Who Really Runs the World: State vs. Non-State Actors

Last updated 5 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

Power in today’s world doesn’t flow just from government buildings and capitals. From multinational corporations setting global standards to terrorist groups disrupting entire regions, a complex mix of players shapes the decisions that affect your daily life.

Understanding who these actors are—and how they interact—is crucial for making sense of everything from why your gas prices fluctuate to how pandemic responses get coordinated globally.

This guide breaks down the two main categories: state actors (governments and their agencies) and non-state actors (everyone else with significant influence).

When Apple decides where to manufacture iPhones, when the United Nations responds to a crisis, or when a social movement changes public opinion, these decisions ripple through economies, policies, and communities—including yours.

State Actors: The Traditional Power Centers

State actors are the foundational entities in both domestic governance and international relations. They’re typically national governments and the various institutions and agencies operating under their authority. What sets them apart is their unique legal status, sovereign authority, and legitimate power within their recognized territories.

What Makes a State Actor

The concept of a “state” in international law follows criteria most famously outlined in the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933). This convention, widely accepted as customary international law, says a state must have:

A permanent population: A stable group of people residing in the state. Population size doesn’t matter.

A defined territory: Clearly demarcated geographical area under state control. While border disputes are common, they don’t necessarily negate statehood as long as a core territory exists.

Government: A functioning government exercising effective control over territory and population. International practice has sometimes been flexible on “effective control,” recognizing states even during civil wars or when parts of territory aren’t fully controlled.

Capacity to enter relations with other states: This implies independence from other states and ability to engage in international diplomacy, make treaties, and fulfill international obligations.

Central to defining state actors is sovereignty. In its international dimension, sovereignty refers to a state’s right to rule itself and those within its territory, choose its own government and economic system, make and enforce laws, and maintain a monopoly on legitimate use of force within borders, free from external interference.

This principle grants state actors exclusive rights to make decisions and take actions within their borders. While historically considered absolute, sovereignty is evolving. International human rights law, globalization, and multilateral cooperation needs pose new challenges and lead to some voluntary delegation of sovereign powers.

State actors are primary subjects of international law, automatically possessing wide-ranging rights and obligations, unlike other entities that derive international legal standing from specific treaties or agreements.

Who Are State Actors?

State actors encompass various levels and branches of government. Their defining characteristic is acting on behalf of governmental bodies with formal backing from sovereign states.

National Governments

The most prominent state actor example is a country’s national government. In the United States, the U.S. Federal Government is the primary state actor internationally, including:

The Executive Branch: Headed by the President, including federal departments and agencies responsible for implementing laws and conducting foreign policy, such as the U.S. Department of State and Department of Defense.

The Legislative Branch (Congress): Responsible for making federal laws, declaring war, ratifying treaties, and controlling the federal budget.

The Judicial Branch (Federal Courts): Interprets laws and the Constitution.

Official U.S. government systems like SAM.gov (System for Award Management), which handles federal contracting and assistance, are also part of the federal state actor apparatus.

Internationally, the U.S. federal government engages in diplomacy, negotiates treaties, imposes sanctions, participates in international organizations, and can wield significant economic and military power.

Sub-National Governments

Within federal systems like the United States, state governments (California, Texas, New York) also qualify as state actors, primarily domestically. They possess authority within their borders, make and enforce state laws, and provide public services.

In U.S. constitutional law, the concept of “state action” is crucial. This doctrine dictates that constitutional limitations on government power apply to actions taken by or on behalf of federal or state governmental bodies. This means even private individuals or entities can sometimes be considered state actors if they’re performing traditional and exclusive public functions, are compelled by government to act, or are “pervasively entwined” with government.

For example, a private company running a town or prison could potentially be held to constitutional standards as performing state action.

While U.S. state governments primarily operate domestically, some larger states or cities may engage in limited international activity, such as trade missions or environmental agreements, sometimes called “paradiplomacy.” However, their capacity to conduct formal foreign relations is subordinate to the federal government.

Foreign Governments

From the U.S. perspective, governments of all other recognized sovereign nations are also state actors in the international system. Examples include governments of Canada, Mexico, China, Russia, India, European Union member states, and others.

