Actor in International Politics
Introduction
The problem of actors is one of the central, and at the same time one of the most controversial in the study of international politics and relations. Indeed, one of the main criteria of international relations is the presence of regular interactions between the social communities geographically separated by political boundaries.
In international relations, actors are those whose activity goes beyond one state and, therefore, participate in cross-border relations and communications. In other words, in one way or another, any argument about international relations assumes directly a reference to the State with sovereignty as its most important attribute. Take the United States for an example, it is an actor that has a specific preference ordering. That is, it ranks these alternative outcomes in some rational way. Similarly, we can designate the State Department or President Bush for that matter as actors, and they all will have their own preference orderings (Branislav L. Slantchev, 2005). Obviously, when we say “the U.S. is an actor,” we are already deep into abstraction. However, there are several issues: the first is associated with explaining the specifics of these interactions, in other words, their differences from the interactions of non-international character; secondly, there are arguments on the interpretation of the place of the state as an international actor, and hence the very essence of the concept of "actor". In this paper, it is necessary to consider who are the ‘actors’ of world politics and to present alternative positions on this issue through analyzing the definition of “actor” in the international relations and then comparing typologies of international actors on the basis of the goals and objectives of the analysis undertaken.
The most common term, which denotes in the international relations the interaction of the participants in the global arena, is the term "actor". "Actor” - is any person who
The problem of actors is one of the central, and at the same time one of the most controversial in the study of international politics and relations. Indeed, one of the main criteria of international relations is the presence of regular interactions between the social communities geographically separated by political boundaries.
In international relations, actors are those whose activity goes beyond one state and, therefore, participate in cross-border relations and communications. In other words, in one way or another, any argument about international relations assumes directly a reference to the State with sovereignty as its most important attribute. Take the United States for an example, it is an actor that has a specific preference ordering. That is, it ranks these alternative outcomes in some rational way. Similarly, we can designate the State Department or President Bush for that matter as actors, and they all will have their own preference orderings (Branislav L. Slantchev, 2005). Obviously, when we say “the U.S. is an actor,” we are already deep into abstraction. However, there are several issues: the first is associated with explaining the specifics of these interactions, in other words, their differences from the interactions of non-international character; secondly, there are arguments on the interpretation of the place of the state as an international actor, and hence the very essence of the concept of "actor". In this paper, it is necessary to consider who are the ‘actors’ of world politics and to present alternative positions on this issue through analyzing the definition of “actor” in the international relations and then comparing typologies of international actors on the basis of the goals and objectives of the analysis undertaken.
The most common term, which denotes in the international relations the interaction of the participants in the global arena, is the term "actor". "Actor” - is any person who
References: Charle W. and Shannon L. (2010) World Politics: Trend and Transformation: 17 Hollis, M Rosenau J. (1992). “Turbulence of Sovereignty in World Politics: Explaining the Relocation of Legitimacy in the 1990s and Beyond”. in Z. Mlinar (ed.) Globalization and Territorial Identities. Aldershot: Avebury: 60-76. Kaplan M.(2005) System and Process in International Politics. ECPR Press. Keohane, R.O. (ed.) (1986) Neorealism and Its Critics. New York: Columbia University Press. Keohane, R.O. (1989) International Insitutions and State Power. Boulder: Westview Press. Keohane, R.O. and J.S. Nye (ed.) (1971) Transnational Relations and World Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.. Keohane, R.O. and J.S. Nye (1977,1989) Power and Interdependence. Second Edition. Glenview: Scott Foresman. March J. & Olsen J. (1984). “The New Institutionalism: Organisational Factor in Political Life”. American Political Science Review,No.78 Rassett В., Starr H. World politics Rosenau J. (1997). Along the Domestic-Foreign Frontier : Exploring Governance in a Turbulent World. Cambridge: Cambridge UP Rosenau J Rosenthal Joel H. l, Thompson Kenneth W. 1991“Righteous Realists: Political Realism, Responsible Power, and American Culture in the Nuclear Age. LSU Press. Williams, Michael C. "Why Ideas Matter in International Relations: Hans Morgenthau, Classical Realism, and the Moral Construction of Power Politics." International Organization 58 (2004): 633-65. Wolfers A. 1962 Discord and Collaboration. Baltimore. The John Hopkins University Press.