The major weakness of non-state actors is that they do not have the legal power, combined with the actual “physical” ability, to coerce individuals or countries that do not do as they wish. This often makes them ineffective when they try to change the world for (as they see it) the better.
States have both the authority and (in almost all cases) the actual power to coerce individuals and groups within their own borders. This means that they can force individuals, companies, and others to change in ways that they think best. For example, if the Chinese government wants to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, it can simply order people within its borders to drive less or to shut down factories that emit too much gas. It has this legal right (unless it takes that right away from itself) and it has the power to force people to comply if it cares enough.
By contrast, IGOs and INGOs do not have this combination of power. IGOs do often have the legal authority to coerce countries. For example, the UN has the legal power to coerce Iran to make it stop its nuclear program because Iran signed a treaty giving up its right to have such a program. However, the UN does not have the physical capability of enforcing this. It can levy economic sanctions and even go to war with Iran, but only if enough of its member countries are willing to play along. The UN does not have its own army or police force to coerce Iran into dropping its nuclear program. INGOs do not even have the legal power to force a country to do anything. If there is an INGO dedicated to stopping global warming, it cannot require any country or any company to reduce its emissions. It has to try to persuade countries or companies to do these things. This makes an INGO even weaker than an IGO.
States have the legal right and the actual power to coerce individuals and groups within their own borders. Non-state actors lack one or both of these characteristics. This is the major reason why such groups are, to some degree, weak.
No comments:
Post a Comment