Introduction

One of the most prominent features of the global political system in the second half
of the twentieth century is the significant surge in numbers and importance of non-
state entities. With the growth of interdependence and communication between
societies, a great variety of new organizational structures, operating on a regional
and global basis, have been established. The rise of these transnationally organized
non-state actors and their growing involvement in world politics challenge the
assumptions of traditional approaches to international relations which assume that
states are the only important units of the international system. While some authors
recognize that these non-sovereign entities and their activities have led to
fundamental changes in world politics, others maintain that the structure of the
international system can still be treated on the basis of inter-state relations.

A first aim of this paper is to analyze how the main paradigms in the field of
international relations approach actors in world politics. Scholars debate whether
non-state entities should be treated as distinct and autonomous actors or merely as
instruments of states. If we look at the latest theoretical developments in the field,
however, there seems to be a definite movement toward a mixed-actor perspective,
viz. a view of the international system based on the coexistence of states and non-
state actors.

A second aim is to develop a new typology of non-state actors. In doing so we

hope to offer a way out of the confusion which reigns supreme in past efforts at
classification of the actors under consideration. Scholars argue over how to
catalogue and define the variety of new organizational structures that have
emerged. The definition of a transnational organization, in particular, is
approached in a number of different ways. After reviewing the major typologies of
non-state actors that have been proposed in the literature, we develop a scheme for
classifying non-state actors which is more in line with recent developments and
offers the ability to encompass some of the more complex organizations that are
neither purely governmental nor purely private in nature.

Toward a typology of non-state actors

After reviewing the more general treatment of actors in the different theoretical
perspectives, and assuming that non-state actors are a factor is reckoned with in the
study world politics, we now turn to a more in depth conceptual examination of this
type of actors. Such analysis is all the more imperative as the first step in
constructing a framework for the analysis of non-state actors is to define clearly the
units of analysis. To this end, it is more useful to construct a typology of the units
rather than to attempt an exhaustive list of all non-state actors (Taylor, 1984, p. 19).

Scholars of international relations, however, disagree over how to classify non-state

actors in world politics. Because the study of transnational relations and non-state
actors is a relatively new phenomenon, much of the terminology used for classifying
actors is unclear and contradictory. Especially, the definition of transnational
organizations appears to pose a lot of conceptual difficulties. Another problem
concerns the categorization of more complex non-state actors that are neither purely
governmental nor purely private in nature. These kinds of mixed organizations, of
which the International Labour Organization and the Berne Union are examples, are
not recognized as a separate category of actors in conventional classification
schemes.

This section begins by proposing a definition of actors in world politics that is broad
enough to encompass non-state actors. It then examines the different classes of non-
state actors that have been identified in the literature, showing how the leading
scholars within the field disagree over some basic definitions. From this review, a
typology of actors based on a broad definition of transnational organizations and
differentiating between mixed and pure types of non-state actors is proposed.

Definition of an Actor in World Politics

At the most general level, an actor in world politics has been defined as 'any entity
which plays an identifiable role in international relations' (Evans and Newnham).
This definition is so broad as even to encompass individuals. Although this inclusion
is open to debate (Rosenau, 1990; Girard, 1994), most authors reject it because the
influence of individuals in international politics is most often incidental and tends to
diminish over time (Taylor, 1984, p. 20). In his seminal essay 'The Actors in World
Politics', Oran Young (1972, p. 140) offers a way out to refine the above general
definition by defining an actor in world politics as

any organized entity that is composed, at least indirectly, of human beings, is

not wholly subordinate to any other actor in the world system in effective
terms, and participates in power relationships with other actors.

