ARE NATION STATES STILL THE MOST SIGNIFICANT ACTORS IN GLOBAL POLITICS?

When the Nation state was established in 1648, it was the most significant global actor and remained so for some 300 years. A nation state is an autonomous (independent) political community bound together by citizenship and nationality, meaning that political and cultural identity coincide. 'Nation state' has been used as a synonym for 'state' or 'country' although this is not necessarily true. The first and second world wars were very much wars of and between nation states however by the end of WW2 and the start of the cold war, emerging globalisation and the rise of NGOs and TNCs have brought into question whether or not nation states are still the most significant actors in global politics.

The growing importance of global governance institutions such as the UN suggests that nation states are not as significant as they once were. The UN has 193 member states and is able to deploy peacekeepers to state territory after a conflict, in an attempt to maintain newly established peace. It's members (general assembly) and more significantly its security council and the P5 can approve or condemn invasions and wars - a recent example saw P5 members deciding to work together to defeat ISIS (another non state actor) which has ultimately led to airstrikes in Syria. The UN security council is also able to impose sanctions and embargoes on nation states if it feels they have acted 'illegally', as with Russia's annexing of the Ukraine.

However, the UN as well as other significant global governance institutions (the three sisters), are made up of nation states and so cannot exist without the pre established member states. If significant nations states withdrew their UN membership, the UN's legitimacy and authority as a global governance institution would be severely diminished. Additionally the UN has no real sovereignty or law making power (it cannot make laws that apply to all nation states, but it can pass resolutions which have power over member states only), whereas nation states have governments with full law making power and the authority to impose these laws. The UN had no say over the US' 2003 invasion of Iraq which it saw as an illegal war, implying the US as a nation state is more powerful than the UN.

Regional institutions like the EU and NAFTA are arguably more significant than nation state actors. While the EU is made up of nation states, its members pool their state sovereignty. This effectively results in the EU having more sovereignty than its combined members and being able to assert its opinions as an influential global actor. It is able to influence trade and even fishing regulations and so has influence over the economies of nation states. The EU could be seen as an erosion of state sovereignty but its members are able to opt out and so its power is limited.

The growth of TNCs (which have become supranational in some cases) has seen corporations having enormous wealth and as a result, power as actors on the world stage. Some companies have a GDP higher than that of a nation state  - Wal-mart, for example, has a higher GDP than Austria and South Africa. Moreover, TNCs create jobs wherever they decide to open stores or offices, and so the governments of nation states are forced to give them tax breaks to prevent them moving to an area which will make them more profit. TTIP, a trade deal which is currently being negotiated, would allow companies to sue national governments for imposing laws which do not allow them to optimise their profits, and would be a huge blow to state sovereignty. Additionally corporations are able to lobby governments as they have enormous wealth which can be used to influence lawmaking.

Nation states, however, provide the conditions of social order and security which TNCs need to operate so can be seen as significant actors in this way.

Informal forums like the G20 are also significant global actors, with the G20 influencing the world economy arguably more than any individual nation state would be able to. The G20 is made up of the governments of major economies (Finance Ministers) as well as Central Bank Governors and so is partly separate from the nation state.  It formulated the response to the 2007-9 financial crisis and as such can be seen as having a huge influence on global politics.

The rise of terrorist organisations like ISIS and Boko Haram is another factor which suggest nation states are no longer the most significant actors in global politics. ISIS has control over vast territories in Iraq and Syria, controlling areas with 2.8 million and 8 million people, despite not being a nation state. It has gathered huge wealth and economic power as a result, with nation states such as Turkey buying its cheap oil and essentially funding the operation. The lack of success of nation states such as the US, Russia and now the UK in taking down ISIS is a testament to its power as a global actor and has worrying implications for the fate of the nation state in global politics.

Has an effective system of global governance now become a reality?

Global governance is the management of global policies in the absence of a central government. States in a global governance system co operate because they see that it is in their interest to do so - global governance has therefore emerged out of an acceptance by states that in a growing number of policy areas, the problems they face cannot be solved by individual states acting alone. Global governance differs from global hegemony and world government in that each of these must have a supranational authority (authority higher than that of the nation state, that is capable of imposing its will on nation states) - it therefore implies that international anarchy can be overcome without founding a world government or having to endure a world hegemonic order.

