International Relations 29/09/2021

TD 4 – The diversification of the actors

PRESENTATION
→ CASE STUDY: The role of the GAFAM (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft) in the
international system
→ TOPIC: New actors on the international stage in a globalized world

GAFAM are considered as the most influential companies in the technological sector. They are now
working far beyond their initial domain.

Have the GAFAM managed to become core actors of the international system and thus call into
question inter-state representation of the world?

GAFAM’s GDP is sometimes higher than some states. The 3 rd GDP in the world, juste behind the US
and China.

Economic weight → influence worldwide

Challenge states’ power concerning economic tax

Consequences on the international system: recognition of GAFAM’s power

→ power that disturbs the international system (challenge the monopoly of the state, claiming the
right to participate in defining the international agenda)

Conclusion:

- The rise of GAFAM is due to conditions placed by globalization and technological evolution
- Challenges the state’s power and in the international system
- The weight of the GAFAM on the international system should be more nuanced
- The state remains to be an important and still powerful actor in the IR system
- The question of democracy

--

RECAP OF LECTURE
OUTLINE:

I. The rise of non-state actors

II. Some new categories of non-state actors
III. Several approaches of this new world

I. A. What is an international actor?

International actor: actor who acts on the international stage and/or has an effect on the
international system

Who or what has an impact on the international system today?

→ the answer is: plural. NGOs, mass media, individual (the 7 billion people are actors (participate to
the transnational migration movements etc.… = international actors)

“Dual world”: “state-centric world” in which states are the protagonist of the interactions / “multi-
centric world” featuring a lot of different actors (James Rosenau)
→ those 2 systems interact

1
International Relations 29/09/2021

Non-state actors: actors who act (intentionally or not) internationally, independently from political
control and whose actions ignore or surpass borders.

I. B. Causes of the emergence of non-state actors

What are according to you the causes of the emergence of non-state actors?

 The end of borders due to the revolution of transportation and abolition of distances
(borders are becoming more and more an illusion, people are more able to migrate and
travel so this allows transnational dynamics and actors to grow)
→ bright side: doctors without borders
→ dark side: european people can go to Syria and join terrorist actions

 The revolution of information and communication: play a crucial role, the means of
communication give the tools to non-state actors to organize events/ protests whereas it was
harder before
→ bright side: Arab springs mostly organized through social medias (Facebook, Twitter)
→ dark side: (risks due to the mass communication) ISIS (Islamic state of Iraq and Syria)
terrorized populations worldwide by publishing videos of executions

 Democratization and liberalization: more & more people are allowed to organize actions
independently of the state

 Increasing support to international organizations and associations: only concerns the legal
non-state actors. Increasing role because the state is giving them a bigger role (sometimes
included in negotiations)

I. C. The corner stone of international relations

II. A. Lawful non-state actors

INTRO: Lawful non-state actors are integrated in the system by states but unlawful actors force
themselves into the system

Multinational firms: it’s a firm which has multiple settings in different countries but a strategic unity.

 Economic weight
→ 2013: apple’s value in the stock exchange market exceeded France’s budget
→ in terms of employment: Walmart has more employees than the Chinese army (+2 million
people)

 Capacity to exert pressure on governments: represent a lot of revenue/ employment and

states can’t afford to lose that
→ Sudan: a lot of oil companies, leverage on Sudan’s government

 Mean of soft power: huge vector of culture

→ role of McDonalds
→ Starbucks’ sign in the middle of Palestine territory whereas US do not recognize Palestine
as a state

 Bilateral relations with states as if they were equivalent

→ Philippe Morris (tabaco company) denounced Uruguay which decreased the sales (taxes)

2
International Relations 29/09/2021

and the court accepted the case. Philippe Morris ended up loosing but the court did not see
any problem in having a trial between a state and a tabaco company.

Number of NGOs has increased → 3000 NGOs with a consultative status in the ECOSOC, playing an
increasing role on the international system:

 Increasingly structured and implemented across the world. The networks are bigger than
some diplomatic ones
→ e.g., Amnesty International offices (160 states) > Mexican embassies (80 embassies) or
Portugal (70 ambassies)

 Expansion of their field of action

→ e.g., 1990s, most of NGOs concerned by humanitarian reasons and now other topics:
environment, development issues (the more they extend their field of action, the bigger
their impact)

 Increasing informative role and impact on the public opinion: more accurate information
than diplomat (because they are on the field in contact with te actual people and events).
Very important expertise that has a huge impact on public opinion.
→ e.g., Amesty makes reports to account human rights across the world. Last one: they
said that Russia’s justice was less and less independent and journalists more & more
persecuted. Putin has to take this into account because public opinion is affected.

