Introduction

The study of relations among nations has fascinated scholars for several centuries. However, the term international was first used by Jeremy Bantham in the latter part of the eighteenth century, although its Latin equivalent intergentes was used a century earlier by Rijchare Zouche. Both of them had used this term in respect of that branch of law which was called law of nations, which later became ‘International Law’. During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, international relations have grown rapidly. Today nation-states have become far too interdependent; and relations among them whether political or those related to trade and commerce, have developed into an essential area of knowledge. In this unit, we are mainly concerned with the political relations among sovereign societies called nations, or nation-states.

After the Second World War, the interdependence of sovereign States has grown immensely. Meanwhile, in the present jet age travel has become so fast that distances have been considerably reduced; and with the revolution in the field of communication, today’s satellite era has brought peoples so close to each other that international relations have assumed unprecedented importance both as a ‘condition’ and as a ‘discipline’.

Meaning of International Relations

The term International Relations (IR) may be used both for a’ condition’ and a ‘discipline’. Quincy Wright, for example, makes such a distinction. The official relations between sovereign countries are described as international relations, though according to him, “…………. the word interstate would have been more accurate because in political science the state came to be the terms applied to such societies. Viewed thus, international relations as ‘condition’ refers to the facts of international life, that is to say, the actual conduct of relations among nations through diplomacy based on foreign policy. It also includes actual areas of cooperation, conflict and war. According to Wright, IR should tell the “truth about the subject” i.e., how such relations are conducted and as a discipline IR should treat them in a systematic and scientific manner.

In other words, IR should focus on the study of all relations-political, diplomatic trade, academic among sovereign states which constitute the subject matter on international relations. The scope of IR should include study of “varied types of groups-nations, states, governments, peoples, regions, alliances, confederations, international organisations, even industrial organisations, cultural organisations, religious organisation” etc. which are involved in the conduct of these relations.

While Quincy Wright distinguished between international relations as a ‘condition’ and a ‘discipline’, there are other scholars like Palmer and Perkins who doubted its status as a discipline. They argued that History and Political Science are the disciplines from which international relations has emerged. Writing abouť 40 years ago. Palmer and Perkins had opined: “Although international relations has emerged from its earlier status as a poor relation of political science, and history, it is still far from being a well-organised discipline.”

One of the earlier scholars of international relations, Professor Alfred Zimmern had written before the Second World War that: “International Relations is clearly not a subject in the ordinary sense of the word. It does not provide a single coherent body of teaching material….. It is not a single subject but a bundle of subjects….. of law, economics, political science, geography, and so on…..” International Relations, according to Palmer and Perkins, was too subjective in character and content. In its early stages even E.H. Carr had described it as “markedly and frankly utopian.” But the failure of the League of Nations and its collective security system led Carr to remark that it had become possible to embark on serious and critical analytical thought about international problems.” This has been vigorously pursued by a number of scholars after the Second World War. Today, it will not be proper to describe International Relations as ‘Utopian or deny’ it the status of an independent subject of study. National interest is an important concern of every state. Planners and makers of foreign policy cannot ignore correct perception of their country’s national interests which must be protected at all costs. Hartman defines International Relations as a field of study which focuses upon the “processes by which states adjust their national interest to those of other states.” Since national interests of different states are often in conflict, Morgenthau concludes that international politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power. Therefore, power is the means through which nations promote their national interest.

International Relations and International Politics

The first Chair in International Relations was established at the university of Wales (U.K) in 1919. The first two occupants of the chair were eminent historians, Professors Alfred Zimmern and C.K. Webster. At that time, International Relations as a subject was little more than diplomatic history. During the next seven decades this subject has changed in nature and content. Today the analytical study of politics has replaced descriptive diplomatic history. The term International politics is now used for the new discipline that has been emerging since the second world war. It is more scientific, yet narrow, as compared to International Relations.

