Dr. Tabakian’s Political Science 7 Modern World Governments – Spring/Fall 2014

Supplemental Power Point Material #3

LECTURE HIGHLIGHTS • Introducing International Relations • Applying Theory • Rational Choice Theory • Realism • Power Theory • Transparency • Idealism/Liberalism • Core Principles • Dominance, Reciprocity & Identity • Actors & Influences • State and Nonstate Actors

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (1) International relations theorize mainly on conflict in the world system and how to prevent chaos from ensuing by managing power relations through the use of deterrence. Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Jr. states that decisions made by foreign poly decision makers examines problems by equating five variables:

(1) the societal and individual values of their state and that of the case being examined;

(2) their own and the world’s understanding of the problem at hand;

(3) those capabilities available on hand and what the goals of their nation in correlation to other nations;

(4) the bureaucratic and organizational framework where decisions affecting foreign affairs are constructed; and

(5) how that individual defines the international system, whether it may be bipolar, multipolar, classical balance of power, unilateral, etc.

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (2) International relations is like the philosophy of science as both are defined as, “a symbolic construction, a series of inter-related constructs or concepts, together with definitions, laws, theorems and axioms.” The field of study came about following World War I by those who sought to understand what causes conflict so that the barrage of conflict may not be repeated again. The field consists of contending theories that some have argued has not been able to reign uncontested. One can argue that the field as a whole is wrought with contesting theoretical approaches, which have yet to achieve recognition as a new paradigm or standing as a law that all researchers can depend on. Found within the natural sciences are certain laws retaining equal standing among researchers in that field. None of the subfields of IR or the entire discipline for that matter have yet achieved this state. All of the competing theoretical approaches and methodologies applied in IR depend on each other to form a nucleus of knowledge that researchers may utilize in different configurations to strengthen or attack hypotheses.

ROLE OF THEORY Everyone uses theory whether they know it or not. Many of us devise our own theories through our childhood socializations up to adulthood. Disagreements within the field of political science for example come about when there is no agreement over the basic forces that shape the discipline. Students become disillusioned when situations arise that sweep forecasts into the abyss. Elitism and Pluralism serve as the foundation for the social sciences with political science being more inclined to adhere to pluralist arguments. Readers are encouraged to utilize both theories throughout the text. This will assist students of the political sciences to critically analyze those arguments presented by the author in order to devise their own methodologies concerning political science. Theory also helps researches to classify certain variables. It may be thought of as a pair of sunglasses that helps us filter unwanted information.

Realism accords that as human nature remains the predominant factor in a nation-state’s foreign policy, it is further determined that such policies are focused upon self-interest. As the inherent motive for man is survival, it applies to the applied foreign policies of nation-states for the actions of a state are determined according to the actions of a state are determined according to the tenets of political determination. Considered to be a synonym for power politics, though at times construed as pragmatic and wrought with simplicity, it is a somewhat abrupt philosophy focused on the inherent evils of mankind. Let us look at a clip from the movie “Failsafe”. Walter Matthau plays the role of National Security Advisor who applies rational choice and realist theory to explain why striking at the Soviet Union is necessary to survive.

EXAMPLE OF THEORY – REALISM

REALISM

RATIONAL CHOICE (1) What is the primary goal of the individual? The answer may be summed up in one word: Survival. This basic human requirement serves as the foundation for all action. If survival is the ultimate goal, then one must assume that individual parties are determined to make decisions that are based on rationality. This of course assumes that people as individual units will base all decisions on self-interest. Let us even assume that the decision maker is in possession of perfect information. Why then do people make irrational or even foolhardy decisions even when all signs point to negative or even disastrous results? The answer is simply that human beings are not robots or computers. We are fallible to emotions that encompass belief systems like religion that in turn are great influences over individual behavior.

RATIONAL CHOICE (2) Decisions are based on self-interest…as we define our self-interest to be. Consider this example. We have a nun and a real-estate mogul. The nun gives up all her worldly possessions and dedicating herself to helping those in poverty. Her justification may be great rewards in the afterlife. The real-estate mogul does not believe in an afterlife, but does believe in making as much money as , spending it all on an overly extravagant and abusive lifestyle. Who is acting rationally? Both individuals are for they are fulfilling their self-interest…as they define their self-interest to be.

