“The process of globalization and the increasing role of non-state actors in global governance are undermining the role of the state as the principal actor in global policymaking.”
Globalization and the increasing role of non-state actors have shifted the position of states, the traditional “main players” in global governance. However, whether this change undermines states is debatable. In one sense, states’ roles have somewhat diminished: Non-governmental entities – namely transnational corporations (TNC), but also global non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and others – have an increasing voice in global policy debates, which may lessen states’ influence in governmental affairs. But in several other key ways, states’ retain their powerful role. For example, states remain the key negotiators and entities in major global governance entities. Additionally, states retain compulsory power over their subjects or constituents, a form of control that new players in global governments have generally not obtained.
Globalization has led to several substantial changes in global governance and the entities participating in governance activities. First, over the past 70 years, an increasing number of nations have signed onto international agreements. For example, when the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was created in 1947, it had no institutional structure; by 2009, though, more than 150 nations – accounting for 97% of world trade – were members of GATT’s successor, the World Trade Organization (Fidler, 2009). The World Health Organization, started in 1946, now comprises 194 member states and has nearly 150 country offices (Council on Foreign Relations, 2012). In both of these entities – and in others, such as the Genera...
... middle of paper ...
...Fooks G, Wander N. Trade Policy, Health, and Corporate
Influence: British American Tobacco and China's Accession to the World
Trade Organization. International Journal of Health Services 2010;40(3):421-
41.
Lee K. Civil Society Organizations and the Functions of Global Health Governance:
What Role within Intergovernmental Organizations? Global Health
Governance. 2010;3(2).
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine n.d., Session 6: The role of civil
society in global health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine,
London, England.
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine n.d., Session 5: The role of the state
in global health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England.
Ricci J. Global health governance and the state: premature claims of a post-
international framework. Global Health Governance. 2009;3(1).
The United Nations General Assembly 36-103 focused on topics of hostile relations between states and justification for international interventions. Specifically mentioned at the UNGA was the right of a state to perform an intervention on the basis of “solving outstanding international issues” and contributing to the removal of global “conflicts and interference". (Resolution 36/103, e). My paper will examine the merits of these rights, what the GA was arguing for and against, and explore relevant global events that can suggest the importance of this discussion and what it has achieved or materialized.
According to World Health Organization, the statics show that: - The world needs 17 million more health workers, especially in Africa and South East Asia. - African Region bore the highest burden with almost two thirds of the global maternal deaths in 2015 - In Sub-Saharn Africa, 1 child in 12 dies before his or her 5th birthday - Teenage girls, sex workers and intravenous drug users are mong those left behind by the global HIV response - TB occurs with 9.6 million new cases in 2014 - In 2014, at least 1.7 billion people needed interventions against neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) (“Global Health Observatory data”, n.d.) B. A quote of Miss Emmeline Stuart, published in the article in
In no field other than politics does the justification for action often come from a noteworthy event and the true cause stays hidden behind the headlines. The United States’ transformation from a new state to a global superpower has been a methodical journey molded by international conditions (the global terrain for statecraft), the role of institutions and their programmed actions, and ultimately, the interests of actors (the protection of participants in making policy’s items and i...
Stephen. D. Krasner is an International Relations Professor at Stanford University and a former director of Policy Planning at the United States Department of State. He is a neorealist who focuses on sovereignty and state structure, international regimes and weak state stabilisation. His theory is the product of contemporary times and projects a broad trajectory of ups and downs in the international state structure embedded with the chain of circumstances within the rigid framework of international relationships and effectively and efficiently analyses the reasons and remedies for the current state of being of the states. His major contributions are Sovereignty-organised Hypocrisy, Structural Conflict-Third world against the global liberalism and Defending National Interest.
