Transnational Actors and International Organisations in Global Politics

Transnational Actors and International Organisations in Global Politics

Chapter – 19

Harshit Sharma

Alumnus (BHU)

Contact

Introduction

In diplomacy, international law, journalism, and academic analysis, it is assumed that international relationsconsist of relations between states.
The chapter argues that a better understanding of political change comes from analyzing relations between governments and various other actors in each country.
Global politics also includes companies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
The five main categories of political actors in the global system are:
- Nearly 200 governments, including 192 UN members.
- 77,200 transnational companies (TNCs) like Vodafone, Ford, Shell, Microsoft, Nestlé, with over 773,000 foreign affiliates.
- More than 10,000 single-country NGOs, such as Population Concern (UK) and Sierra Club (USA), with significant transnational activities.
- 246 intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), such as the UN, NATO, EU, and the International Coffee Organization.
- 7,300 international NGOs (INGOs), such as Amnesty International, Baptist World Alliance, and the International Chamber of Shipping, plus other less-established international caucuses and networks of NGOs.
These actors play a regular part in global politics, and each government interacts with a range of non-state actors.
Guerrilla groups can challenge government authority, and terrorists and criminal gangs, though considered illegitimate, can have significant impacts.
Many more companies and NGOs operate within a single country but have potential to expand across borders.
The controversial question is whether the non-state world has significance in its own right and impacts inter-state relations.
A state-centric approach or Realism defines international relations as relations between states, making non-state actors secondary.
Pluralism, a more open-ended approach, assumes that all types of actors can influence political outcomes.
The term non-state actors implies that states are dominant and others are secondary, but transnational actors is an alternative term to emphasize that international relations involve more than just governments.
It is a bias to assume only states have influence before research begins.
Until evidence suggests otherwise, we must assume that governments interact with NGOs, companies, and international organizations.

Problems with the state-centric approach

Ambiguity between different meanings of a ‘state’

The state-centric approach simplifies the complexity of world politics by reducing interactions to less than 200 similar units (states).
However, there are four major problems with this approach that distort the picture:
- State is used inconsistently, merging three concepts.
- The state as a legal person is an abstract fiction, often confused with a country (a distinct political system of people sharing common values) and the apparatus of government.
- There is no standard method to handle the ambiguity between these concepts.
From now on, the chapter will use the term ‘state’ to indicate the abstract legal concept, while country and government will be used to analyze political behavior.
In traditional International Relations scholarship, civil society is seen as part of the state, while for philosophers and sociologists, focusing on the state as government, civil society is separate from the state.
In international law or when the state means the whole country, there is little room to acknowledge distinct transnational actors.
When the state refers to the government, and does not include civil society, both intergovernmental relations and inter-society relations of transnational actors can be investigated.

The lack of similarity between countries

Giving all ‘states’ the same legal status implies they are essentially the same, but they are not.
Orthodox analysis acknowledges size differences between superpowers, middle, and small powers.
At the end of the Cold War, the US economy was twice the size of the Soviet Union’s economy.
By the start of the 21st century, the US economy was eight times China’s, 64 times Saudi Arabia’s, 1,400 timesEthiopia’s, and over 100,000 times greater than Kiribati’s.
In terms of population, the divergences are even greater.
Small island countries in the Caribbean and Pacific have populations in the tens of thousands and are micro-states.
Governments vary widely, including democracies, feudal regimes, ethnic oligarchies, economic oligarchies, populist regimes, theocracies, and military dictatorships.
The common factor among countries is the recognition of their right to have their own government.
Despite legal equality, countries are politically very different.
Transnational actors are often larger than many countries.
In 2004, the 50 largest transnational industrial companies had revenues greater than the GNP of 133 UN members.
NGOs, including trade unions, churches, and campaigning groups (human rights, women’s rights, environment), have memberships in millions.
42 of the 192 UN countries have populations of less than 1 million, and 12 have populations of less than 100,000.
There is variation in the complexity and diversity of economies and societies across countries.
The degree of involvement in transnational relations varies depending on the country’s economy and society.

State systems and international systems

There is an analytical inconsistency in assuming ‘states’ exist in an anarchic international system.
The state is seen as a coherent unit, acting with common purpose, and existing as more than the sum of its parts (the individual people).
Most state-centric advocates deny the possibility of such collective entities existing at the global level.
The phrase international system is denied its full technical meaning as a collectivity, where component elements (states) lose some of their independence.
No philosophical argument explains the inconsistency between assumptions about different levels of analysis.
By exaggerating the coherence of states and downplaying the coherence of global politics, both transnational relations and intergovernmental relations are underestimated.