The emergence of the Bretton Woods system in 1944 can be seen as the start of global (economic) governance.The Bretton Woods system is a good example of multilateralism which has become increasingly prominent post 1945. However it must be noted that the US heavily influenced the system  - it led the negotiation and effectively dictated some of the outcomes.

 While global governance encompasses a wide range of multilateral agreements, networks, norms and formal institutions, the three institutions set up in the wake of the Bretton Woods conference can be seen as the most important. They are: the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and GATT, which was replaced by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in 1995.

The IMF is one institution which can be used to argue that an effective system of global governance is in place - initially it was successful in overseeing the system of fixed exchange rates put in place by the Bretton Woods system, and after this system was abandoned in favour of floating exchange rates in 1971 it took on a new role, increasingly lending to the developing world and transition countries after the 1990 collapse of communism. Its structural adjustment programmes, which impose neoliberal values such as (privatisation of industries and austerity) on countries that receive its loans, can be seen as part of an effective system of global governance as they ensure the spread of neoliberalism and the values of the Washington consensus as a global policy. It could be argued that this is less an example of global governance, however, and more an example of US hegemony and its spreading ideology. A criticism of the IMF has been that it is systematically biased in favour of developed countries in the global north, and has been used as an instrument of US policy.

The IMF and the World Bank both have similar weighted voting systems that take into account countries strength in the global economy, so cannot be considered the most democratic example of global governance. Through its IMF style structural readjustment policies and a stress on export led growth rather than protectionism, it has often seen an increase, rather than a reduction in poverty in developing countries. It could be argued that this is an example of an effective institution of global governance, if the aim of global governance was to widen development disparities and to disadvantage developing countries. However reform of the world bank has seen an additional seat allocated on its board of directors for sub-Saharan Africa, as well as an increase in the voting power of developing countries to 47%, making it far more democratic as an institution of global governance.

GATT's contribution to global governance was as a set of norms and rules, and while its role was limited as it fell short of becoming an institution, it was successful in reducing tariffs on manufactured good from 40% in 1947 to just 3% by 2000. This can be viewed as an example of global governance in that countries successfully negotiated an agreement that would benefit all. By comparison, the WTO has been far more successful, especially in settling disputes between trading partners - settlement judgements an only be rejected if they are opposed by all members of the dispute settlement body, to which all members states belong. This has effectively made the WTO the primary instrument of international law in terms of trade.  The WTO is also a far more democratic constitution than the IMF and the world bank in that decisions are made on a 'one country, one vote' basis, giving considerable weight to the views of developing countries which make up 2/3 of its members. However, developing countries are often disadvantaged as they have been excluded fro the club-like meetings held by developed countries and the bulk of unfair trading allegations are made against them - this has led to the WTO being labelled a 'rich man's club' and not a representative or effective means of global governance.

Lastly, while trading blocs like the EU and NAFTA can be seen as effective organisations of regional economic governance, the three main institutions of truly global governance have arguably been ineffective - they are usually unable to extend their influence to non member states and so are limited in their ability to 'govern' on a global scale. They are also unable to control the US, which has used its hegemonic status to tailor these institutions to impose its neoliberal ideology on the rest of the world. So while I would argue that an effective system of global governance is not a reality, I do think that a system of neoliberal values (the Washington consensus) is fast becoming a global norm.

How far has the UN been effective in its peacekeeping role?

While peacekeeping is not technically in the UN charter, it has become the primary way through which the UN has fulfilled its responsibility to maintain international peace and security. Peacekeeping is defined by the UN as ' a way to help countries torn by conflict create conditions for a sustainable peace'. It can also be defined as ' a technique to preserve the peace when fighting has been halted, to assist in implementing agreements achieved by peacemakers'

Essentially, peacekeeping occurs after a conflict and UN peacekeepers are often deployed after a ceasefire has been negotiated in an attempt to maintain the peace. Between 1948 and 2013, the UN has carried out 67 peacekeeping operations, and the 2012-2013 budget for UN peacekeeping operations was about $7.33 billion.

