Differences Between a Nation-State and a Non-State Actor
There are many differences between a nation-state and a non-state actor, including their political structures, roles, and goals as well as their legal perspectives.
Structure of a Nation-State
The structure distinguishes a non-state entity from a nation-state. For instance, a nation-state like the United States is an autonomous nation built on a sense of identity. Additionally, a nation-state has a distinct political system that is typically referred to as a democratic state, and politics is the representation of that community. A nation-state may be under the control of political elites, which makes it a component of its political structure. However, this domestic structure significantly influences fundamentally on the features of international relations. On the other hand, a non-state actor is comprised of international government organizations (IGO), such as United Nations (UN); World Bank, World Trade Organizations, International Monetary Fund among others. Owing to the fact that a non-state actor function with permission of states, the nation-state maintains its autonomy. In addition, a non-state actor may not be able to impose state compliance with its resolution, at least without the aid of a powerful nation-state. For instance, US is a permanent member of United Nation Security Council, hence it has the power to veto any of the UN's substantive decisions.
Interests
Another issue that distinguishes a nation-state and non-state actor is interest. A non-state actor has an individual interest such as social, political and economic in foreign relations and aims to attain it, whereas a nation-state is concerned about the interests of its citizens. Nonetheless, a non-state actor is not allied to any terrorist groups or inter-government bodies.
Roles
A nation-state and a non-state actor different based on their respective roles. While a nation-state has the power in the international governmental functions, a non-state actor, particularly non-governmental organizations (NGOs) pursue public assets. As non-profit organizations, they are largely involved in human rights issues, economic development, humanitarian assistance and social welfare. However, due to the fact that non-state actors, especially NGOs behavior may be detrimental to human rights as they overlook directly protecting the society. Therefore, they fail to promote its fundamental role-human dignity. Some of the well-known NGOs include Red Cross, Amnesty International and so forth. Moreover, a non-state actor like multinational organizations is for-profit firms with interests spanning across the world. In most cases, a multinational non-state actor such as Samsung, Boeing and IBM command a significant amount of assets and surpass resources of a small nation state. Nonetheless, the interests of a multinational non-state do not necessarily coincide with the interests of a nation-state they operate in or home country. For example, a multinational nation state like IBM can be against business sanctions of a nation-state since they are unfavorable to its operations. A non-state actor is, therefore, different from a nation state on the basis international and transnational importance of its operations and capacity to support the delivery of public goods, influence, and legitimacy.
Influence
A nation-state has power compared to a non-state actor. Furthermore, a nation-state can interact with several global legal aspects as well as the process. Nonetheless, currently they have amassed greater influence as well as formal relevance while impacting international laws and involvement in international relations and law. Again, since a non-state actor can tackle issues related to international law, it is rather challenging to allege that it is extraneous in international law. Also, given the power of a non-state, involvement and role in legal issues and procedures, it can have a significant influence on settling disputes and law enforcement.
Legal Perspective
A nation-state is dependent on legal standpoint, while a non-state actor is an entity that is different from a state. Additionally, a non-state actor is an entity that has global influence in terms of changing international landscape. Unlike a nation-state, a non-state actor they are actively involved in power process and international law. Therefore, the legal standpoint of a non-state actor is reliant on its objectives and scope of involvement.
Why the Intelligence Community Had to Adapt
Question 2: Why has the Intelligence Community had to adapt with the end of the Cold War and the emergence of more and more non-traditional threats to our national security? Please discuss the differences between how the Intelligence Community addressed traditional threats and how we have to approach the problem today with the addition of the non-traditional threat problem set. Are there any similarities?