These foreign state actors interact with the U.S. government and other international players, pursuing their own national interests through diplomacy, trade, and participation in global governance. Their actions, such as economic policies or security decisions, can significantly impact the U.S. and its citizens.

State actors can also operate covertly or through proxies. “Nation State Actors” in cybersecurity often have close links to military or intelligence apparatuses, working to gain secrets or disrupt other nations. These actors are motivated by nationalism and operate with government resources and backing.

What State Actors Do

State actors perform wide arrays of critical functions both domestically and internationally.

Domestic Governance

Law-making and Enforcement: Enacting and enforcing laws to maintain internal order and regulate society.

Provision of Public Services: Delivering essential services such as education, healthcare, infrastructure, and social welfare programs.

Maintaining Internal Security: Protecting citizens, institutions, and infrastructure from internal threats like crime, terrorism, and civil unrest through law enforcement agencies, intelligence services, and sometimes military.

Economic Management: Managing national economy through fiscal and monetary policies, trade regulations, and resource management.

Protecting National Interests and Sovereignty: Safeguarding territorial integrity, political independence, and citizen well-being.

International Relations

Diplomacy and Foreign Policy: Engaging in diplomatic relations with other states, formulating and executing foreign policy to pursue national interests globally. This includes sending and receiving ambassadors and participating in international negotiations. The U.S. Department of State leads America’s foreign policy efforts.

Treaty Making: Negotiating, signing, and ratifying treaties and international agreements that create binding obligations under international law.

Participation in International Organizations: Joining and participating in intergovernmental organizations like the United Nations, World Trade Organization, and regional alliances like NATO to address shared concerns and collaborate on global issues.

National Defense and Security: Protecting the state from external threats through military capabilities and alliances.

Economic Statecraft: Using economic tools such as trade agreements, sanctions, and foreign aid to influence international relations and achieve foreign policy objectives.

State actors, particularly national governments, have traditionally been dominant forces shaping both domestic and international landscapes. Their unique authority, control over territory and resources, and legitimate right to use force give them unparalleled power and responsibility. However, this traditional dominance is increasingly being challenged and complemented by the rise and diversification of non-state actors.

Non-State Actors: A Diverse and Influential Array

While state actors have long been central figures in governance and international affairs, the global stage is increasingly shared with a diverse group known as non-state actors (NSAs). These are individuals or organizations that have significant political, social, or economic influence but aren’t formally affiliated with or directly controlled by sovereign governments.

The rise of NSAs since the late 20th century is a defining feature of modern international relations, driven by globalization, communication technology advancements, and sometimes perceived inadequacy of states to address all societal needs.

NSAs aren’t a monolithic group. They vary widely in nature, objectives, resources, and legitimacy. Understanding these different categories is crucial for grasping their varied impacts on U.S. citizens and global affairs.

Defining Non-State Actors

The core characteristic of a non-state actor is operational independence from direct state control. While some NSAs might receive government funding or work in partnership with state agencies, their fundamental identity and decision-making processes aren’t managed by states.

The U.S. Code defines a “non-state actor” in specific contexts as a nonsovereign entity that exercises significant political power and territorial control, is outside sovereign government control, and often employs violence in pursuit of objectives—this definition primarily applies to certain armed groups.

A broader definition, like that used by UN ESCWA, describes NSAs as entities that participate or act in international relations with sufficient power to influence and cause change, even without belonging to established state institutions.

The Media Manipulation Casebook defines state actors as entities part of or operating on behalf of government agencies, implying NSAs are those that don’t fit this description.

NSA influence can stem from various sources, including vast financial resources, specialized knowledge, moral authority, large memberships, control over critical resources or technology, or ability to mobilize public opinion.

Major Categories of Non-State Actors

Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs): Bridging States

Definition & Role: IGOs are organizations whose members are sovereign states or other IGOs. They’re established by treaties and serve as forums for states to cooperate on shared interests, develop international law, and address global problems. While created by states, many IGOs operate with degrees of independence and can influence state behavior.

Objectives: Vary widely depending on IGO mandates, but common objectives include maintaining international peace and security, promoting economic development and trade, protecting human rights, and addressing global health or environmental challenges.