The difference between state and nation

There is a behavioural assumption that politics within ‘states’ is significantly different from politics between ‘states’.
This assumption is based on the idea that people’s loyalty to their nation is more intense than other loyalties.
Nationalism and national identity invoke powerful emotions but their political relevance needs caveats.
Communal identities form a hierarchy from the local level to the nation and wider groupings.
Local communities and intergovernmental bodies (e.g., European Community) can also claim loyalty from individuals.
A linguistic conjuring trick has been used to make national loyalty appear focused on the nation-state.
Both international relations and transnational relations involve relations across ‘state’ boundaries, but logically refer to relations between national groups (e.g., Scots and Welsh).
Only a few countries, like Iceland, Poland, and Japan, can reasonably claim their people are from a single nation.
Even in these countries, significant numbers of the national group live in other countries, often in the USA.
Most countries are multinational, and many national groups exist in multiple countries.
National loyalty is quite different from loyalty to a country.

Transnational companies as political actors

All companies that import or export are engaging in transnational economic activities.
Companies become transnational political actors if they lobby foreign governments about trade.
A company is known as a transnational company (TNC) once it has branches or subsidiaries outside its home country.
The first TNCs were in agriculture, mining, or oil, operating in the European empires.
Today, TNCs exist in all economic sectors, with industrialized countries and most developing countries seeing their companies expand transnationally.
In 2004, among the 100 TNCs with the highest levels of assets outside their home country:
- 53 were from Western European countries.
- 25 were from the USA.
- 4 had dual headquarters in Western countries.
- 9 were from Japan.
- 3 were from Canada.
- 1 each from Australia, China, Malaya, Singapore, Hong Kong, and South Korea.
Only developed countries, East and South-East Asia, a few Latin American countries, India, and South Africahost large TNCs.
There are now TNCs based in 138 countries, including:
- 35 from developed countries.
- 103 from transition and developing countries, including 31 from Africa.
The extensive transnationalization of major companies has profound consequences.
It is no longer possible to regard each country as having its own separate economy.
Two fundamental attributes of sovereignty—control over currency and foreign trade—have been substantially diminished.
Governments have lost control of financial flows due to transnational banks and speculators.
Currency crises in the 1980s and 1990s (dollar, pound, franc, yen) showed even powerful governments are helpless against transnational forces.
The effects of trade on finance are less obvious, as goods moving across borders may also involve intra-firm trade.
Intra-firm trade operates under different logic than inter-country trade, making it difficult for governments to predict the effects of financial and fiscal policies on TNCs.
Companies may distort transfer prices to reduce taxes or evade controls on the cross-border movement of profits or capital.
Triangulation of trade involves indirect trade between countries, making it difficult for governments to regulate international transactions.
Even the US government was unable to prevent citizens from visiting Cuba during the Cold War.
To prevent TNCs from evading sanctions, a UN Security Council resolution may be needed, which would place sovereignty in the hands of the Security Council, not individual governments.
Regulatory arbitrage occurs when companies choose to engage in practices in countries with less demanding regulations.
Governments face difficulty regulating commercial activities due to companies threatening to shift production to countries with fewer regulations.
A global trend exists towards reducing corporation taxes, making it harder for governments to maintain high standards.
Major governments set common capital standards for banking under the Basle Committee rules, partially surrendering sovereignty to an intergovernmental body.
Extraterritoriality generates clashes of sovereignty between different governments.
A US-based TNC with a UK subsidiary faces sovereignty clashes when US decisions affect global operations, including the subsidiary in the UK.
The clash of sovereignty occurs when decisions from different jurisdictions (e.g., US vs. UK policies) conflict on matters like competition policy, mergers, acquisitions, accounting procedures, and anti-corruption measures.
OECD has developed a Convention on Combating Bribery to address issues of international business ethics.
Domestic deregulation and globalization mean regulation is now happening at the global level, not within individual countries.
Governments can only reassert control by acting collectively.
Consumer pressures and collaboration with NGOs lead to global codes of conduct for companies.
Social and environmental auditing is a growing trend for global companies.
Collaboration between governments, NGOs, and the UN Secretariat is recruiting major TNCs as voluntary partners in a Global Compact to implement corporate social responsibility principles.

