THE ROLE OF THE STATE AS AN INTERNATIONAL ACTOR IN THE EVOLVING INTERANTIONAL SYSTEM

Institute of Peace Studies and International Relations
Hekima College












“Critically Evaluate the View that the State’s Position as a Dominant International Actor has been Irrevocably Eroded in the Recent Past”







Moses Owade Were
















The proponents of the view that the state’s position as the dominant international actor in has been eroded in the recent past are right to some given extent. However, in as much as attempts are made to stretch the case espoused by this school of thought by stating that the state’s position in the international system has been irrevocably eroded is debatable and remains a contested terrain international relations today. I would concede that there may have indeed been certain erosion the roles, relevance and significance of the state in the recent past. This however does not in any way negate the fact that the state still remains the primary focus of identity for an overwhelming majority of people in the world today. Granted that the autonomy and function of the state has been eroded by transnational trends, the world has no seen the emergence of an adequate substitute to replace it as the primary unit in responding to challenges and changes on the global level.
In the aftermath of the end of the era of the Cold War, the increasing dominance of the market economy in the context of globalization economic regime and the internationalization of human rights have led to a continued demand for a review of the Westphallian structure of the international system. Specifically, the irruption of internal violence in a number of states and consequent violations of human rights on a grand scale that in some cases have been encouraged by and even executed by certain governments have led to serious questions on whether the sovereignty of the state in inviolable?
The notion of sovereignty whereby the state is free from foreign interference is enshrined in International law. On the other hand, the concept of human rights has been accorded universal legal validity by the United Nations Charter of Human Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human rights and a series of other international treaties. What recourse would one have in situations where these two principles, rooted in international law, are conflict? An international debate on precisely this kind of clash between the notions of sovereignty and human rights violation was provoked on October 16th 1998. On this day, the then Home Secretary for Great Britain ordered the arrest of Augustino Pinochet, formerly Chilean president, who was then seeking medical treatment in London. The arrest was ordered to allow the serving of an extradition warrant issued by the Spanish National Court and submitted by the International Police. The charges that had been preferred against Pinochet were set out as “crimes against humanity”. The arrest of Pinochet raised many questions amongst this was whether Spain would have jurisdiction over crimes that were alleged to have been committed in Chile? Further, the Chilean senate had granted amnesty to Pinochet and granted him immunity from prosecution by making him honorary senator for life.
The principle of sovereign immunity that was at one point a universally accepted legal principle has been progressively eroded in the recent times. Thus in the second half of the twentieth century, this principle has relentlessly been diluted and eventually eliminated through various treaties and customs in international law. Today sovereign states and the people who run them cannot perpetrate crimes against humanity like genocide without being held accountable for their actions by the international community. No government can issue a legally binding amnesty to person accused of committing crimes against humanity. The question that is evoked by this reality is on what takes precedent, between the sovereign rights of governments to do what they will within their borders or the rights of all human beings to be free from oppression, ill treatment and genocide. What obligation does the international community have in face of the violation of human rights by a member? Are the transcendent principles of human rights more fundamental and important than state sovereignty?
This debate is centered on the assertion of the humanitarian vital interests, the notion that “the rights of individuals and groups have precedence over and above the rights of the state”. The notion of sovereignty has been repeatedly used and abused by despotic leaders as a shield against ‘foreign interference’ while at the same time perpetrating untold abuses and crimes against their own citizens. By harping on the notion of the sovereignty such demented leaders were in effect granted sufficient room rule at they willed even if this meant the wanton killing, maiming and repression of their own people. Therefore in situations of gross abuses of individual or group rights then the international community has a right and obligation to intervene even when the sovereignty of the state is violated in the process. This principle of humanitarian vital interests and what Koffi Annan, the former Secretary General of the United Nations, devolved under the heading of “Responsibility to Protect” informed the interventions by the international community in Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia and in the post gulf war Iraq in regard to the Kurdish community. In the recent past therefore, the sovereign rights of the states are increasingly ceding ground to the demands of human rights.
