United Nations: Facilitates peace talks and mediates disputes.
European Union: Uses diplomacy to address issues like trade and human rights.
2. Regulatory Agencies
Role: Implement policies and enforce regulations.
Example
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Regulates environmental standards in the US.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA): Monitors nuclear compliance globally.
Non-Violent Non-State Actors
1. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)
Role: Advocate for social, environmental, and humanitarian causes.
Example
Amnesty International: Campaigns for human rights.
Greenpeace: Focuses on environmental protection.
Tip
When analyzing non-state actors, consider their goals, methods, and impact on both local and global scales.
This will help you understand their role in shaping international relations.
2. Multinational Corporations (MNCs)
Role: Influence economic and political decisions through global operations.
Example
Apple: Impacts global supply chains and technology markets.
ExxonMobil: Influences energy policies and environmental debates.
Analogy
Think of state actors as the "official players" in a game, with clear rules and responsibilities.
Non-state actors are like "wild cards" that can disrupt or enhance the game, depending on their actions and goals.
The Interplay Between Violent and Non-Violent Actors
1. Cooperation and Conflict
State and non-state actors often interact in complex ways, leading to both cooperation and conflict.
NGOs may collaborate with governments to deliver humanitarian aid.
Terrorist groups may provoke military responses from state actors.
Example
The 2015 Paris Climate Agreement illustrates cooperation between state actors (governments) and non-state actors (NGOs, MNCs) to address global environmental challenges.
Non-violent actors can drive policy changes, promote human rights, and foster global cooperation.
Active recall
Identify three non-state actors and explain how they influence global politics. Consider both violent and non-violent examples.
Analyzing the Role of Violent and Non-Violent Actors
Key Considerations
Legitimacy: Do the actors have the right to use force or influence decisions?
Methods: Are their actions violent or non-violent?
Impact: How do they affect local, national, and global politics?
Active recall
How do violent non-state actors challenge state sovereignty?
What role do non-violent actors play in addressing global issues like climate change or human rights?
How can states balance the use of force with diplomatic and non-violent approaches?
Note
The interplay between violent and non-violent actors highlights the complexity of global politics, where multiple actors with diverse goals shape the international landscape.
Exam technique
Paper 1 (Source-Based, 1h15m, 25 marks)
For Q1 (3m), identify the specific violent/non-violent actors and their methods described in the source.
For Q2 (4m), explain how the source distinguishes between state and non-state violence - link to legitimacy of force or terrorism definitions.
For Q3 (6m), compare how sources frame state vs. non-state violence - one justifying state action, another highlighting state terrorism or disproportionate force.
For Q4 (12m), evaluate whether the state's monopoly on legitimate violence is justified, using sources AND examples like drone warfare or insurgencies.
Paper 2 (Extended Essay, 1h45m, 30 marks)
Section A: Analyze specific actors and their methods with evidence - avoid abstract claims about "violence in general."
Section B: Connect to themes like legitimacy, rights, sovereignty, or conflict resolution.
Top band (13-15) requires diverse perspectives - who defines legitimate violence, and whose perspective is privileged?
Paper 3 - HL Only (Stimulus-Based, 1h30m, 28 marks)
For Q1 (3m), analyse how the stimulus portrays the interaction between violent and non-violent actors.
For Q2b (6m), recommend strategies to reduce violence while addressing root causes and actor motivations.
For Q3 (15m), synthesize case studies to assess when non-violent strategies succeed against violent actors.
Case study
ISIS/Daesh as a Non-State Armed Actor (2014-2019)
ISIS/Daesh as a Non-State Armed Actor (2014-2019)
Background
ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) declared a caliphate in June 2014, seizing territory across Iraq and Syria.
At its peak, ISIS controlled approximately 88,000 km2 of territory with a population of 8 million people.
Emerged from the remnants of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, exploiting the power vacuum of the Syrian civil war and Iraqi sectarian divisions.
Methods of Violence
Used extreme violence as a deliberate strategy - public executions, enslavement of Yazidi women, and destruction of cultural heritage.
Pioneered social media propaganda - professional videos and online recruitment attracted an estimated 40,000 foreign fighters from 80+ countries.
Launched or inspired terrorist attacks in Paris (2015), Brussels (2016), Manchester (2017), and dozens of other cities.
International Response
A US-led Global Coalition of 83 countries conducted airstrikes and supported ground operations against ISIS.
Kurdish forces (SDF/YPG) served as the primary ground force in Syria, raising tensions with NATO ally Turkey.
ISIS lost its last territory in Baghuz, Syria in March 2019, but continues as an insurgency and ideology.
Legacy and Ongoing Threat
Over 10,000 ISIS fighters remain detained in Kurdish-run camps in northeast Syria - their legal status unresolved.
ISIS affiliates operate across Sahel Africa, Mozambique, Afghanistan, and Southeast Asia.
Raised profound questions about radicalization, foreign fighter repatriation, and the limits of military solutions to ideological threats.
IB Connections
Central case for analyzing non-state violent actors and their impact on international security.
Illustrates the debate over asymmetric warfare and whether military force can defeat ideological movements.
Raises questions about human rights in counterterrorism - drone strikes, detention without trial, and civilian casualties.