Non-legitimate groups and liberation movements as political actors

A distinction exists between criminal activity (e.g., theft, fraud, personal violence, piracy, drug trafficking) and actions claimed to have legitimate political motives (e.g., terrorism, torture).
Governments consider neither criminal activity nor political violence legitimate within their own jurisdiction or in other countries.
Illicit industries like arms and drug trafficking are politically significant.
Trafficking in people has increased, with a new slave trade primarily for sexual exploitation.
TNCs focus on preventing counterfeit goods trade and intellectual property theft (music, films, software).
Four sovereignty problems in addressing criminal activity, similar to those with regulating TNCs:
1. Criminal financial flows and money laundering threaten banking integrity.
2. Criminal trade is diversified through triangulation, making it difficult to prevent trafficking across countries.
3. Police action may displace well-organized gangs to other countries.
4. Extraterritorial jurisdiction issues arise in drug trafficking and money laundering.
Transnational police activities require high levels of cooperation.
Political violence arises when nationalist movements or ethnic minorities reject a government’s legitimacy.
Such groups are called terrorists, guerrillas, or national liberation movements, depending on perspective.
Support for political violence is more likely when:
1. A group has widespread support.
2. Political channels are closed.
3. The target government is exceptionally oppressive.
4. Violence is limited to military targets.
PLO gained attention in the 1970s but faced limited support due to violent tactics (e.g., suicide bombing).
Post-9/11, the terrorist threat changed with Al Qaeda’s global network.
Al Qaeda staged attacks worldwide, but contemporary terrorism is not a single phenomenon, with various conflicts (e.g., Basque, Palestinian, Kashmiri, Tamil, Chechnya) having independent roots.
Al Qaeda is a disparate coalition, not a coherent organization.
Political violence by governments was often immune to diplomatic criticism until the late 20th century.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) was created in 2002 to prosecute those responsible for genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity.
The ICC was established due to human rights NGOs‘ political campaigning and overcoming opposition from the sole superpower.
The UN’s General Assembly Resolution 60/1 (2005) replaced state sovereignty with collective responsibility to protect populations when national authorities fail.
Before 9/11, transnational criminals and guerrillas did not challenge state-centric theory; they were marginalized and excluded from international transactions.
Globalization has changed the nature of sovereignty and government processes, making criminal activities more complex and transnational.
Improved communications facilitate the transfer of people, money, weapons, and ideas across borders.
Governments now often need external support to exercise domestic jurisdiction over criminals.
Defeat of Al Qaeda will not be achieved through military counter-terrorism but through global political change that delegitimizes fundamentalism and violence.
Human rights mechanisms and the ICC review and prosecute oppressive actions by governments.

Non-governmental organizations as political actors

The politics of a country are influenced by interest groups and debate in the media.
Diplomats claim they represent the national interest, avoiding acknowledgment of interest group relations.
The UN Charter includes Article 71, allowing ECOSOC to consult with NGOs.
NGOs are categorized into three types:
1. High-status NGOs concerned with most of the Council’s work.
2. Specialist NGOs with a high reputation in specific fields.
3. Other NGOs that occasionally contribute to the Council.
The term NGO is synonymous with organizations eligible for ECOSOC consultative status.
UN’s definition of an acceptable NGO involves six principles:
1. An NGO should support the aims of the UN.
2. NGOs should be representative bodies with democratic governance, but some prestigious NGOs may not be membership-based.
3. NGOs cannot be profit-making bodies, though trade federations are accepted.
4. NGOs cannot advocate violence.
5. NGOs must respect non-interference in the internal affairs of states.
6. NGOs must not be established by intergovernmental agreements.
Some activists argue the UN should accept only progressive social movements, with concerns about the inclusion of business federations and organizations like the National Rifle Association.
The creation of a global economy has led to the formation of organizations to aid communication, harmonize standards, and manage complex changes.
Trade unions and professional bodies have developed transnational links due to common problems faced by workers.
Globalization encourages NGOs to strengthen global links in industries through non-governmental and intergovernmental regimes.
Advances in communication technologies have made it easier for individuals worldwide to engage and form NGOs.
Global communication has enabled the political revolution, allowing even the poor to fund representatives or gain access to the news media.
Governments have lost sovereignty over the transnational relations of their citizens.
Globalization of communication makes it easier for small groups to establish and maintain cooperation across long distances.
NGOs vary from local organizations to large global bureaucracies.
When NGOs cooperate transnationally, they use four types of structures:
1. Formal joint organizations (INGOs) with permanent headquarters and regular meetings.
2. Looser networks using the Internet for communication and shared websites.
3. Advocacy networks uniting NGOs around a single policy domain to achieve major policy changes.
4. Caucuses formed for temporary purposes at intergovernmental meetings to lobby on agenda items.
Governance networks are formed to enhance NGO participation in intergovernmental meetings, focusing on access to the policy-making process rather than shared political goals.

