Analyzing Non-State Actors: Networks, Authority, and State Interests

This essay explores the influence of non-state actors in international relations, focusing on transgovernmental networks and international organizations (IOs). It examines how disaggregated transgovernmental networking produces socialization effects, fostering international cooperation by facilitating interactions between domestic and foreign officials. The essay also analyzes how IOs obtain authority and autonomy through legal-rational justification and control over information and expertise, potentially conflicting with state interests by altering power balances and impacting state sovereignty in policy-making. The rise of IOs shifts governance towards a multi-actor, multilayered, and multidimensional approach, challenging the state-centered perspective and raising concerns about the violation of domestic authority. Desklib offers this solution and many more to aid students in their academic pursuits.

NON-STATE ACTORS
NON-STATE ACTORS
Name of Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1NON-STATE ACTORS
Q. How does disaggregated transgovernmental networking produce socialization effects
and why is this desirable for international cooperation according to Slaughter?
A. Transgovernmental networks are known to be institutions that are informal connecting
legislators, regulators, judges and actors across the boundaries of a nation carrying out various
functions of the global governance. Transgovernmental networks demonstrate “patterns of
regular and purposive relations among like government units working across the borders that
divide countries from one another and demarcate the ‘domestic’ form the ‘international’ sphere”
(Slaughter 2009, pp 128-368). The transgovernmental networks provide way for the interaction
of the domestic officials with foreign officials in a direct and independent manner without any
interference of the foreign offices or the senior officials of the executive branch. They are
characterized by ties between peers that are structured loosely and developed by interactions
instead of negotiations that are formal (Jordana 2017, pp.245-262). Transgovernmental networks
engage a middle position between the international organizations that are traditional and the
commercial communication (Daphne and Wallace 2001, pp 64-113). They have grown as a
response to the rising complex and transnational aspects of the present day problems with which
they are associated suitably while challenging the demarcation between the foreign and the
domestic policies. Transgovernmental networks are most often seen related to the regulatory
policies that involve financial and commercial regulation as well as environmental protection
(Jordana 2017, pp.245-262). However, they are not just limited to the regulatory realm but are
also expanded to the judiciary and the legislative fields of the governmental functions.
Transgovernmental networks have helped significantly in producing effects of
socialization, which is extremely important for the purpose of international cooperation.
Trangovernmental networks have contributed towards the formation of socialization networks

2NON-STATE ACTORS
among the officials of nations helping to deal with crisis. Slaughter (2009, pp 128-368) argues
that in the context of the global economy, networks among the finance ministers and the central
banks have been important in providing assistance and response to the financial crisis of the
nations and their regions. For example, the G8 network is one that is collectively presided over
by the finance ministers as well as the state heads. However, the finance ministers are
responsible mostly to take decisions on the manner of responding to the debt relief calls for the
nations that are under high amounts of debt. The G20 network can be stated as another example
of a transgovernmental financial network that was formed for the prevention of any future
financial crisis (Kirton 2016, pp 53-66). To state more instances, can be mentioned the
emergence of the International Organization of Securities Commissioners (IOSC) and the
development of the International Association of Insurance Supervisors as well as the Financial
Stability Forum (Papadopoulos 2015, pp 5-7). Moreover, apart from the global economy and the
national security the transgovernmental networks perform towards the improvement of the
policies of environmental governance across the national borders. It must also be mentioned that
the transgovernmental networks are not just dominated by the regulatory realm. In fact, national
judges are often found to be communicating decisions among themselves through various
judicial organizations, conferences and even the internet. In addition, legislators who are
generally the provincial officials of a government are reaching a global scale across the national
borders (Scholte 2014, pp.3-28). Every aforementioned transgovernmental network aim for
specific activities related to the area of its subject. However, if all the transgovernmental
networks are seen from a collective perspective it could be realized that they all serve common
purposes. They work successfully towards producing socializing effects such as expansion of the
regulatory reach providing allowance to national governments in order to maintain pace with