REALISM (1)

American Foreign Policymakers generally believe that morality is not a primary factor for basing policy in the international arena. Morgenthau offers a prophetic Hobbesian declaration that “there is neither morality nor law outside the state”. He goes on to state, “There is a profound and neglected truth hidden in Hobbes’s extreme dictum that the state creates morality as well as law and there is neither morality nor law outside the state. Universal moral principles, such as justice or equality, are capable of guiding political action only to the extent that they have been given concrete content and have been related to political situations by society.”

REALISM (2) Realists argue that anarchy is not only present in the international system. It can also spring forth within territories as Barry Posen has suggested about what possible end results may manifest following the breakup of multiethnic states. This situation can suddenly place ethnic groups in an anarchical setting with each division acting like states in the international system. Each side fears one another to the extent that each respective group forges ahead on a campaign to acquire power over one another. Alexander Wendt claims “Anarchy is what states make of it.” He has argued that realism does not adequately explain why conflict erupts between states. Walt brings to attention other strands of constructivism that claim transnational communication and shared civic values have played a distinct role in eroding national loyalties, creating radical strains of political association that focus on international law and other normative principles that focus on international concerns.

REALISM – HISTORICAL OCCURRENCES

Realists desired a return to understanding why nation states act the way that they do by understanding what role history has had on the actions undertaken by the present. Examining historical occurrences allows one to identify particular and predictable patterns of international behavior. Power was isolated as a determining variable as states sought to gain and/or maintain their current capacity to both preserve their security in an anarchic world and to also gain additional power when the situation warranted. Morgenthau has suggested, “International politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power.” If history has shown that the quest for power is never ending then his assertion may be correct.

REALISM & THE NATIONAL INTEREST

Robert L. Pfaltzgraff defines the national interest as, “…ultimately the prudent use of power to safeguard those interests most vital to the survival of the nation-state.” The author further states that by studying history, realists are able to produce a generalization about what certain preconditions have to exist for a nation-state to pursue policies of aggression to secure their nation-interest. Nation-states pursue their individual national-interests on a never-ending basis, which in turn leads to a stable international system. Defenders of a competitive security system suggest that states are forever striving to increase their security in relation to that of other states. This would entail ego’s gain as alter’s loss and as a result is prone to security dilemmas. In a cooperative security system, states equate the security of each as a contribution to the collective good. National interests are seen to bolster international interests.

REALISM – WINNERS & LOSERS Ken Booth claims that traditional realist themes of power and order will always be achieved at someone else’s expense, forever maintaining political instability in the world system. Emancipation should instead be given priority in the security policies of states to reduce this instability. Emancipation is defined by Booth as a means of freeing people from constraints that prevent them from acting freely. People are prevented by war, poverty, oppression and poor educations from developing themselves to their fullest. Security and emancipation are seen as two sides of the same coin.

REALISM & SELF HELP States are succumbed to existing in a self-help system. Robert Axelrod has demonstrated that this reality has produced only one method for maximizing collective gain and that is the “tit-for-tat” tactic. Kenneth Waltz argues that the self-help system may lead the most powerful states to further widen the gaps in economic, military and political power between themselves and weaker members. Many have argued as this author that conflict is rooted in human nature and this will always remain so regardless of the structure of the international system.

REALISM & CORE STATES Realists are more likely to assume that core states are democratic, whereas periphery states remain authoritarian. Core states are prone to recognizing the sovereignty of other core states, but are willing to ignore the sovereignty of periphery countries if it serves their interests. Thomas Barnet is a professor at the US Naval War College who authored a model that may enlighten students to how the Bush Administration conducts foreign policy. Professor Barnett first splits the world in two distinct areas. The first contains “The Functioning Core” which are developed or those in the process of development that is entrenched in the capitalist system and remains committed to globalization. In the camp is the “Non-Integrating Gap” which contains poor, repressive and unstable governments that have not been allowed in the globalization club. Professor Barnet then goes on to state that the main security threat for Core states is not one another as realists would presume, but the threat presented by unstable regimes that emphatically voice their disenchantment with the world order and in turn produce terrorists who are further incensed over the gap between the two camps.

REALISM & INSTITUTIONS Realism asserts that international institutions serve the interests of the most powerful member states, not international interests. The expansion of NATO is a good example as this action satisfies the interests of member states. Realists do not recognize institutions as possessing the power to impact state behavior. These institutions are instead a reflection of the distribution of the power in the world, constructed to satisfy the self-interest of the most powerful members.

