Are Nation States still the most important/significant actors in global politics?

Nation State
A nation-state is an autonomous political community bound together by the overlapping bonds of citizenship and nationality, meaning that political and cultural identity coincide. Since the idea of a nation-state was first developed after the peace treaty of Westphalia in 1648, the state has been the most significant actor within global politics. Its roles and significance have included creating laws, economic management and national security. However it can now be argued that a states sovereignty has been eroded in these positions. This then meaning that the state is no longer the most important/significant actor within global politics.

Threat to a Nations importance/significance on the global stage
So why after so much dominance can the nation state now be seen as not the most important/significant actor on the world stage? One reason is due to the growing importance of international organizations such as the United Nations or the European Union. For example in the recent shock agreement between the UN security councils P-5 on the matter of fighting I.S.I.S. The UK can then be seen as being forced into having a vote over action in Syria which it voted for in the House of Commons just over a week ago. Although being a member of the UN does not actually erode any of a nations sovereignty. So a better example in this case I feel would be, when a nation is a member of the EU they do lose some of their sovereignty. For example with fishing regulations, Spanish vessels are able to fish in British Waters. This then shows that there is no doubting that the state has lost some of its significance.

Another way in which a nation state can now be seen as not the most important/significant actor on the World Stage is due to the growing size and nature of TNC's. There continual growth and dominance of many industry has led them to be able to inflict their will on some governments policies. This idea should come as no surprise as 51 out of the top 100 economies in the world are now TNC's. So if a company can have the same financial backing as a Nation then surely  they may be able to warrant the same amount of power? Not only this but a lot of major corporations base themselves in tax heavens and find loopholes to not pay tax in nations were they are present and earn millions of dollars. For example Amazon turned over 3.85 billion in 2011 and only paid 1.6 million in tax. This then shows the true extent of the power in which these corporations now have. Another example comes from the UEFA president Micheal Platini (French) who was told by the French president to vote for the 2020 World Cup to be in Qatar due to the french links with oil corporations.

Is the Nation state still the most important/significant actor?
Although there is a very valid argument for the fact that the nation state is no longer the most significant/important actor. For example international organisations are now being used a lot more as a means for international talks, rather than directly between the state. Not only this but there has been a continual rise of these giant corporations who do have a lot of pulling power worldwide not only because of there vast amount of profits but also because of the amount of people they now employ which then reduces the pressure on the government, for example Walmart employs 2.1 million people and McDonald's 1.7 million. However I do still believe that the state is still very much the most significant/important actor on the World stage. This is because they are the ones who create the laws and boundaries for the corporations to work in. Not only this but they can pack up and leave the international organizations when ever they like as they are not tied down to them in any shape or form.

Has an effective system of Global Governance now become a Reality?

Global Governance defined
In short global governance is a broad dynamic and complex process of interactive decision making at the global level that involves formal and informal mechanisms as well as governmental and non-governmental bodies. The main feature of global governance is, however that states do not lose their sovereignty. Were as in a global government system states do effectively lose there sovereignty. There are many different examples of current global governance systems such as; United Nations and the European Union. Of these two institutions the EU is closer to a World Government as it has some sovereign jurisdiction over its member states i.e. fishing regulations. Where as the UN is a global governance system as it has no real power and can only in fact make suggestions to states such as when the USA invaded Iraq in 2003 it stated that the invasion was illegal but nothing ever and has ever come out of stating this.

Arguments for and against Global Governance systems
There is no doubting that these systems are and can be used as a mechanism to help promote global peace and security. For example although there has been many failures regarding the UN. There have also been many peacekeeping successes such as East Timor. Even though this may only be a small nation as we have seen in Syria a small nation can quickly turn into an international conflict zone. Not only this but the growing interdependence of the worlds economy has led to the development of institutions such as the World Trade Organization, although this has been set up to help the process of globalization they can also be used as mechanism for world peace as the material costs of War are becoming more developed and particularly for developing nations. Both these factors above are therefore reasons for a global governance system.


On the other side of the argument however there is the fact that it can be said that these systems promote the neo-liberal ideology and will only benefit those states who have an impact on international affairs particularly when it comes to economic status. This is then an argument against a global governance system as it reduces the sovereignty of the state. Which is more importantly a fully elected body in most countries or even those nations that are not democratic it could be argued that the government has some consent from the people. As said above this systems will only have a benefit for those at the top and it will cause an even greater gap between the North and the South as if its not big enough already? This rising inequality can only then lead to increases in global tensions therefore making a system of global governance detrimental to the world and not a positive thing.

Is a global governance system now a reality?
In mind you cannot say that a global governance system is not in place in the modern era as there are many institutions that are used to create interaction between nation states in order to increase cooperation on a global level. However I do feel that in fact these organizations do not do that much regarding global issues and they are in fact used as a way for the dominate nations to continue in this way. Although to a certain extent a global governance system does bring nations closer together on a decision making level and therefore leading to peace between certain nations. I do feel that those smaller nations (West Africa) are being left out in the cold and in fact it is only causing more problems and tensions in these areas.