"The International Actor (The Individual) in International Relations"

The concept of international relations is very broad. In modern use it includes not only relations between States but also relations between States, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations and other enterprises. As a result of the scientific and technological development of mankind and the accompanying economic, social and cultural developments, Is the only actor in international relations there are other international people have emerged to exist one by one in harmony with and consistent with these developments in humanity is no longer the international theater exclusive to the State alone, Lyon are better with the ability to work, performance and influence in international relations, the last of whom is an actor visible international individual.

Using the recently concluded Canada-European Union (EU) Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) as a case study, this chapter aims to assess the nature, scope, and implications of shifting forms of cooperation observable in the negotiation/ratification process of mega-regional economic agreements. The emphasis would be on how sub-national and non-state actors, which are conventionally non-traditional actors in international relations, have influenced the outcome of CETA. The analysis in this chapter will also serve as a basis for identifying emerging patterns in the institutional evolution of international economic governance. To put the discussions in the context of the overarching theme of the Volume, the analyses in this chapter will be framed within two forms of interaction observable from the CETA negotiations. They are: shifting forms of cooperation between central and sub-national actors in international economic relations as evidenced by the collaboration strategies adopted during the CETA negotiations, and shifting forms of cooperation between sub-national governments and non-state actors in international economic relations.

The article examines the European Union?s role in international relations, a subject of academic debates in EU studies for decades. Numerous concepts have emerged to highlight the EU?s unique character as an international actor. Among these, one of the most influential and widely discussed is the concept of EU as a normative power which presents the EU as a specific sui generis actor whose influence lies in the diffusion of norms and cosmopolitan action. The aim of this paper is to examine the concept of normative power in the light of contemporary concepts that express skepticism about the normative character of the EU as an actor in international relations. In this sense, the paper focuses on the studies that develop the concept of the EU as a ?normal power?. While the concept of normal power is introduced in only a few studies without a clearly defined interpretation of this concept, these works emphasize the importance of the relationship between the EU?s material-strategic interests, instrumental calculations, and normative dimensions. Furthermore, they highlight new challenges that question the dominance of the normative power concept and the constructivist approach in EU studies. The purpose of this article is twofold: first, to contribute to the academic debate on the nature of the European Union as an actor in international relations and, second to draw attention to contemporary theoretical perspectives about the EU that are insufficiently understood in the domestic academic sphere.

Since the early days of modern public international law, the state has been the most important subject thereof. However, today, it is neither the sole, nor necessarily the primary, actor in international (environmental) relations. In recent years, the role of the state and, notably, the ability of the state to address environmental risks and threats, have increasingly come to be scrutinised. While states' standard setting remains important, commentators have argued that the ability and willingness of states to implement and enforce such standards have major weaknesses. Nevertheless, the state remains a truly important actor in international relations. It forms part of international governance, which has become multilevel governance. This article discusses the changing role of the state in international environmental governance. It examines states as authors, addressees, and guardians of international environmental law. The article also considers the over-estimation of Westphalian concepts of sovereignty, international environmental agreements, international environmental obligations, statehood as an element of a global system of environmental governance, and the role of the state in the transformation of the international legal system.

The historical tension between the powers of states and the rights of individuals sets the context for this look at the evolving role of non-state actors in international relations. Global connectivity has diluted state power, blurred borders and added a new dimension of non-state actor empowerment. The author’s firsthand observations, drawn from a career as a Canadian diplomat, bear witness to the ever-increasing role of non-state actors in foreign policy and international relations. This practitioner’s perspective presents some personal observations on how non-state actors have helped to shape Canada–Asia relations, with brief and selective examples from the author’s work in and on Indonesia, Japan, Myanmar, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The piece also offers some concluding thoughts on the significance of this phenomenon for the broader conduct of international relations and the study of foreign policy.

Global cities are becoming increasingly influential actors in international relations in the 21st century. That is why this work uses a city as the primary unit of analysis, which, although traditionally considered a state actor, currently develops autonomous initiatives that go beyond internal borders and have a global reach. The goal is to examine the potential and resources of global cities for independent participation in international relations and thereby evaluate their role in foreign policy. To explain this process, the concept of actorness is used. Actorness as a character of the city was discussed in more detail in the example of Sao Paolo by applying Duran?s four-dimensional model, whose criteria are authority, opportunities, autonomy, and presence. This model was applied in search of an answer to the main research question: Can we talk about Sao Paolo as an actor in international relations? The analysis of the case study will be based on an extensive review of primary and secondary data sources, including official documents of the city municipality and the city office for external affairs, media reports, scientific publications, and works on the topic of the city?s international engagements. Based on the analysis of the mentioned data, each of these characteristics has been met in the international activity of Sao Paulo. The intention is to contribute to the existing literature by expanding the geographical scope of the study of international urban activism and shifting the academic focus away from the Eurocentric discourse. The paper adopts a multilingual approach in search of relevant information on the role of cities in international relations in Spanish and Portuguese in order to enrich the debate and fill the gaps found in the literature in English.

