In a world that is becoming more complex by the second, actors on the international stage have increased in number and diversity. Today, unlike what realists like to believe, states may not be the only ones that have a say: non-governmental organizations (NGOs), inter-governmental organizations (IGOs), and other non-state actors (NSAs) have all joined the world of power. However, does the existence of these actors within state borders necessarily mean that states should become insecure about their sovereignty? That, this paper would like to argue against. State sovereignty is challenged only sometimes by NGOs, IGOs, and other NSAs.
Sovereignty is defined as a state’s independence, control over land, and ability to govern itself. As such, organizations that do not seek to overtake the regime but are helping the government improve citizen wellbeing, actually enhance a state’s sovereignty. As an example, the Red Cross (NGO) engaged in providing humanitarian aid to Hawaiian citizens after a deadly wildfire in August 2023. It provided shelters for those whose houses were damaged, and much-needed supplies such as blankets, meals, beds, and medical care. Since the Red Cross is independent from governments and operates off of donations coming from many different sources, its actions come with essentially no strings attached, not asking for any return of favors from the Hawaiian government. Instead, it is reasonable to argue that it improves internal legitimacy of the government by helping it counter the damages done after the environmental disaster, thereby strengthening the state’s ability to govern itself, and improving its sovereignty.
In terms of sovereignty, NSAs other than NGOs are often used to the state’s advantage as well. Take the example of a multi-national corporation — Huawei. The US government has been issuing trade barriers against Huawei, which can be seen as an attempt to protect its own technological dominance and safeguard national security interests. Similarly, China's support for Huawei can be seen as a means to challenge the dominance of Western corporations, such as Apple, Google and Microsoft. Technological development can easily be seen as yet another arena for China and the US’s struggles for power. Although being non-state actors, tech-companies have been used as assets of these governments for competition. These NSAs enhance instead of challenge the sovereignty of states such as China and the US, as technological or trade wars fought through the use of them do not threaten the states’ control over land, but can stimulate technological development — hard power — as well as nationalistic responses within the country’s population, adding to the state’s independence. In summary, NSAs like multinational corporations can be utilized by states to further their interests and strengthen their sovereignty.
That said, it is not always the case that state sovereignty is not challenged by these organizations. It can be argued that due to there being other states involved, intergovernmental organizations can easily erode the sovereignty of states. As an example, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) — an IGO that deals with international trade — has provided financial assistance to Argentina on multiple occasions, often attaching conditions to their loans. These conditions, which typically involve economic reforms and policy adjustments, can be seen as influencing Argentina's sovereignty in economic decision-making, thus potentially undermining its sovereignty. However, it is important to recognize that Argentina voluntarily seeks assistance from the IMF, and the country has the agency to negotiate and accept or reject the conditions imposed. While the IMF's involvement may have a large say over Argentina's policy choices when the state is in urgent need of loans, it does not necessarily challenge the country's overall sovereignty, and particularly not its control over territory in normal situations.Â
A more severe example is the African Union's (AU, IGO) involvement in rebuilding Somalia — a failed state. Particularly, it provided help through its peacekeeping mission known as the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM). The Somali government, while being extremely weak in its ability to govern, may be forced to rely upon external forces, providing the AU with power over this state. This is to say that the AU could threaten the Somali government with halting its peacekeeping missions, so that Somalia obliges to whatever request the AU may have for it. Although it is important to note this dangerous powerlessness of Somalia, one must also address that, while AMISOM's presence could challenge the sovereignty of the Somali government, the Somali government did request and welcome the AU's intervention. Therefore, in this case, the AU's involvement could be seen either as a direct challenge to state sovereignty or more of a cooperative effort — both are reasonable claims.
NGOs, depending on their goals, could also influence the sovereignty of states; this is largely due to their ability to act as a mediator between the people and the regime or provide a voice that can potentially go against the government, and is powerful enough to influence its decisions. Amnesty International, for example, is an NGO consisting of more than 10 million members, focusing on human rights abuses. Their work includes lobbying in governments, representing a humanitarian voice to make sure governors and legislators deliver their promises. They may also accuse governments of making unjust decisions. This happened in September 2023 when Venezuelan refugees fled their country and entered the borders of Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, and Chile. While these countries do have laws that address how to deal with refugees, Amnesty International 'has confirmed that they rarely apply these laws' ('Americas'). This is an occasion where an NGO’s accusation reveals the fact that these countries don’t have full control over public opinions on state actions and are prone to judgment from the international community. These judgments may, in turn, influence the decision-making and thus sovereignty of these states. However, at the end of the day, NGOs like Amnesty International, to a large extent, lack the power to enforce their recommendations or decisions. Ultimately, it is up to the individual state to decide whether or not to address the concerns raised by Amnesty International — despite the pressure, the state still has the final call.
In conclusion, non-state actors such as the Red Cross and Huawei often work in collaboration with states rather than challenging their sovereignty, while others like the IMF, the African Union and Amnesty International may influence or impact certain aspects of state independence. But, ultimately, there is hardly anything embedded in the definition of NGOs, IGOs or NSAs that make it necessary for them to influence state sovereignty. As it is ideas that bring people together forming such organizations, it is the idea as well, that decides how a particular organization deals with its relationship with the state.Â