                                          THE CHANGING NATURE OF PEACEKEEPING

At first,  peacekeeping involved the placing of a UN force between the parties of a dispute once a ceasefire had been negotiated. Examples of this include 1948, when UN peacekeepers were used to monitor the truce after the first Arab-Israeli war, and in 1949 a UN military observer group was deployed to the Kashmir region to monitor the ceasefire after the separation of Pakistan and India and consequent large scale killings. 

However, the traditional approach to peacekeeping became increasingly unsustainable in the post cold war period due to the increase in peacekeeping operations. This has been caused by increased civil strife and humanitarian crises as a result of a lessened focus on 'the enemy ideology' and more on the internal ethnic divisions. Therefore the task of peacekeeping become more difficult as interstate war became less frequent and civil war more common - more conflicts are due to ethnic and cultural rivalries and endemic socio economic divisions. 

After the cold war peacekeepers were increasingly dispatched to areas where violence was an ongoing threat or a reality and  so there was a greater emphasis on robust peacekeeping (the use of military force), sometimes portrayed as peace enforcement. As conflict situations became more complex, there was a recognition that the focus of peacekeeping operations must change also. This led to multidimensional peacekeeping which along with the implementation of a peace agreement, includes the use of force to achieve humanitarians ends, the provision of emergency relief and steps towards political reconstruction.

                                                   DOES PEACEKEEPING WORK?
A 2007 study of 8 peacekeeping operations found that seven of them had succeeded in keeping the peace and six of them had helped to promote democracy. These included the Congo, Cambodia, Sierra Leone and El Salvador.

However, some major peacekeeping missions have failed.
UN peacekeepers were little more than spectators to the Rwanda Genocide in 1994 and UN backed US intervention in Somalia led to humiliation and withdrawal in 1995 and the conflict continued. Another failure saw the Bosnian-Serb military carry out the worst mass murder in Europe since the second world war in an area which had been under the protection of Dutch peacekeepers.

The UN's reliance on deterrence by presence has not worked in such cases, not to mention its reluctance to use force in the face of peace breakers who use force freely and criminally. The inconsistency in the success of peacekeeping missions can be explained by the varying quality of peacekeeping forces, and failings at a higher level are due to conflicting priorities and agendas in the security council and P5.

Further evidence that UN peacekeeping has not been effective can be seen in the 1992 UN report, 'An agenda for peace', which acknowledged that peacekeeping alone is not enough to ensure lasting peace. This is also reflected in the growing emphasis on peace building , which along with military force, uses economists, police officers, legal experts, electoral observers and human rights monitors to promote peace in peacekeeping operations.

Overall, while the UN has been successful in some earlier peacekeeping operations, more recently its operations have been in countries with civil war rather than conflicts between two states. This makes its mission more complicated and inevitably has led to some failures. While the UN has not been entirely successful in its peacekeeping role it has evolved to include peace building in its activities which has been and will likely continue to be more successful.

In what way did the war on terror affect US hegemony?

Since the cold war ended, America has become a global hegemon - however in recent years the war on terror has threatened its position as ideological leader. 

The war on terror was launched after 9/11, its first mission being the removal of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan (October 2001), which it accomplished in a matter of weeks. Shortly after, President Bush laid out his plans for the war on terror by identifying Iraq, Iran, Cuba, North Korea and Syria as the 'axis of evil' which, it was implied, America would confront. Controversy began when the US made plans for regime change in Iraq, leading to the 2003 Iraq war. The Afghan war had been regarded as self defence since Afghanistan had effectively provided al-Qaeda with a home base, and there were links between al-Qaeda and the Taliban regime, however in the case of Iraq, the war was justified using 'pre-emptive attack' which is seen as an illegal and illegitimate cause for a war in the eyes of the UN. 

