Recognizing the myopia that had been hindering the scope of development in IR theorizing, Robert Keohane has added several dimensions which makes it easier to understand and relate to international relations and the interplay of non-state actors. What stands out most about this piece is the credit given to non state actors which alters the power dynamics in different paradigms, given the different transnational environment settings.
Entities who do not represent the State and have gained autonomy have surfaced to form very prominent non-state actors, and this prolific growth in such actors have contributed to the "loss of control". One of the most important concepts provided to us in the readings previously has been that of "strategic interdependence" which illustrates how synonymous non-state actors have been with international relations; With the formation of the very first city states, the relations the Greek city states maintained with foreign city states were a reflection and product of the relationships that the Greek traders maintained with the Phoenician traders. Therefore the idea that representation of the State comes from the soldiers and diplomat is rather redundant because every businessman and corporation today has stakes in the political agenda which goes beyond the domestic sphere. Here Koehane corrects the realist perspective on the way international politics is structured and the restrictions their definitions place on "political actors".
The most important contribution come as a result of defining new actors - lobbies and most importantly NGO's, and institutions that have been responsible for imposing sanctions, keeping checks and balances and creating a system of exchange and reciprocity, actions that are not only limited to the diplomatic arena.
Entities who do not represent the State and have gained autonomy have surfaced to form very prominent non-state actors, and this prolific growth in such actors have contributed to the "loss of control". One of the most important concepts provided to us in the readings previously has been that of "strategic interdependence" which illustrates how synonymous non-state actors have been with international relations; With the formation of the very first city states, the relations the Greek city states maintained with foreign city states were a reflection and product of the relationships that the Greek traders maintained with the Phoenician traders. Therefore the idea that representation of the State comes from the soldiers and diplomat is rather redundant because every businessman and corporation today has stakes in the political agenda which goes beyond the domestic sphere. Here Koehane corrects the realist perspective on the way international politics is structured and the restrictions their definitions place on "political actors".
The most important contribution come as a result of defining new actors - lobbies and most importantly NGO's, and institutions that have been responsible for imposing sanctions, keeping checks and balances and creating a system of exchange and reciprocity, actions that are not only limited to the diplomatic arena.
I like how you brought in 'strategic interdependence' in to this. And the example you give of Greek city is also very pertinent to what the reading is talking about
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting how you have mentioned the most important contribution of these non-state actors. But what about those non-state actors which are proving to be a hindrance in the International Arena. Yes, I am talking about organizations like Taliban and how they have had a negative impact on International Relations
ReplyDelete