The growing ascendancy of non-state actors could lead to complications for sovereign states

Denial of the non-state actors in global politics would be an immature and unreal observation of the current global geopolitics. In the present scenario, the role of non-state actors is becoming more prominent and intense, whatever the situation and issues, whether it is a state of war or peace.    

Contemplating the reality of the changing situation of international politics, observers of international affairs have already accepted that the state-centric approach to world politics has become increasingly difficult to sustain. This has happened in part because it is no longer possible to treat states as the only significant actors on the world stage. Along with NGOs, TNCs, and the organizations supported by the UN, non-state actors comprise a broad variety of entities, including subnational government, commercial firms, militants, extremists (ISIS, Hamas, Hizballah, Hothi, etc.), popular movements (MeToo movement, Black Lives matters, etc.), and even super empowered individuals.

Observers and experts in international politics have long maintained that no non-state actor—be it transnational corporations (TNCs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), or others—can truly rival the state's coercive authority. The state alone possesses the legitimate capacity to enforce order within its borders and to project military power in the international arena. However, while these non-state entities may not match the hard power of sovereign states, their influence is nonetheless significant. By reshaping the contours of global politics, they offer innovative frameworks and out-of-the-box solutions that can enhance international cooperation and promote the welfare of people across the world.

Amid all these prejudices the story is extremely different inside the current world scenario. Analyzing the resent development in world affairs may be the only way to assess growing role of NSAs in global politics.

Extremist Groups vs sovereign counties

The war started at 7th Oct 2023 between Hamas and Isreal has defined a new dimension, where the actors of war are not having same status. Isreal considered as territorial sovereign state whereas Hamas is not the official government of the state of Palestine (PA). It has its own administrative control over Gaza, separate from Palestine authority, secretly funded by many countries and supported by anti- semitic groups from entire world.

Israel's most intense and prolonged conflict is with Hamas (an active non-state actor / militant group) in the Gaza Strip. This war began after Hamas's large-scale attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, which resulted in approximately 1,200 Israeli deaths. In response, Israel launched a sustained military campaign aimed at dismantling Hamas's infrastructure. As of April 2025, over 50,000 Palestinians, primarily civilians, have died, and much of Gaza's infrastructure. The conflict which was started by Hamas, which has emerged as a non-state actor and has no legitimacy, is being tried to be ended by many states (state actors) which represents a major shift in the global politics. Negotiations for a ceasefire, mediated by Egypt, Qatar, and the U.S., have stalled, Hamas continues to demand a permanent cessation of hostilities, while Israel remains firm on the complete disarmament of Hamas. This fundamental deadlock in objectives suggests that a resolution to the conflict remains unlikely in the near future.

Other than Hamas, Hezbollah and Houthis (also known as Ansar Allah) are two prominent non-state armed groups that have played significant roles in contemporary conflicts, particularly in the Middle East.

 Israel has been engaged in a prolonged conflict with another non state actor Hezbollah, a Lebanese militant group backed by Iran.

Hezbollah is a Shia militant group and political party based in Lebanon. Founded in the early 1980s, it has received extensive support from Iran and Syria. The group was originally established to resist the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. Over the decades, Hezbollah has grown into a major political force in Lebanon while maintaining a powerful paramilitary wing. It has been involved in multiple conflicts, including confrontations with Israel, its role in the Syrian Civil War in support of the Assad regime, and operations in Iraq and Yemen. Several countries, including the U.S., Canada, and Germany, classify Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, while others recognize its political and military wings separately.

Hostilities escalated following Hamas's 2023 attack, with Hezbollah launching rockets into northern Israel. In October 2024, Israel invaded southern Lebanon, resulting in significant casualties and displacement. A ceasefire was brokered in November 2024, requiring Hezbollah to withdraw north of the Litan River and Israel to pull back its forces. However, tensions remain high, with sporadic clashes and mutual accusations of ceasefire violations.  

The Houthis, formally known as Ansar Allah, are a Yemeni insurgent movement that follows the Zaidi Shia branch of Islam. Originating in northern Yemen, the group began as a religious revival movement in the 1990s before launching an armed rebellion against the Yemeni government in the early 2000s. The Houthis gained significant territorial control after taking over Yemen’s capital, Sanaa, in 2014. They have since been engaged in a brutal civil war against a Saudi-led coalition backing Yemen’s internationally recognized government. The group receives support from Iran and has launched missile and drone attacks against Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and more recently, Israel.

As of April 16, 2025, the conflict between the U.S. and Yemen's Houthi rebels has intensified, with the Houthis escalating their attacks and the U.S. responding with a robust military campaign.​

The Iran-backed Houthis have launched over 100 drone and missile attacks since October 2023, targeting American and allied ships in the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea. These attacks are framed as acts of solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza, where Israel has been at war with Hamas militants.