Despite the disapproval of the UN after having waged an illegal war, the US managed to keep favour within the global community and remain a hegemon which presided over all other global actors. However, when it became evident that its strategy for the war on terror was not as foolproof as it had initially been thought, the US's image as the all powerful hegemonic hyperpower was threatened. The US had overestimated the efficiency of its military power - for its opposition in Iraq and Afghanistan, guerrilla tactics proved effective against a more powerful and better resourced enemy, resulting in an asymmetrical war which the US struggled to win. Suicide bombings and terrorism in these wars also drew attention to the limitations of the US' military power. These asymmetrical wars undermined America as a global hegemon as it looked to be unable to win wars using its military power. 

While its hard power has become useless in some instances, the soft power of the US has also been eroded. The use of military intervention in the middle east damaged America's soft power, reducing its ability to influence the will of other states, as well as damaging its reputation in the middle east, which was now wary of the oil plundering hegemon. In the fight against militant Islam, America has unintentionally alienated moderate Muslim opinion, not only in the middle east but also within itself. It could be argued that by waging the war on terror in the middle east, America has created the very arc of extremism it sought to destroy. The damage done to america's soft power means its hegemonic status is threatened since other states may no longer subscribe to its ideology willingly.

However, the US has been at least semi-successful in achieving its war on terror aims - it has imposed democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq to an extent, or in the very least toppled what it had seen as authoritarian or terrorist-harbouring regimes. The US' ability to go into less powerful states, change their entire structure and impose its own ideology makes it appear to be a far more powerful and threatening hegemon, prompting other states to support its actions. In this way it could be said that the war on terror has strengthened us hegemony. 

Additionally the war on terror has led the US to develop new ways of influencing other states. The Obama administration introduced 'smart power', This involves using soft and hard power, a more comprehensive approach to tackling global  terrorism. However some have seen need to combine different types of power as a weakness, ans a sign that US hegemony is coming to an end. 

The USA's foreign policy in recent years has caused other states to view it as a troublemaker, or a cause of terrorism in itself. After all, the 9/11 attack was a protest against US hegemony and Americanization - could it be that if America did not have such an aggressive foreign policy, there would be less instances of terrorism? Certainly, its actions in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as its support of Israel have strengthened support for militant Islam. 

Finally, the actions of the US have arguably led to it being seen as a malign hegemon (a source of chaos and injustice in the world). Anti-Americanism peaked in 2003 when the US decided to go ahead with the invasion of Iraq despite the lack of UN approval. Realists are able to explain the malign nature of the US as a hegemon in terms of its inevitable pursuit of power and concern for the national interest - critics such as Noam Chomsky would agree with this as they suggest the US entered into the war on terror not for the benefit of those under authoritarian rule but to gain resources such as oil and so its corporations could make money through extortionate defence contracts, boosting its economy. In Chomsky's radical realist view, the US is a rogue superpower and the principal source of terrorism across the globe. 

The war on terror has led  America's ability to exercise power to be questioned, as well as having damaged its reputation (so much so that it has been seen by some as a source of terrorism, and a malign, self seeking actor), suggesting that the war on terror has in fact weakened US hegemony. It could be that in the coming years, the US will no longer be considered a hegemon, but a terrorist state.  

IS AMERICA THE MOST POWERFUL NATION IN THE STATE SYSTEM?

Since the end of the cold war there has been debate about the nature of world order - it has been argued that the emergence of the US as the sole superpower has created a unipolar world order, based on US hegemony.

          But to what extent is the US the most powerful nation in the state system? 

Power is a hard concept to define - it can be understood in terms of capability (the ability of a state to conduct its own affairs without interference from others) or, more commonly, in terms of influence - the ability to influence the behaviour of another state, or power over other states. In what ways does the US have power?

One way is through its military dominance. The USA has a huge military spending budget (the largest in the world, accounting for 42% of global military spending). it has 700 military bases in over 100 countries as well as an 'unchallengeable' lead in high tech weaponry. For these reasons it is thought to be the only power that can intervene militarily in any part of the world ans sustain multiple operations at the same time.

However, military prowess as a means of power may no longer be a relevant characteristic in determining whether a state is powerful globally - the nature of wars are changing from traditional conflict to asymmetrical wars in which a states military is up against a terrorist organisation and the use of guerrilla war tactics - the USA's struggle in Afghanistan and Iraq illustrate this. The use of such tactics in recent years has allowed weaker states to prevail over states which are far superior - such as America's effective defeat against north Vietnam in 1975.