This definition suggests that to be considered an actor in world politics the entity
under consideration needs to possess a degree of autonomy and influence rather than
the legal and state-related status of sovereignty.
More recently Brian Hocking and Michael Smith (1990, p. 71) follow a similar line
of reasoning as they directly challenge the three principles of 'actorness' set forth in
the state-centric paradigm: sovereignty, recognition of statehood, and control of
territory and people. They contend that these principles may help to explain the
character of states as actors but are not very illuminating when evaluating the role of
non-state actors, as the latter are unable to conform to them. In order to redress this
weakness, they present three alternative criteria for the evaluation of international
actors: autonomy, representation and influence. Autonomy refers to the degree of
freedom of action that an actor possesses when seeking to achieve its objective(s);
representation refers to the type of constituencies that a particular actor represents;
and, influence points to the capacity of an actor to make a difference within a certain
context and with regard to a specific issue. The authors argue that these less
restrictive and more widely adaptable criteria allow to move beyond the rather
narrow, state-related criteria of actorness and to reconsider the nature of different
kinds of actors and their role in world politics. They conclude that 'from this revised
perspective on actorness, it is possible to consider anew the qualities exhibited by the
range of actors engaged in international relations' (Hocking and Smith, 1990, p. 71).

Contending typologies of non-state actors

Now that we have a definition of international actors that is broad enough to

encompass non-state actors, let us examine more closely the general classes of non-
state actors as they have been identified in the literature.

The Initial IGO/INGO Distinction

An initial classification of non-state actors distinguishes between two major types of

international organizations: international governmental organizations (IGOs) and
international non-governmental organizations (INGOs). These two categories have
been recognized as the main non-state actors alongside the traditional state actor
(Jacobson, 1988, p. 4; Archer, 1992, pp. 38-39).

Both IGOs and INGOs are alike in having participants from more than one state. An
IGO is defined as an 'institutional structure created by agreement among two or more
sovereign states for the conduct of regular political interactions' (Jacobson, 1984, p.
8). IGO's constituent members are states and its representatives are governmental
agents (Evans and Newnham, 1990, p. 168). This type of organization has meetings
of the state representatives at relatively frequent intervals, detailed procedures for
decision making, and a permanent secretariat. The most well known contemporary
IGO is the United Nations. Other examples are the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) and the International Trade Organization (ITO). IGOs are
viewed as permanent networks linking states because they are largely dependent on
the voluntary actions of the member states for the implementation of their decisions
(Jacobson, 1984, p. 8). INGOs also have states as their constituent members, but the
state representatives are non-governmental agents (Evans and Newnham, 1990, p.
190). Furthermore, these organizations are non-profit making entities whose
members range from private associations to individuals. Like IGOs, they have a
permanent secretariat, regular scheduled meetings of representatives of the
membership, and specified procedures for decision making (Jacobson, 1984, p. 9).
The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions and the International Chamber
of Commerce are two examples of INGOs (Evans and Newnham, 1990, pp. 190-
191).

The distinction between IGOs and INGOs, however, is not always clear because a
number of international organizations allow for both governmental and non-
governmental representation (Archer, 1992, p. 43). Jacobson (1984, p. 4) notes that a
great number of organizations within the communication and transport services are
difficult to categorize because they have a mixed membership and 'are subject to
varying amounts of governmental controls'. Organizations such as the International
Labour Organization (ILO), the International Telecommunication Union and certain
other international organizations, although composed primarily of governments, also
allow the participation of such private associations as, for example, labour unions,
employers groups and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment.

To overcome this classification problem, many authors choose to follow the

conventional practice of using a UN decision whereby IGOs are defined as
organizations established by intergovernmental treaty and INGOs are defined as 'any
international organization which has not been established by an inter-governmental
agreement' including those which accept governmental agencies or ministries as
members (Union of International Associations, 1990, p. 1643).