Sources of Influence: Derived from member states, established legal frameworks (treaties), ability to pool resources and expertise, and roles in setting international norms and standards.

Methods of Operation: Facilitating negotiations, providing technical assistance, conducting research, monitoring compliance with international agreements, and coordinating international responses to crises.

Examples relevant to the U.S.:

United Nations (UN): The leading global IGO, working on peace and security, human rights, sustainable development, and humanitarian aid. UN Security Council resolutions can authorize international action, and various UN agencies directly impact global welfare. The U.S. is a founding member and permanent Security Council member, engaging extensively with the UN system to advance foreign policy objectives. UN conventions ratified by the U.S. become part of federal law.

World Health Organization (WHO): A specialized UN agency focused on global public health. WHO guidelines and alerts significantly influence national health policies, including in the U.S., especially during pandemics or health emergencies. The U.S. is a major funder and participant.

World Trade Organization (WTO): Regulates international trade and aims to ensure trade flows smoothly, predictably, and freely. WTO agreements and dispute settlement rulings impact U.S. businesses, consumers, and trade relations with other countries.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO): A political and military alliance of North American and European countries. NATO’s collective defense principle (Article 5) is a cornerstone of U.S. and European security policy.

Other IGOs include the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and regional organizations like the European Union or African Union.

Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs): Advocates and Service Providers

Definition & Role: Private, non-profit organizations operating independently of government control, although they may receive government funding. NGOs pursue wide ranges of social, political, environmental, or humanitarian objectives.

Objectives: Vary greatly, from advocating for human rights to providing humanitarian relief, promoting environmental protection, and community development and education.

Sources of Influence: Moral authority, public support and mobilization, expertise, information dissemination, advocacy campaigns, and direct service delivery.

Methods of Operation: Lobbying governments and IGOs, public awareness campaigns, grassroots organizing, research and reporting, providing direct aid and services, monitoring government compliance with laws and treaties, and legal advocacy.

Examples relevant to the U.S.:

American Red Cross: Provides disaster relief, emergency assistance, and health/safety education within the U.S. and internationally.

Amnesty International & Human Rights Watch: Monitor and report on human rights abuses globally, including in the U.S., influencing public opinion and policy debates.

Doctors Without Borders: Provides emergency medical care in conflict zones and disaster areas worldwide, often challenging governments on humanitarian access.

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC): Advocates for environmental protection through legal action, lobbying, and scientific research, impacting U.S. environmental laws and policies.

Teach For America: Places recent college graduates as teachers in low-income U.S. communities, aiming to address educational inequity.

NGO advocacy has historically led to significant U.S. domestic policy changes, such as child labor laws, disability rights, and gender equality in education.

Multinational Corporations (MNCs): Economic Powerhouses

Definition & Role: Large business enterprises operating in multiple countries, with headquarters in one nation and branches, subsidiaries, or factories in others. They’re key drivers of economic globalization.

Objectives: Primarily to maximize profits and shareholder value by expanding markets, accessing lower production costs, tapping into global talent pools, and avoiding tariffs.

Sources of Influence: Vast financial and technological resources, global operational scale, control over production and supply chains, employment of large workforces, and significant lobbying power.

Methods of Operation: Foreign direct investment, global sourcing and production, international trade, marketing and branding, lobbying governments for favorable policies, setting de facto industry standards, and engaging in corporate social responsibility initiatives.

Examples relevant to the U.S.:

Apple Inc.: A U.S.-based MNC whose products are ubiquitous. Its global supply chain, employment practices, and market dominance have enormous economic and social impacts worldwide and in the U.S.

Amazon: Another U.S. tech giant whose e-commerce and cloud computing operations have transformed retail, logistics, and technology infrastructure globally.

ExxonMobil: A U.S.-based energy MNC whose operations and policies have significant implications for global energy markets, environmental policy, and geopolitics.

Walmart: A U.S. retail MNC whose global sourcing practices impact labor conditions and local economies in many countries, as well as consumer prices and employment in the U.S.

MNCs significantly influence U.S. trade policy, regulations, and even foreign relations through lobbying and campaign contributions. Their decisions on where to invest and create jobs directly affect American workers and communities.

