Has globalisation caused the decline of the state as a dominant actor in international relations?

Answer 1

Good question...Globalization as it's happening "formally" is concocted by the corporations to undermine democracy, that is, the power of the people. Global trade laws and regulations that do not serve ecology and ordinary people have precedent over parliamentary legislation. For example in Canada our so-called sovereign parliament of the people could not legislate a law to ban the use of a toxic ingredient in gas that's being sold because the producer could sue our government for loss of sales. Unless you are familiar with the reasons why so many intelligent people protest globalization you would think I am saying nonsense or, at best, exaggerating. Globalization, as it has taken place, has caused a shift of power from people to the very rich, and a huge transference of public assets and resources (that means the wealth that belongs to people, you and I included) to privatization, which means a small minority.

Answer 2

No, the state is the primary actor in IR; some of the functions of the state might be transferred to NGOs and corporations, but ultimately, states have the last say in political action. Also, globalization can be reversed, as it historically had been, ie. during the period leading up to the World Wars.

Answer 3

Best question I've seen in a while.

No, the state is still the dominant actor - we haven't reached post-statism if that's what you mean. But the _nature_ of what we call the state has changed.

See http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/hafa3/stateofIR.htm