Firstly, the assumption that states are the only actors within the international system (Mearsheimer 2010) seems to be out-dated. In a globalized world based on interdependence and with the decline of sovereign states, it appears almost impossible to exclude organisations such as NGOs, multinational corporations and also terroristic groups from what happens in the international system and the deriving behaviours of states. A remarkable example might be the recent terroristic attack in Paris on 13th November 2015: this event has threatened not only global security, but also unity among western countries and has affected the international decisions (such as on the immigration issue) of different states. Then, it can be acknowledged that states do not only act as security-seekers that reach the balance of power after having regulated both the security dilemma and national interest. Indeed, the importance of statesmen and ideology in the decision-making process cannot be denied, as it may have a deep influence on foreign and international policies. Moreover, national interest has not a unique meaning and it could be manipulated in order to either hide the desire of power and hegemony or justify war. Therefore, it does not seem to be a valid reason for explaining the behaviours of states. Finally, the structural level of analysis does not take into account the relevance of social practices in the way states behave: both interaction and interdependence among states could affect their decisions (Copeland 2000). Indeed, constructivists argue that ‘Anarchy is what states make of it’ (Wendt 1992), meaning that the structure of the international system is a tangible effect of all the decision made by different states. This idea is an evident challenge to the deterministic orientation of events
Geopolitics has been a major obsession of nation-s¬tates throughout history and even today. The strategies that nation-states use to assert their position in relation to other states are complex and changing with the new nature of states and power in the World. Mackinder originally formulated one of the most crucial geopolitical models in order to capture the way in which states vie for power over space, which has seen renewed relevance as Afghanistan continues to be at the heart of a world power struggle. Whilst organic theories of how nation-states behave and exist in a manner similar to that of organism(relating to geopolitical actions and ambitions) were penned by early German writers such as Ratzel and Haushofer(though have existed before this), that have tended to be adopted by authoritarian regimes and have been extended to the utilisation of repression. These models can be seen to work in conjunction with one another and are at the backbone of geopolitical theory and can be widely applied. However they were originally ideas that were conceived with a very different world in mind when compared with the present. So it would be interesting to see whether the modern nation states in the face of globalisation (whereby the states’ own role have been redefined) still adhere to these theoretical frameworks in regard to how they conduct geopolitical activity.
This paper attempts to address two questions that are at the heart of this dispute: Do TSMs and INGOs have any real power in today's international political arena against the traditional view of state dominance? And, if the answer to the previous question is yes, then does such a change merit a fundamental revision of the state-centric model of international relations?
The relationship between the role of the state and globalisation is a complex one. Globalisation, as defined by the Financial Times, is the ‘integration of economies, industries, markets, cultures and policy-making around the world.’ However this definition, and many others like it, must by default mean that as countries become more integrated the divisions between them blur. This would create a Pangaea like nation, where states are not separated, physically, economically or socially. The main argument in this essay will be whether states, (which are inherently divided by physical and economic boundaries) and the role they have to play in general society will be less relevant in an increasingly globalised world.
Beitsch et al. (2006) also conveys the main functions of state public health institutions, which include the assessment of diseases, policy development, and the commitment to health protection and promotion activities. While Brumback and Malecki (1996) reveal that the role of public health agencies is to assess and analyse public health problems, form policies, layout development, and implement
World health organisation cited in Haralambos and Holborn (2009) sociology themes and perspectives: students hand book, seventh edition, London Collins Publishers.
This essay will describe the characteristics of the modern nation-state, explain how the United States fits the criteria of and functions as a modern nation-state, discuss the European Union as a transnational entity, analyze how nation-states and transnational entities engage on foreign policy to achieve their interests, and the consequences of this interaction for international politics.
...ment and well-being. It is clear that without the ongoing presence and work of international organisations, the international system would be in a far worse and more chaotic state, with a far greater chance for a civil war to breakout. They also are a major player in helping develop states political and economical systems.
Baylis, Smith and Patricia Owens. 2014. The globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international relations. London. Oxford University Press.
Krain, Matthew (2005), “AP Comparative Government and Politics Briefing Paper: Globalization,” [http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/repository/ap05_comp_govpol_glob_42253.pdf], accessed 15 May 2012.
Joel R Campbell, Leena Thacker Kumar, and Steve Slagle. "Bargaining Sovereignty: State Power and Networked Governance in a Globalizing World." International Social Science Review 85.3/4 (2010): 107. Print.