3NON-STATE ACTORS
civic organizations, corporations and criminals (Freyburg 2015, pp.59-72). Moreover, the
transgovernmental networks helps in the establishment of trustful relationships with participating
nations creating incentives for foregrounding good reputation (Freyburg 2015, pp.59-72). They
also help in the development of different outlooks common legal issues in the judiciary sector by
the exchange valuable judicial insights (Scholte 2014, pp.3-28). Hence, it can be said that the
transgovernmental networks help in offering technical cooperation as well as professional
socialization to the participating member nations especially from the developing and the
underdeveloped nations irrespective of whether they are legislators, judges or regulators.
Slaughter (2009, pp 128-368) argues that transgovernmental networks are undergoing
rapid expansion more precisely in the field of the regulatory cooperation, which is itself a rising
sector of the international law. According to Slaughter (2009, pp 128-368), transgovernmental
networks facilitate international cooperation largely. Slaughter (2009, pp 128-368) states that
transgovernmental networks provides for a new ideal for the order of the world that is more
persuasive than both new medievalism and liberal internationalism. They help in connecting the
power of the state for finding and incorporating the solutions to the problems of the global scale
(Avant and Westerwinter 2016, pp-43-78). Transgovernmental networks facilitate the
government to access benefits from the decentralization and resilience of the non-state actors.
Disaggregation of the state into the its respective functional apparatuses makes way for the
development of institutions that are involved in a common endeavor while they demonstrate
distinct and specific interests of the nation (Avant and Westerwinter 2016, pp-43-78).
Furthermore, the have the capability of working with their counterparts that are supranational
and subnational, forming a new order of world that is genuine where the networks of the
transgovernemental institutions perform the operations of a global government –administration,

4NON-STATE ACTORS
legislation as well as adjudication –devoid of the form (Daphne and Wallace 2001, pp 64-113).
Hence, Slaughter (2009, pp 128-368) claims that the transgovernmental networks firms the state
as the fundamental player in the system of international cooperation. In fact, transgovernmental
networks have emerged to provide for a crucial anchor for the organizations that are
internationally based as well as for the non-state actors likewise. Slaughter (2009, pp 128-368)
argues, “government networks are government for the information age. They offer the world a
blueprint for the international architecture of the 21st century.”
Q. How do international organizations (IO) obtain “authority” and “autonomy” and why
might this conflict with state’s interests?
A. The regime theory in following the logic of economics and the wide range of scholars
who function within it considers the IOs to have been developed to take the interests of the states
further (Barkin 2015, pp-85-108). The IOs are often treated as machinery for interpersonal policy
upon which other actors bear influence (Archer 2014, pp 36-78). Political negotiations provide
form to this machinery for the purpose of the attainment of the goals of the policies (Barkin
2015, pp-85-108). However, the IOs are not intentional and rightful political actors having no
independence that is ontological (Bauer and Ege 2016, pp.1019-1037). However, IOs can turn
into autonomous positions for authority that does not depend on the principals of the state that
have contributed to their creation. This is possible because of the power flow from two sources:
i) the justification of the legal-rational authority that is embodies by the IOs, and ii) the control
over information and expertise in the technical field (Archer 2014). These two factor contribute
considerably in forming the theoretical groundwork for the treatment of international
organizations as actors that are autonomous in the politics of the world (Archer 2014, pp 36-78).

5NON-STATE ACTORS
This is evidently done through the recognition of the sources that provide support to the
international organizations –independent states –in the huge social environment.
In order to realize how international organizations obtain autonomous authority, it is
important to understand the concept of bureaucracy. Bureaucracies are beneficial in providing a
framework for interactions on the social level that can offer response to the growing technical
desires and demands of the mode world in way that is predictable, stable and non-violent (Cerny
2010, pp 52-78). The bureaucracies demonstrate rationality and are evidently superior in
technical aspects of the earlier rules and ruling forms for the precision, continuity and knowledge
that they are able to provide to the social tasks that are highly complex (Bauer and Ege 2016,
pp.1019-1037). Bureaucracies encompass an authoritative form, authority that is legal and
rational that is particularly regarded by the modern world as good and legitimate. The authority
is claimed to be rational because it arranges relevant knowledge that is socially acknowledged
for the development of rules that determine the manner in which any particular goal should be
pursued. As argued by Bauer and Ege (2016, pp.1019-1037), norms that are fixed by rationality
and the decrees and enactments establish the authenticity of the authority in such a manner that it
becomes the generalized rule that is legal and intentionally thought over, executed and
announced with formal rights. These rules form great sources of power that is recognized in the
modern world (Barkin 2015, pp-85-108). Hence, the IOs are considered as occupying
autonomous positions of authority pertaining to the bureaucrats who perform within the
international organizations incorporating the norms that have been rationally established about
their authoritative power (Cerny 2010, pp 52-78). Moreover, autonomy and authority is further
facilitated by the control of the bureau over technical expertise as well as information. The
autonomy of a bureaucracy is driven from expert knowledge that is specifically technical, and

