Introduction
The study of International Relations (IR) is fundamentally concerned with understanding the interactions between various actors on the global stage. Among these, the state has long been regarded as the primary actor, wielding significant influence over international politics through its sovereignty, territorial control, and capacity to engage in diplomacy and conflict. This essay examines the role of states as central players in IR, exploring the theoretical foundations that prioritise their position, the mechanisms through which they exert power, and the challenges to their dominance in a rapidly evolving global landscape. Drawing on classical and contemporary perspectives, particularly realism and liberalism, the essay will argue that while states remain crucial actors, their primacy is increasingly contested by non-state entities and global issues that transcend national borders. The discussion will be structured into three main sections: the theoretical underpinnings of state primacy, the practical manifestations of state power, and the limitations and evolving challenges to state dominance. Ultimately, this analysis aims to provide a nuanced understanding of the state’s role in shaping international relations.
Theoretical Foundations of State Primacy in International Relations
The concept of the state as the primary actor in IR is deeply rooted in theoretical traditions, most notably realism. Realist scholars such as Hans Morgenthau argue that international politics is fundamentally a struggle for power among sovereign states, driven by national interest and the anarchic nature of the international system (Morgenthau, 1948). In this view, states are unitary actors with the authority to make decisions on behalf of their populations, possessing the monopoly on legitimate violence and the ability to define and pursue strategic objectives. The Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, which established the modern concept of state sovereignty, is often cited as a historical cornerstone that formalised the state’s central role, creating a system where territorial integrity and non-interference became guiding principles (Krasner, 1999). This framework arguably underpins much of contemporary IR, as states remain the primary units of analysis in diplomatic interactions and international law.
In contrast, liberal theories acknowledge the state’s importance but suggest a more cooperative dimension to its role. Liberals argue that states engage in international institutions and regimes to address shared challenges, such as trade and security, thereby reinforcing their relevance through collaboration (Keohane, 1984). For instance, the establishment of the United Nations in 1945 exemplified states collectively creating structures to maintain peace and promote development, even if power disparities among them often shape outcomes. Therefore, while theoretical perspectives may diverge on the nature of state behaviour, there is a broad consensus that states are the foundational actors in IR, providing the structure within which other entities operate.
Practical Manifestations of State Power
In practical terms, states exercise their primacy through several key mechanisms, including diplomacy, military capability, and economic influence. Diplomatically, states engage in bilateral and multilateral negotiations to advance their interests, as seen in treaties, alliances, and international summits. The role of state representatives in forums like the G20 demonstrates how state-centric diplomacy shapes global economic policies, often overshadowing non-state actors (Bayne, 2005). Furthermore, states maintain formal recognition processes, determining which entities are considered legitimate actors in the international system—a power that underscores their gatekeeping role.
Military power is another critical avenue through which states assert dominance. The ability to wage war or provide security remains a defining feature of statehood, with national defence budgets reflecting this priority. For example, the United States, as a leading global power, allocates vast resources to its military, influencing international stability and often setting the agenda in conflict zones (SIPRI, 2022). This capacity to project force not only protects national interests but also reinforces the state’s centrality in addressing global security threats.
Economically, states influence international relations through trade policies, sanctions, and foreign aid. The imposition of economic sanctions by states or coalitions, such as those levied by the European Union on Russia following the 2014 annexation of Crimea, illustrates how states use economic tools as instruments of power (European Commission, 2014). Such actions highlight the state’s ability to shape global interactions, often prioritising national objectives over transnational concerns. Collectively, these mechanisms demonstrate why states remain indispensable actors, capable of mobilising significant resources and authority in ways that other entities typically cannot match.
Challenges and Limitations to State Dominance
Despite their central role, the primacy of states in IR is increasingly challenged by the rise of non-state actors and global issues that defy territorial boundaries. Transnational corporations (TNCs), non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and terrorist groups wield significant influence in areas traditionally dominated by states. For instance, companies like Apple or Microsoft often have economic power comparable to that of smaller states, influencing global markets and even national policies through lobbying or tax negotiations (Strange, 1996). Similarly, NGOs such as Amnesty International play a key role in shaping international norms on human rights, sometimes holding states accountable in ways that challenge their sovereignty (Keck and Sikkink, 1998).
Global challenges like climate change and pandemics further complicate the state-centric model of IR. Climate change, for example, requires cooperation beyond national borders, as no single state can address its impacts unilaterally. The Paris Agreement of 2015, while negotiated by states, reflects a recognition that non-state actors, including civil society and private sectors, are critical to implementation (UNFCCC, 2015). Similarly, the COVID-19 pandemic exposed the limitations of state responses when faced with a borderless threat, necessitating international coordination through organisations like the World Health Organization (WHO, 2020). These examples suggest that while states remain crucial, their ability to act independently is often constrained by interdependence and the complexity of modern challenges.
Moreover, the rise of regional and supranational entities, such as the European Union, questions the absolute sovereignty of individual states. Member states of the EU have ceded certain powers to collective institutions, creating a hybrid model where state primacy is shared with supranational authority (Haas, 1958). Although states retain significant control, this development indicates a shift towards a more multilayered system of governance, where their role as primary actors is no longer absolute. Hence, while states are undeniably central to IR, their dominance is neither unchallenged nor static, reflecting an evolving international order.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this essay has explored the state as the primary actor in International Relations, highlighting both the enduring significance and the emerging limitations of its role. Theoretically, perspectives such as realism and liberalism underscore the state’s centrality, whether as a power-seeking entity or a cooperative partner in international regimes. Practically, states manifest their influence through diplomacy, military might, and economic tools, shaping the global order in ways that other actors struggle to replicate. However, the rise of non-state actors, the complexity of transnational issues, and the growth of supranational governance challenge the state-centric paradigm, suggesting a more pluralistic future for IR. The implications of this shift are profound, as they necessitate a rethinking of how power and responsibility are distributed in the international system. States remain indispensable, yet their primacy is no longer absolute, requiring adaptation to a world where collaboration and shared governance are increasingly critical. This nuanced understanding not only reflects the current dynamics of IR but also points to the need for further research into how states can effectively navigate these challenges while maintaining their relevance.
References
- Bayne, N. (2005) Staying Together: The G8 Summit Confronts the 21st Century. Ashgate Publishing.
- European Commission. (2014) EU Restrictive Measures in Response to the Crisis in Ukraine. European Commission Report.
- Haas, E. B. (1958) The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social, and Economic Forces, 1950-1957. Stanford University Press.
- Keck, M. E. and Sikkink, K. (1998) Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Cornell University Press.
- Keohane, R. O. (1984) After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton University Press.
- Krasner, S. D. (1999) Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton University Press.
- Morgenthau, H. J. (1948) Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. Alfred A. Knopf.
- SIPRI. (2022) Military Expenditure Database. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
- Strange, S. (1996) The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy. Cambridge University Press.
- UNFCCC. (2015) Paris Agreement. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
- WHO. (2020) COVID-19 Global Response Report. World Health Organization.