CLASSICAL REALISM Classical realists like Hans Morgenthau and Reinhold Niebuhr believed that states acted like human beings as both sought dominance over their respective competitors. This in turn caused competition to morph into war. Morgenthau stressed the virtues of classical realist with his declaration that the bipolar system of rivalry was a dangerous predicament that would lead to catastrophic destruction. He instead called for multipolarity as a way to construct a balance of power system that would maintain international stability.

REALISM / MULTILATERALISM POST 1940’S

US foreign policy was based upon two strategies since the 1940s. The first was realist in its construction as it was based on containment, deterrence, and maintaining a global balance of power. The second strategy was forged over the course of World War II as the US constructed a new system of relations based on institutionalized political relations with other integrated market democracies, along with continued growth of new markets. Ikenberry gives an example of the liberal grand strategy purported by the government by quoting Richard Hass, policy-planning director at the State Department: “…the principal aim of American foreign policy is to integrate other countries and organizations into arrangements that will sustain a world consistent with US interests and values”.

REALIST FORCE CONCEPTION E. H. Carr argues that there exist two opposite poles of utopian feelings of right and realist conceptions of force. He stresses that there exists a need for a combination of both utopia and reality so that society can come to a favorable compromise between power and morality. Politics and law is viewed as a ‘meeting place’ for ethics and power where both can come together in order to facilitate continued progress towards a utopian society. Classical realists like Thomas Hobbes, Reinhold Niebuhr and Hans Morgenthau argued that egoism and power politics stemmed from human nature. Structural realists or neorealists moved away from human nature and instead stressed anarchy. Kenneth Walt stated that anarchy allows conflict to brew as “wars occur because there is nothing to prevent them”. He goes on to infer that it is the actions of predator states whose behavior is fostered from human nature or its domestic politics that forces other states to respond in kind if they are to survive.

NEO-REALISM Classical realism focuses on human nature, whereas neorealism has taken this assumption and applied it the existing anarchic realm of “self-interested, competitive, mutually suspicious and antagonistic states.” Neo-realism sees the international political system as one unit with interconnecting linkages existing between structural and units. In contrast to old realism’s contention that human nature is the drive for self-interest, neo-realists looks at the entire system to understand how single actors, or states, base their actions. States are seen as individual units that pursue their self-interests with the most important one being their survival.

REALIST & MUTUAL DETERRENCE THEORY

Both the US and the Soviets have acted irrationally at the same time, threatening to use nuclear weapons, while at the same time assuming that the other side would remain rational and not provoke the situation. This actually happened during the Berlin crises, including other successive events, yet there has never been a nuclear strike launched between the two superpowers. Deterrence has worked because neither side really knew what the other side was thinking. A problem with deterrence is that the more times bluffs are made it may lead to a time when someone is going to make the call. At this point there are only three alternatives: resort to nuclear war, retreat, resort to conventional war. Realists argue that the struggle for power remains constant in the international system. The only variable is the makeup of the balance of power.

REALISM EXPLANATION FOR END OF COLD WAR

Realists have a simple explanation to the end of the Cold War. They argue that Soviet power declined and that it could no longer face the expense of continuing to challenge the United States. Kenneth Waltz has emphasized that nuclear weapons effectively insured that all out war would never erupt between the US and the Soviets as each side possessed secure second-strike capability (and some would argue a third and fourth). Realists may argue that the Soviet Union was able to disband, because its security could still be maintained with nuclear weapons and that it was not necessary to maintain an empire solely for the purpose of having a buffer zone around Russia itself. Neorealists later took to the stage with their argument that states were concerned primarily in security and not further increasing their power, or conquering new lands.

POWER THEORY (1) To exert power one must first possess adequate reserves to draw upon. This is defined simply as “capacity of power”. Achieving higher positions is dependent on various factors that may include: education; wealth; profession; charisma and other talents either developed or engrained from birth. This “capacity of power” is not determined according to a single resource, ability or possession. It is instead a combination of different variables that serve to make up the individual. This is just like a battery consisting of energy resources drawn upon when it comes time to draw power in order to achieve a set objective. Just like a battery powering a flashlight so does one’s individual “capacity of power” serve to assist one in achieving a set goal or in this case influencing or affecting political behavior to maintain, expand or protect one’s standing in order to survive in society.