 Increasingly integrated in International Organization: more & more included in the system

II. B. Unlawful non-state actors

Mafias: structured criminal organizations using intimidation and subjection to conduct crimes and
make profit (Italian penal code)
→ e.g., Yakuzas in Japan

 International branches
→ e.g., Ndrangheta from Calabria suspected to be present in more than 30 states; Yakusas
have branches in the pacific states and even in Germany and US

 International economic actors: will to make profit through international traffic. Follow the
same path as multinational firms = take advantage of globalization and the deregulation of
the economy to expend their market place
→ drug traffic (whole international network)

Terrorism/ terrorist groups: one of the main international concerns

The term “terrorism”

How to define terrorism?

https://dema.az.gov/sites/default/files/Publications/AR-Terrorism%20Definitions-BORUNDA.pdf
→ list of the different definitions (general assembly of the UN, UN security council, the EU: none of
them are the same)

BUT main elements:

 Criminal actions led against civilians

 Aim to cause terror: use it as a weapon

3
International Relations 29/09/2021

 Aim to make their actions public through terror by revendicating their actions
→ ISIS publishing videos of executions on social medias

*Subjective and political terms that is negatively connoted as opposed to “resistance”

terrorist groups: they unlegitimately use violence
resistance: groups use violence legitimately

Calling a group terrorist = always subjective and political

e.g., Palestinian liberation organization (1960s), considered terrorist until 1993 (Oslo accords in
Washington which removed the term terrorist)

!!! Terrorism ≠ Islamic terrorism

*not the only type of terrorism
→ right wing terrorist groups
→ leftist: anarchists terrorist organizations
→ ethno-nationalist: ETA (Bask independentist terrorist group)

Terrorism

 Transnational causes
→ ex. Islam; anarchy

 Implemented internationally

 Terrorist actions across the globe

Force themselves into the international system: States can’t ignore them and obliged to take them
into account and act with them as they would act with other states
→ go to war against them “War against terror” (Bush)
→ Negotiations with them (ex. Trump/Taliban)

III. A. A challenge for IR theories

INTRO: None of them have the same role nor the same strategies, they all overlap and are complex
to grasp. See how the IR discipline deals with this new world

Most of IR theories considered the world as an inter-state system so new actors = challenge to this
approach. International system complexified.

→ Non-state actors vs. State-centric approach of IR theories

→ Diversification and complexification of the international system vs. Simple paradigms presented by
theories
e.g., Hobbes considered IR as a “gladiator struggle”; Wolfers and the billiard balls

Discipline trying to adapt to such a change. Different possibilities are infinite.

Not Inter-national way of thinking anymore but transnational relations: we do not approach the
international scene as we used to, transnational interactions between many actors (NGOs, terrorist
groups, individuals)

4
International Relations 29/09/2021

III. B. Badie’s understanding: the triangular game

SUMMARY OF THE READING

Badie, Bertrand. “Realism under Praise, or a Requiem? The Paradigmatic Debate in International
Relations.”

Every actor in the international system can be fit inside this Triangle Game
→ ISIS: identity entrepreneurs (cf. TD 5)

Each category has its own roles/ identities

One of the main goals of states is to remains sovereign

→ while one of the main goal of the transnational actors & identity entrepreneurs is to be
independent of states

Main goal of IR: should be to understand the interactions happening in the triangle

III. C. Anne Marie Slaughter: transgovernmentalism

SUMMARY OF THE READING

Slaughter Anne-Marie. “The Real New World Order.” Foreign Affairs, vol. 76, no. 5, 1997, pp. 183–
197.

5
International Relations 29/09/2021

 Institutional liberalism (= peace through institutions)

 “New medievalists” (= the state is disappearing and overlapping powers)

 Transgovernmentalism

“The state is not disappearing, it is disaggregating into its separate, functionally distinct parts […]
creating a dense web of relations that constitutes a new transgovernmental order.”

--

PRACTICAL CASE/ DEBATE

→ Doctors without borders and the right to intervene (Responsibility to protect)

How does the action of Doctors without borders (MSF) and the right to intervene challenge
the international system organization and international law?

Territorial integrity: principle under international law that prohibits states from the use of force
against the "territorial integrity or political independence" of another state. It refers to the territorial
'oneness' or 'wholeness' of the State.

As a norm of international law, it protects the territorial framework of the independent State and is
an essential foundation of the sovereignty of States.

BUT: they put pressure on states as “outsiders”: pressure from the outside
→ Influencing public opinion and the question about their right to intervene can be highlighted

Do you think it can be legitimate to violate territorial integrity? Is it always a good thing to
erase borders?

VIOLATIONS: Non-forceful illegal interventions that have been relevant in practice include, for
example, violations of borders in the attempt to arrest a suspect or state vessels or aircrafts entering
into the territorial waters or airspace without permission.

Does the concept of territorial integrity apply to non-state actors?

→ All these considerations make clear that the legal situation with regard to the application of the
principle of territorial protection to non-state actors remains highly contested

NGO participation in IR is justified by:

- More effective outcomes
- Expertise of NGOs (input)
- Implementation of agreements (output)
→ Democratic legitimacy

+ the international system is more & more contested (thus from the realist perspective of
sovereignty)

One argument: if there is no sovereignty, then there is no violation of territorial integrity

The slippery slope: when you authorize one thing, you can authorize several things that do not
necessarily have a link with the first one

All states are intertwined so when a state acts it may create a chain effect in states’ reactions
whereas NGOs are outside of government’s control so we cannot blame one country responsible but
the will of the people

6
International Relations 29/09/2021

Do you think MSF should be an independent actor or its action should be guided by the
states?

--

Question 1 : How does the action of Doctors without borders (MSF) and the right to intervene
challenge the international system organization and international law ?

From a legal point of view :

principle of non-intervention UN charter, article 2, paragraph 7 vs. Right to interfere/intervene

Historically :

 Post-WWII : Human Rights

 Bernard Kouchner created Doctors without borders

 “The duty to intervene : can we let them die ?” (Koucher and Bettati)

 1988, the UN general assembly recognized the right to intervene