He makes a good point on our excessive focus on the human domain and non-state actors and transnational threats replacing the historical state threats. We have many in our security community, often evidenced on SWJ, who believe the State has become non-relevant.Originally Posted by davidbfpo
The Nonstate World suffers the worst internal logic of the four. In many ways, it seems to embrace Parag Khanna’s notion of a return to medieval times – i.e., an almost pre-Westphalian system in which states are less important than non-/sub-/trans-/supranational actors.The most globalized states in this world have the strongest governments – meaning strong in their regulatory powers but reasonably limited in their scope (and thus not authoritarian). The states with the best (and usually most) rules are generally the most globalized and successful within globalization.Don’t get me wrong – I’m not arguing that all of these nonstate actors won’t gain more power and importance. I’m just noting that this tends to happen most in those states with powerful and important governments that facilitate such connectivity/globalization – thus I argue it’s an additive/complimentary process rather than a subtractive one. In my opinion, Nonstate World is hardly an alternative world.
Read more: http://nation.time.com/2012/12/21/ju...#ixzz2GZfm3Ghu
Bookmarks