The two terms are even now sometimes used as synonyms. But, they have two distinct areas, or content, of study. Hans Morgenthau believes that “the core of international relations is international politics”, but a clear distinction between the two is to be made. International Relations, according to him, is much wider in scope than International Politics. Whereas politics among nations is, as Morgenthau says, struggle for power, international relations includes political, economic and cultural relations. Harold and Margaret Sprout opine that international relations include all human behaviour on one side of a national boundary affecting the human behaviour on the other side of the boundary. International politics, on the other hand, deals with conflicts and cooperation among nations essentially at political level. As Padelford and Lincoln define it, international politics is the interaction of state policies within the changing pattern of power relationship. Palmer and Perkins express similar views when they say that international politics is essentially concerned with the state system

Since international relations includes all types of relationships between sovereign states, it is wider, and international politics is narrower in scope. As students of IR, we shall indeed examine political conflicts and cooperation among states. But, we shall also study other aspect of relations among nations as well including economic inter-action and role of the non-state actor.

Changing Nature of International Relations

The context and nature of IR have undergone major changes after the Second World War. Traditionally, world politics was centered around Europe and relations among nations were largely conducted by officials of foreign offices in secrecy. The common man was hardly ever involved, and treaties were often kept secret. Today public opinion has begun to play an important role in the decision-making process in foreign offices, thus, changing completely the nature of international relations. Ambassadors, once briefed by their governments, were largely free to conduct relations according to the ground realities of the countries of their posting. Today, not only have nuclear weapons changed the nature of war and replaced erstwhile the balance of power by the balance of terror, but also the nature of diplomacy changed as well. We live in the jet age where the heads of state and government and their foreign ministers travel across the globe and personally establish contacts and conduct international relations. Before the First World War a traveller from India to Britain spent about 20 days in the sea voyage. Today, it takes less than 9 hours for a jet aircraft to fly from Delhi to London, telephones, fax machines, teleprinters and other electronic devices have brought all government leaders in direct contact. Hotline communications between Washington and Moscow, for example, keeps the top world leaders in constant touch. This has reduced the freedom of ambassadors who receive daily instructions from their governments.

Decolonisation has resulted in the emergence of a large number of sovereign states. The former colonies of the European Powers, including India, have become important actors on the stage of international relations. They were once silent spectators. Today, they participate in the conduct of world politics. The disintegration of the Soviet Union has created 15 members of the United Nations, instead of the previous three. Some of the very small countries like Nauru may have no power but they also have an equal voice in the General Assembly. Four very small countries viz. Liechtenstein, San Marino, Monaco and Andorra were admitted to the U.N. during 1990-93. The total number of U.N. members has gone up from 51 in 1945 to 185 in 1997. Thus, international relations are now conducted by such a large number of new nation- states. Besides, many non-state actors such as multinational corporations and transnational bodies like terrorist groups have been influencing international relations in a big way. With the collapse of the Soviet Union as a Super Power, the United States has emerged as the supreme monolithic power and can now dominate the international scene almost without any challenge. The Non-Alignment Movement ((NAM) still exists but with the dismemberment of one of its founders (i.e.: Yugoslavia) and the disappearance of rival power blocs, the role of the ‘Third World’ has changed along with that of NAM.

Why Study International Relations?

International Relations (IR), is closely related with several disciplines. These include History, Political Science, Law, Economics, and Geography. What is the utility of the study of IR as a separate subject? You know that no country in the World can live in isolation. Even when means of transportation and communication were primitive or much less developed than today, sovereign states did interact with each other. They cooperated at times, and had frequent conflicts which often led to wars. Relations among those states were generally studied by Historians and Political Scientists. Diplomatic History was usually studied for understanding relations among sovereign states.

During the second half of the twentieth century, revolution in the means of travel and communication has not only changed the nature of international relations, but made its study essential for every enlightened person.

We are today living in an interdependent state system. It is essential for all of us to have a clear idea of what is happening in the world. Political events are important, but even economic developments, trade, commerce and activities of actors like multinational corporations are no less significant. We live in an age of growing international cooperation. Therefore, not only do the activities of the United Nations and its numerous agencies affect all the nations and their peoples, but regional organisations like the European Union, South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC), Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) also play important roles in our lives. International terrorism has been a concern for the humankind and economic institutions like the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) affect international relations. The study of International Relations has therefore become highly useful and enlightening for students and others alike.