In response, the U.S. initiated "Operation Rough Rider" on March 15, 2025, marking the largest U.S. military operation in the Middle East during President Donald Trump's second term. The campaign includes over 200 air and naval strikes targeting Houthi radar systems, air defenses, and missile launch sites.Top of Form

Bottom of Form

These developments indicate that non-state actors are no longer just regional insurgents; they are capable of challenging state militaries, influencing geopolitics, and drawing in global powers like the U.S., Iran, and Israel into more direct confrontations.

Multinational Corporations (MNCs) as Non-State Actors in global politics

Multinational corporations (MNCs) have emerged as powerful non-state actors, influencing global politics, economies, and societies. Unlike traditional state actors, MNCs do not have territorial sovereignty, but their economic influence often rivals that of states. Their ability to operate across multiple countries gives them the power to shape international relations, sometimes in ways that challenge or complement the authority of governments.

The Rise of MNCs as Global Players

Historically, states held the primary power in international relations. However, globalization and technological advancements have enabled MNCs to accumulate vast economic resources, allowing them to exert influence in diplomacy, security, and global governance. Some of the largest MNCs have revenues exceeding the GDP of many countries.

For example:

• Apple Inc. (Revenue in 2023: $376 billion).
• Amazon (Revenue in 2023: $579 billion).
• Walmart (Revenue in 2023: $716 billion).

Ways in Which MNCs Impact International Relations

Economic Influence and Dependency

MNCs contribute significantly to national economies, creating jobs and generating tax revenues. However, they can also shift operations based on political stability, regulatory policies, or tax benefits, pressuring governments to create business-friendly environments.

For example the decision of Tesla and other tech companies to expand production in China strengthened economic ties between China and the U.S., despite geopolitical tensions.

 The European Union imposed a $1.3 billion fine on Meta (Facebook) for violating data privacy laws, highlighting how regulatory decisions can impact corporate strategies.

Political Lobbying and Policy Influence

MNCs often engage in lobbying efforts to shape domestic and international policies in their favor. They influence trade agreements, labor laws, and environmental regulations. For example,

The pharmaceutical industry, led by giants like Pfizer and Moderna, played a key role in COVID-19 vaccine diplomacy, influencing global health policies. Oil and gas companies like ExxonMobil and Shell lobby against strict climate regulations, impacting international climate agreements like the Paris Agreement.

Geopolitical Influence and Soft Power

MNCs are key players in diplomatic relations, sometimes acting as intermediaries between governments. Their investments in different countries create interdependencies that influence foreign policies. For example:

 Huawei, a Chinese telecom giant, became central to U.S.-China tensions due to security concerns over 5G technology. The U.S. pressured allies to ban Huawei, showcasing how corporate technology influences geopolitics.

Google and Apple removed apps from their platforms at the request of certain governments, demonstrating corporate complicity in state censorship.

Security and Cyber Influence

MNCs in technology and defense sectors impact global security. Cybersecurity firms, data giants, and AI companies play a crucial role in national security strategies.

 Microsoft and Google collaborate with U.S. and European governments on AI development, shaping military and cybersecurity policies.

Corporate Social Responsibility and Global Governance

Many MNCs are involved in humanitarian efforts and sustainability initiatives, sometimes filling governance gaps left by weak states.

Coca-Cola and Unilever have sustainability programs addressing water scarcity and climate change.

Nike and H&M faced backlash for using supply chains linked to forced labor in Xinjiang, China, showing how corporations influence human rights debates.

Multinational corporations are increasingly shaping global politics, sometimes in ways that challenge the traditional dominance of states. While they drive economic growth and innovation, their influence raises ethical concerns regarding labor rights, environmental impact, and political interference. The rise of MNCs as non-state actors requires governments to rethink how they engage with these entities, balancing national interests with corporate influence in an interconnected world.

World Bank, IMF vs. Territorial Nations:

The Economic Influence of Global Financial Institutions

In the modern international order, financial institutions like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and other global lenders play a crucial role in shaping the economies of developing and economically weak countries. While their stated missions focus on economic stability, poverty reduction, and financial growth, these institutions often exert influence that extends beyond economic policies, affecting the political and foreign policies of borrowing nations.

The World Bank and IMF: Objectives vs. Reality

 The World Bank established in 1944, the World Bank provides long-term development loans to countries for infrastructure, education, healthcare, and economic projects. It claims to promote economic development, but its loan conditions often require market liberalization, privatization, and policy changes that serve the interests of powerful economies. For example, In the 1990s, the World Bank promoted privatization in Argentina’s public services, leading to increased inequality and economic instability.

 The International Monetary Fund (IMF)

The IMF provides short-term financial assistance to countries facing balance-of-payment crises. Loans from the IMF come with Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs), which force borrowing nations to cut government spending, reduce subsidies, and open markets to foreign investment. Critics argue that these policies often benefit Western corporations while worsening economic hardship for local populations.

