THEORATICAL ASPECT OF NON STATE ACTOR

NATION STATE AND NON STATE ACTOR

Nation states have traditionally occupied an inviolable position as sole actors on the world stage. States
are seen to act as rational autonomous entities following their self-interest with the goals of security,
sovereignty and survival. The primacy of states within international relations, however, has been called
into question by the emergence of new discourses that examine the growing role of non-state actors
within world affairs and the changing nature of global governance. A more complete picture of power
relations can be gleaned through the lens of these various theories and that soft power, market-based
and private actor authority are all legitimate mediums of governance in the present international
system. Multinational corporations (MNCs) that operate between borders with an underlying corporate
foreign policy, international intergovernmental organizations such as the European Union, and non-
governmental organizations with a global agenda, all influence to various degrees the policy frameworks
and regulatory mechanisms that govern domestic and international affairs. From a theoretical
perspective, the state was long considered to be the only meaningful actor within world affairs. The
realist paradigm, advocated by authors such as Kenneth Waltz, posited that global affairs take place
within an anarchic framework in which states compete economically and politically to gain positions of
relative advantage. No consideration was given to the internal structure of those individual states or the
influence of organizations outside governmental control. The forms of new interpretive and descriptive
models of global governance can be examined, and the extent to which non-state actors have usurped
the supremacy of state actors can be determined. Evolution and diffusion of global governance within
the complex interactions and configurations of relationships between states, markets and private actors
in the international system, the concept of governance is certainly of significance. While no universally
accepted definition of the term exists, governance is generally used to refer to interpretations of order,
stability and politico-economic management. Global governance, specifically, refers to formal and
informal sets of arrangements in global politics. The implication is that states alone cannot manage
global affairs. The impact of these transnational networks can be seen in numerous achievements, such
the International Criminal Court, the World Trade Organization, and the 'new generation' UN
peacekeeping operations. In essence, then, global governance describes regimes or systems of rule,
embracing both formal and informal regulatory mechanisms. The Westphalian order is now being
replaced by a 'multi-centric system' in which non-state actors are capable of exerting influence within
sphere of global governance. The traditional classification, non-state actors are divided into two
categories: international intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and transnational or international non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) The first group consists of the non-state actors that are created by
nation states. They are officially documented by government agencies. The second group of non-state
international actors is established not by nation states, but by certain group of individuals, businessmen
and other societal forces. This group has no legal bonds with nation states. Throughout the past few
decades, various theories have arisen attempting to account for the growing influence of non-state
actors on international political economy.

NON STATE ACTOR AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON INTERNATIONAL LAW

Non state actors are examined in light of international law for multiple purposes. Some legal materials
and analyses examine all non state actors, although it is often the case that they focus on certain types
of non state entities, considered relevant for their purposes. Generally, non state actors are relevant for
international law insofar as they are often able to impact legal values and must accordingly be
regulated. The aforementioned impact may be a positive or a negative one, and this justifies both the
existence of rights and the special status of non state entities that enables them to contribute in fields of
their competence, as revealed by ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31 (consultative relationship between the
United Nations and nongovernmental organizations), or to consider that they can have responsibilities,
be they social and sometimes legal, as happens with international criminal law. Furthermore,
responding to non state actions is crucial in certain fields. For instance, the fact that non state conduct
can be inimical to human rights, as evinced by state obligations to prevent or respond to such violations
and to protect rights, explains why several authors discuss if a human rights framework that ignores the
need to directly protect individuals from non state actors is flawed and fails to uphold its foundation:
human dignity. Altogether, although they have acquired greater power and formal relevance, non state
actors have impacted international law and participated in international legal processes throughout
history, which explains why state-exclusivist approaches to international law and international relations
are deficient and the study of non state actors and their interaction with multiple international legal
dimensions and processes is called Moreover, given their power, participation, influence, and impact on
legal interests and processes, some non state entities are properly referred to as actors. Furthermore,
they may have direct, indirect, formal, or informal impact on such legal processes as lawmaking, law
enforcement, or dispute settlement.

NON STATE ACTOR: - EDUCATION

Non-state actors play an important role in the education sector, especially in situations where access to
education services is low, as is often the case in fragile-state contexts. NGOs may step in to deliver
education services for excluded or underserved groups, communities themselves may spontaneously
join together to build and even staff schools, private schools proliferate where state provision does not
reach or is perceived as irrelevant, and faith-based organizations may seek to find ways to reach the
poor and marginalized. In fragile states, where education services tend to break down, it can be
assumed that conditions generally exist for high levels of non-state actor involvement. In Nepal, a
Sector-wide Approach (SWAP) with the government was supported by five donors (Denmark, DFID,
Finland, Norway, and the World Bank) during the Maoist insurgency (the programme was agreed in
2004 when only 10-20 per cent of Nepal's territory was within government control). The programme,
'Education for All', focused on pre-primary, primary, and adult literacy. Approximately 25 per cent of the
government's annual sub-sector budget was provided from this fund - typically in the region of $40
million per annum. In Afghanistan, after the international community intervened to oust the Taliban in
2001, it was clear that large-scale assistance would be needed to address the physical damage and the
years of neglect that the country had suffered (Scan team 2005). The Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust
Fund (ARTF) was set up in March 2002 to serve as a coordinated financing mechanism for the
transitional government's recurrent budget (the Recurrent Cost Window), and priority reconstruction
programmes and projects identified by government (the Investment Window).

VOILENT NON STATE ACTOR

A Violent Non-State Actor (VNSA) is an organisation that uses illegal violence (i.e. force not officially
approved of by the state) to reach its goals. Phil Williams, in an overview article, states that VNSAs have
become a persistent challenge to nation-states in the 21st century. 2 In various parts of the world,
VNSAs not only intimidate businesses, corrupt politicians and launder their proceeds, but also engage in
a range of activities that defy and weaken state sovereignty. In most of the African countries as well as
Central Asia and Afghanistan, warlords are major players in the political system and the economy.

VNSAs represent a departure from the traditional Westphalian system of states in two ways: by
providing an alternative to state governance and challenging the states monopoly of violence. VNSAs
develop out of poor state governance but also contribute to further undermining governance by the
state. The South Asian region, the presence and use of VNSAs is of great concern for all stakeholders. To
this extent, the confidence building measures that have hitherto been incorporated for escalation
prevention or mitigation between the two countries, such as the 1999 Lahore Declaration or the
establishment of hotlines, do not and have not intrinsically fathomed the degree, capacity and ability of
such VNSAs to metamorphosis into identifiably self-propagating and self-serving independent entities;
which, have proven to contradict the rationale for their initial emergence as asymmetric instruments.

CONCLUSION

The diversity among actors has created opportunities for new systems and new partnerships to form
and for old ones to be strengthened and transformed. However, essential components of future global
governance which are largely absent from contemporary conversations are the need for increased legal
codification and more robust orchestration efforts made by IGOs, especially the United Nation.

SHAMIN MARY PAULOSE

1757358

TOPIC: - THREAT OF NON STATE ACTOR