RELEVANCE OF THE STATE IN MODERN INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

The modern dispensation of International affairs is marred by so many arguments on the relevance of the state. As scholars differ in their take towards the importance and role of the state in international affairs, so do contemporary political ideologies also differ on its role in modern International affairs. Liberalism holds that states are the major actors and can attain peace through democratization and interdependence. In the liberals view point, this could be achieved through a strengthening of fundamental values such as individual rights, equality of opportunity, active political participation and a free market economy.

For liberals, constitutional governments (the state), must be combined with a framework of stable property rights and permit markets to operate in which individual incentives and social welfare are aligned with one another.Scholars such as Immanuel Kant believed that ending wars and achieving lasting peace could only be attained when states become republics under a constitutional framework provided they are part of federations that would guarantee security. Liberalism further holds that states should not only value freedom, but force must only be used for purposes of only self-defense and not for those of exploiting other states. For liberals although the international system is anarchic, states could always recognize the benefits of peace and cooperation with sister states could always be developed and maintained.

On the other hand, the notion of realism strengthens the fundamental relevance of states in the modern dispensation of international affairs. Realists are of the contention that states are the major actors and that the interest of the state trumps and supersedes that of both individual and state right. For the realist, the international system is in a state of anarchy and the lack of international norms deters states from questioning the peaceful intention of other states. “The Melian Dialogue” for example is a manifestation of the realist assertion that interest trumps rights: “that right is between equals in power, while the strong does whatever it could and the weak also suffer whatever they must.”(Thucydides, 56). Many contemporary realists preached that suspicion and mistrust between states is due to the fundamental nature of man. Machiavelli for example advocates that “the state of war” in the international system is a simple manifestation of the nature of man and his leaders. For Machiavelli the state as the principal actor in international affairs must be feared more and therefore has the fundamental role in playing an active role in global affairs. States rely on what is in her power and not the powers of others. (Machiavelli, 62). Realists unlike liberals believe that military power is a states fundamental responsibility and military capacity and capability is a manifestation of a states productive base.

Although they (the realist) believe that defending a state from military threats takes immediate priority, neorealist and post classical realists disagree about the degree to which states favor immediate military preparedness over economic capacity.( Brooks, 5). Whiles Liberals distinguish the value of freedom and the use of force as only self defense for a state, realist would dismiss that notion. To a realist, as long as the international system is anarchic, conflict is inevitable and the state therefore considers “changing moralities”, ideologies, and values as not making any difference in international affairs. States will be concerned, above all else with securing survival. (Waltz, 24). To a realist, the demise of the Soviet Union is not therefore a guarantee for lasting peace, but an evolution of the balance of power created centuries ago.

Now that the argument on the role of the state in International relations has become the platform of the aforementioned political schools of thought, the question; of what relevance or importance are International law and the United Nations system to the state begun to take shape. According to David Held “the doctrine of state sovereignty in the international system developed in two distinct dimensions: the first concerned with “internal,” and the second with “external,” sovereignty. Internal sovereignty involves the claim that a person, or political body, established as sovereign rightly exercises the supreme command over a particular society and government, whether monarchical, aristocratic, or democratic –must enjoy the final and absolute authority within a given territory. It is true that states are regarded independent and relevant from the above perspective. However an analysis of external sovereignty shows that states are becoming “entrenched in a complex nature of rules” that is continually evolving and overshadowing national sovereignty.

