State Actors as Primary Players in International Relations

Introduction: States as the Central Actors

The modern international system is based on state interaction. Therefore, the principal actors in international relations are state people — the representatives of sovereign states. State people make decisions in the international arena; they collaborate, coordinate their activities with other state representatives, and represent their respective citizens in international bodies. Non-state actors such as non-governmental organizations and corporations can influence state people, but they are not the principal actors in international relations, as the decisions that matter are ultimately made by state people.

International Society Theory and the Anarchic Order

As International Society theory posits, states form a society in which they have established common rules and institutions through dialogue and consent in order to conduct their relations and acknowledge their common interest in maintaining those agreements. The theory also suggests that international society exists in a state of anarchy, lacking any global ruler or global police force. Nevertheless, there are common rules and norms that states respect. The institutions used to maintain cooperation and dialogue among states include war, diplomacy, and international law. Those states that accept these norms and recognize their limited responsibility toward others — viewing them as part of a larger society — constitute the international society. These arrangements among states, however, are decided by state people who represent participating countries.

Corporations and Their Dependence on State Authority

Non-state actors such as corporations cannot act independently of state actors. Corporations normally require a mandate from states to carry out their business activities. The decision to grant a license to operate within a state rests on the shoulders of state people. It is not uncommon in international business for a powerful corporation to be sued or expelled by state authorities in developing countries. Corporations in such instances can retaliate, but they do so with the assistance of state actors from their home countries.

Much has been made about the power of corporations in the twenty-first century, with some suggesting that states have been marginalized and that corporations now rule the world. Much has also been made about the capacity of corporations to undermine weak states in developing countries. These are, however, mistaken assumptions. Corporations are not free to operate in any country without first obtaining a license from local state actors. When a corporation from the United States, for example, cannot resolve a dispute with a Latin American government, it is likely to seek assistance from the U.S. government — because, independently of state actors, multinational corporations cannot resolve such disputes on their own.

Conclusion: State People and the Conduct of International Relations

The conduct of international relations remains contingent upon state people who hold ultimate decision-making authority. Whether the question involves corporate licensing disputes, the enforcement of international law, or collective action through the Security Council, it is state representatives who determine outcomes. Non-state actors may exert influence, but they operate within limits set and enforced by states. International Society theory confirms this reality: the shared rules, norms, and institutions that govern the international order are products of state consent, and it is state people who continue to uphold or challenge them.