For example, In Pakistan, the IMF’s loan conditions forced the government to remove fuel subsidies, leading to economic turmoil and public unrest.

How These Institutions Influence Foreign Policies of Weak Nations

Debt Trap Diplomacy

Many economically weak nations fall into a cycle of debt, forcing them to align with the geopolitical interests of lending nations or institutions.

Sri Lanka’s debt crisis led to increased Chinese investments, with China taking control of the Hambantota Port under a 99-year lease due to Sri Lanka’s inability to repay loans. Zambia, heavily indebted to the IMF and China, was pressured to privatize state assets, limiting its economic sovereignty.

 Political Pressure and Regime Change

The World Bank and IMF often push economic reforms that lead to political instability or even regime change. The IMF's imposed austerity measures in Greece after the 2008 financial crisis led to mass protests and government instability. In Egypt, IMF-backed economic reforms contributed to inflation and dissatisfaction, fueling unrest.

Influence on Domestic Policies

These institutions dictate economic policies that affect national industries, labor rights, and social programs. In Bolivia, IMF-imposed water privatization in 2000 led to the "Water War", where citizens protested against price hikes, forcing the government to cancel privatization. In Ghana, IMF-driven policies pushed the government to cut public sector wages, causing long-term economic struggles for the working class.

Other Global Organizations That Influence Economically Weak Countries

World Trade Organization (WTO) – Enforces trade policies that often benefit developed nations at the expense of weaker economies.

Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) – Led by China, it funds infrastructure projects but is seen as a tool for expanding China's influence.

G20 and G7 – These groups of powerful economies set global financial rules that affect weaker nations without giving them equal decision-making power.

Bretton Woods Institutions – The global economic order, established after WWII, largely favors Western financial dominance.

While institutions like the World Bank and IMF claim to promote economic stability, their influence often extends into political and foreign policy decisions, reducing the sovereignty of economically weak nations. Their loan conditions, structural adjustments, and economic policies frequently align with the interests of powerful countries and multinational corporations, leaving many developing nations trapped in cycles of debt and dependency.

Sometimes super impowered individuals also plays role of non-state actor in global politics.

Elon Musk has emerged as a formidable non-state actor in global politics, wielding influence that rivals traditional nation-states. Through his control of critical technologies, substantial economic resources, and expansive media platforms, Musk shapes international affairs in ways that transcend conventional corporate roles.​

Musk's SpaceX operates Starlink, a satellite internet constellation that has become indispensable in conflict zones and disaster-stricken areas. For instance, during the Ukraine conflict, Starlink provided vital communication services to Ukrainian forces, enhancing their operational capabilities. However, Musk's unilateral decision to restrict Starlink's use in certain military operations, such as a planned Ukrainian offensive in Crimea, underscores his capacity to influence wartime strategies—a role traditionally reserved for sovereign states. ​

Musk's political involvement extends beyond the corporate sphere. As a major donor to former President Donald Trump's 2024 campaign and co-leader of the Department of Government Efficiency, Musk has directly influenced U.S. administrative policies. Internationally, his endorsements of far-right parties in Europe, such as Germany's Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), have sparked debates over foreign interference in domestic politics. ​

Musk's influence has garnered attention from world leaders. Russian President Vladimir Putin compared him to Soviet space pioneer Sergei Korolev, acknowledging Musk's contributions to space exploration and his visionary ambitions. Such recognition underscores Musk's stature as a key player in international affair.

Recently some new changes mirrored in USA internal government politics. According to the Guardian .com and the Washingtonpost.com- in May–June 2025, Elon Musk publicly criticized Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” hinted at Epstein ties, and resigned from his gov‑efficiency advisory role. Trump retaliated, threatening to cancel Musk’s federal contracts, plunging Tesla stock ~14%. Within 20 days, Musk apologized, deleted inflammatory posts, and tensions eased. Amid the feud, Musk polled his 220 million X followers on forming a centrist third party representing the “80% in the middle.” About 80% voted yes; Musk floated naming it “The America Party,” signaling a potential reshaping of U.S. politics

 Elon Musk exemplifies the emergence of super-empowered individuals who, through technological innovation, economic power, and media influence, play pivotal roles in shaping global politics. His actions and decisions have far-reaching implications, challenging traditional notions of state sovereignty and international relations.

Conclusion:

The growing ascendancy of non-state actors (NSAs) signals a transformative shift in global politics that demands careful evaluation. While sovereign states continue to hold formal authority, the diverse and expanding roles of NSAs — ranging from militant groups and multinational corporations to financial institutions and influential individuals — have begun to challenge the very foundations of state-centric governance. As these actors continue to evolve, there is an urgent need for policymakers, scholars, and global institutions to rethink existing governance frameworks, ensuring that international stability and equitable global governance are preserved in this rapidly changing environment.