We often focus on the behavior of important people and organizations to understand what occurs in international relations. This section identifies the most prominent actors in the international system. It also differentiates actors according to their interests and capabilities. Variations in these two traits help explain the choices made by important political actors in the international system. Figure 2.2 provides numerous examples of these actors.

Figure 2.2:

Actors in the International System

The field of international relations has long focused on states as the most important actors in global politics.2 Examples of states include the United States, Germany, China, India, Bolivia, South Africa, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam. As of 2017, there were 193 member-states of the international system as recognized by the United Nations. States are collections of political officials—like a president—and bureaucratic agencies—like the military—responsible for regulating the political, social, and economic interactions of its citizenry. States hold political authority over their citizens, directing their behavior by writing and enforcing laws. States oversee a defined territorial jurisdiction that limits the geographic range of their political authority. Their borders are exclusionary. They limit the authority of other states over the people that reside within them. The sovereignty, or right to rule, of states must be recognized by other states in the system to achieve statehood. States are important actors in international relations because their governments set the rules structuring how their citizens interact (through trade or working abroad, for example) with people all over the world.

States possess multiple attributes that differentiate them, including population, economic wealth, territorial size, and government type. We focus on two characteristics, namely interests and capabilities, which distinguish all actors in the international system. National interests refer to the broad political, economic, and social goals that motivate the policies pursued by governments. The political leadership of a state often sets these interests in reaction to a mix of pressures from inside and outside the state. During the Cold War, the primary national interest of the United States focused on containing the expansion of Soviet power and influence in Asia, Europe, and Africa. Alternatively, the importance of internal factors in setting the national interests of a state can be seen when politicians from a different political party replace a government. President Trump defines the interests of the United States relative to Russia in much more cooperative terms than his Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama.

The content of these interests can vary significantly. They may stem from economic incentives to maintain industrial competitiveness or maximize economic growth. Some states may always focus instead on national security needs associated with the protection of sovereignty. Or citizens may pressure their government to preserve the collective identity of a citizenry based on religion by limiting immigration.

For example, the United States has long sought to promote democracy around the world in its foreign policy. China, instead, has repeatedly reaffirmed its support for sovereignty and the principle of noninterference in the domestic political affairs of other states. These different political goals sometimes place the governments of these two states in conflict with each other and limit their ability to reach political compromise in multiple issue areas, particularly when the United States has pressured China for greater political reform.

The ability of any significant actor in the international system, like a state, to realize its political goals or interests depends partly on its capabilities. Actors use these military, political, and economic resources to achieve their goals in negotiating situations with others. The capabilities of states rest on many factors, including national income, the size of the military, and population. For example, wealthier states draw on their financial resources to build large militaries. These military capabilities can pressure another state or international actor into complying with some set of political demands, often by making threats to impose costs for noncompliance. During the Cold War, the United States threatened to launch nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union if it invaded West Germany.

Actors with limited capabilities often face significant challenges in realizing their political interests through their own political and economic choices. For example, a fringe group of terrorists may seek to overthrow the government of the United States and seize the territory it holds in North America. However, the fulfillment of such a radical goal is extremely unlikely unless that small group possesses the military capabilities to first defeat the military forces that defend the government and territory of the United States.

Figure 2.3 presents data that compares the military capabilities of all states in the international system. It presents an aggregated capabilities score for each state that rests on population, military personnel, military spending, and economic indicators associated with industrialization. Each score is a state’s proportion of the total military capabilities in the entire international system. According to this indicator, China has the most military capabilities (nearly 22 percent) of any state in the system. We can use this data to make guesses about what would occur if a state fought a war. States with higher capabilities should be more likely to win a war against states with lower military capabilities. Select a state to see its military capabilities in 2012.

Great powers are a unique subgroup of states. They possess disproportionately more economic and military resources than the other states in the international system. These resources enable them to project military and political influence beyond their territorial boundaries, even shaping political outcomes and institutions within weaker states around the world. They deploy their own troops on military bases far away from their home territory. Up through World War II, a standard indicator of great power status was the possession of overseas colonies that comprised an empire. Great Britain’s position as a wealthy great power during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries depended significantly on its imperial control over India. The foreign policy interests of great powers are global in geographic scope, extending beyond their immediate territorial boundaries and respective regional neighborhoods. The United States, for example, deploys troops and aircraft carrier battle groups to the Middle East to protect shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf and stabilize global oil markets. Figure 2.4 lists the states that have been accorded great power status during the post-1815 period.