Violent Non-State Actors (VNSAs): Challengers to Order

Definition & Role: Individuals or groups wholly or partly independent of governments that threaten or use violence to achieve political, ideological, religious, or criminal objectives. They challenge the state’s monopoly on legitimate use of force.

Objectives: Vary widely, including overthrowing governments, establishing independent states or caliphates, profiting from criminal enterprises, or promoting specific ideologies through terror.

Sources of Influence: Use of violence and intimidation, control over territory (in some cases), access to illicit funding and weapons, ideological appeal, and exploitation of weak governance or grievances.

Methods of Operation: Terrorism, guerrilla warfare, insurgency, cyberattacks, criminal activities, propaganda, and recruitment.

Examples relevant to the U.S.:

Al-Qaeda & ISIS: Transnational terrorist organizations that have directly targeted the U.S. and continue to inspire or direct attacks against U.S. interests and citizens globally and domestically. Their actions have profoundly shaped U.S. foreign and domestic security policies.

Drug Cartels: Primarily Mexico-based transnational criminal organizations that smuggle vast quantities of illicit drugs like fentanyl into the U.S., fueling addiction crises, violence, and public health emergencies in American communities.

Domestic Violent Extremists: U.S.-based individuals or groups motivated by various ideologies who use or advocate for violence to achieve goals, posing significant domestic terrorism threats.

Cybercriminals & Hostile State-Sponsored Hackers: While not always “violent” in the physical sense, these actors can cause massive disruption to critical infrastructure, steal sensitive data, and impact U.S. economic and national security.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security actively monitors and counters threats from various VNSAs, including terrorist groups and transnational criminal organizations.

Social Movements: Collective Action for Change

Definition & Role: Large, often informal, groupings of individuals or organizations focused on specific political or social issues, advocating for or resisting social change. They often emerge from grassroots dissatisfaction.

Objectives: To raise awareness, change public opinion, influence government policy, or alter societal norms and behaviors.

Sources of Influence: Mass mobilization, public protest, civil disobedience, media attention, and shaping public discourse. Modern social movements heavily leverage online platforms and social media.

Methods of Operation: Protests, demonstrations, sit-ins, boycotts, public education campaigns, lobbying, voter registration drives, and online activism.

Examples relevant to the U.S.:

Civil Rights Movement: Led to landmark legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, fundamentally changing American society and law.

Women’s Suffrage Movement / Feminist Movement: Secured voting rights for women and continues to advocate for gender equality.

Environmental Movement: Led to creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and key environmental laws like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.

#MeToo Movement: Raised global awareness about sexual harassment and assault, leading to policy changes in workplaces and legal reforms.

Tea Party Movement: Advocated for lower taxes and reduced government spending, significantly influencing Republican party politics.

Social movements can also influence U.S. foreign policy, as seen historically with the anti-Vietnam War movement or anti-apartheid movement targeting South Africa.

Philanthropic Foundations & Influential Individuals: Shaping Agendas with Resources

Definition & Role: Private foundations (often established by wealthy individuals or families) and prominent individuals who use substantial resources, expertise, and public profiles to influence policy, fund research, and address global issues.

Objectives: Vary widely, but often include addressing specific social, economic, or health challenges, promoting research, and advocating for policy changes aligned with their missions.

Sources of Influence: Significant financial resources, convening power, specialized expertise, and public platforms of their founders or leaders.

Methods of Operation: Grant-making to NGOs and research institutions, direct program implementation, public advocacy, funding media and journalism to shape narratives, investing endowment funds in mission-aligned ways, and partnering with governments and IGOs.

Examples relevant to the U.S.:

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation: One of the largest private foundations globally, dominant in global health, funding initiatives for disease eradication, vaccine development and distribution, and agricultural development. Its funding significantly influences IGO priorities like the WHO and shapes global health research agendas.

Ford Foundation: A major U.S. foundation supporting programs related to democracy, civil society, economic justice, education, and arts and culture globally and within the U.S.

Open Society Foundations: Founded by George Soros, works to build vibrant and tolerant democracies whose governments are accountable to their citizens, funding wide ranges of civil society groups, human rights initiatives, and journalism.

Influential Individuals: Figures like Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and others can significantly impact policy debates, technological development, and societal trends through their investments, innovations, and public pronouncements.

