“Nations states are no longer the most significant actors in global politic” Discuss [45]

According to realism nation states provide the foundations for international relations, a principle primary based of Westphalianism, with esteemed political theorists such as Henry Kissinger agreeing with this view. This said since the end of the Cold War state sovereignty has been challenged by the rise of globalisation, the internet, international human rights based law, regionalism and the growing significance of transnational companies and non governmental organisations. Thus liberals have suggested we are moving into a period of the post sovereign state where nation states are no longer the most significant actors in global politics.  The expeditious rise of globalisation has led to state sovereignty being question due to the prosperity of nation states being dependent on the decisions of transnational companies in addition to global capital flows. For instance the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. in 2008 is thought to have been a major factor in the 2008 global finical crisis which led to various countries economies, such as the United Kingdom, going into recession. This is important for it highlights the importance of TNC’s in the modern global economy and how it may be viewed that sovereign states no longer have control over their own economy. A more contemporary example of this is the growing emergence of Apple Inc. as a corporations superpower, with the company as of 2011 being worth more than the combine GDP of Israel, Syria, Jordan and the Lebanon. Thus it may been seen that Apple Inc. the worlds largest TNC, theoretically possess more economic power in global politics than four developed countries combined thereby identifying the possibility that nation states are no longer the most significant actors in global politics. Furthermore the development of neo-colonialism and peripheral states being forced to make trading conditions favourable to core states has led to smaller states losing sovereignty to larger core states. Reinforcing this view, even the ideologically communist state of Cuba has been forced to abandon isolationism and embrace international trading. In addition the significance of the trans-Atlantic trade and investment partnership has led to the European Union being expected to create favourable conditions for American TNC investors, with American TNC such as Apple Inc. being able to sue the EU if these conditions are not established. Regionalism has further led to the erosion of state sovereignty, especially in the European Union where there has been the greatest pooling of sovereignty. Correspondingly the 2009 Lisbon Treaty further increased qualified majority voting, thus providing the European Union with stronger legal legitimacy in addition to allowing the establishment of a EU President and High Commissioner for foreign affairs. Linking to this Eurozone States, such as Greece, are increasingly required to accept a centralised approach to fiscal policy. However this said, all EU states still maintain sovereignty over foreign policy, defence, immigration and taxation. Because of this the EU can therefore be seen as combining supranationalism intergovernmentalism. Although the rise of regionalism may be true it is possible it is only superficial; for in recent years there has been the rise of populist and nationalist movements challenging regionalism whilst also emphasising the importance of state sovereignty. Notably the rise of nationalist movements within Europe such as UKIP, the National Front and Syriza has emphasised the importance of the nation state and how there is still the opinion that nation states are the most important actors in global politics. Explicitly the recent developments involving nationalist clashed in Eastern Ukraine, the high turnout in the 2014 Scottish Referendum and the dispute over the Senkaku / Diaoyu Islands. Given these points it is clear that regionalism is challenging state sovereignty, however the rise of nationalism in regions in particular Europe has led to states maintaining sovereignty for the time being.  In various cases the sovereignty of nation states, predominately weaker ones, has been challenged by humanitarian intervention. Namely Operation Proved Comfort in Iraq in 1991 involved British forces entering the sovereign nation of Iraq and intervening in Iraq’s domestic affairs, important to realise that this Operation was in fact mandated by the UN under Mandate 688. Hence this is important for it identifies that a breach in a nation states sovereignty can be mandated by the UN, thus the United Nations could be seen as a modern replacement for nation states as the main actor in global politics. Linking to this is the UN’s responsibility to protect, this involves the duty to prevent and halt genocide and mass atrocities; something which lies first and foremost with the state, but the international community has a role that cannot be blocked by the invocation of sovereignty. Therefore sovereignty no longer exclusively protects states from foreign interference; it is a charge of responsibility where States are accountable for the welfare of their people. Although this may be true regardless of the UN’s responsibility to protect, there has been no humanitarian invention in powerful states such as the five members of the UN security council. For instance China’s past action in Tiber as been controversial but no other state would challenge China’s sovereignty in addition to China’s ability to veto UN action through its permanent position on the UN Security Council.  International human rights based law has increasingly challenged state sovereignty in recent years. Although states still determine the human rights of their citizens there has been various cases when this statement has been proven wrong, for instance Zimbabwe's land nationalisation programme was deemed illegal by a Southern African Development Community tribunal. However the principle of state sovereignty still applied and the SADC was unable to apply its decision and the Zimbabwe president Robert Mugabe continued the land nationalisation in defiance of the tribunal. Furthermore the International Criminal Court, the ICC, has furthered the principle of common international human rights based on international law. However the ICC lacks the coercive power and relies on states to willingly chose to co-operate with it, therefore various ICC cases have faced difficulty protecting due to numerous countries such as Kenya and the USA questioning the legitimacy of the court. Further proving this is the USA’s decision to pass the America Service Protection Act to ensure that none of its military members can be tried by the ICC. In addition he President of Sudan Omar al Bashir is accused of war crimes in Darfur, but he is still travelling freely in African States, thus how much sovereignty does the ICC legitimately have in global politics.  To conclude, although political theorist John Dunn as suggested that the “state remains the principle international site of political experience” he fails to identify the pooling of sovereignty in regional power such as the EU. The creation of the EU’s high commissioner in the Lisbon Treaty in combination with its control of Eurozone fiscal policy significantly suggests that nation states may no longer be the main actors in global politics. This said, the opinion that nation states are no longer the main actors in global politics is naive, with many of the worlds core powers acting out of self interest in establishments which appear to pool sovereignty. However it may on the other hand been seen that state sovereignty is indeed being lost to TNCs and NGOs in a ever globalising world. With the emergence of TNC superpowers such as Apple Inc. dominating global international relations and politics. Therefore in conclusion nation states may still the main actors in global politics despite fierce challenges from both regional establishments and TNCs, with the Russian President Vladimir Putin emphasising this by stating “true sovereignty is an absolute necessary condition of its existence…either we will be sovereign, or we will dissolve in the world”.