International Relations: Answers to Questions There are two types of actors in international relations -- state and non-state actors. States are the more important actors of the two; however, their activities are influenced to a significant extent by non-state actors. The term 'non-state actors' collectively refers to those individuals, organizations, groups or movements that have substantial influence over a country's international activities although they are not regarded as state institutions[footnoteRef:1]. They include sub-state actors, intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), multinational corporations (MNCs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), political groups that advocate violence (terrorists), and international criminal groups[footnoteRef:2]. These actors serve a number of crucial roles in IR. One of their key goals is to aid a country in opinion-building. The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), for instance, gives advice to member states on how proposed international activities are likely to affect other countries' abilities to enjoy their human rights. On a different note, NGOs play a crucial role in the process of peace-building among nations. The International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), a global NGO network, for instance, was a key party in the ratification of the Ottawa Treaty, which prohibits nations from using landmines or assisting any other nation in using the same. Further, NGOs are widely relied upon by international organizations to serve as implementing partners of internationally-proposed activities at the national level. This was the case when the Center on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) was used by the United Nations to implement the Land and Property Protection Rights program in Kosovo. [1: Seiya Joey, "The Role of Non-State Actors in International Relations," Academia, accessed December 23, 2014 http://www.academia.edu/5124220/The_Role_of_Non-state_Actors_in_International_Relations] [2: Joey, "The Role of Non-State Actors in International Relations"]

Question 2: 'terrorism' is one of the most common words in modern day warfare. Unfortunately, defining the term 'terrorism' has proven quite difficult, and as a matter of fact, there currently is no universally-accepted definition for the same. The disparities in definition are quite evident even between federal institutions in the U.S. The Defense Department, for instance defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of violence or threat of violence to instill fear and coerce governments or society… in the pursuit of goals that are usually political"[footnoteRef:3]. The FBI gives a definition almost similar to this -- that terrorism is the "unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives"[footnoteRef:4]. The State Department, in Title 22 of the U.S. Code defines terrorism as a "premeditated, politically-motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents"[footnoteRef:5]. [3: Allyson Mitchell, "Terrorism Defined," Beyond Intractability, last modified December 2012, accessed December 23, 2014 http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/terrorism-defined ] [4: Mitchell, "Terrorism Defined."] [5: Mitchell, "Terrorism Defined]

Well, it is quite obvious from the definitions above that terrorism i) is meant to cause fear or intimidation; ii) is directed at a person/group perceived as an enemy; and iii) is driven by political, religious or social reasons. So, if these facts are so straightforward, why is it still so difficult to define 'terrorism'? One compelling reason is that since different institutions place emphasis on different aspects of the term 'terrorism', they are deemed to approach terrorism differently, and this makes it rather difficult to come up with an umbrella definition for the same. From its definition, for instance, the Department of Defense (DoD) is seen to place more emphasis on the aspect of goals, whereas the State Department and the FBI are seen to place more emphasis on the aspects of motive and methods respectively[footnoteRef:6]. The three agencies are, therefore, likely to approach terrorism in different ways, implying that a definition that emphasizes methods would not work in the case of the State Department, just like one emphasizing methods would not work for the FBI. [6: Mitchell, "Terrorism Defined]

Question 3: uncivil behavior can be described as threatening, unwelcoming, and disruptive behavior that emerges in the spaces between the state and the individual. Based on this description, uncivil networks can be taken as anything from terrorist organizations; fissile-producing organizations; narcotic, human, and weapon traffickers; and armed groups. For years, governments have been fighting against uncivil networks, the most common being drug trafficking cartels. One may then wonder; why do illicit networks form in the first place? What factors (if any) facilitate their formation and allow them to thrive? Well, first of all, globalization and technological advancement have essentially made it possible for such networks to operate far away from their base with very minimal chances of being detected. It is possible...

