Anastasiia Buriak

In a globalized world, what can explain the continued relevance of the

state as an actor in international relations?

Globalization versus state-power. Is the state useless in the highly

interconnected, technological, instant world? If so, why states are the main promoters
and performers of these processes or they are victims. In this paper, I would like to
analyze the main features of the state which allowed it to become the key player at
the international stage when in the era of globalization many scholars put the question
mark near the state’s supremacy in international relations.

My purpose is to confirm the state’s autonomy and authority as well as a

relevant model that has roots in the late medieval times, in the age of globalization,
contesting the idea that our present posture of affairs is distinctly other than it was
after the establishment of Westphalian order. Even considering the transborder flows,
increasing role of the NGOs, partial loss of sovereignty, etc., we still live in the state-
centric world where the states exist and operate as it was many years before the
globalization. Without doubts, today, the state is facing new challenges that go
beyond national territories, but it should not mean refusing from the concept of state
at all. The central ‘state’ spheres remain the "collective" good, legal, cultural,
linguistic, social realms, redistribution of national wealth, economic consequences.
Once, the state proved to be the best-suited model of organizing life and many of its
main advantages are depicted in realism as the discourse with the longest practical
application.

I divide this paper into 3 parts. Firstly, ‘The State’, where I would like to give
the definition to the state and concentrate on its pivotal features. Among all, two of
them I find the most important: sovereignty and monopoly of violence. The concept
of state has a long history; therefore, I find these arguments the most convincing
talking about the state’s timeliness. Secondly, ‘Realism and The State’ where I
investigate realism in international relations and the explanation of the state’s role in
it. Many similarities could be discovered between the contemporary world and the
one described by realists, so perhaps we are still following old principles that are bit
modernized because nothing better has been found yet. Last but not least,
 Anastasiia Buriak
‘Globalization and The State’ where I search for the arguments which drive that
globalization has not ‘killed’ the state as it still performs its primary functions.
Finally, in the conclusions, I talk about quite the opposite process to the collapse of
the state system. States are not only at play but they facilitate and manipulate
globalization, doing that in their interests as it was down the ages.

The State

Investigating the emergence of states it should be mentioned which reasons led

to that and why it was a successful change in organizing political environment. The
old political order consisting of crosscutting and overlapping jurisdictions of feudal
lords, church, emperor - proved to be unsuitable in face of an emerging precapitalist
economic environment (Spruyt, 1994, 529). On this ground, the state emerged
combining a range of features that allowed it to fix in the world and maintain its
leading positions even in the 21st century. I would stop on the several definitions of
the state which clear up its essence.

The most simple and known definition by all individuals who come up with the
idea `what is a state? that a “state” is an organized political entity with a territory.
Weber noted, “Today, however, we have to say that a state is a human community
that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within
a given territory.” (Joffe, 2018, p. 14). In the modern, sovereign system, states are
recognized as being juridically equal, despite vast differences in size, power
capabilities, and empirical statehood. Each is recognized as having the final and
exclusive authority to use coercion within its territorial borders. One more definition
asserts that the state is the central bureaucratic apparatus claiming a monopoly on
organized coercive forces. To the extent that it has assumed the role of defending
societal rights, ensuring economic development, or providing collective goods, it is a
consequence of state-society bargains made in the context of the state's quest for
money and security (Thomson, 1995, p. 218-221). Naturally, the state can be
characterized in many ways but in this paper, I would claim that two major features
which once the states attained are still making them unique and indispensable
 Anastasiia Buriak
subjects in international relations. They are the sovereignty and consequently the
monopoly of violence.

Sovereignty is what makes a territorial entity eligible to participate in

international relations, a product of an intersubjective consensus among state leaders.
Sovereignty is what some collectivity of state leaders says it is. Sovereignty is not an
attribute of the state but is attributed to the state by other states or state rulers
(Thomson, 1995, p. 218-219). Reciprocal sovereignty thus became the basis of the
new international order. Who could be designated as a power? Martin Wight points
out that it would be impossible to have a society of sovereign states unless each state,
while claiming sovereignty for itself, recognized that every other state had the right to
claim and enjoy its own sovereignty (Ruggie, 1993, p. 162). These reciprocal
`permissions` constitute a spatially rather than the functionally differentiated world –
a world in which field of practice constitutes and is organized around `domestic` and
`international` spaces rather than around the performance of particular activities. The
location of the boundaries between these spaces is of course sometimes contested,
war being one practice through which states negotiate the terms of their individuality.
But this does not change the fact that states have `territorial property rights`. This
recognition functions as a form of `social closure` that disempowers nonstate actors
and helps stabilize interaction among states (Wendt, 1992, pp. 412-413). Sovereign
rulers centralized fragmented political systems and thus reduced legal uncertainty and
domestic transaction costs. As a consequence, by preventing freeriding and by
rationalizing their economies, such systems of rule were able gradually to expand the
level of resources they could bring to bear against opponents. Unity and integrated
economies were prerequisites for success in war. Sovereign authorities also reduced
the problems facing transboundary trade by providing for clear focal points through
which to negotiate. Such rulers, moreover, could more credibly commit their subjects
to long-term agreements (Spruyt, 1994, pp. 549-550).