The spectrum of non-state actors is vast, ranging from highly legitimate and cooperative entities like many IGOs and humanitarian NGOs, to economically powerful but primarily self-interested MNCs, to overtly criminal and violent VNSAs. This diversity means “non-state actor” itself isn’t monolithic, and any analysis or policy response must be nuanced to the specific type of actor in question.

How State and Non-State Actors Shape Each Other

The relationship between state and non-state actors is dynamic and multifaceted, ranging from close cooperation to outright conflict. These interactions aren’t just abstract concepts—they have tangible consequences for how governments function, economies operate, and individual citizens live their lives.

Spectrum of Interactions: From Cooperation to Conflict

The interactions between state and non-state actors exist along a complex spectrum.

Cooperation

States often rely on or actively support NSAs to achieve common goals or perform functions the state itself cannot or chooses not to undertake directly.

Service Delivery & Program Implementation: Governments frequently partner with NGOs to deliver social services, humanitarian aid, and development programs. This leverages NGOs’ specialized expertise, community connections, and often their ability to operate where government access is limited.

For example, the U.S. government, through agencies like USAID, provides significant funding to NGOs for global health initiatives, disaster relief, and development projects worldwide. Domestically, federal agencies like the Department of Housing and Urban Development offer grants to NGOs to address housing needs and community development.

Use of Proxies: In more contentious cooperation forms, states sometimes use non-state actors, including VNSAs or groups that appear legitimate, as proxies to advance foreign policy objectives indirectly. This is particularly common in conflict zones or areas of strategic competition where direct state intervention is risky or undesirable.

Information & Expertise: Governments regularly consult with NGOs, think tanks, academic institutions, and even MNCs for policy advice, research, and technical expertise. These NSAs can provide valuable insights that inform government decision-making.

Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs): In the U.S., PPPs are increasingly common. These involve collaboration between government entities and private sector NSAs to fund, design, build, or operate public infrastructure or services. Notable examples include:

• Revitalization of Gateway Arch National Park in St. Louis, largely funded by private donations
• Operation of Indiana Toll Road by private consortium
• California’s Project Homekey, converting properties into housing for homeless through public funds and philanthropic contributions

Conflict & Challenge

Interactions aren’t always harmonious. NSAs frequently challenge state power, and states may seek to restrict or counter NSAs.

NSAs Challenging State Authority:

• Advocacy NGOs working on human rights, environmental protection, or civil liberties often challenge government policies through campaigns, litigation, and public pressure
• Social movements directly confront state authorities to demand systemic change, sometimes leading to significant social and political upheaval
• VNSAs, by nature, directly attack state institutions, security forces, and symbols of authority, aiming to undermine or overthrow states

States Restricting or Countering NSAs:

• Governments may view certain NSAs, especially advocacy groups critical of their policies or those receiving foreign funding, as threats to national sovereignty, security, or social stability
• States actively combat VNSAs through law enforcement, intelligence operations, and military action

MNCs vs. States: The relationship between MNCs and states can also be conflictual. MNCs, with vast economic power, can challenge state sovereignty by lobbying for deregulation that may harm public interest, engaging in aggressive tax avoidance strategies, or influencing political processes. Conversely, states may take action against MNCs whose practices are deemed harmful to national interests, consumer welfare, or security.

Influence

Beyond direct cooperation or conflict, NSAs constantly seek to influence state actors and policies through various means:

• MNCs engage in extensive lobbying efforts to shape legislation and regulations affecting their industries, often contributing significantly to political campaigns
• NGOs and think tanks provide expert testimony, research reports, and policy recommendations to legislative bodies and government agencies
• Philanthropic foundations fund research and pilot programs that can shape public discourse and eventually lead to policy changes

Blurring Boundaries: When NSAs Take on State-Like Roles

A significant trend in the modern era is the blurring of lines between functions of state and non-state actors. In many parts of the world, particularly in regions experiencing weak governance, state failure, or conflict, NSAs are increasingly stepping in to perform functions traditionally associated with states.