The US is also incredibly economically powerful - it accounts for 32% of global spending on research and development, giving it am enormous lead over other countries. While the fast growing Chinese economy is expected to over take the US by 2020, just as Britain remained a global hegemon in the mid- twentieth century despite being overtaken by the US and Germany, the US may be able to remain the most powerful nation state when China overtakes it. However, the flaw of the US economic model were exposed during the financial crisis of 2007-9, threatening the dollar's position as the world's leading currency.

Additionally, America's soft power has been damaged by its association with corporate power and widening inequality, as well as the resentment created by theories of Globalisation as Americanisation. The US's war on terror has also damaged its reputation of being opposed to colonialism and unconcerned by imperialist gains - particularly the Iraq war which was very much illegal in the eyes of the UN. Its human rights record is also under question as details emerge from Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib

Another way the US could be considered the most powerful nation state in the system is in terms of structural power - it has a disproportionate amount of influence over NGOs as well as NATO. Despite China closing the economic gap, no other state comes close to challenging the US' influence over global economic decision making  - this was reflected in its role in instructing a global response to the financial crisis of 2007-9. However in recent years, the G20 has rivalled America's economic decision making monopoly.

The spread of the US' capitalist ideology after its cold war victory is another way it has exerted power globally - through having its consumerist culture, capitalist ideology and TNCs a part of most countries it could be said to be the most powerful nation in the state system. The Washington Consensus is further support for its global domination and the idea that America is the hegemon in a global state of unipolarity.

For these reasons I would argue that America is the most powerful nation state in the state system, however I think it will be interesting to see how this changes in the near future when China surpasses the US economy and inevitably strives to exert an increased amout of political influence globally as a result.

Is Globalization merely Americanization in disguise?

Globalisation is the emergence of a complex web of inter-connectedness that means our lives are increasingly shaped by events that occur, and decisions that are made, at a great distance from us - essentially globalization is the increasing interdependence of countries on one another - or is it?

In our era of globalization, critics have begun to argue that it is not in fact globalization that is occurring all over the world - it is Americanization, or the imposing of american culture, politics, and economics onto the rest of the globe. America has long since been seen as a global hegemon, but to what extent has the American ideology been spread to the rest of the world?

Critics of globalization claim that America is using globalization as an engine of corporate imperialism, trampling on the human rights of less powerful states (claiming to bring prosperity or to create democracy) but always profiteering and plundering in the process.

America, which has the largest military spending budget in the world, has preoccupied itself in recent years with fighting a 'war on terror' in Afghanistan, Iraq, and most recently Syria. Astonishingly, the US has managed to invade, occupy or bomb 14 middle eastern counties in the space of 30 years - and at the end of each war it seems america acquires yet more cheap oil to run its economy with.

Through globalization, America is not only able to influence the politics and economy of the world but it also imposes its culture - even advocates of globalization such as Thomas Friedman question this: 'globalization is in so many ways Americanization: globalization wears mickey mouse ears, it drinks pepsi and coke; eats big macs'. America has, through cultural globalisation, been criticised for bringing about a global monoculture of consumerist capitalism -  and it is true that trends towards materialism have a markedly western (but more specifically american) character.

But aside from spreading its culture across the globe, (through cultural globalisation), how far is the US a true hegemon? Can it be said that the US is achieving global ideological domination?

The Washington consensus can be used to answer these questions to an extent. This describes the policies favoured by the IMF, World Bank (international institutions based in Washington) and the US Treasury in terms of reconstructing economies in the developing world. The Washington consensus draws on the ideas of Neoliberalism, the essence of it being to 'stabilize, privatize and liberalize'.
More specifically, it favours:
-cutting public spending
-free trade
-privatization
-cutting personal and corporate taxes

These are common conditions imposed on counties which have been bailed out by the world bank after a financial crisis, (a recent example being Greece) implying that America's ideology, or at the very least its preferred policies, are being imposed on developing countries through non governmental organisations. It should also be noted that America is the only country able to veto decisions made by the IMF, demonstrating its disproportionate influence over NGOs.