The monopolization of coercion is another important point that should be

mentioned about the state. The state's prime "function" has always been policing
territory and people. Conflict and war with competing rulers were largely responsible
 Anastasiia Buriak
for the development of the modern state and state system. The state's policing
activities depend on its monopolization of the major organized means of violence
within its territory (Thomson, 1995, p. 225). The state performs the roles of the
guarantor, actively and directly securing operations against financial or security and
safety risks as well as a watchdog: the state actively ensures that individual agents in
a socio-technical system comply with particular collectively defined norms
(regulations and standards), not only at the national level but also at international
level (for health and safety standards, as well as for geopolitical security interests)
(Borrása, Edle, 2020, pp. 6-7). The state (usually) has explicit rules regarding who
can speak on its behalf, so when a government says `we have to defend our national
security`, it has the right to act on behalf of the state. The government is the state in
this respect. No such formal rules of representation exist for nations or the
environment, consequently, the problem of legitimacy is larger in these areas than in
the case of the state (Buzan, Waever, Wilde, 1998, p. 41)

To conclude, the state has won in the rivalry of different political forms
promoting the interests of individuals and groups in the best way. The modern state
has been evolving in order to act within the new international context, one that
demands interdependence and cooperation with many other actors. Even though the
State shares its former exclusivity in many spheres, it has an unchangeable position
that has not yet been occupied by any other actor (Guízar, 2012, p. 23).

Realism and The State

Realism has been the leading discourse for years in international relations. It
was the dominant one from about the late medieval period in 1300 to at least 1989
and states and other political entities behaved according to realist dictates during
these seven centuries. Some theorists argue whether the end of the Cold War has led
to a fundamental transformation of international politics. Perhaps, the revolutions of
1989 have created opportunities for change, but that change has not yet been realized.
(Mearsheimer,1994, pp. 43-44). Many scholars still insist that the contemporary
world doesn`t really differ from the one we lived in the centuries ago. Moreover, an
enormous part of the literature is mostly about international relations as it was
 Anastasiia Buriak
interpreted in realism. There is a good question of why this discourse is so popular
and which principles it has and how they comply with modern politics?

Let`s take a look at the role of the state and the way of its functioning in terms
of this discourse. The realists believe that the state should be the fundamental actor in
world politics, as they possess more strength than any other stakeholder in
international relations. States’ power dynamics against any other actor are far greater
(Ngcayisa, 2020, p. 6). The state is a unitary actor, in other words, the state speaks
with one voice - one policy on international matters, realists assume that the state is a
rational actor, so it will make choices which maximize the benefits to the state
(Harrison, 2006, p. 21). The international system is portrayed as a brutal arena where
states look for opportunities to take advantage of each other and therefore have little
reason to trust each other. International relations is not a constant state of war, but it
is a state of relentless security competition, with the possibility of war always in the
background. States do frequently cooperate in this competitive world. Nevertheless,
cooperation among states has its limits, mainly because it is constrained by the
dominating logic of security competition, which no amount of cooperation can
eliminate. Each state in the international system aims to guarantee its own survival.
Because other states are potential threats, and because there is no higher authority to
rescue them when danger arises, states cannot depend on others for their
securitym(Mearsheimer,1994, pp. 9-11). As we can see the notion of the state which I
described in the previous part with all its privileges can be pretty good connected
with the ideas of realism and state-centric world.

However, realism is the most popular and longstanding approach I do not

assume that it is the ideal form of organizing and interpreting international relations.
Its emphasis on power politics and national interest can be misused to justify
aggression. To its merely negative, cautionary function, positive norms may be added
regarding the changes including globalization (Korab-Karpowicz, 2017, p. 33). It
may be reasonable not to reinvent the wheel and live in a wishful thinking manner but
considering all the pieces of evidence of the world full of realism principles, adapt to
it and supplement it. The "realist" orthodoxy insists that nothing has changed in
 Anastasiia Buriak
international relations since Thucydides and Machiavelli: a state's military and
economic power determine its fate; interdependence and international institutions are
secondary and fragile phenomena, and states' objectives are imposed by the threats to
their survival or security. Such is the world described by Henry Kissinger. Critics and
globalists argue that this venerable model has trouble integrating change, especially
globalization and the rise of nonstate actors. Moreover, it overlooks the need for
international cooperation that results from such new threats as the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction (WMD). And it ignores what the scholar Raymond
Aron called the "germ of universal consciousness": the liberal, promarket norms that
developed states have come to hold in common. (Hoffman, 2002 p. 2). I should agree
that a range of changes happened and they are very obvious but in my next chapter, I
would contest the idea of state`s needless and give the pieces of evidence of the
state`s importance and relevance in our so-called globalized world.