Scope of International Relations

Beginning with the study of law and diplomatic history, the scope of international relations has steadily expanded. With growing complexity of contacts between nations, the study of international organizations and institutions attracted the attention of scholars. The outbreak of the Second World War gave a strong stimulus to arca studies and strategic aspect of foreign policy. This led to efforts to understand better the dynamics of national liberation struggles and anti-colonial movements. The foundation of the United Nations during the war encouraged thinking about post-war restructuring of the relations among nations. The study of cooperation became important even as the study of conflict remained central. The immediate aftermath was marked by a constructive outlook. This is reflected in titles of books like Swords and Ploughshares written by Inis Claude. New topics like ideology and disarmament assumed unprecedented importance in the era of cold war. So did the system of alliances and regionalism. Contemporary international relations embrace the whole gamut of diplomatic history, international politics, international organisation, international law and arca studies. Writing about the contents of international relations, a few decades back, Palmer Perkins had said that the then international relations was a study of “the world community in transition.” This conclusion is largely true even today. The transition has not reached a terminal point. While the underlying factors of international relations have not changed, the international environment has changed and is still changing. The state system is undergoing modifications; a technological revolution has taken place in a very big way, new states of Asia and Africa are playing increasingly important roles. India, in particular, is in a position to assert and take a rigid stand, as in 1996 on the question of signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). There is also a “revolution of

rising expectations.” Thus, as Palmer and Perkins wrote, “old and new elements must be interwoven” in the contemporary international relations. “The focus is still the nation state system and inter-state relations; but the actions and interactions of many organisations and groups have also to be considered.”

The scope of international relations at the end of the twentieth century has become very vast indeed. The world has virtually become a “global village”, as interdependence of states has increased manifold. Economic relations between states, the role of international institutions like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation today influences economic activity all over the world. The United Nations and its various agencies are engaged in numerous socio-economic and political activities. International terrorism is a cause of serious concern for the human existence. Multinational Corporations (MNCs), who are giant companies operating the world over, are important non-state actors of international relations. Thus, the scope of international relations has become vast, and, besides international politics, it embraces various other inter – State activities as well.

INTRODUCTION

Realism, a school of thought in international relations theory, is a theoretical framework that views world politics as an enduring competition among self-interested states vying for power and positioning within an anarchic global system devoid of a centralized authority. It centers on states as rational primary actors navigating a system shaped by power politics, national interest, and a pursuit of security and self-preservation.

Realism involves the strategic use of military force and alliances to boost global influence while maintaining a balance of power. War is seen as an inevitability inherent in the anarchic conditions of world politics. Realism also emphasizes the complex dynamics of the security dilemma, where actions taken for security reasons can unintentionally lead to tensions between states.

Unlike idealism or liberalism, realism underscores the competitive and conflictual nature of global politics. In contrast to liberalism, which champions cooperation, realism asserts that the dynamics of the international arena revolve around states actively advancing national interests and prioritizing security. While idealism leans towards cooperation and ethical considerations, realism argues that states operate in a realm devoid of inherent justice, where ethical norms may not apply.

Early popular proponents of realism included Thucydides (5th century BCE), Machiavelli (16th century), Hobbes (17th century), and Rousseau (18th century). Carl von Clausewitz (early 19th century), another contributor to the realist school of thought, viewed war as an act of statecraft and gave strong emphasis on hard power. Clausewitz felt that armed conflict was inherently one-sided, where typically only one victor can emerge between two parties, with no peace.

Realism became popular again in the 1930s, during the Great Depression. At that time, it polemicized with the progressive, reformist optimism associated with liberal internationalists like U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. The 20th century brand of classical realism, exemplified by theorists such as Reinhold Niebuhr and Hans Morgenthau, has evolved into neorealism—a more scientifically oriented approach to the study of international relations developed during the latter half of the Cold War. In the 21st century, realism has experienced a resurgence, fueled by escalating tensions among world powers. Some of the most influential proponents of political realism today are John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.