But how much influence does America really have on the world? Government in each country (as long as it is developed) has the freedom to make its own policies, and state sovereignty remains to an extent - it cannot truly be said that all countries are turning into carbon copies of America - culture remains even in a multi-cultural society. It could be argued that TNCs (which are essentially supranational so cannot be considered American) are a prominent reason for globalisation being compared to Americanisation due to their existence in all countries (McDonalds and Starbucks are a good example).

In conclusion, I would say that America certainly does have a disproportionate influence on global politics (over NGOs especially) as well as state politics (in terms of it invading counties with 'authoritarian' regimes and imposing democracy). However, in terms of cultural globalisation, it may be that a western ideology is spreading, but in everyday life American culture is unique in having escaped its borders - it is not uncommon for us to eat Chinese or Indian takeaway, do yoga or practice Karate or Kung-fu. It would be hard to imagine culture staying within rigid borders in today's world of instantaneous communication (through technology), increased tourism and frequent migration - naturally, as globalisation progresses, we will become more connected with one another. So while America does have a questionable foreign policy and perhaps too much influence over NGOs, its culture has spread no more than other cultures have - it should also be noted that the spread of neoliberal values is not necessarily Americanisation but is better suited to westernisation. In terms of cultural globalisation, the term cannot be interchanged with Americanisation - in economic or political terms this is questionable.

ARE LIBERAL AND REALIST VIEWS OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS STILL APPLICABLE?

                                  REALISM AND LIBERALISM - WHAT ARE THEY?

Realism and Liberalism are the two main political theories which help us to understand international politics. Within each are different schools of thought (classical realism, neorealism, offensive realism and defensive realism are some examples of variation within a theory). 

For realists, politics is about power and self interest, and realists often refer to the theory of  'power politics' to explain what happens in the world of global politics. Realists insist that humans are essentially selfish and that egoism is the defining characteristic of human nature - this means that not only humans, but states as a whole are self seeking since states are run by/ on the behalf of human beings . Realists also claim that the international system operates in a state of anarchy in that there is no authority higher than the state - realists believe that a global government can never be established. This means that global politics operates in a state of nature and therefore is unstable. 

Liberals, by comparison, are relatively optimistic. They believe in balanced harmony amongst competing interests  and while they acknowledge that humans and states are inherently self seeking, they claim a natural equilibrium asserts itself. Liberals also argue that non governmental organisations facilitate co operation between states and keep the peace internationally - if this was the case however, then the EU would have succeeded recently in encouraging countries like the UK to take on a fair amount of refugees, most of whom are fleeing war torn Syria.

                                CAN THIS BE APPLIED TO THE MIGRANT CRISIS?
 Unfortunately Liberal theory cannot be applied here as many countries in the EU are refusing to take their fair share of refugees or are refusing to allow any 'migrants' into their country at all. Realist theory is more relevant here, as the self interested nature of states (state egoism) and humans has been revealed. It would not be in the national interest for most states to take on refugees as they would have to provide for them in terms of housing, food and education - this is why countries such as Slovakia, Hungary, Denmark and the Czech Republic have refused to take the proposed numbers of migrants while Germany has taken a large number of refugees - its population is dwindling and migrants are useful for expanding its workforce.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar (the richest country in the world) and other gulf countries have also refused to take a single migrant, although they are not part of the EU. This supports the realist notion that states are self interested and undermines Liberal theorists assertion that NGOs such as the EU promote peace and harmony - global governance does not appear to be working.

Worryingly, Hungary's prime minister Victor Orban cites religion as his main concern regarding refugees - he fears that Muslim refugees will make it even harder to 'keep Europe Christian'.

To conclude, I think that realist theory can still be loosely applied to international politics in that international politics appears to be state centric (and these states are strictly self seeking) and it does not appear that global governance can or will be effective in the near future. Ideally the Liberal view of international politics would show the EU being successful in relocating Syrian refugees to safer countries but currently this is not the case  - the realist theory of power politics has prevailed with most able countries such as the UK, Hungary and Qatar refusing to take on a fair amount of refugees and getting away with doing so, while smaller countries like Jordan and Lebanon have taken on a huge amount of refugees regardless of whether they can afford to do so.  