without being detected. Another issue that has been seen to facilitate the formation and operation of such groups is the rigidity imminent in state detection and prosecutorial procedures. Centralized and bureaucratic procedures have caused governments to lag behind illicit networks, as most of these networks make use of sophisticated technology to execute their decentralized operations.
Question 4: human trafficking is one of the greatest challenges for governments today. It is defined as the receipt, harboring, transfer, transportation, or recruitment of persons by means of deception, fraud, abduction, or coercion, with the aim of exploiting them. Often, the trafficker takes advantage of the victim's vulnerability, and often uses the giving or receiving of payments to gain their consent. There are different forms of human trafficking. Classification is based on the reason(s) for which trafficking is done. The different types include i) the trafficking of women for sexual exploitation; ii) the trafficking of victims for forced labor; iii) the trafficking of children for commercial sexual exploitation; and iv) the trafficking of persons with the intent of using their organs for commercial purposes. Human trafficking often has serious effects on the victim, the society, and the affected state as a whole. It victimizes the individual, often involving abusive living and working conditions, repeated trauma, economic exploitation, manipulation, forced use of substances, torture deprivation, and psychological and sexual abuse, with very minimal chances of escape. Research documents how victims are often punished for attempting to escape from their traffickers. In his article, Gentleman [footnoteRef:7]explains how a female victim was gang-raped and compelled to dig her own grave; and how she had two of her teeth pulled out using a pair of pliers just when she thought she had gained reprieve. However, it is not only the individual who suffers -- ultimately, the burden of human trafficking is borne by the society and the state, which are forced to deal with cases of rising insecurity, population swellings owing to irregular migration, and increases in related criminal activities including drug and weapon trafficking. Ultimately, the state is forced to spend more resources fighting crime rather than improving the community's welfare status through bettering social amenities. In the long-term, the entire community incurs losses. [7: Amelia Gentleman, "Katya's Story: Trafficked to the UK, Sent Home to Torture," The Guardian, last modified April 19, 2011, accessed December 22, 2014 http://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/apr/19/sex-trafficking-uk-legal-reform]

Question 5: there are two crucial aspects affecting warfare in the 21st century -- technological advancement and international norms that regulate the possession and use of warfare weapons. Norms governing the possession and use of firearms were tightened during the last half of the 20th century. Today, firearm control norms regulate among other things, weapon development; weapon production, destruction, and transfer; as well as proscriptions and prescriptions for stockpiling[footnoteRef:8]. The norms regulate arms trade, prohibiting countries from exporting arms to war-stricken territories. Evidently, however, these norms have been observed to fail repeatedly. They have remained weak primarily because western states, the big whips in the exportation of arms to the developed world, have often been unwilling to support any effort geared at tightening such norms. They prefer to continue their pursuit of short-term gain, even when geopolitical calculations and economic considerations do not seem to favor such moves. A perfect example is Russia's recent decision to sell the 24 MiG-29M2 fighter aircraft to Syria despite being aware of the possible impact of such a move on the ongoing strife in the Middle East. Russia's decision, in this case, is based solely on the fact that it stands to gain approximately $6bilion from the sale. Such acts would not be possible if the international arms control norms were more stringent. [8: Elvira Rosert et al., "Arms Control Norms and Technology," in Norm Dynamics in Multilateral Arms Control: Interests, Conflicts, and Justice, eds. Harald Muller and Carmen Vunderlich (Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 2013), p. 109. ]

Bibliography

Gentleman, Amelia. "Katya's Story: Trafficked to the UK, Sent Home to Torture," The Guardian, last modified April 19, 2011, accessed December 22, 2014 http://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/apr/19/sex-trafficking-uk-legal-reform

Joey, Seiya. "The Role of Non-State Actors in International Relations," Academia, accessed December 22, 2014 http://www.academia.edu/5124220/The_Role_of_Non-state_Actors_in_International_Relations

Mitchell, Allyson. "Terrorism Defined," Beyond Intractability, last modified December 2012, accessed December 23, 2014 http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/terrorism-defined

Rosert, Elvira, Becker-Jakob Una, Franceschini Giorgio, and Schapper Annette . "Arms Control Norms and Technology," in Norm Dynamics in Multilateral Arms Control: Interests, Conflicts, and Justice, eds. Harald…