It is true that states play the most distinctive role in International politics with high authority and influence in decision-making, often oppressing the authority and legitimacy of the non-state actors (international organisations). However, with a more interconnected world, non-state actors have been yielding influence and power on global politics, their growth affecting how the state actors should behave on the global “stage”.
Since the Cold War, we have witnessed the swaying of non-state actors constructing and reconstructing the traditional philosophies of liberal democracies, complex interdependence and role of power in global politics. Though these influences have always been practised dominantly by military security, soft power and economic interdependence have played a huge role in globalisation, allowing regional state actors like China and Russia, to become potential global powers, and a threat to the United States as the superpower. The recent global developments in world politics have increased the opportunities for China to encourage its relationships with non-state actors like UN and ASEAN which has enabled its position to underscore the narratives of who holds more “power” in this game of politics. The playing field is promptly altering its traditional views on global affairs and opening its field to sway any potential players, Russia, India or Singapore; into the global field of the game. The recent events of Brexit or Russian-led military troops in the Middle East, United States War on Terror on Islamic State and increasing mass migrations due to wars and conflicts, has weakened the roles of these players among the global political sphere, shifting the narrative and voice of help towards the non-state actors.
The responsibility to protect, enforcing actions and humanitarian aids has been constantly diverted to the non-state actors in preference to these global powers. It is true that multiple channels among societies blur the distinction between domestic and international politics and there is a struggle for power and peace for international organisations and they favour coalitions of the small and powerless (weak states), allowing the small and weak states to pursue economic and social linkage strategies. Hence, it is obvious that the influence of these non-state key players has highly persuaded the state actors in promoting peace, responsibility to protect, humanitarian aid, socio-cultural challenges (equality, anti-discrimination, poverty, climate change) and economic interdependence to weak states and least developing countries. Furthermore, as Hans Morgenthau mentioned in his paper (Politics among Nations-The struggle for power and peace)
Hence, it is obvious that the influence of these non-state key players has highly persuaded the state actors in promoting peace, responsibility to protect, humanitarian aid, socio-cultural challenges (equality, anti-discrimination, poverty, climate change) and economic interdependence to weak states and least developing countries. Furthermore, as Hans Morgenthau mentioned in his paper (Politics among Nations-The struggle for power and peace) “The difference between international politics as it actually is and a rational theory derived from it is, like the difference between a photograph and a painted portrait. The photograph shows everything that can be seen by the naked eye; the painted portrait does not show everything that can be seen by the naked eye, but it shows, or at least seeks to show, one thing that the naked eye cannot see: the human essence of the person portrayed”, it is true that states function as the key player in this world’s politics stage as the analogy of the “photograph”. However, it is the people and the civil society that act as the “painted photograph” that cannot be seen to the naked eye in this liberal democratic world of politics. It is the people that determine the fate of their state, rationally or irrationally, which then creates how powerful the state is as a key player in the political stage.