THE IMPORTANCE OF PALESTINE WHEN DEBATING SOVEREIGNTY

                                               WHAT IS SOVEREIGNTY?
Sovereignty can be defined as the principle of absolute and unlimited power; the absence of a higher authority in either domestic or external affairs.
The concept of sovereignty is very closely related to the concept of statehood in that sovereignty is a defining characteristic of a state - states are states because they are able to exercise sovereign jurisdiction within their defined borders.

                                                WHY IS PALESTINE INVOLVED?
In recent years, Palestine has tried to attain statehood -  in September 2011 a formal request for Palestine's statehood was submitted to the United Nations. In November 2012 the general assembly of the UN voted overwhelmingly to recognize Palestine as a 'non member observer state' meaning Palestine had access to other UN bodies such as the international criminal court. When Israel was established as a state in 1948, the majority of Arab Palestinians became refugees  - this problem was worsened by the six day war in 1967 in which Sinai, the Gaza strip, the West Bank and Golan Heights were occupied by Israel. The first face to face meeting between the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organisation) and the government of Israel occurred in 1993 and lay the groundwork for the establishment of the Palestinian National Authority in 1996 which assumed governmental authority (but not sovereignty) for the West Bank and the Gaza strip.

               SO WHY IS PALESTINE IMPORTANT WHEN DEBATING SOVEREIGNTY?
While Israel is widely recognised as a state (it was created after the second world war when Jewish people wanted a place to live, out of land taken from the Ottoman empire), Palestine's statehood is more questionable - although many of the UN members recognise it as a state, not all of them do. In addition to this it does not really meet the requirements of a state as defined by the Montevideo convention  - its defined territory is questionable and it does not necessarily have a good government (Hamas is seen by some as a terrorist organisation). State Sovereignty is when a state enjoys sovereignty in its defined border, and so Palestine cannot have state sovereignty as its territory is changing regularly and it is barely recognised as a state. On the other hand, Israel is recognised as a state but it arguably does not have state sovereignty within its own borders as part of its territory is in question and it has given some authority over decision making in these areas (the Gaza strip and the West Bank) to Palestine.

States and State Systems

How did the state system emerge? 

The peace of Westphalia (1648) established that sovereignty was the distinguishing feature of the state system. It brought an end to the 30 years war (1618-48) and was based on two principles:
1. States enjoy sovereign jurisdiction (independent control over what happens in their own territory). 
2. The states are all legally equal and relations between them are structured by the acceptance of sovereign independence. 

   How can a state be identified?

A state, as defined by the Montevideo convention on the rights and duties of states in 1933, has 4 qualities:
1. A defined territory 
2. A permanent population
3.An effective government
4. The capacity to enter into relations with other states

The state is no longer the only significant actor on the world stage - TNC's, NGO's and other organisations such as terrorist groups and pressure groups are also able to shape global politics.

The Billiard Ball Model of world politics

In this model (adopted by realist theorists) the states are billiard balls that collide with one another. Sovereignty is the hard impenetrable outer shell of the ball which enables it to withstand the impact of the collision. Not all balls are the same size, which is why international politics gives attention to the interests and behaviour of 'great powers'. This model has come under pressure due to growing interdependence.

 The Cobweb Model of world politics

More recently states have been forced to work together in tackling tasks such as global warming, pandemic diseases, and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Keohane and Nye state that such a web of relationships has created a condition of 'complex interdependence', in which state are forced to co-operate. However, the Middle East is an example of how the Billiard Ball model and the Cobweb model are not exact; interdependence varies across the world. 

 The State Centric view

This is an approach to global politics which takes the state to be the key actor in the domestic realm and on the world stage. 

Great Powers

A great power is a state seen to be amongst the most powerful in the hierarchal system - there are a number of criteria a state must meet before it is considered a great power: 

1. Should have the 1st rank of military prowess as well as the capacity to maintain their own security and the ability to influence others.

2. Must be economically powerful

3. Having global, not merely regional, spheres of influence

4. Adopt a forward foreign policy which has an impact on international affairs.