The Nation State GapFill

Nation states are traditionally regarded as the key actors in the international system. The defining characteristic of nation states is often considered to be  governmentsovereigntya parliamentthe welfare state, which refers to the right to national self-determination for every country and maintains that a central internal authority is responsible for all decisions that affect the area of its jurisdiction. The idea of national sovereignty is often considered to have been established by the Treaty of Westphalia, a peace treaty signed by a number of early European nations in 1648 which recognised a general acceptance of each signatory to assert complete authority over their lands and people. By the  nineteenthsixteenthtwenty-firsttwentieth century, the principle and meaning of national sovereignty had become broad enough to incorporate national independence movements in the former colonies, which successfully sought home rule and self-determination for their people.

In the contemporary system, nation states generally remain the key actors responsible for decision-making on global issues, such as the environment, conflict and poverty, with the primacy of their authority recognised by international  corporationslawconsensusnegotiations. However, the ongoing process of globalisation has seen some states 'pool' some aspects of their sovereignty, meaning they have shared some level of their authority over their territory with other nation states through international institutions. Such a phenomenon is a key aspect of globalisation and complicates the image of nation states as being the key actors in the international system. In contemporary global politics,  subnational actorsgreat powersnon-state actorsanti-state forces such as international institutions or multinational corporations also play a central role, though the extent to which their role is positive, effective or meaningful is a fundamental debate.

This debate provides an introduction to the three major theoretical approaches in global politics. The first,  realismliberalismanarchismfeminism, argues that states remain the primary focus of the international system and are inherently competitive. The second,  feminismanarchismliberalismrealism, argues that international institutions have diluted the influence of nation states, and that this is positive as it promotes international cooperation. Finally, the third approach, a  anarchistliberalMarxistfeminist interpretation, argues that class is the fundamental divide within the international system, and this is expressed both within nation states and internationally.