With the European Princes' declaration of state sovereignty at the Peace of Westphalia(1648), many theorist have concluded that the world politics can be characterized by an anarchical, state-centric system of.(Hinsley 1986; Morganthau 1955; Bull 1977; Carr 1964) Hans Morganthau and Kenneth Waltz, both of the realist school of thought, use state sovereignty to characterize international relations as "power politics." Morganthau claims that sovereign states "are supreme within their territories with no superior above them..."(Morganthau 1985: 431) In this system states are lone, autonomous actors which need to cultivate power to maintain order and sovereignty. However, in today's world system one must ask herself/himself whether or not this state-centric model fits the current trends of international relations. The emergence of new international actors begs one to question the theory of state sovereignty and the resulting anarchy of the world system.
For centuries, states have remained the primary actors of the world system. State diplomats carried out most international interaction and dictated the course of world affairs. Yet, with tremendous improvements in both telecommunications and transportation, new associations have established around the globe. People with common interests, heritage, culture and beliefs are interacting as never before. (Mathews 1997; Brown 1995; Rich 1994; Feld, Jordan and Hurwitz 1994; Jacobson 1979; Keohane and Nye 1977) Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), multinational corporations (MNCs) and treaty organizations have formed because of the technological revolution. Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye summarize these new interactions as a system of "complex interdependence." (Keohane and Nye 1977: 240) They assert that these new actors have a tremendous impact on the state of foreign relations and thus pose a challenge to the theory of state sovereignty. The "multiple channels of interaction" among states make territorial and national borders, which are essential to state sovereignty, porous and ineffective. Thus, these new international actors erode this sovereignty.
New international actors have risen as a result of improved communications and transportation. Jet travel, for instance allows one to travel to any part of the world in less than twenty-four hours. The dramatic technological developments in communications have also narrowed the oceans and torn down many of the borders that once divided the world. Fiber optics, the Internet, direct broadcasting satellites (DBS) and facsimile machines have aided in the connection and mobilization of millions of people into different NGOs. (Mathews 1997; Brown 1995) Amnesty International, for example, is a human rights organization which was founded in 1961, by Peter Beneson. Amnesty International has grown to over 1.1 million members in 150 countries. The organization issues "urgent actions," to mobilize its members for letter writing campaigns and protests by mail, fax machines and email. (Amnesty International, 1997) Similarly, the Free Burma Coalition, which is calling for the fall of the oppressive State Law and Order Restoration Council in Burma, uses improved technology for mobilization. (For more information on Burmese resistance movements see Burma, the South Africa of the 1990s?)Improved communications allow for the coordination and connection of people around the globe.
Non-governmental organizations have become strong players in the international system as a result of improved technologies. The Union of International Associations estimates that over 10,000 NGOs will exist by the year 2000. (Feld, Jordan and Hurwitz 1994: 9) Organizations, such as the Environmental Defense Fund, which deals with worldwide environmental concerns, represent the grassroots and builds popular support for their policy. Brown argues that the design of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio acknowledged this support and the importance of NGO activities "not only through the certification of certain INGO [International Nongovernmental Organization] representatives as consultants to the official delegations, but also in the form of an adjunct 'Global Forum' for nongovernmental environmental groups." (Brown 1995: 268) NGOs hold tremendous influence over the international system and remain as challengers to the theory of the sovereign state system.
One can see these challenges to sovereignty by looking at the effects of NGOs on the territorial and national borders of the state. These demarcations are essential to the concept of state sovereignty. NGOs as wells as MNCs are entangled in many transnational relations which cut across national boundaries. Technology has allowed for the effortless electronic transfer of information and capital across territorial boundaries. In 1992, international NGOs distributed $8.3 billion to developing countries. (Spiro 1995) The flow of such resources across territorial borders undermines state supremacy over internal activities. State loyalties and identity are also diminished as a result of NGOs. National boundaries are necessary for the theory of state sovereignty and are eroded by NGO activity. Peter Spiro argues that "transnational connections have created new commonalties of identity that cut across national borders and challenge governments at the level of individual loyalties." (Spiro 1995: NP)
In particular international environmental NGOs have challenged the theory of state sovereignty by linking to local resistance movements. They have eroded both the territorial and national borders through these transnational alliances. Their work with local level resistance movements has allowed these international actors to intervene into the domestic affairs of states. This intervention results in the internationalization of the local movements. Two such interventions have taken place with the Brazilian Rubber Tapper Movement and the Narmada Bachao Andolan Movement in Gujarat, India. International environmental NGOs, such as the Environmental Defense Fund and the International Rivers Network , amplified these local resistence movements onto an international audience. In effect, they empowered these movements with the capital and support of thousands of people world wide. They allowed for the spread of information and the creation of stronger local identities, that opposed government action. Thus, these NGOs break the rules of non-intervention, established by the Peace of Westphalia, and blur the lines between domestic and international affairs. They take advantage of the porous nature of the geographic and national borders and challenge state sovereignty.