REALISM: MAIN ASSUMPTIONS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS

Assumptions are logical beliefs and are very important as these are building blocks of a theoretical approach. For example, you assume that man is selfish by nature; or that he is a social animal who loves to cooperate and live peacefully with other human beings. These assumptions together help explain a problem and provide coherence to a perspective or approach to IR. For these reasons, it is important to know the core assumptions of Realism that it uses as its basic tools to make sense of the InternationalRelations (Legro and Moravcsik, 1999).

States are the Primary Actors in the International System

This assumption of Realism has three expressed meanings:

• International politics is a domain of conflict between and among sovereign states. Conflictual interaction among these sovereign states is the core of international politics.
• States in international politics are sovereign, unitary and rational actors. At least at conceptual level, sovereign states are supremely powerful, unified with fixed political goals and they do costbenefit analyses.
• In its interaction with other states, each state seeks to promote and guarantee its own ‘interest’. The foremost interest of each state is its own security and expansion of its power.
• In order to ensure its own security, each state seeks to secure and accumulate power. Power alone deters others from attacking it. In other words, every state is out to enhance and expand its capability at the cost of other states.

IR is Anarchic in Character

In Realism, ‘anarchy’ defines International Relations. Anarchy means that there is no “central authority” or “world government” to manage or put in order the international relations among sovereign states which are distrustful of each other and which, out of a sense of insecurity, accumulate more and more power so as to become ‘secure’. ‘Anarchy’ is an assumed political condition in which there is no world authority to enforce order. This assumed condition “frees” the state to undertake cost-benefit calculations and act towards its self-interest or “national interest” by depending solely on its own capability. Capability – military, technological, economic, and political – must continue to expand and become formidable; otherwise the state may risk its life and protection.

Control over Material Resources is Fundamental to World Politics

In order to enhance its capability, every state is constantly striving to gain maximum control over the material resources and this tendency to control is fundamental to the world politics. Realism tries to justify this assumption by linking it with other assumptions that the approach fosters. States are motivated to have control over material resources because i) there is no central authority to reasonably distribute the resources among its constituent units; ii) the material resources are not in abundance; and iii) the material resources add to the coercive capacity of a state against its counterparts which is critical in an anarchic political set up. These reasons motivate a state to acquire more and more capability. Besides E. H. Carr, Hans Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz, a number of other scholars have developed ideas and insights which constitute the core of Realist School. Of, course, there are important differences among these scholars; for instance, between Morgenthau and Waltz. Be that as it may, while certain assumptions and principles constitute the core of Realism, there are several strands or categories within Realism.

Three principal assumptions have been stated above. What are the implications of these and other assumptions? Let us have a look at the following:

• Sovereign states are the only full actors in international system. Realists draw from the ideas of Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes had described man as selfish, rational and calculating. In a similar fashion, a state is selfish, rational and thinks of its interests first. It feels insecure and remains distrustful of the intentions of other states who think and behave exactly the same way. Such a state has the tendency to prepare for war and expand its power at the cost of another state, so as to guarantee its own security.
• With no supranational authority to impose order, international system, inhabited by such ratioinal, self-centred and distrustful actors, is anarchic. International system is simply a set of interacting states; each pursuing power in order to ensure its survival and further aggrandizement. In other words, anarchy in the international system produces an inherently unstable condition.
• The foremost concern of every state is its security. To ensure its survival and security, a state tends to accumulate power. As one state gathers more power, other states fear it. There is the context of power accumulation by every state and an atmosphere of mutual distrust.
• There is expediency in the behaviour of states. States may find it convenient to follow established international ‘rules’ in the short term, they do so in order to secure their long term goals viz. security and power. Realists argue that states will violate these rules as soon as they are no longer convenient to the state’s pursuit of power. After all, there is no global government to enforce international law and customs.
• According to Realism, international system is given shape and stability by the relative power of its constituent states. This means that the system’s polarity is an important Realist tool when analysing the nature of international relations on the global or regional scale. Realism’s model of the anarchic international system helps it to explain the persistence of war – defined as large-scale organised violence between two or more international actors in pursuit of political ends. Realism is a good guide in explaining the causes of war in international relations. It does so by simplifying the world– highlighting just those actors and interactions that contribute to its explanation of international conflict. Realists claim that they understand the world; that their claims are grounded in actual behaviour of the states and the ruling elites; therefore Realism is empirical and scientific.