POWER THEORY (2) Our example of “capacity of power” is applicable to individual capacity of power and all associations up to the nation state as all combined units consist of individuals pursuing their set of priorities or self-interest that is in turn based on survival. Drawing upon these reserves allows one to pursue agendas of self-interest. Power is the ultimate pursuit, as the ultimate goal of humanity is survival. Individual participants in pursuit of these goals join together in common pursuits under the umbrella of common interest. These resulting “spheres of interest” in turn join under broader umbrellas that also offer another distinct set of common goals that in turn competes with respective peers.

POWER THEORY (3)

Power equals resources (capacity of power) times compliance squared, divided by force. Every accounting of power theory is taken into consideration in the construction of this formula. We have explored the contention that the pursuit of self-interest encourages man to engage in political behavior. This serves as the foundation for rational choice theory, which in turn has led us to power theory. One may argue that the pursuit of power maintains the never ending cycle of political: conflict; compromise; alliances; and wars.

POWER THEORY (4)

Many have countered this argument with a direct assault on the statement that “there is no morality in politics”. These critics are both right and wrong. It is true that morality has no direct correlation with political science if the pursuit of self-interests and power resources maintains utmost priority. On the other hand they may be correct if one party sells their pursuit as a moral cause in order to achieve their agenda. For example, one may argue that good may come from conflict even if it leads to the destruction of a nation-state and the slaughtering of thousands or millions of people if the seed of democracy is planted and nurtured to maturity.

TRANSPARENCY (1) America has grown from the days of a colony to major power, superpower, and hegemon, to its present empire status. American power is felt throughout the international community. Playing poker requires one to adopt what is commonly known as a “poker face”. Players will hide their true emotions, even faking their true intentions to catch other players off guard. Some have even taken to wearing sunglasses. The exact opposite tactic that the United States has adopted is “Transparency”. This involves disclosing all routes the nation-state will undertake with regards to all forms of public policy pertaining to its political, economic and military strategies.

TRANSPARENCY (2) Alexander Hamilton initiated this policy as the chief financial philosopher of the United States even if he did not coin the term. Hamilton is regarded as the chief architect of our economic policy, which in turn was developed in order to win the confidence of domestic US business and financial elites as well as gaining the confidence of international business.

America possesses the most technologically advanced military hardware. This video demonstrates one of the first deployable force fields for light armored vehicles (LAVs). “Trophy” was built in partnership with General Dynamics Corporation & Rafael. Welcome to the 21st Century!

TRANSPARENCY EXAMPLE #1

TROPHY

America is not the only nation that utilizes Transparency. This video shows the Israeli Defense Force demonstrating a new type of gun that can shoot around corners. A brief interview with the inventor of this amazing weapon follows the demonstration.

TRANSPARENCY EXAMPLE #2

CORNER SHOT

Some forms of transparency are both political and military in nature. The military sponsored the development of the Massive Ordinance Aerial Burst (MOAB). It is commonly referred to as “The Mother Of All Bombs”. It is the largest conventional bomb in our arsenal. There is a psychological component to this bomb. A mushroom cloud forms following successful detonation. It looks somewhat like a nuclear device being detonated.

TRANSPARENCY EXAMPLE #3

MOAB

Javelin is a fire-and-forget missile with lock-on before launch and automatic self-guidance. The system takes a top-attack flight profile against armored vehicles (attacking the top armor which is generally thinner) but can also take a direct-attack mode for use against buildings or fortifications. This missile also has the ability to engage helicopters. Javelin is supplied by Raytheon/Lockheed Martin's JAVELIN Joint Venture.

TRANSPARENCY EXAMPLE #4

JAVELIN

IDEALISM / LIBERALISM (1) Various liberal theories sought to challenge realism. One variant of liberalism asserted that increased economic interdependence would discourage war for engaging in conflict would insight more costs than benefits. Warfare was seen as a threat to each side’s prosperity, especially if both actors were deeply invested in each other’s prosperity. Woodrow Wilson expounded another variant of liberalism that proposed that the spread of democracy is the key to world peace under the banner that democracies do not fight one another and that they are more peaceful than authoritarian states. Another variant of liberalism argued that international institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the International Energy Agency would serve to restrict states from acting selfishly by convincing participants that long-term gains should not be sacrificed for short-term gains. Realists saw individuals as leading actors in international affairs. Liberals in comparison saw states as the central players in international affairs and that cooperation was possible, especially as it came to issues of defense.