Figure 2.4:

The Great Powers, 1816–2016

The capabilities and foreign policy actions and interests of great powers enable them to play a disproportionate role in international politics. Many theories of international relations focus on the distribution of military power among great powers to characterize the structure of international politics.3 Great power wars alter the structure of international politics by remaking territorial borders, destroying empires, and altering the population of states in the international system. The opening of a great power’s domestic economy to international trade can foster export-oriented development for smaller economies around the world.

The interests and capabilities of states and great powers often depend on a series of domestic characteristics, like regime type, the level of economic development, and class and ethnic divisions. For example, democratic states are generally satisfied with their territorial borders. Members of the same ethnic group living across the border in different states can pressure their governments to pursue cooperative relations with each other.

The relative political prominence of these internal factors simultaneously suggests that individuals and substate groups, like parties, unions, or religious groups, are also important actors in international politics. Again, the interests and capabilities of these groups shape their role in international politics. The interests of a state may depend partly on the distribution of income within a society or the relative political influence of different economic sectors. Powerful corporate interests associated with manufacturing or finance that fund many reelection campaigns may pressure their governments to eliminate barriers to international trade.

The relative influence of any domestic group on the foreign policy of a state depends on its capacity to mobilize large groups of citizens around a common purpose and the economic resources a group might possess in support of its goals. Thus, substate groups may have a larger role in determining the national interests of the state when their membership comprises a significant portion of the population. Political parties, for example, can be important international actors when they successfully coordinate the domestic political activities and demands of many citizens to win an election. The changes in American foreign policy implemented by President Trump after 2017 depended both on the different foreign policy interests of the Democratic and Republican parties along with the widespread political success of Republicans in the 2016 elections for the presidency and Congress.

International organizations (IOs), like the United Nations, the European Union, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), are also important actors in international politics. Among other things, they regulate international trade, coordinate joint military missions among states, deter military aggression, promote important principles like respect for human rights, and help to settle disputes among states.

Large multinational corporations (MNCs) shape political and economic outcomes throughout the world. They operate in many countries and help transfer capital and technology from economies that are wealthy to those that are poorer. Collectively, they employ tens of millions of people around the world. The largest financial institutions in the world, like JPMorgan Chase, consistently generate over $20 billion in annual revenues. As of 2017, this figure surpassed the gross domestic product (GDP) of over 80 economies in the world. JPMorgan Chase also controls assets worth over $2.5 trillion. This valuation exceeds the GDP of all economies in the world except those of the United States, China, Japan, the United Kingdom, and Germany!

Their responsibility for a sizable portion of global economic activity also grants MNCs significant political influence in the developed and developing world that simultaneously demonstrates their independence from national governments. Multinational corporations can prompt changes in a government’s economic and social policies by threatening to relocate their business operations to another state. Sometimes governments respond to these pressures by relaxing labor protection laws or cutting corporate taxes to ensure these companies continue to create jobs for their citizens.

The era of globalization has created new opportunities for nonstate groups whose membership spans national boundaries to influence important international events. Transnational activists within a larger global civil society pressure governments and MNCs to respect human rights, coordinate and provide aid in the midst of natural disasters, support refugees, and advocate on behalf of important social goals like poverty alleviation.4 These activists are often mobilized and coordinated through nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Prominent examples of NGOs include Amnesty International, Doctors without Borders, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Greenpeace, and Oxfam.

The political and social activities of transnational activists differ from other nonstate actors like business firms. They often pursue moral concerns rather than economic self-interest. For example, Amnesty International investigates and publicizes human rights violations by governments to encourage political pressure on them from their own domestic citizens, other governments, and international organizations. Accordingly, NGOs, can also shape larger global discourses about whether policies pursued by governments are just or morally appropriate. Their actions illustrate the political permeability of national boundaries in the current era of globalization. Governments must often react to their own citizens and to the pressures emanating from a global citizenry residing outside of their territorial boundaries.

The global reach and political influence of nonstate actors can also be observed in transnational terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State (ISIS). Terrorists use violence, often targeting civilians, to incite fear among their victims and undermine the capacity of governments to protect a political order. The possession of some larger set of political goals, like the overthrow of a series of regimes in the Middle East, separates terrorists from criminal organizations that employ violence to generate profits in illicit markets. The reorientation of American foreign policy in response to the attacks on 9/11 illustrates the contemporary significance of terrorism as a trigger for international political change and crisis.

Finally, we also have to include prominent individuals as important actors in international relations. These often include the leaders of powerful states, corporations, and international organizations. Their decisions can set the policies of governments and corporations. They often serve as inspirational opinion leaders that propel larger political movements. You can see the impact of individuals on international relations with a simple thought exercise. How might U.S. relations with its NATO allies—as well as Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran—be different if Hillary Clinton, rather than Donald Trump, had won the U.S. presidential election in November 2016?5