Therefore, traditionally our world was viewed from the realism perspective that
it is why the state-centric one. The long history of our civilization and the existence
of states shows that this discourse survived and proved to be the most robust.
Although, we have in the modern world various other perceptions of reality, the
major features that dominated in terms of realism are alive, perhaps with changes but
not supplanted by something absolutely new. We live in a world which is still much
about states` competition and struggle for survival. Gaining status of the `state` is still
`fashionable` and highly desired and the model of the state and its functions are still
being copied even by the non-state entities.

Globalization and The State

In this part, I do not talk much about the basic features of the globalization and
the arguments against the state. Here I am showing the main statements which prove
that globalization is not equal to the useless of state and its eradication. I argue that
the state should not be viewed as a victim of globalization but more a facilitator of it.

I take a look at three forms of globalization. Economic globalization, which

results from recent revolutions in technology, information, trade, foreign investment,
and international business. Cultural globalization stems from the technological
 Anastasiia Buriak
revolution and economic globalization, which together foster the flow of cultural
goods. Political globalization, a product of the other two. It is characterized by the
preponderance of the United States and its political institutions and by a vast array of
international and regional organizations and transgovernmental networks
(specializing in areas such as policing or migration or justice). It is also marked by
private institutions that are neither governmental nor purely national (Hoffman, 2002
p. 3).

Despite the claims that globalization is undermining the state’s authority, there
is still a poor database confirming that lots of problems go along with the processes
mentioned above. Firstly, sovereignty is not about state control but state authority.
The question is whether or not the state's ability to make authoritative political
decisions has eroded; that is, whether an ultimate political authority has shifted from
the state to nonstate actors or institutions. Despite the proliferation of international
organizations and the increasing activism of the UN, these are institutions built on
state sovereignty which is enshrined in the UN's charter. Multilateral institutions are
not above or apart from the state system; states dominate them. There are no signs
that individuals are switching their loyalties to some institution other than the state
(Thomson, 1995, p. 216, p. 229). We can observe that non-state actors don’t enjoy
the same authority as it does a state. They quite often don’t have a good internal
structure, enough power, or a strong accountability system.

Secondly, realists argue, among other things, that evidence of a highly

integrated world economy is nothing new and that globalization is dependent on state
support. Although neorealists do view growing markets as another potential source of
wealth and power, they are adamant that states mustn’t be ruled by them, in the end,
it is the state who will make final decisions and critical choices with regard to this
global economy (Harrison, 2006, p. 4, p. 26). Moreover, globalization's reach remains
limited because it excludes many poor countries, and the states that it does transform
react in different ways. This fact stems from the diversity of economic and social
conditions at home as well as from partisan politics. The world is far away from a
perfect integration of markets, services, and factors of production. Sometimes the
 Anastasiia Buriak
simple existence of borders slows down and can even paralyze this integration; at
other times it gives integration the flavors and colors of the dominant state (Hoffman,
2002 p. 3).

Third, the state’s monopolization of coercion is still relevant. The state is still
the only authority capable of taxing its citizens; commanding intense political
allegiance; having monopoly control over weapons of war and their legitimate use;
and finally, states are still the only authority capable of providing undisputed territory
for living space and adjudicating disputes between its citizens. The most important
events in international politics are explained by differences in the capability of states,
not by economic forces operating across states or transcending them (Harrison, 2006,
p. 31-32). Besides the proliferation of private security forces, nonstate groups
engaged in "illicit" activities have created private armies formidable in size,
organizational sophistication, and weaponry. Nonetheless, private armies have always
existed so it is not clear that contemporary forms represent a new or unique challenge
to state sovereignty (Thomson, 1995, p. 230).

Considering all the facts regarding the globalization and state power, I would
concentrate at the transformationalists approach explaining the relationship between
globalization and the nation-state, who claim globalization has produced a new form
of ‘political globalization’ in which both political power and authority are multi-
layered and transnational incorporating both transnational corporations and
international organizations, trading blocs and powerful states into a system in which
political power and authority is shared by a plethora of actors. Transformationalists
recognize the “profound change of globalization” in which states must adapt in a
more “interconnected but highly uncertain world” (Dalton, 2019, p. 3). So, states are
influential players which make authoritative political decisions. In some cases, they
share their authority with non-state actors but it is not equal to their weakening.