The article examines the problem of the participation of non-state actors in armed conflicts in the post-war period. The study is based on the theory of asymmetric conflict, which offers hypotheses about the reasons for the paradoxical defeat of developed countries against relatively weak opponents, including non-state actors. The empirical basis of the study is armed conflict databases, which allow us to test sole observations and hypotheses about the characteristics of asymmetric armed conflicts. The study uses the databases of the Uppsala Conflict Data Program Project (Sweden) and the COSIMO Project (University of Heidelberg, Germany) as well as publications of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). The study shows that the phenomenon of asymmetric conflicts reflects several important patterns of armed conflicts in the post-war period: the predominance of intrastate over interstate conflicts; the internationalisation of armed conflicts through the involvement of other countries, international organisations or non-state actors; the direct or indirect involvement of great powers in such conflicts; and the majority of armed conflicts occurring in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Post-war armed conflicts are often referred to as “proxy wars” because the direct participants in the conflict are supported by external actors – states or non-state actors. The issues in conflicts between states and non-state actors are often political in nature, and the fundamental distinction between domestic and foreign policy has been overcome. The post-war period shows a gradual change of attitude towards the participation of non-state actors in armed conflicts, which reflects the recognition of their legitimacy as participants in the conflict, the negotiation and conclusion of agreements on the cessation of hostilities. Non-state actors in armed conflicts are themselves legitimised as representing the interests of particular groups and the goals of their struggle. UN peacekeeping operations since the end of the Cold War confirm these changes. Research on the participation of non-state actors in armed conflict reveals a broadening of the agenda and methodology for the study of post-war armed conflict, reflecting significant changes in the practice of international relations. These changes concern who is recognised as a legitimate actor in international relations, what role non-state actors play in armed conflict, and how non-state actors are viewed by other actors in international relations – states, international governmental and non-governmental organisations.

The article is in the genre of the review for textbook O. V. Plotnikova and O. Y. Dubrovina International relations of the regions States: characteristics and features (Moscow: Norma; INFRA-M, 2016. 192 p.). Textbook on international activities of sub-state/subnational actors in international relations. Under the sub-state/subnational actors refers to the regions of the States. The authors propose an along with interstate relations (first level) and supranational organizations (second level) to distinguish a third level of international relations - international relations of the regions in Federal and unitary States. The topic is very relevant due to the ongoing restructuring of the architecture of international relations and world politics. In addition, these processes lead to involvement in international relations new actors. The resulting configuration and the role of traditional players. In addition to long-term evolutionary processes, we should not forget about the position of Russia in the last few years. It is obvious that the current tensions around the Russian Federation may not be fully resolved with the old methods. At the same time, sub-state/ subnational actors as subjects of a combined nature, the role played by regions of the Russian Federation, able to combine harmoniously in its international activities as the techniques characteristic of the traditional actors - States and developments in the tools of non-traditional actors - international non-governmental and non-profit organizations etc. As a result of positive results can be achieved faster and at the interstate level. The review considers the subject and the relevance of the topic, presents the analysis of the content of the work. Marked strengths of the textbook, including those associated with the consideration of the diagonal ties and the political components in the international activities of the regions. In addition to the advantages, attention is paid to the analysis of controversial moments. Some authors benefits seem too rigid or insufficiently substantiated. Noted and some defects. The conclusion about the serious significance of this educational publication is not only for a student audience, but also for practitioners.

A strange asymmetry prevails in modern writings on Thomas Hobbes's theory of the relations between states. For specialists in international relations theory, Hobbes is a canonical figure, a key representative of one of the major traditions. One influential modern text, Charles Beitz's Political Theory and International Relations, takes what it calls 'the Hobbesian conception of international relations' as the basis of 'skeptical' or 'Realist' theory, and devotes twenty-three pages of detailed argument to refuting it. And yet, if one turns from the international relations specialists to the Hobbes specialists, one finds that such disregard is perfectly normal. In Hobbes's theory 'salus populi', the safety and benefit of the people, is the aim of the sovereign's foreign policy. Overall, Hobbes's account contains many of the ingredients of what modern theorists describe as an 'international society': shared practices, institutions, and values. It is necessary to reject Charles Beitz's assertion that, in Hobbes's theory, the only actors in international relations are sovereign states.

Norm Contestation and Global Governance: Taking Actor Configurations and Practical Reasoning Seriously

The relevance of the article lies in the analysis of the controversial issue of actors in international relations, which regularly arises in scientific circles. Specifically, it aims to resolve the question of whether the true actor in international relations is the individual subject or the state. The central argument posits a dualistic perspec-tive, emphasizing the interdependent nature of individuals and society as essential elements for analyzing in-ternational relations. Conclusion regarding the dual nature of the aforementioned concepts introduces novelty to the methodological framework for further research into events and conflicts, providing an additional tool for forecasting. The article consistently and argumentatively removes the contradiction, who really acts as an actor in international relations and what is it about when they say in the news agenda: “The government has decid-ed”.

