PL1000: Assessment 1 – Short Paper
Student #: 20171778

“The state is the most important actor in world politics.” Do you agree with the above statement? In your answer, draw on concepts and assumptions from at least two theories of international relations.


The international political stage constitutes a series of interactions between ‘actors’: that is, nation-states and other institutions, acting with regards to a particular set of interests, positioning themselves along lines of diplomatic or ideological allegiance. Every actor has an inherent significance to global politics, though geopolitical discourse places actors along a constructed hierarchy of influence – simply put, certain actors play more vital roles. For example, the state, as an institutionalised mechanism of national governance, indeed holds influence in world politics; however, it could not be held as the singular most important entity. Rather, non-state actors hold a greater level of political significance, as the state itself is a fluid entity intrinsically informed and shaped by the actions of the interconnected global community, one that is primarily informed by non-governmental agents. According to this way of thinking, then, it could be said that the state’s role is largely mediatory, a means of representing or enforcing the interests of forces both exterior and interior. This is given credence by two key theories of international relations, liberalism and Marxism, both of which place non-state influences as central to world politics. To hence demonstrate that the state is a less important actor in international relations, the concepts and assumptions of the aforementioned theories should be discussed with regards to how they function in respect to globalization - that is, the formation of an international political community via the proliferation of diplomatic, social, and economic relations across national borders (Held et al, 1999, pp. 484) – and their relationship with the state in that context.

Liberalism is premised on a multilateral, multi-polar notion of mutually assured stability amongst democratic states, in spite of the conditions of anarchy - a world order in which conflict is inevitable due to a lack of centralised authority. International relations cannot be centred entirely as a competition between self-interested sovereign states working as independent actors; indeed, state relationships have been altered significantly under the process of globalisation, with the result being an international political community based on a system of co-operation. Dunne (2016, pp. 192-193) describes this community as a “cobweb”, wherein a diverse range of both state and non-state actors participate in an interdependent, yet fragile, ecology of power, for the purposes of avoiding conflict. Diplomacy is vital to the maintenance of this ecology, but for this to take place, the state must curb its exertion of authority, instead entering into mutual agreements facilitated by non-governmental and intergovernmental organisations - political institutions existing outside of the influence of a nation, but within the sphere of the global community. Such organisations, in turn, possess the power to restrict overreaches in power by states, and thus defend the common liberal interest in self-determination and welfare from the threats of “tyranny” and the dissolution of personal liberty (Starr, 2007, pp. 15-16). Similarly, the commercial liberal tradition prioritises the economic freedoms provided by laissez-faire, free-market capitalism as a means of extending the globalised community along economic lines, via transnational corporations – businesses that operate across national boundaries. TNCs, in a sense, have come to represent the internationalisation of state market economy and the downgrading of the state’s economic role under the liberal conception of globalisation in its totality: the economic sovereignty of the nation-state is ceded, to an extent, in favour of the rule of a “supra-national institution” separate from any regulatory governance (Fotopoulos, 2005, pp. 49-50).
The presence of such non-state actors that may co-operatively oversee and regulate the state system allows for a balance of power to be maintained by a globalised ‘world government’ that fosters co-ordination among nations, and hence, builds stability (Gaus et. al., 2015). Conversely, the failure of NGOs to restrict state influence can result in catastrophic failure to preserve peace – to use a historical example, the League of Nations’ policy of appeasement in the intervening years between the wars prioritised the militaristic-expansionist interests and unchecked self-determination of the Nazi state above the collective security of the international community, thus indirectly contributing to the outbreak of conflict in the form of World War II and the brutality of the Holocaust (Rock, 2000, pp. 52; 64-65; 73). Hence, liberal globalisation theory necessitates a system of collective security and conflict avoidance that requires states be joined in a system of co-operation and interdependence, in addition to concessions on their power, and thus the state cannot be considered central to international relations in this paradigm.