IDEALISM / LIBERALISM (2) PREVENTING WARFARE: Political leaders need to understand that although realism has served international relations theory well that it does not explain everything. Keeping other theoretical paradigms in mind helps to fill in the gaps so to speak of realism. If we look at idealist for example, it serves to identify those instruments available to states so that they can achieve shared interests. It demonstrates that capitalism has served as a highly efficient as well as profitable system that has made states interdependent on one another. Capitalism has also served to prevent warfare among major powers for doing so would present catastrophic returns instead of ever broadening profits that capitalism provides.

IDEALISM / LIBERALISM (3) Realism actually coincides with idealism in one respect. The United States serves as the enforcer so to say of the international economic order. American provisions of military and economic security serves to protect against mass eruptions of regional rivalries, in turn reinforcing the “liberal peace” that followed 1945 to present. Stephen Walt argues that as long as the United States remains dedicated to playing the “enforcer” and continues to provide security and stability in most regions of the world that the international system will remain stable for the most part.

NEO-LIBERAL INSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT

Neo-liberalism institutionalism accurately proclaimed that NATO, the European Union and other institutions would not disappear following the end of the Cold War as realists had incorrectly assumed. Lisa Martin, Beth Simmons and Helen Milner note that institutionalist research even drew on US politics in order to better understand why these organizations like NATO continued to exist. One argument is that member states saw it to be in their best interests to remain committed to institutions which preserved level playing fields as well as serving as guarantees to their security. Institutionalist thinking has even launched research programs within IPE over the past 15 years that made students aware of relationships existing between interests, power, and institutions

LIBERAL CHALLENGE TO REALISM (1)

Pluralism insured that groups could not single handedly influence public policy. Rather, cross-cutting cleavages would form, as groups would compromise with others to build coalitions that would succeed in affecting change. One can argue that this rebuts Marxism’s contention that major capitalism can succeed in directing public policy. International regimes was seen by liberals as a good way to challenge realism. These regimes are based on long-standing traditions of international law. Regimes are a tool for actors to pursue their interests. Peter J. Katzenstein, Robery O. Keohane and Stephen D. Krasner suggest that realism remain vulnerable due to the apparent problematic nature of its core assumption.

LIBERAL CHALLENGE TO REALISM (2)

Peter J. Katzenstein, Robery O. Keohane and Stephen D. Krasner identify four: (1) states are the key actors in the international system; (2) states are all similar in construction as they all act on behalf of their self-interest; (3) analysis can always conclude that states will act according to their self-interest; and (4) the anarchical international system presents a never ending risk of war and coercion whenever there a conflict exists between self-interested states. They list three major liberal challenges to realism’s assertion that states could be regarded as fused rational actors: neofunctionalism, bureaucratic politics, and transnational relations and linkage politics, with all three adhering to how pluralism affects state policies.

LIBERALISM PROMOTES DEMOCRACY? (1)

Francis Fukuyama asserts that liberal democracy was preferred for its competition represented worse alternatives. This also led to the acceptance of liberalism as the best choice available at the time, thus delaying a needed debate regarding whether a better regime is possible. Postmodernist assumptions about the legitimacy of liberal democracy are pessimistic. Postmodernists would not be able to bring forth any adequate arguments regarding better alternatives to liberal democracy, as they are unwilling to acknowledge its overall success. To validate the future success of liberal democracy does require a debate about potential successors. This is fundamental for the scientific method encourages a constant strive for perfection.

LIBERALISM PROMOTES DEMOCRACY? (2)

Individual actors also desire equal recognition among their respective peers. This can not be deduced solely from economic motives, but how the struggle for equal recognition has influenced economic motivation. This runs contrary to many economists and rational-choice theorists. Students should not be disheartened with the homogenization of world politics due to globalization or the seemingly democratization of the world. Students can now compare various themes of democracy worldwide. These areas include elections; electoral systems; parties; party systems; legislatures; etc.