Towards the brink of the Second World War and the Cold War that would span for almost a half a century, the United States intelligence community implemented a fairly consistent series of national security approaches to thwart the comparatively standard and conventionally bashful threats that stemmed from the communist hemisphere. Similarly, for approximately 15 years of relapse between the verge of the Cold War and the September 11 attacks, the United States intelligence tactics remained comparatively unaltered as the global community was busy trying to adjust to the reality of a single superpower and, would only experience negligible threats of the global scale. However, the 9/11 attack on the American soil, altered the post-Cold War epoch remarkably, as a new, lethal, and uneven threat to the West entered the global stage. The unconventional threat that thrives on the basis of instability and religious extremism has taken advantage of modern technology, tactical communications, and conflicting western policies and prospects to showcase how credible and effective it can get. It is in this backdrop that the US has been compelled to restructure not just its intelligence community but also the foreign policy framework that has been at the heart of the country's national security approach for more than a half a century. Non-traditional threats proliferated by terrorist groups are lethal not just because of how they are constituted, but also how they operate. For one, terrorist networks are multifarious, less constrained by the laws of the land as well as historic standards. Again, it is rather complex to understand, while the capacity to engage in a broad array of unprecedented maneuvers makes them even far more lethal. As such, the differences between international and conventional intelligence anomalies cannot be overemphasized. The circumstantial interaction between a plethora of players can also generate a broad range of outcomes. The complexity of such issues requires the incorporation of sense-making. The intelligence community has been using this strategy, to continuously and instinctively paint the broader picture of what is going on. With this approach, the intelligence community is able to compare new occurrences with historical patterns. The approach involves fundamental warning theory of integrating dots that include well-rounded recognition or discovery of trends of behaviors. To reduce the effect of cognitive biases on findings, the intelligence community has been employing alternative analysis. With this approach, the intelligence community veers away from screening alternative assumptions by looking for different forms of patterns. Moreover, since 9/11, the intelligence community has created tools for rigorous self-analysis to preclude failures of imagination. An alternative analysis is different from traditional forms of analysis that generate predictions or explanations underpinned by logical, rationale of available evidence. In addition, alternative analysis methodologies seek to help analysts and policy makers to broaden their imagination by stretching an array of outcomes. Again, with this approach, the intelligence community keeps on challenging fundamental suppositions that might constrain thinking. By and large, the collaboration among various security agencies such as the FBI, DIA, DCI, CIA and NSA through information sharing has proved effective when it comes to repulsing non-conventional threats posed by far-reaching terror organizations. The intelligence community is not dedicated to monitoring military as well as technical dangers and to guide perpetual weapon acquisition. Nonetheless, the intelligence community has been screening political, economic, social and military activities in different parts of the world. The US intelligence community of the post-Cold Wa has certainly adjusted to the reality that world is no longer as structured as it were 40 years ago. That the military power, economic power and political are all distributed. The modern security setting, information and the pace at which technology changes is the reason why the intelligence community has to evolve so as to keep up with the changes. The United States intelligence community has, for instance, invested massively in strengthening information collection as well as analysis competencies, take effective control of the intelligence cycle and remain upbeat. Since the wake of 9/11, the US has come to the realization that security intelligence is not informed by utilizing technology to gather and evaluate information concerning a given target. Instead, it is about evaluating the competences, motives, and activities of the targets. Moreover, the use of scientific processes to mine millions of terrabytes of data in the search for trends that can generate insights into the target will obviously not bear fruits.
Bibliography
Bernstein, Steven. "Legitimacy in intergovernmental and non-state global governance." Review of International Political Economy 18, no. 1 (2011): 17-51.
Clapham, Andrew. "Non-state actors." (2012).
Clapper, James C. Worldwide threat assessment of the US intelligence community. OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE WASHINGTON DC, 2013.
Gellman, Barton, and Ashkan Soltani. "NSA tracking cellphone locations worldwide, Snowden documents show." The Washington Post 4 (2013).
Nolan, Bridget Rose. "Information sharing and collaboration in the United States Intelligence community: an ethnographic study of the National Counterterrorism Center." PhD diss., Princeton University, 2013.
Richelson, Jeffrey T. The US intelligence community. Westview Press, 2015.
Schroeder, Heike, and Heather Lovell. "The role of non-nation-state actors and side events in the international climate negotiations." Climate Policy 12, no. 1 (2012): 23-37.