• VNSAs, such as rebel groups or militias, may establish control over territory and provide rudimentary forms of governance, security, and dispute resolution
• Humanitarian NGOs often become primary providers of essential public services like healthcare, food, water, and sanitation in crisis zones where states are unable or unwilling to do so
• Even in stable countries like the U.S., the “state action” doctrine acknowledges that private entities can sometimes be treated as state actors for constitutional purposes if they perform traditionally exclusive public functions

This “privatization” or “pluralization” of traditionally state functions has profound implications. While NSAs can bring efficiency, innovation, and responsiveness, their assumption of state-like roles raises critical questions about accountability, legitimacy, equity in service provision, and long-term state capacity.

Direct and Indirect Impacts on U.S. Citizens

The interplay between state and non-state actors, both domestic and foreign, directly and indirectly shapes U.S. citizens’ lives in numerous ways.

How Foreign State Actions Affect Americans

Economic Policies: Trade policies of major economic powers like China significantly impact the U.S. economy. Decisions on tariffs, subsidies, or currency valuation by foreign governments can affect prices Americans pay for consumer goods, competitiveness of U.S. industries, and job availability in sectors like manufacturing.

Trade wars, involving tariffs imposed by the U.S. and retaliatory tariffs by other countries, can lead to higher costs for American businesses and consumers, and negatively impact U.S. exporters, including farmers.

Security Implications: Foreign state actions can have direct security implications for the U.S. and its citizens. Cyberattacks on U.S. critical infrastructure orchestrated or sponsored by foreign states can cause widespread disruption and economic damage. Foreign state-sponsored espionage efforts aim to steal sensitive U.S. government and corporate information. Election interference campaigns seek to sow discord, undermine faith in democratic processes, and influence U.S. political outcomes.

International Agreements & Alliances: When foreign states decide to join, leave, or violate international agreements, it can impact global stability, U.S. foreign policy responses, and indirectly, the security and environmental future of U.S. citizens.

How NSA Activities Influence Daily Life

Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs):

• WHO: Guidelines can influence U.S. public health recommendations, disease surveillance, and responses to global health threats like pandemics. This affects health advice citizens receive and public health measures implemented
• WTO: Rulings on trade disputes involving the U.S. can impact prices of imported and exported goods, affecting consumer costs and competitiveness of U.S. businesses and agricultural producers
• UN: Conventions ratified by the U.S. become part of federal law and can establish rights or obligations for American citizens and businesses

Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs):

• Domestic NGOs play vital roles in American civil society, providing direct services in areas like disaster relief, healthcare, education, and support for vulnerable populations
• NGO advocacy has historically led to significant U.S. domestic policy changes that benefit citizens, such as child labor laws, Americans with Disabilities Act, and Title IX

Multinational Corporations (MNCs):

• MNC products and services are deeply integrated into Americans’ daily lives, from smartphones to food to cars
• MNCs are major employers in the U.S., and their decisions on investment, wages, benefits, and plant locations directly affect American workers and local economies
• MNC lobbying efforts influence wide ranges of U.S. laws and regulations, from environmental standards and labor laws to tax policies and consumer protections

Violent Non-State Actors (VNSAs):

• International terrorism threats have led to enhanced security measures at airports, public events, and federal buildings, impacting travel and daily routines for Americans
• Transnational criminal organizations contribute to addiction crises, violent crime, and public health challenges in communities across the U.S.
• Cyber VNSAs can disrupt essential services, steal personal and financial data, and undermine trust in digital systems

Social Movements:

• Successful social movements in the U.S. have historically led to profound legal and societal changes that expand rights and protections for citizens

Philanthropic Foundations:

• Large foundations fund extensive research and programs in health, education, and poverty alleviation. These efforts can lead to new medical treatments, educational innovations, or social programs that benefit U.S. citizens

The Shifting Global Stage

The international system is undergoing significant transformation. While states remain central, the rise and diversification of non-state actors represents one of the most defining trends of the 21st century. This shift isn’t merely about more players on the field—it’s about fundamental changes in how power is exercised, how global problems are addressed, and how international order is maintained.

The Ascendance of NSAs

The increasing prominence and power of NSAs can be attributed to several interconnected factors:

Globalization: Intensified flows of information, capital, goods, and people across borders have created spaces for NSAs to operate and exert influence transnationally.