INTRODUCTION

Like Realism, Liberalism (and its current variant neo-liberalism) is a mainstream approach to understand international politics. And, like Realism it is a name given to a family of related theories of international relations. It has a multidimensional tradition dating back to the 17th and 18th centuries. Historically, the liberal tradition emerged as a critique of feudal political rule. It also emerged as a critique of mercantilism, the dominant economic strategy of those times. Liberalism is also a rich tradition of thought concerning international relations. In this unit, we are concerned mainly with the latter dimension of liberalism.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, liberal philosophers and political thinkers debated the difficulties of establishing just, orderly and peaceful relations between peoples. A systematic account of the problems of world peace was given by Immanuel Kant in 1795. His ideas have had a profound impact on the development of liberalism in international relations. 

In the 19th century, solutions to the problem of war evaded even the most eminent of thinkers. Much of the liberal scholarship became content with diplomatic history until the outbreak of the First World War. The Great War and the destruction that it caused forced the liberal thinkers to find new means to prevent violent conflicts and create conditions in which reason and cooperation would prevail. Basing their premise on the inherent goodness of man, these liberal thinkers focused on negotiations, rule of law and establishing stable international institutions. The widespread anti-war sentiment within Europe and North America which existed in the 1920s provided the necessary support for the liberal enterprise.

However, the failure of the League of Nations and the outbreak of the Second World War led to the marginalisation of liberal thought that was infused with idealism. Realism came to the fore as it seemed to provide a better explanation of the power politics of the Cold War that came to dominate international relations. Nevertheless, innovations in liberal tradition continued leading to the development of a number of theories to explain the developments in international relations. Prominent among them are sociological liberalism (or transnationalism), pluralism, interdependence theory, liberal internationalism, liberal peace theory, world society and neo-liberal approaches.

In the early 1980s when conflict between major powers had receded and cooperation in pursuit of mutual interests had emerged as a prominent feature of world politics, a new paradigm or framework of analysis emerged in the liberal tradition- Neoliberal Internationalism. As this approach emerged in response to the development of neorealism, it is also called as the Neoliberal approach. This new approach infused greater scientific rigor in liberal scholarship.

In the 1990s, regional and international economic integration (globalisation) on the one hand and new issues, such as multiculturalism, democracy, environment on the other, have led liberalism to focus on international order, institutions and processes of governance, human rights, democratisation, peace and economic integration.

THE LIBERAL TRADITION: MAIN CHARACTERISTICS

Liberal theorists have strong faith in human reason. This characteristic can be traced back to the ideas of John Locke (1632-1704) who argued that reason is necessary for arriving at truth and right action. Reason is necessary for understanding and shaping nature and society. According to the liberal theorists, human beings are capable of shaping their destiny, including international relations and moulding the negative ramifications of the absence of a world government.

Secondly, liberal theorists believe in the possibility of historical progress. Human reason and processes of social learning make progress possible. In the liberal conception therefore, mankind is not doomed to live in a state of perpetual conflict, but can choose political strategies to avoid it. In other words, liberal theorists argue that it is possible and desirable to reform international relations.

Thirdly, liberal theorists focus on state-society linkages and claim the existence of a close connection between domestic institutions and politics on the one hand and the international politics on the other. Since the publication of Perpetual Peace (1795) by German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) many liberal theorists became convinced that there is a causal link between the form of domestic regime and the possibility of war. Kant had specifically claimed that ‘republican’ (that is, democratic) states are more peaceful at least vis a vis one another. The contemporary idea of theory of democratic peace can be traced to this idea of Kant.

Liberal theorists are pluralists as well. They believe that state is only one actor both in within a society and on the international stage. They challenge the realist assumption that states are the only actors in international politics. Liberals argue that there are many actors in world politics which play a vital role in influencing international outcomes. The liberal tradition highlights the importance of nonstate actors such as MNCs and NGOs.