6NON-STATE ACTORS
experience as well as training that is unavailable to other actors (Bauer and Ege 2016, pp.1019-
1037). Such knowledge provides the bureaucracies efficiency to carry out political directives
with precision and power. It also provides the bureaucracies with significant power and authority
over the political officials. In fact, there are several instances when the bureaucracies are called
upon to shape and form policies and not just incorporate and execute them (Barkin 2015, pp-85-
108). Hence, the power of the international organizations emerge from a fact that they
demonstrate themselves as neutral, impersonal and technocratic –providing notions that they do
not exercise powers rather commit themselves to the service of others that is crucial in
determining the legitimacy of their authority (Barkin 2015, pp-85-108). The bureaucratic view
when applied to international organizations indicates that the IOs possess authority that is
essentially independent from the interests and the policies of the states in their contribution for
their creation –a possibility that has been made vague by the apolitical and technical nature of
treatment of the international organizations by the neoliberals as well as the realists (Bauer and
Ege 2016, pp.1019-1037).
Owing to globalization and the rise of international organizations, the power balance has
altered from the state-centered perspective to governance that is multi-actor, multilayered and
multidimensional (Diehl and Frederking 2015, pp 93-102). The IOs have altered the state’s
power to over its own decision-making process and have reduced its autonomy and sovereignty.
This is because the IO gains its autonomous authority from the nation states. Hence, the nation
states lose their control over their own policy-making (Caspersen 2013, pp 87-96). Over the
years, critics have been concerned about the manner in which international law violates the
domestic and the sovereign authority of the nation states. Therefore, it can be said that the
international organizations takes the power of the local policymakers out of the nation states and

7NON-STATE ACTORS
distributes the power among people far removed from the those who are governed by the law
undermining the state government and the citizenship value operating in the state (Diehl and
Frederking 2015, pp 93-102). In this context the international organizations act as non-state
actors that overshadow the state actors involved in the formation and implementation of public
policies (Caspersen 2013, pp 87-96). In fact, states no longer possess the liberty of deciding their
domestic and internal policies. Moreover, it is now and again emphasized that a state has to keep
up with the standards of the international law or otherwise will be marked responsible for the
breach of the international relations (Diehl and Frederking 2015, pp 93-102). Furthermore, in the
economic sphere, the nation states remain in conflict with the international organizations given to
the economic sovereignty, where both the states and the IOs struggle to gain in their own
personal agendas (Caspersen 2013, pp 87-96). Hence, it can be stated that the rapid expansion of
the international organizations and their operations has posed effective constraints and conflicts
on the interests of the state’s sovereignty.
Q. When and how did neoliberalism become a dominant discourse of globalization? Do you
think it is an emerging “social episteme”, why or why not?
A. The modern day scholars argue that in the modern world there has been an evident turn
towards neoliberalism in the ideologies and practices related to the political and the economic
fields (Amin 2014, pp-66-98). They believe that neoliberalism has posed a dominating and
controlling discourse of the modern world in such a manner that it has been successful in
occupying the common minds of the people and in their perceptions of the world (Benería, Berik
and Floro 2015, pp 104-143). In a similar manner, these scholars are of the opinion that
neoliberalism has emerged to be one of the major drivers of globalization (Amin 2014, pp-66-
98). In fact, they believe that globalization is a response of as well as is directed at global

8NON-STATE ACTORS
neoliberalism. Neoliberalism in the economic context is referred to as an ideology that stands for
the maximization of the economic independence of the people leading to the reduction of the
extent of interference of the state to lowest minimum. In this context it can be said that
neoliberalism promotes the elimination of the restrictions and the constraints that are imposed by
the governments on the transnational movements of capital, merchandise and people world
(Benería, Berik and Floro 2015, pp 104-143). The general idea of globalization is encompassed
within a notion that it describes the continuous assimilation of the world within a political
economy that is essentially capitalist (Amin 2014, pp-66-98). Thus, it must be noted that the
conservative comprehension of globalization is based on an idea that borders on the growing and
boundless extension of the global market which is apparently a condition that is all-
encompassing and in which competitive logics and the rules of the market predominate (Lechner
and Boli 2014, pp 86-102). Therefore, to state facts, neoliberalism and globalization are mingled
and incorporated within the concept of each other.
Neoliberalism is much more than being just a theory in that it had influenced economics
on a global scale. It places the supremacy of the market over everything else and opposes any
interference or regulation of the state (Friedman and Friedman 2013, pp.244-257). Hence,
economic rationality can be identified as calculation of the cost-benefits and the maximization of
profits while market competition is realized as a key factor for the economic rise and the
complete progression of the humanity (Martell 2016, pp 76-92). In addition, specialization
through parallel foreign trade that is profit oriented and competitive advantage is understood as
the substitution for an economy that is self-supplied. Hence, neoliberalism advocates the global
outlook that is specifically economic that considers globalization as an detailed economic
process. Neoliberal policies stands upon economic analysis before any other understanding of