This article analyzes the activities of American non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in China and Chinese NGOs in the United States in the context of global competition between the United States and China for the leadership in the future model of the world order. In International Relations theory, especially in its theoretical paradigm of realism, the consideration of states as actors in international relations dominates scholarship. However, in recent decades it has become apparent that researchers have a significant interest in non-state actors, such as interest groups and NGOs, and their impact on international relations. NGOs in China and the United States have different historical backgrounds, environments, and government institutions in different ways. Still, but in terms of comparative analysis they represent comparable categories. The analysis offered in this study shows that, firstly, despite the strict regulation of the activities of NGOs in place in China, American NGOs have more opportunities to work in this environment than Chinese NGOs do in the United States, where the situation for their activities is apparently more favorable. Secondly, despite the advantages that partnerships provide, neither American nor Chinese NGOs form partnership networks and therefore, lose momentum for their own development. Thirdly, although the conditions for their activities differ in both countries, American and Chinese NGOs have equal opportunities to pursue their goals. Finally, American NGOs in China are less dependent on their government than Chinese NGOs in the United States are on the Chinese government. The study is comparative and takes as its units of analysis Chinese NGOs in the United States and American NGOs in China. Developments in the field of interest group politics serve as the theoretical framework for this research. The investigation uses methods of comparative quantitative analysis and social network analysis, while the interdisciplinary nature of the methods allow them to take advantage of the analytical capabilities of Comparative Political Science, Interest Group Politics, and International Relations.

The period after 9/11 can be characterised as the terrorism moment in world history. Every actor in international relations—the state, regional, continental and international as well as civil society organisations—has been mobilised to combat what, apparently has been conceived as a common security threat to humanity. The transformation of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) into the African Union (AU) was a divine coincidence at a time when multilateralism and international cooperation were being challenged by the threat of terrorism. In the post-9/11 period, the main concern of the Union has been to reinforce and implement existing counter-terrorism instruments adopted at the continental level in coordination with states and regional organisations. This article discusses and appraises the endeavours undertaken by the AU and its precursor organisation, the OAU, in tackling and dealing with the threat of terrorism despite limitations to its human and financial resources. In recognition of the nature of the states in Africa and the challenges facing the Union, we argue that the role of the AU remains critical in order to fill the gaps where its member states or regional mechanisms are lacking. In this regard, we stress that the role of the AU should be complementary and serve as an interface between the continent and the international community, including the United Nations.

Purpose This paper aims to study individuals in international relations especially private individuals in global politics. Therefore the paper focuses on analyzing the case of Mark Zuckerberg the founder and chief executive of Facebook who affects the international arena. The paper illustrates Zuckerberg’s strategies to assert wide influence and power within Facebook’s network and through multiple networks. Design/methodology/approach The paper follows new theories of studying the human agent in international relations, concentrating on private individuals as new actors in international relations (IR). Thus, depending on “network making power theory” and the “three-dimensional power perspectives; (discursive, structural and instrumental)”, the paper illustrates the case of Mark Zuckerberg as a private entrepreneur and his authority in the era of social media dominance with a focus on: Zuckerberg's discursive/ideational power strategy. Zuckerberg’s strategy to work as a switcher through multiple networks. The most obvious one is the Facebook network, through which he can assert global influence. Findings Formal state officials are not the only type of individuals who can affect international relations. Technological evolution has empowered private individuals as influential actors in international relations (IR). Interdisciplinary approaches became essential tools in studying new actors affecting IR. There are new patterns of power linked to individuals without formal positions. Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook and global philanthropist, is considered an influential actor in IR depending on programming and switching strategies to assert his power in a networked world. Originality/value This paper is able to prove that there are new forms of power which belong to private individuals in a networked world.

Modern international politics can be characterized by a global economy and every country’s role within world markets. Adversaries fight trade wars and multinational corporations are increasingly larger actors in international relations and economics. As of 2022 and 2023, relations between western nations, including the US or the UK, and the two Eastern powers, Russia and China have been the most tenuous in the past couple of decades since the collapse of the Soviet Union. With the decision to invade Ukraine by the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, in early 2022, international condemnation of such a breach of sovereignty has resulted in international condemnation and action. The country has largely been cut off from western markets in ways that hurt its key exports and necessities. With China watching the invasion as a comparable situation to their desire for Taiwan in the South China Sea, questions about Russian economic health arise. Thus the guiding question for this paper is: what is the current profile of Russian economics, and how can the Nation’s current global position be understood?