Fifth, some liberal theorists, following David Ricardo ((1772-1823) and Richard Cobden (1804-65), champion free trade as increasing interdependence among states reduces the likelihood of war. They reject mercantilism which regarded economic growth and war as compatible goals. Liberals argue that free trade is preferable to mercantilism as trade produces wealth without war. As we shall see later, these ideas have formed the basis of an entire current of thinking: interdependence liberalism.

Liberal theorists also place great emphasis on institutions. They believe that Institutions are necessary to protect and nurture the core values like order, liberty, justice and tolerance in politics. They therefore championed the creation of the League of Nations after the World War I. They were convinced that the League as an international organisation could prevent war better than the alternatives, including the traditional balance of power politics.

In the complex and interconnected landscape of contemporary international politics, state actors continue to play a pivotal role. Despite the increasing prominence of non-state actors, such as multinational corporations, international organizations, and transnational advocacy groups, states remain the primary entities in shaping global affairs. Their ability to wield sovereignty, authority, and legitimacy distinguishes them as central players in issues ranging from security and diplomacy to economic cooperation and climate change. 

Sovereignty and the Primacy of States

The concept of sovereignty, rooted in the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, establishes the state as the ultimate authority within its territory, free from external interference. This foundational principle underscores the enduring importance of state actors in international politics. States exercise legal and political authority over their populations, control resources, and manage relations with other states. For example, the recognition of state sovereignty by the United Nations is a cornerstone of international law, reinforcing the centrality of states in the global order.

State actors are the primary participants in diplomacy and the negotiation of treaties, agreements, and alliances. Through embassies, consulates, and international forums, they engage in dialogue to resolve disputes, promote interests, and foster cooperation. The role of state actors in maintaining peace and security is evident in the activities of the UN Security Council, where major powers such as the United States, China, and Russia wield significant influence through their permanent membership and veto power.

Economic Power and Trade

State actors play a critical role in shaping the global economy through policies, trade agreements, and participation in international institutions. Governments design fiscal and monetary policies that influence global markets and affect the flow of goods, services, and capital. States also negotiate and enforce trade agreements, such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which define the rules of international trade and investment.

Moreover, state actors are key participants in organizations like the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank, where they advocate for their national interests while addressing global economic challenges. The economic policies of major powers, such as China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the United States’ role in setting global financial standards, demonstrate how states shape international economic dynamics. The BRI, for instance, has expanded China’s influence across Asia, Africa, and Europe by financing infrastructure projects, fostering economic interdependence, and advancing its geopolitical ambitions.

Security and Military Power

In contemporary international politics, state actors are the primary providers of national and international security. They maintain standing armies, develop defense strategies, and invest in technologies to protect their sovereignty and citizens. The significance of state actors in security is underscored by their roles in alliances such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), where member states collaborate to deter threats and respond to crises.

States are also central to efforts aimed at addressing nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and cyber warfare. For example, the United States and Russia have been instrumental in shaping arms control agreements like the New START Treaty, which limits the number of deployed nuclear warheads. Similarly, state-led coalitions, such as the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS, demonstrate how governments coordinate efforts to combat transnational threats.

However, the militarization of international politics has raised concerns about the balance of power among states. The rise of China as a military power, exemplified by its growing presence in the South China Sea, and the aggressive actions of Russia, including its 2022 invasion of Ukraine, illustrate how state actors can both contribute to and disrupt global stability.

Environmental Diplomacy and Global Challenges

State actors are crucial in addressing global challenges such as climate change, pandemics, and migration. Their participation in multilateral agreements and initiatives is essential for coordinated action. For instance, the Paris Agreement, signed by nearly 200 countries, represents a landmark effort to combat climate change by committing states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Despite challenges, such as the temporary withdrawal of the United States under the Trump administration, the agreement underscores the importance of state actors in tackling global environmental issues.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, state actors played a central role in implementing public health measures, securing vaccine supplies, and coordinating international responses. Initiatives like COVAX, supported by various governments, aimed to ensure equitable vaccine distribution, highlighting the ability of states to mobilize resources for global health crises.

