Audio-Visual

The state will continually decrease in relevancy as the 21st century continues.

The way I evaluate this claim is

that non state actors will challenge state supremacy

as they gain power and sources of power shift.

States won't be completely irrelevant. At least not in the near future,

But their role would be much different than now or say 50 years ago.

Before diving further, there needs to be a clear definition of a state

and I don't mean one of these here,

A state in political science

in this

is a political division of a body of people that occupies a territory

defined by frontiers.

The state is sovereign in its territory and has the authority to

enforce the system of rules over the people living inside it.

Germany being one example that I will wish I refer to often

examples of non state actors include corporations,

private financial institutions, Ngos, banks, trade unions, et cetera.

In order to evaluate whether states are losing relevance,

we need to determine the power of both state and non state actors.

What types of power do states have?

Where does this power come from? And how has state power shifted in the past?

Are nancy doctors increasing in

power if so, how does this affect States?

There are two main types of power, hard and soft power.

100 years ago,

the use of military intervention were in coercive diplomacy

with the most effective in achieving one's goals.

Soft power is the most efficient in contemporary

global politics because of its endurance and sustainability.

Hard power however, is less useful today as the global system

changes, it changes in its disfavor

with hard power on the decline.

States who heavily rely on hard power will be at a disadvantage.

Let's look at Germany more specifically,

there is debate as to whether Germany achieved hegemonic power.

In the 20th century,

the state attempted to obtain

hegemonic power twice through the means of hard power

Two world wars mainly,

which as we all know, didn't really work out since both of these were lost.

It wasn't until their focus shifted towards soft power when they were

able to not to maintain and continue to increase in power.

Now one could argue that excluding Russia, Germany's most

powerful country in europe,

not not because of hard power, but soft power.

The main sources of Germany's power come from its membership in

the EU north atlantic treaty organization NATO and its booming economy.

Here we have a graph with Germany's GPd compared to other european

countries. As you can see they are

for in the lead

and this is um

an estimation of

the

countries who have the most soft power

and

In 2022, Germany was third

globally.

This demonstrates not only the effectiveness of soft power in the 21st century,

but even it's super superiority in comparison to heart power.

Additionally,

technological advancement and the rise of big data

has made it easier to exert soft power.

The majority of both of these are in the hands of nancy.

Doctors such as corporations,

big data is continually increasing in value.

This rising source of power enables the nazi doctors who own

them to become even more powerful than they already are.

Arguably even more than states.

You may be wondering where I would bring up earlier,

How powerful estates such as Germany is

well, arguing that states are losing relevance,

which leads to my next point. Globalization.

Global globalization is a term used to describe how trade and technology have made.

It has made the world more connected and

interdependent place.

Globalization has led to a decline

in the power of national governments to direct and influence their economies.

Let's take the organizations I just mentioned above as an example,

the impact of these organizations is to

create a process of institution building where the

organizations are able to determine and dictate what

happens in the governments of member States,

like the EU whose primary laws are contained in the treaties agreed

between member states.

This is a trend we see in worldwide

politics.

States find themselves meaning to conform to

the norms laid down by these organizations.

Already, the impact is being felt in the area of human rights

due to the internal

internationalization of human rights,

A state is no longer free to treat its citizens and others the way it

pleases you must conform to international standards

laid down in the various human rights treats

in short, globalization is preventing states from sovereignty

and extreme power

going back to Germany.

While it does have significant power,

it could never truly become a hegemonic state.

Since it needs to obey the requirements of all these organizations

and alliances that ensure its power is at least somewhat dispersed.

Most of their power relies on other states and organizations.

So even the most powerful countries aren't truly that powerful.

State power has not disappeared with globalization, but it has transformed.

It now

competes with corporations for influence and political power,

which brings me to my next point.

One of the most effective ways of measuring power is through wealth.

The conversation listed 100 large

corporations and countries on the basis of their revenues. Um this is from 2016,

so it might be a little bit different now,

for example,

sorry,

and revealed that some corporations were higher than states, for example,

walmart exceeds spain and Australia.

The same store stated that the economic power

of corporations and state is essentially on par.

Even though there are other measures of power, money is essential.

And if corporations can have more economic power than states,

this could challenge state power as a whole.

After carefully analyzing trends in global politics on state and non state power,

there is a clear evidence supporting the decline in state relevancy

Audio-Visual

Audio TranscriptAuto-generated