The global economic order that is characterized by an ever increasing level of interdependence, interconnectedness and growing influence of the market economic model constitutes the other source of the erosion of the dominant position of the state in the recent past. Globalization has largely been driven by the demand for deregulation, privatization and the opening the markets to be regulated only by the forces of demand and supply. Advances in technological developments and the increasing power and influence of the Multinational Corporations in the economies of the third world countries has generally led to situation where the state’s jurisdiction in increasingly becoming more and more irrelevant in regulating economic behavior. The financial might of some of the multinational corporations in terms of either their annual profits or their capital outlays are many time more than the national budgets of a number of some of the third world economies. Many of the third world economies have been in this regard been described as ‘penetrated economies’ in the sense that they are largely acted upon and are not actors of any significance or influence in the global economy. Further the growth of regional integration schemes have led to a dilution of decision structures of the individual states.
In the aftermath of the Cold War, ‘the iron curtain’ that divided the Eastern block from the Western hemisphere has been replaced by a ‘curtain of poverty’ that divides the affluent nations in the Europe and North America from the severe poverty that characterizes many nations in the third world nations. The global economy is largely driven by the interests of the most powerful nations in the world at the expense of the majority poor states in the in international community. As an illustration of the place that many third world countries occupy in the global economy in terms of trade, the entire African continent contributes less than 5% of the world trade. Another example that dramatizes this point is the fact that the state of New York has more phone line connections than the entire African continent combined.
Nonetheless, despite and in spite of the various assaults on the state’s position as the dominant international actor, I believe that we have not yet and will not in the foreseeable future see the demise of the state. For well over three hundred years, the state has remained the most dominant political actor in world politics. No other political institution wields greater authority over people than the state as it maintains the ultimate political claims on human beings. The state is the only unit which commands loyalty from a large number of people. The state possesses citizens who define their existence in relation to it. Given that the state owns territory, it follows that it remains a dominant international actor since all the other units occupy territory that is owned by the state at the pleasure of the state.
Far from irrevocably eroding the position of the state as a dominant international actor, the internationalization of human rights can only be realized on the basis of the existence of strong national structures and therefore states. That is, the demand of human rights are espoused in international law can only be implemented and enforced by the various states. Further in enforcing and implementing the same, the states will need to be sensitive to the unique situations and ethos of the various nations. International law therefore assumes the existence robust states capable of implementing international law. Secondly, the demands of international law behooves states to be at the fore front of not only upholding but also enforcing since failure to do this means that the states would have to account for its actions in cases where have been violations and abuse of rights of its own people.
The other charge leveled against the continued relevance of the state has to do with the prosperity that accrues from the unregulated free market economy and in the absence of any form of regulation from the state. The financial crisis that hit south East Asia in 1997/1998 and the current economic turmoil across North America, Europe and Asia have effectively and with finality disabused us of the assumption of the wholesale deregulation of the financial markets. The financial crisis in South East Asia in 1998 and the current financial crises are a confirmation that deregulation is disastrous to the economic life of any society. The Malaysian government in defiance of conventional wisdom, as advanced by the proponents of deregulation, intervened in the market to avert a total collapse. Today, the United States government is intervening in the market and has bailed out the failing institutions while a number of European governments have taken over some of the failing financial institutions. This financial crisis that today to continues to drive down financial markets in the America, Europe and Asia and pushing their various economies towards the path of recession has exposed the follies of the gospel of deregulation according to scriptures of globalization. The role of the state in responding to this unfolding financial crisis cannot be overemphasized. In the face of the eminent collapse of the market, the state had to step to shore it up.
The state, the political organization responsible for maintaining and sustaining community life, is as old as the human civilization itself. States have proved to be highly resistant to attempts and movements that have sought to relegate it to obsolescence. There is no doubt that the evolving structure and form of the international system has resulted in some level of erosion to the traditional understanding of the state. In the light of rapid changes that have taken place there is therefore need to rework reinterpret the concept of the state since this unit of the international system is not going anywhere anytime soon. The state’s position as the dominant international actor has not been irrevocably eroded in the recent past. The state continues to be the dominant international actor the only change being that greater levels of vigilance and accountability is demanded of it not only in the domestic front but also in the international arena from its ‘peers’ in the international community.