Migration, driven by conflicts, economic disparities, and environmental changes, is another area where state actors exert influence. States manage immigration policies, provide asylum to refugees, and participate in international frameworks such as the Global Compact for Migration to address the complex dimensions of human mobility.

Geopolitical Rivalries and Regional Influence

The actions of powerful states often shape regional and global dynamics, as seen in the geopolitical rivalries between major powers. The United States and China, for example, are engaged in a strategic competition that encompasses trade, technology, military power, and ideological influence. China’s rise as a global power has challenged the unipolarity of the post-Cold War era, while the United States seeks to maintain its leadership through alliances like the Quad and the AUKUS pact.

Regional powers, such as India, Brazil, and South Africa, also play significant roles in their respective areas. India’s leadership in South Asia, exemplified by its economic partnerships and security initiatives, demonstrates how state actors shape regional orders. Similarly, Brazil’s role in Latin America and South Africa’s influence in Africa highlight the importance of middle powers in advancing development and addressing regional challenges.

Challenges to State Sovereignty

While state actors remain central to international politics, their sovereignty and authority face significant challenges in the contemporary era. Globalization, technological advancements, and the rise of non-state actors have blurred traditional boundaries, limiting the ability of states to act independently. For example, multinational corporations, such as Amazon and Google, often wield economic power that rivals that of small states, influencing policies on taxation, labor, and data privacy.

Transnational issues like cybercrime, climate change, and terrorism require multilateral solutions, often reducing the autonomy of individual states. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and advocacy groups also challenge state authority by pressuring governments to adhere to human rights standards, environmental commitments, and social justice goals.

Furthermore, internal challenges, such as populism, political polarization, and economic inequality, have weakened some states’ capacities to engage effectively in international politics. The rise of populist leaders, such as Donald Trump in the United States and Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, has led to isolationist policies that undermine multilateralism and global cooperation.

Conclusion

State actors continue to play a central role in contemporary international politics, shaping the global order through their actions in diplomacy, security, economics, and environmental governance. Their ability to exercise sovereignty, project power, and negotiate solutions to complex challenges underscores their enduring importance. However, the evolving global landscape, characterized by interconnectedness and the rise of non-state actors, has introduced new dynamics that challenge traditional notions of state power. To remain effective, state actors must adapt to these changes, balancing national interests with the demands of an increasingly interdependent world. Despite these challenges, states remain the cornerstone of the international system, navigating the complexities of modern global politics while striving to address pressing global issues.

At the International scene, there are many players engaged in what is regarded as the game of international Politics. One of the oldest and universally acknowledged actors on the modern world stage is the state. A state is a type of polity that is an organized political community living under a single system of government. A Political community is referred to as a government responsible for the citizens under the government. It has been earlier assumed that international relations are made up of the relations between states. International relations can be likened to a series of actions that promote interactions between states. Actors are entities that participate in or promote international relations. The two types of actors involved in international relations include State and non-state actors. State actors represent a government while non-state actors do not. However, they have impact on the state actors.

A definition of world politics involving only states as the actors has been challenged since the late 1960s and the early 1970s, since many other actors have become way more involved in the process of international political. Due to this, international relations promotes International pluralism fostering national interactions. The forces of globalization and liberalization in the last three decades of the twentieth century have resulted in a transformation in the world economic structure, thereby undermining the ability of states to govern in full capacity. These great global transformations have had a major influence and have modified the traditional paradigm and theories of international relations, most especially the school of thought of realism due to its basic proposition that actors represent the states, and the states operate a system of anarchy. The realist school of thought has however been criticized for its focus on the state view of international relations and its shallow focus on the problems of war and peace.