International organizations as structures of global politics

International organizations focus global politics, and modern global communications infrastructure makes their operation easier.
Face-to-face meetings lead to different outcomes than telephone or written communications.
Multilateral discussions produce different results from bilateral communications.
It is consistent to accept systems at all levels of world politics, acknowledging that states are not entirely coherent entities.
Human groups, including states, are not independent or closed systems, except in rare cases (e.g., monastic orders).
International organizations transcend country boundaries, impacting both governmental and transnational actors.
For a system to exist, there must be sufficient density and intensity of interactions among its elements to create emergent properties and affect the behavior of the elements.
International organizations typically have founding documents, rules of procedure, secretariats, past decisions, and interaction processes.
Political outcomes in international organizations are shaped by organizational processes, not just the initial goals of the members.
International organizations form political systems, making global politics more than just inter-state relations.
A distinction is usually made between intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and international non-governmental organizations (INGOs), creating the impression that inter-state diplomacy and transnational relations are separate.
In practice, governments do not rigidly separate inter-state diplomacy and transnational relations.
Hybrid INGOs involve both governments and NGOs working together, blurring the lines between the two categories.
Key hybrid organizations include the International Red Cross, World Conservation Union (IUCN), International Council of Scientific Unions, International Air Transport Association, and other economic bodies combining companies and governments.
To be considered a hybrid, an organization must admit both NGOs and governments as full members, with equal participation rights, including voting rights on final decisions.
The principle of formal equality of NGOs and governments in such organizations challenges the assumption that governments dominate.

Conclusion: issues and policy systems in global politics

State-centric writers distinguish between high politics (peace and security) and low politics (other policy questions) in international relations.
Low politics actors, such as scientists, Red Cross, religious groups, and NGOs, often influence arms control negotiations, economic events, and social policy.
It is difficult to strictly categorize politics as high or low, as global issues can intersect multiple domains.
A move to a Pluralist model rejects a static, unidimensional concept of power, recognizing the diverse roles of actorsin the political process.
Capabilities alone don’t determine influence; analyzing the relevance of resources, the divergence of goals, and how interactions shape these goals is key.
Governments have legal authority and control over military capabilities and economic resources, but NGOs and international organizations can also possess status, specialist information, and communication skills.
Communication ability is crucial for gaining respect and influence, regardless of military or economic power.
NGOs and international organizations can influence governments by mobilizing support and exercising influenceover policy, particularly in specialized areas.
Real-world political situations involve a mix of capabilities, varying by issue.
Different policy domains have their own distinct actors: governments act as links between domains, while transnational actors and international organizations specialize in specific issues.
Specialization in a policy domain provides status, information, and enhances communication skills, enabling challenges to government control over military and economic resources.
Civil society is a source of political change, with companies initiating economic changes and NGOs driving new ideas for political action.
NGOs are often the dynamics of politics, while governments create change under exceptional circumstances, like during war or exceptional leadership.
Political change has been driven by nationalist movements, women’s groups, ethnic minorities, dissident groups, environmental protests, and scientists.
Democracy and human rights have been advanced by grassroots movements and NGOs like the International Planned Parenthood Federation.
The Cold War was a political struggle between communism and democracy, with arms manufacturers and peace movements playing key roles.
The end of the Cold War was influenced by economic failure in communist countries and political failure from unions, human rights dissidents, churches, and environmentalists.
Refugee crises have been dominated by the media, the UN, and NGOs.
The shift in development thinking from increasing GNP to addressing basic needs and sustainable resource use was driven by development NGOs and the environmental movement.
International relations in the 20th century occurred within complex, pluralist political systems.