorporatism emphasizes the need to embrace the interests of affected sectoral groups, which corresponds with the concept of stakeholder democracy (Macdonald, 2008). For example, interventionist actors such as Amnesty International, an INGO with the ability to improve the outcomes of diplomatic peacebuilding procedures, are frequently involved in post-conflict resolution processes. Even though the procedure's legitimacy is enhanced, neocorporatism is flawed because it is primarily focused on aggregating multiple stakeholder interests at the expense of marginalized views. Finally, democratic pluralism emphasizes civil society and other NSAs democratizing capacity through strengthening procedural values such as accountability, inclusivity, representation, and transparency. This method takes a distinctive look at how NSAs can function as a check on political discourses and unaccountable sites of power (Scholte, 2011). While pluralism promotes NSA participation in international policymaking, realists such as (Blanton & Kegley, 2017) oppose this approach because it risks creating a schism between state and global interests. After all, the international system has no overarching authority, and all states are sovereign as recognized by international law. Despite these flaws, democratic pluralism is comparably advantageous to neocorporatism and functionalism in terms of its ability to empower marginalized society groups, allowing perspectives to be channeled to policymakers that would otherwise go unnoticed.
Civil Society and International Governance: The role of non-state actors in global and regional regulatory frameworks
The Role of Non-State Actors from A Theoretical Standpoint - The authors’ theoretical position, which is shared by (Farrell, Hettne, & Langenhove, 2005, p. 2) is that globalization has spawned regionalism, which has elevated civil societies’ role in the construction of supranational identities that transcend national borders. Corroboratively, according to Giddens (1990), an increase in global political and social interactions unites distant nationalities in such a way that international events impact local events. These assertions align with social constructivist theory, which holds that world politics may be understood through the prism of intersubjective human action and the socially constructed aspect of political life (Blanton & Kegley, 2017). As stated in (Armstrong, Bello, Gilson, & Spini, 2011), non-state actors’ activities indicate their knowledge of the social context that underpins their relations, i.e., their identities, norms of behavior, and interactions within the international system, resulting in greater citizen awareness of their respective roles in politics and public life at the international level. The validity of the arguments for supranational identities is essentially evidential, given that components of globalization within regional contexts have generated a horizontal process of identity construction that produces an inclusive identity.
Civil Societies’ Stake in Regional Governance Outside of Europe - The authors argue that civil society activities outside Europe are under-acknowledged despite their diversity and capacity to engineer changes in various elements of the region’s political economy. The crux of the problem is how Western theoretical ideas and experiences continue to misrepresent civil society mobilization and goals in other places, such as Ghana. For instance, Ghana provides a specific example of how civil society interactions differ from Western patterns. In Ghana, civil society organizations (CSOs) often emerge to fill governance gaps, addressing grassroots issues like access to education, health, and economic empowerment, often in collaboration with traditional authorities and community leaders. Unlike Western civil society, which frequently operates independently or as a counterbalance to state power, Ghanaian CSOs are more likely to partner with the government to achieve development goals. This collaborative model reflects Ghana’s historical reliance on communal structures and shared responsibilities, contrasting with the Western emphasis on individualism and advocacy-driven mobilization. Beyond the limitations of Africa’s civil society, its history and pattern of interaction are distinct from that of European and Western civil society. Therefore, wholesale adoption of civil society structures as practiced in European regions will significantly contradict Africa's civil society-regionalism dynamic and how its formations are relevant to respective states.
In conclusion, this review essay has critically examined and critiqued two credible publications: a peer-reviewed journal article and a scholarly book, all of which have provided integrative and diverse perspectives on the role of non-state actors in international relations, drawing on different strands of theoretical thought and analysis to highlight the strengths and gaps in all of the literature reviewed.
Works Cited
Armstrong, D., Bello, V., Gilson, J., & Spini, D. (2011). Civil Society and International Governance: The role of non-state actors in global and regional regulatory frameworks . New York: Routledge.
Bernstein, S. (2012). Legitimacy Problems and Responses in Global Environmental Governance. In P. Dauvergne, Handbook of Global Environmental Politics. 2nd Edition (pp. 147-162). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Blanton, L. S., & Kegley, C. W. (2017). World politics : trend and transformation. Bostom: Cengage Learning.
Dupuits, E. (2016, June 13). Civil Society and NGOs as Drivers of Change in Environmental Governance. Retrieved from E-INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: https://www.e-ir.info/2016/06/13/actors-other-than-states-the-role-of-civil-society-and-ngos-as-drivers-of-change/
Farrell, M., Hettne, B., & Langenhove, L. V. (2005). Global Politics of Regionalism.Theory and Practice. London and Ann Arbor: Pluto Press.
Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Redwood City. California: Stanford University Press.
Macdonald, T. (2008). Global stakeholder democracy: power and representation beyond liberal states. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
Nasiritousi, N., Hjerpe, M., & Bäckstrand, K. (2016). Normative arguments for non-state actor participation in international policymaking processes: Functionalism, neocorporatism or democratic pluralism? European Journal of International Relations, 22(4), 920-943.
Scholte, J. A. (2011). Building Global Democracy. Civil Society and Accountable Global Governance. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Willetts, P. (2006). The Cardoso Report on the UN and Civil Society: Functionalism, Global Corporatism, or Global Democracy? Global Governance. A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations 12(3), 305-324.