Changes in human rights laws has also placed individuals, governments and non-governmental organizations under new systems of legal regulations- regulation that, in principle, is indifferent to state boundaries.Another manifestation of the relevance of states in international law is the prosecution of individuals for war crimes and crimes against humanity by national courts. National courts have joined the international tribunals in prosecuting individuals for violations of civilian protection law under the principle of universal jurisdiction. Most recent examples include the prosecutions by Belgium, Rwanda, and Germany of individuals accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. “International laws are those rules of conduct that are binding on International actors in relations, transactions and problems that transcends national frontiers” (Bedermen, 1). This is more so because states are the main “international actors” and entities that have the tendency to either respect or disregard international norms and ethics. From the perspective of international law, states remain to be principle actors even though its sovereignty remained vulnerable to a forfeiture once norms, standards and values embedded in the international system are violated. This was manifested from not only during the wars fought in liberating Kuwait (Operation Desert Storm), but also wars fought after the September, 11th terrorist attacks on the world trade center. Although the invasion of Iraq was seen by many scholars as a result of the unchallengeable and undisputable myth of the United States and Britain, one can always ascertain that the stage was already set by the United Nations as a global institution. The questions now are; how vital are states to the United Nations? And what is the relationship between the United Nations and the state?

The answers to the above questions are not axiomatic at all, as states remain to be the principal and major players in the United Nations system. As a global institution that is in charge of maintaining world peace and stability, the United Nations is made up of states that form membership of the organization. From this conception one could satisfactorily conclude that states are primary actors in not only the framework of the United Nations, but the international system as well. Even the rules governing the United Nations system is a product of either state practice or negotiation. Professor Louis Klarevas defines the United Nations as “an organization that is built on principles and rules that not only create a pattern of predictability, but also one that makes the world more peaceful, safer and predominantly liberal”. As a global organization, the United Nations creates all such rules that are adhered to or given importance by states as major actors under the umbrella of international affairs. States therefore remain to be relevant as far as the upholding and the dispensation of international affairs are concerned. Responsible of promoting international peace and security, the United Nations recognize not only state sovereignty, but also the territorial integrity of states. The refusal by the Sudanese government to allow a United Nations peace keeping force intervene in the Darfur situation is an example of how vital the state is to the United Nations. However, in some instances when international rules and norms are violated, the state becomes entirely responsible making her authority and sovereignty trampled.

At the beginning of the 21st century, the significance of the state in international affairs began taking a twist, and there is no doubt, that some changes took place. After the cold war some scholars in the discipline of international affairs began to appall with a seemingly “innocuous stance” about the relevance of the state in modern international affairs. By analyzing a series of events in modern international affairs, one could no doubt imagine the devastation that could result from the disappearance of the state in international affairs. Dismissing the notion of the important theme of security as irrelevant and undermining, many scholars maintain that, in a century dominated by military force and weapons of mass destruction, the umbrella of security remains to be the state as the primary actor in international affairs.

At the heart of the debate over the evolving nature of global security after the events of September 11th terrorist attacks is a familiar and acting entity: “the state.” The well defined global order of the post-cold war in which security evolved, “the borderless helm of society” and its “fragile institutions” seem to have shifted the focus of attention on mainly the state as the primary actor. However with the realities of the changing world, and the traditional conceptions of both international law and modern international relations, it remains my contention that states are the primary actors in modern international relations.

What lessons did we therefore learn from the disarray that followed the end of the Cold War? What lessons have we learned from the fall of the Berlin wall and the demise of the Soviet Union?

In an attempt to clarify my contention on the importance of the state in modern international relations, the principal theme of the “concept of security” in a changing 21st century provides the answer for all those skeptics. The notion of intervention and threats of aggression against states must also be carefully consumed in understanding the relevance of the state to avoid “casting” a contradictory role of the state as an irrelevant primary player in modern international affairs. But the reluctance by many to fully understand the transformations impacted by the state is, what I would contend, as a contributing factor to the “clouded perception” of state irrelevance in modern international affairs. Perhaps, the composition and functions of the United Nations, the evolving nature of international law from Nuremberg, the recognition of state legitimacy and sovereignty and current events are a testament that states are the primary players in international affairs.

The author of this article is an editorial-editor senegambianews.com, a staff writer allgambian.net and a graduate student at New York University. He Could be reached at binneh@senegambianews.com or bsm235@nyu.edu.