To sum up, globalization is an obvious, undeniable process that brought

numerous changes both in our social and political life. The disputable role of the state
in ongoing globalization is not reasonably proved as the state preserves the strengths
when it refers to such notions as ‘sovereignty’, ‘authority’, ‘legitimacy’, ‘monopoly
 Anastasiia Buriak
of violence’, etc. States are the driving force of globalization that is why they
initiated, supported, and adapted to it. This may lead to the new roles, functions of the
state but nothing points on states’ incapacity.

Conclusions

Nowadays, globalization has put on the agenda the superiority of states asking
whether they still have the proper authority to operate in the globalized world. In this
paper, I wanted to show that the debates around the possible disappearance of states
and their substitution by any other actors seem quite unrealistic in the nearest future
and have no substantial grounds. Globalization definitely influences the state’s power
and image but its consequences are mainly about the changes in the state’s behavioral
patterns, in our classical perception of the state but ‘changes’ are not equal to
‘substitution’ or ‘erosion’ of states. Sharing the beliefs of realists, I think that in the
medium run sovereign states will remain the dominant political actors in the
international system. Any transition to new structures of global political authority and
identity – to ‘post international’ politics – will be mediated by and path-dependent on
the particular institutional resolution of the tension between unity and diversity, or
particularism and universality, that is the sovereign state. In such a world there should
continue to be a place for theories of anarchic interstate politics, alongside other
forms of international theory (Wendt, 1992, p. 424). Principles of realism are quite
central whether we want that or not. Seven centuries of security competition and the
war represents an impressive span of time, especially when you consider the
tremendous political and economic changes that have taken place across the world
during that lengthy period. Realism is obviously a human software package with the
deep-seated appeal, although critical theorists do not explain its attraction
(Mearsheimer,1994, 45).

For some scholars, states remain as the key actors, and hence not much has
changed for states and the interstate system. For others, even if states remain
 Anastasiia Buriak
important there are today other key actors, and globalization has changed some
important features of states and the interstate system (Sassen, 2006, p.19). However, I
believe that both of these perceptions of reality have ‘the right to life’ as they do not
deny the state’s relevance. I showed that sovereignty, more precisely the amount of
authority that has the states is not affordable in the same size for non-state actors.
International civil society remains embryonic. Many non-governmental organizations
reflect only a tiny segment of the populations of their members' states. They largely
represent only modernized countries or those in which the weight of the state is not
too heavy. Often, non-state actors have little independence from governments
(Hoffman, 2002 p. 4). Inter-state relations have no dramatic new rhetoric and that
even though advancements in globalization have led to liberalism and the
interdependence of states, states still act primarily on national interest before global
issues (Ngcayisa, 2020, p. 8). Having the right to the monopolization of coercive
force, states function right the same as it was the years before. The point is that we
still live in the world which is much based upon values of realism with the states as
the main actors and intrastate activities. Globalization has changed a lot but the state
is not a victim or foe rather than its good friend because the state should change and
improve along with globalization being itself much interested in it.
 Anastasiia Buriak

References

Borrása S., Edle J. (2020): “The roles of the state in the governance of socio-technical
systems’ transformation”: pp. 1-9.

Buzan, B., Waever,O. and de Wilde, J. (1998): “Security: A new framework for
analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner”, pp. 1-49.

Guízar C. J. (2012): “Weakening of the State”: pp. 22-24.

Harrison T. (2006): “Realism, sovereignty and international relations: An

examination of power politics in the age of globalization”: pp. 1-77.

Hoffmann S. (2002): “Clash of Globalizations”: pp. 1-7.

Joffe A. H. (2018): “Defining the State”: pp. 1-23.

Korab-Karpowicz W. J. (2017): “Political Realism in International Relations”: pp. 1-

40.

Mearsheimer, J. (1994): “The False Promise of International Institutions” in

International Security 19(3): 5-49.

Ngcayisa L. (2020): “Relevance of realism”: pp. 110.

Ruggie, J.G. (1993): “Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in

International Relations” in International Organization, 47(1): 139-174.

Sassen S. (2006): “The state and globalization”: pp. 1-36.

Spruyt, H. (1994): “Institutional Selection in International Relations: State Anarchy

as Order” in International Organization, 48(4): 527-557.
 Anastasiia Buriak
Thomson J. E. (1995): “State Sovereignty in International Relations: Bridging the
Gap between Theory and Empirical Research”: pp. 213-233.

Wendt, A (1992): “Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of
Power Politics” in International Organization, 46(2): 391-425.