Role of the State

Countless international organizations have been created and some states have already given part of their sovereignty to supranational instances such as in the European Union. The appearance of these international organizations and other non government agents including especially terrorist and revolutionary movements and the expansion of transnational contacts as well as the independence notion have set a new dimension in international affairs. Some nation state is losing

an important part of its functions especially in the presence of the supranational restructuring.

The actors who act 'across' national or state boundaries, but often interpreted as actors who operate 'above' the level of states include

Ð'* Transnational corporations (also called multinationals) - TNCs (MNCs)

Ð'* International governmental organizations (IGOs)

Ð'* International non-governmental organizations (INGOs)

Ð'* Transnational social movements

After the disintegration of the Cold War, a transition from a bipolar to a unipolar world took place. The end of the cold war and the power politics associated with the conflict between the two ideological blocks raised great expectations. The United States emerged as the single greatest power. The winners of the cod war were the first to announce that a new era would be built with the United Nations. Transnational issues became the order of the day. International norms and standard and regulatory agencies were gradually established. New cosmopolitan rules became based on universally agreed principles and not only on the sole will of the sovereign states. Many governments react to increased interaction with civil society and the growing influence of NGO's in the decision making process as a threat to their national interests and sovereignty. The governments feel that there is a great imbalance in the numbers and capacity to influence and resources between the NGO's and the developing countries. At the same time many NGO's feel frustrated with the obstacles put to restrain them from participating in policy decision making and in the implementation of agreed programs.

Political Realism:

Political realism which is viewed as the most dominant and enduring theory of international relations explains why states act or behave the way they do. Proponents have interpreted the theory in different ways, but there are several core concepts to which all Realists subscribe. (Griffiths and T O'Callaghan, 2002, pp. 262Ð'-263)

According to Viotti and Kaupi the core concepts of realism are as follows:

-States are the principal actors

-States are unitary

-States are rational

-State's priority is national security

First assumption is that states are the principal actor in international relations; we do not need to consider anything below the state or non-state actors such as multinational corporations, international organization such as the United Nations and terrorist groups which are often acknowledged by the realists but their position is of lesser importance. States are the dominant actors. Realists state that non state actors are not considered irrelevant just because they do not deal with them in depth. Some realists have argues that: "the state is the principal actor in international relations does not deny the existence of other individuals and collective actors.

The second assumption is that states are unitary. The state speaks with one word regardless of any differences of views among the political leaders. The state has only one policy on a particular issue.

The third assumption is states are rational. The unitary decision of the state will always aim at achieving the common public good. It does not focus on private interest of individuals assuming that the leaders and decision makers do not hurt the nation and strive to achieve the best decision even with constraints such as lack of information, misperception, bias and uncertainty.

The fourth assumption is that national security is the most important priority for states. National security tops the list of the hierarchy of issues. Anything related to security and military is considered to be high politics. High politics dominates the low politics of economic, social affairs, psychological issues.

Therefore sovereign states as the principal actors in the international system, operating in an anarchical environment in which no overarching authority exists above that of states themselves. Anarchy is defined as the absence of centralized authority as well as the absence of ordered organization and hierarchic authority. Some states are more powerful than others but that there is no higher authority than that of any state. The absence of an authoritative, global government forces states to focus on the primary national interest of survival. To ensure survival, states do not rely on international institutions but actively engage in self-help arrangements that are manifested in the development and use of military power.

Realism is considered by many to be a theory of power politics. Its central proposition is that the Ð''acquisition of power is the proper, rational and inevitable goal of foreign policy(viotti and kaupi, p59).

Realists argue that the focus of states on the development of power leads to the creation of the security dilemma; a situation in which the more threatened a state feels, the more it seeks to acquire military power (Viotti and Kauppi, p. 69)

Where a state accumulates a preponderance of power, others will seek to address the dilemma by forging alliances Ð''to ensure an equilibrium of power in which case no one state or coalition of states is in a position to dominate all others'. All sides involved may sincerely desire peace, but the anarchical nature of international politics leads the states to be suspicious of each other. Theoretically, this uneven distribution of power would lead to constant warfare and the gradual elimination of the weak; this does not happen however because all states except the strongest state, have an interest in maintaining a balance of power.

An example that illustrates the realists point of view is the US war on the Iraqi regime. Realists, who see war as a normal and sometimes necessary feature of international order, were mainly concerned about the national security of the United States judged in the context of the cost and benefits