CORE PRINCIPLES (1) • IR revolves around one key problem:

– How can a group – such as two or more nations – serve its collective interests when doing so requires its members to forego their individual interests?

• Example: Problem of global warning. Solving it can only be achieved by many countries acting together.

– Collective goods problem. • The problem of how to provide something that benefits

all members of a group regardless of what each member contributes to it.

CORE PRINCIPLES (2) • In general, collective goods are easier to provide in small

groups than large ones. – Small group: defection (free riding) is harder to conceal

and has a greater impact on the overall collective good, and is easier to punish.

• Collective goods problem occurs in all groups and societies – Particularly acute in international affairs.

• No central authority such as a world government to enforce on individual nations the necessary measures to provide for the common good.

CORE PRINCIPLES (3) • Three basic principles offer possible solutions for

this core problem of getting individuals to cooperate for the common good without a central authority to make them do so. – Dominance – Reciprocity – Identity

CORE PRINCIPLES (4)

DOMINANCE • Solves the collective goods problem by establishing a power

hierarchy in which those at the top control those below – Status hierarchy

• Symbolic acts of submission and dominance reinforce the hierarchy.

• Hegemon • The advantage of the dominance solution

– Forces members of a group to contribute to the common good.

– Minimizes open conflict within the group. • Disadvantage of the dominance solution

– Stability comes at a cost of constant oppression of, and resentment by, the lower-ranking members of the status hierarchy.

– Conflicts over position can sometimes harm the group’s stability and well-being.

RECIPROCITY • Solves the collective goods problem by rewarding

behavior that contributes to the group and punishing behavior that pursues self-interest at the cost of the group. – Easy to understand and can be “enforced” without

any central authority. – Positive and negative reciprocity. – Disadvantage: It can lead to a downward spiral as

each side punishes what it believes to be the negative acts of the other.

• Generally people overestimate their own good intentions and underestimate those of opponents or rivals.

IDENTITY • Identity principle does not rely on self-interest. • Members of an identity community care about the

interests of others in the community enough to sacrifice their own interests to benefit others. – Family, extended family, kinship group roots.

• In IR, identity communities play important roles in overcoming difficult collective goods problems. – Nonstate actors also rely on identity politics.

ACTORS AND INFLUENCES • Principal actors in IR are the world’s

governments. • IR scholars traditionally study the decisions

and acts of those governments, in relation to other governments.

• Individual actors: Leaders and citizens, bureaucratic agencies in foreign ministries, multinational corporations, and terrorist groups.

STATE ACTORS (1) • Most important actors in IR are states. • State: A territorial entity controlled by a

government and inhabited by a population. – State government exercises sovereignty over

its territory. – Recognized as sovereign by other states. – Population forms a civil society; group identity. – Seat of government with a leader – head of

government or head of state.

STATE ACTORS (2) • International system

– Set of relationships among the world’s states, structured according to certain rules and patterns of interaction.

– Modern international system has existed for less than 500 years.

– Nation-states. – Major source of conflict: Frequent mismatch between

perceived nations and actual borders. – Populations vary dramatically. – Great variation in terms of the size of states’ total annual

economic activity. • Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

– Great powers. • Most powerful of these states are called superpowers.

STATE ACTORS (3)

STATE ACTORS (4) • Some political entities are not formally recognized as

states. – Taiwan, Puerto Rico, Bermuda, Martinique, French

Guiana, the Netherlands Antilles, the Falkland Islands, and Guam.

– The Vatican. • Including various such territorial entities with states

brings the world total to about 200 state or quasi-state actors.

• Other would-be states, such as Kurdistan (Iraq), Abkhazia (Georgia), and Somaliland (Somalia) may fully control the territory they claim but are not internationally recognized.

NONSTATE ACTORS (1)

• State actors are strongly influenced by a variety of nonstate actors. – Called transnational actors when they

operate across international borders. • Intergovernmental organizations (IGOs)

– Examples: OPEC, WTO, African Union, UN.

– Vary in size from a few states to the whole UN membership.

NONSTATE ACTORS (2) • Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)

– Private organizations; no single pattern. – Examples: Amnesty International, Red Cross.

• Multinational corporations – Companies that span multiple countries

• Substate actors – Exist within one country but either influence that

country’s foreign policy or operate internationally, or both.

– Example: State of Ohio (entirely a U.S. entity) operates an International Trade Division.