9NON-STATE ACTORS
the concept of globalization (Hall, Massey and Rustin 2013, pp.8-22). In fact, the ecological,
cultural, psychological and political agendas of globalization are generally comprehended to be
operations of the field of economics (Chandler 2014, pp.47-63). Looking from this perspective
then, neoliberalism is the specifically only economic discourse pertaining to globalization that
places the primary importance of free markets with independent flow of finance, merchandise,
people and services along with other neoliberal policies over the other globalization discourses.
Most scholars relate neoliberalism and globalization in that neoliberalism has been successful in
transforming itself to a political and economic system that encompasses a wide array of societies
all over the world (Cerny 2010, pp 52-78). Internationally based financial institutions like the
World Trade Organization (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World bank are
active in their promotion and recommendation of neoliberal policies thereby contributing to a
major portion of the worldwide expansion and propagation of neoliberalism (Hall, Massey and
Rustin 2013, pp.8-22). Developing countries and underdeveloped nations get the necessary loans
and aids for development from the neoliberal organizations if they agree to comply with the
neoliberal reforms. Moreover, the media acts as an influential tool in the formation of the
globalization image that often relates neoliberalism and globalization as similar entities.
Neoliberalism is indeed an emerging social episteme. Neoliberalism is known to be the
connective tissue of the contemporary state of capitalism that shapes the significant historical
links between ideas, processes and practices of the various sub-social systems (Friedman and
Friedman 2013, pp.244-257). This ontological perspective contributes to the notion of
neoliberalism as relevant of forming the social episteme that stands on the ability of the concept
that is neoliberalism for revealing the interrelations between various phenomena and a more
generalized network within the contemporary society (Chandler 2014, pp.47-63). Neoliberalism

10NON-STATE ACTORS
does not just advocate a society that is dominated by exchange values. The commercial society
of the highly globalized world that depends on social bonds developed by the peripheral nature
of the exchange values, promotes the opposition of human relations with the interrelations
among the supremacy of goods –in other words, commodity fetishism (Cerny 2010, pp 52-78).
Hence, the society that has emerged as a result of colonialism and globalization has been
pioneered by the concept of enterprise failing to equate the modern society with the old liberal
society.
Q. Analyze the increasing influence of think tanks as non-state actors, what they do, and
why they have seen such high growth rates since the 1990s.
A. The 1990s witnessed a growth in the number of think tanks all over the world. The
international organizations like the United Nations and the World Bank collaborated various aid
agencies and foundation advocating new think tanks while solidifying the ones that were already
existing and by supporting the transgovernmental networks (Ronit and Schneider 2013, pp 78-
93). In this context, it must e mentioned that a major part of the think tanks either attempt at
influencing the atmosphere of conditions of opinion or at the development of relations between
civil servants, politicians, opinion leaders and the media with respect to the nation (Savage 2016,
pp.35-53). The interrelationships of the think tanks as well as the official agencies vary from
minimalist roles of service to formal communication for the purpose of co-optioning into policy
negotiations (Daphne and Wallace 2001, pp 64-113). Think tanks usually tend to influence three
kinds of agendas –media, public and policy (Abelson 2014, pp.125-142). They heave matters
concerning the public interest into competition with other entities that likewise seek to take
forward the issues (Daphne and Wallace 2001, pp 64-113). This is done by the facilities of public
services like public lectures and forums, providing educational resources to educational

11NON-STATE ACTORS
institutions as well as through the internet (McDonald 2014, pp.845-880). Think tanks are known
to target national, international and the local media. However, think tanks usually focus on
particular issues policy or attempts to operate on policy themes that are common ignoring other
relevant issues that lead to non-decisions (Arin 2014, pp. 9-13). The formation of strong think
tank networks can increase this tendency further. Nevertheless, the think tanks function as
entrepreneurs of policy interacting and communicating with politicians, international civil
workers and business interests for forming coalitions of political assistance and expand particular
ideals of policy (Daphne and Wallace 2001, pp 64-113). Moreover, think tanks acting as non-
state-actors can promote the values that are preferred and the human rights through their roles of
advocacy and educational paradigm in the situation of the absence of the functional and
operational compacts, institutional arrangements and funding required for moving at
incorporation (Daphne and Wallace 2001, pp 64-113).
Moreover, the think tanks are required to monitor and evaluate the implementation of
policies and agreements in the regional and global contexts (Ronit and Schneider 2013, pp 78-
93). Many institutions of policy undertake the mission for organizing such evaluations and
studies in matters that range from environmental regulation to labor standards to intellectual
rights on property to chemical and nuclear non-creation agreements (Ness and Gándara 2014,
pp.258-280). Hence, the critical investigations and policy works of the think tanks pose positive
exteriority for the international organizations and the nation states providing them with
independent and additional resource for evaluation and oversight (Savage 2016, pp.35-53).
Again, think tanks are frequently considered as ideal institutions that conduct in-depth analysis
of programs of policy determining their success and failure (Daphne and Wallace 2001, pp 64-
113). Furthermore, as autonomous and independent organizations they are considered to be