Role of Transnational Organisation

Transnational relations are usually defined as regular cross-border interactions in which non-state actors play a significant role. This opens a wide research area in the context of globalisation where a great variety of actors participate in growing global exchanges. Of particular importance for international relations are transnational actors that wield considerable influence on politics across borders, such as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), multinational corporations (MNCs), religious actors, terrorism rebels, criminal actors, and diasporas and ethnic actors. Transnational organizations have existed before in history. Armies and navies, churches and joint stock companies, as well as other types of organizations have been involved in transnational operations in the past. During the twentyfive years after World War II, however, transnational organizations: (a) proliferated in number far beyond anything remotely existing in the past; (b) individually grew in size far beyond anything existing in the past; (c) performed functions which they never performed in the past; and (d) operated on a truly global scale such as was never possible in the past. The increase in the number, size, scope, and variety of transnational organizations after World War II makes it possible, useful, and sensible to speak of a transnational organizational revolution in world politics.

Transnational organizations are designed to facilitate the pursuit of a single interest within many national units. The transnational organization requires access to nations. The restraints on a transnational organization are largely external, stemming from its need to gain operating authority in different sovereign states. In this sense the emergence of transnational organizations on the world scene involves a pattern of cross-cutting cleavages and associations over- laying those associated with the nation-state.

A distinctive characteristic of the transnational organization is its broader-than-national perspective with respect to the pursuit of highly specialized objectives through a central optimizing strategy across national boundaries.

Multinational Corporations (MNCs)

The most prominent contemporary NGOs are multinational corporations (MNCs) They are huge firms that own and control plants and offices in at least more than one country and sell their goods and services around the world. They are large corporations having branches and subsidiaries operating on a worldwide basis in many countries simultaneously. MNCs are “major driver of global economic integration” and “establish unprecedented linkages among economies worldwide”. MNCs can be classified according to the kinds of business activities they pursue such as extractive resources, agriculture, industrial products, transportation, banking, and tourism. The most notable MNCs are industrial and financial corporations (the most important being banks). Naturally the primary objective of MNCs is profit maximisation. They are very effective in directing foreign policy of states, including that of the most powerful ones, and they set agenda for international politics. They have become a major factor in national economic decision making process. 

MNCs may be considered as instruments of economic development for less developed countries. However, when we look at the functions they perform in host countries, we see that they have a very strong bond with the home government which becomes a source of concern for host countries. MNCs challenge the state sovereignty of host countries. Host countries may lose control over their economies. They create political and social division and prevent the development of domestic industries in host countries. They may produce specialized products of which the buyer is usually the parent company. They may manipulate prices of imports and exports in host countries. However, there are many conflicts between MNCs and their home countries over taxation, trade policies, and economic sanctions. MNCs may not want to follow national policies pursued by their home governments. That is, trade (MNCs) may not always follow ‘flag’ (state policies).

In order to minimise the negative impact of MNCs, we witness government interventions through nationalisation, government participation and government initiation of joint development projects. Furthermore, governments have to maintain control over tax revenues, inflation rate, credit policies, trade balances, balance of payments, trade restrictions, monetary values, employment, and economic planning to decrease their dependence on MNCs. Host countries may place restrictions on the ownership and behaviour of subsidiaries and on the freedom of businesses. Because only by controlling these fields a host country may have an upper hand vis-a-vis MNCs.

Multinational Corporations (MNCs) in advanced industrial countries with a free enterprise system have been operating on the basis of mutual infiltration or interpenetration . “In the case of underdeveloped countries, there is widespread apprehension about the dangerous implications of the amalgam of the power economics of the multinational corporations and power politics . The long term primary interest is nothing but the maximization of profits for “home” through the subsidiaries, whose innovations are also used not for the host countries, but ‘home’. The movement for international regulation of MNCs arose from the inability of individual countries, particularly the developing ones, to control the activities of the corporations within their territories.

The globalization process has led to a configuration of the ways in which MNCs pursue their resource seeking, market seeking and efficiency seeking objectives. Globalization polices of firm require following complex integration strategies under which firm split up the production process into various specific activities or segments of these activities with each of them carried out by subsidiaries in locations best suited to the particular activity. This process creates an international intra-form division of labour and a growing integration of international production networks. But on the whole MNCs are phenomenon of the twenty century and to a large extent latter of the second half of the twentieth century.