Alternatively, Marxist theory rejects the anarchical structure, and identifies the global system as being shaped around a singular, hierarchal, ideological institution: capitalism. The Marxist-critical tradition proposes that the basis of all political relationships is that of class conflict – the struggle of the global working class to free themselves from the systematic exploitation of their labour, which serves to uphold the capitalist system that permeates the ideological and political frameworks of modern international relations. Marxist international theory hence identifies ‘class’ as the fundamental lens by which global politics may be interpreted, positing that the proletariat, as a collective, class-conscious political agent comprised of working class individuals, and their oppressors, in the form of the bourgeoisie ruling class, both constitute the most significant political actors in the scheme of global power politics (Harding, 1998, pp. 13-18). In the context of this narrative, the state holds a degree of authority insofar as being an instrument of violence utilised by the ruling class; a structure of coercive and consensual power enforced in order to maintain the hegemony of capital (Hoare, 1978). To clarify further, the state’s primary function is to facilitate two dynamic socio-economic processes that are fundamental to the continued dominion of the ruling class: the ‘base’– that is, the material means and processes of commodity production – and the ‘superstructure’ – the overarching system of cultural and political practises that are informed and maintained by capitalism (Williams, 1973, pp. 119-138). Although the base-superstructure system may seem to function solely within the confines of a national governance system, its mechanics apply under the process of globalisation as well. In fact, as Cox (1992, pp. 162-163) suggests, the entire conception of multilateral globalisation can be considered an attempt at the extension of a capitalist geo-politics that consolidates the influence of capitalism internationally, an institutionalised mode of imperialism accomplished primarily by the regulation of state order. It is, in other words, a form of neo-colonialism that circumvents the process of direct state rule by utilising the construction of a liberalist international system, placing the proletariat at the hands of the ruling class. Consider the intense economic liberalisation in the third-world – adjustment, provided by multinationals such as the IMF and The World Bank, integrated with the national system and transformed the economy into a means for the exploitation of the working class, at the hands of authorities that superseded and downsized the state (Leftwich, 1993, pp. 607). Therefore, Marxist theory positions the state as an instrument of violent oppression by the overriding class structure, but the state is ultimately overridden by the capitalist system. Though relevant to the class struggle that informs international relations, the state is an ideological and hegemonic tool, but not a self-realised reality.

	The state stands as a highly pervasive and influential actor in the political function of the globalised community, yet according to liberal and Marxist theory, it is not superior to the influence of the non-state actors that inform it. The former theory posits that the state is interdependent and ultimately relies on the intervention and co-operation of international non-government organisations to maintain a peaceful political community; whereas the latter primarily views the state system as a violent means of extending the capitalist superstructure globally, framing class struggle and the hegemony of capital as central to international relations. Between the two unlike political theories, a clear commonality emerges: placing the state as the most important actor in international relations is incompatible with the function of globalisation, a process that has radically transformed and downplayed the notion of state sovereignty.






Reference List
•	Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D., & Perraton, J. (1999). Globalization. Global Governance, 5(4), 483-496. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ipacez.nd.edu.au/stable/27800244.
•	Dunne, T. (2016). Liberalism. In The Globalisation of World Politics (7th ed., pp. 186-199). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
•	Starr, P. (2007). Liberalism and the Discipline of Power. In Freedom's power: The true force of liberalism (pp. 15-27). New York, NY: Basic Book.
•	Gaus, G., Courtland, S. D., and Schmidtz, D. (2015) Liberalism. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved September 6 2017 from: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/liberalism.
•	Rock, S. R. (2000). Appeasement in international politics. Lexington, Ky: University Press of Kentucky.
•	Hoare, Q. (Ed.). (1978). Some aspects of the southern question. In A. Gramsci (Author), Selections from political writings (1921-1926). London: Lawrence and Wishart.
•	Williams, R. (1973). Base and Superstructure in Marxist Cultural Theory. New Left Review, I (82), 119-138.
•	Fotopoulos, T. (2005). The Internationalisation of the market economy. In The Multidimensional Crisis and Inclusive Democracy (pp. 41-64). Athens: The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy. Retrieved September 7, 2017, from http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/.
•	Cox, R. (1992). Multilateralism and World Order. Review of International Studies, 18(2), 161-180. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ipacez.nd.edu.au/stable/20097291
•	Harding, N. (1998). Marx, Engels and the Manifesto: Working class, party, and proletariat. Journal of Political Ideologies, 3(1), 13-44.
•	Leftwich, A. (1993). Governance, Democracy and Development in the Third World. Third World Quarterly, 14(3), 605-624. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ipacez.nd.edu.au/stable/3992489