Technological Advancements: The digital revolution, particularly the internet and social media, has empowered NSAs by lowering communication costs, facilitating mobilization, and allowing them to bypass traditional state-controlled media channels.

Diffusion of Resources and Capabilities: Finance, technology, and specialized knowledge are no longer exclusive to states. MNCs command vast economic resources, NGOs possess deep thematic expertise, and even VNSAs can acquire sophisticated weaponry or cyber capabilities.

Limitations of State Governance: In some instances, NSAs have risen to fill governance gaps left by weak or failing states, or in response to public dissatisfaction with traditional state structures’ ability to address complex challenges.

This ascendance means NSAs are increasingly encroaching upon functions traditionally performed by nation-states, from providing social services and security to shaping international norms and influencing economic policy. The result is a more complex, polycentric international system where a wider array of actors, with diverse motivations and capacities, influence global events.

Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy

This transformed global landscape requires the United States to adapt its foreign policy and re-evaluate its approach to global governance.

New Challenges for the U.S.

Direct Threats: Various NSAs pose direct threats to U.S. national security and economic interests. These include VNSAs like terrorist groups and transnational criminal organizations, as well as hostile state-sponsored NSAs conducting cyberattacks or influence operations.

Complicated Diplomacy: The proliferation of influential NSAs complicates traditional state-to-state diplomacy. U.S. policymakers must now consider and often engage with more diverse sets of actors to effectively address foreign policy challenges.

Irregular Warfare and Malign Influence: Peer competitors like China and Russia increasingly utilize NSAs as tools of irregular warfare and malign influence to challenge U.S. interests and global standing without triggering direct military confrontation.

New Opportunities for U.S. Engagement

Partnerships for Common Goals: Many NSAs, such as humanitarian and development NGOs, philanthropic foundations, and socially responsible MNCs, can be valuable partners for the U.S. in achieving foreign policy objectives.

Enhanced Effectiveness and Legitimacy: Engaging with NSAs can provide the U.S. with better local intelligence, access to hard-to-reach populations, and increased legitimacy for its initiatives in certain contexts.

Adapting U.S. Strategies

To navigate this complex environment effectively, the U.S. must evolve its foreign policy toolkit:

Nuanced Engagement: The U.S. needs more sophisticated and differentiated strategies for interacting with the wide spectrum of NSAs. This involves identifying which actors to partner with, which to counter, which to influence, and how to do so effectively.

Accounting for NSA Power: U.S. foreign policy must systematically account for NSA power and influence in shaping global norms, economic trends, and security environments.

Cooperation Amidst Competition: In an era of strategic competition with states like China, the U.S. should remain open to normalizing coordination on transnational issues where mutual interests align.

Leveraging Technology: As NSAs increasingly use technology, the U.S. must enhance its technological capabilities for monitoring, engaging, and countering NSA activities in the digital domain.

The Future of Global Governance

The rise of NSAs is fundamentally reshaping global governance. Power is becoming more diffused, moving away from an exclusively state-centric model towards a more networked structure where states share the stage with IGOs, NGOs, MNCs, social movements, and other influential entities.

This shift raises critical questions:

Accountability and Legitimacy: How can powerful NSAs, which are often not subject to the same democratic accountability mechanisms as states, be held responsible for their actions?

Effectiveness of Existing Institutions: Are current global governance institutions, largely designed when states were undisputed primary actors, equipped to handle the complexities of a multi-actor world?

The Role of the State: Despite NSA ascendancy, states remain central actors, possessing unique attributes like sovereignty and legitimate monopoly on use of force within territory. The challenge for states isn’t that they’re becoming obsolete, but that their methods of exercising power and achieving objectives must adapt.

Understanding the dynamic interplay between state and non-state actors is no longer just an academic exercise—it’s essential for informed citizenship and effective policymaking in the 21st century. As these actors continue to shape global events and impact lives around the world, including in the United States, the ability to discern their roles, motivations, and influence will be increasingly vital.

The world of power and influence extends far beyond government buildings and official channels. From the smartphone in your pocket to the international responses to global crises, the complex dance between state and non-state actors shapes the world you live in every day. Understanding these relationships isn’t just about following current events—it’s about understanding the forces that will continue to shape your future.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.