This legal distinction, however, leaves much to be desired because it disregards the
character of the membership of an organization. In this regard Skjelsbaek (1971, p.
422), notes that 'most but not all IGOs include only governmental members, and in
practice many INGOs have both governmental and non-governmental members'.
While acknowledging that it conceals the existence of a well-developed class of
organization with distinct features, the Union of International Associations and a
great number of authors nevertheless choose to use the legal distinction just
mentioned because of its easy applicability (Union of International Associations)
Transnational Organizations

The definition of a transnational organization (TNO) has given rise to major

contradictions among past efforts at the categorization of non-state actors. Some
authors have identified TNOs as a separate category of non-state actors alongside the
IGO and INGO categories. Others have adopted broader definitions of TNOs. In
addition, the term 'transnational' has been applied both to interactions and actors
(Evans and Newnham, 1990, p. 396; Viotti and Kauppi, 1993, p. 596). Three
different approaches to the definition of a transnational organization can be
identified.

The first and most common definition of a transnational organization is derived from
Keohane and Nye (1971). In their work Transnational relations and World Politics,
they define transnational interactions to be 'the movement of tangible or intangible
items across state boundaries when at least one actor is not the agent of a government
or an intergovernmental organization' (Keohane and Nye, 1971, p.
332). Correspondingly, transnational organizations are defined as 'transnational
interactions institutionalized' (Skjelsbaek, 1971, p. 420). Applying this broad
definition, INGOs, multinational corporations and still other groupings can all be
included under the definition of a TNO because they involve at least one entity that
is non-governmental in character (Keohane and Nye, 1971, p. 332).

However, this definition is at odds with the definition adopted by Samuel Huntington
in his 1973 seminal article 'Transnational Organizations in World Politics'.
Huntington (1973, p. 333) defines a transnational organization as 'a relatively large,
hierarchically organized, centrally directed bureaucracy' which 'performs a set of
relatively limited, specialized, and in some sense, technical functions across one or
more national boundaries and, in so far as possible, in relative disregard of those
boundaries'. According to the author, these kinds of organizations have proliferated
since World War II, examples being the Ford foundation, the Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA), the World Bank, Air France, Chase Manhattan and Strategic Air
Command.

Huntington thus uses a more restricted definition of a transnational organization than

the one derived from Keohane and Nye (1971, p. 334). In their definition, Keohane
and Nye focus on membership characteristics. More in particular they ask whether
the participants are private or public in character. Huntington's definition, on the
other hand, emphasizes the organizational structure and the scope of the operations
of the organization (Huntington, 1973, p. 333). The Keohane and Nye definition
embraces transnational organizations as defined by Huntington, but does not focus
on the dramatic rise of relatively centralized, functionally specific, bureaucratic
organizations which carry out their operations across state boundaries'. In
Huntington's view, a TNO can involve both governmental and non-governmental
organizations. According to the author, 'the growth and multiplication of globally
oriented bureaucratic organizations like General Motors (GM) and the USAF (US
Air Force), public or private in character, nationally or internationally controlled -
adds a critical dimension to world politics' (Huntington, 1973, p. 335).

Harold Jacobson in his work Networks of Interdependence also identifies

transnational organizations, pointing out that they are usually not classified as
INGOs (1984, p. 10). Jacobson adopts Huntington's definition of transnational
organizations but modifies it by excluding governmental departments of states
(Jacobson, 1984, pp. 17-18). He defines transnational organizations as 'hierarchically
organized, centrally directed non-governmental bureaucracies that perform their
relatively specialized functions in more than one state' (Jacobson, 1984, pp. 10-11).
The author identifies two categories of international actors whose functions are often
like those of INGOs and classifies these under the heading of transnational
organizations: religious bodies and business enterprises. They are, according to
Jacobson, 'the two most salient categories of what have come to be called
transnational organizations' (Jacobson, 1984, p. 10).

While the definition of transnational organizations set forth by these two groups of
authors (Keohane/Nye group and Huntington/Jacobson group) are both the most
accepted and specific ones, a number of international relations scholars have chosen
a different approach. This group of authors equates transnational organizations with
all non-state actors, thus adopting a much broader definition. James Rosenau and
Philip Taylor are the leading authors within this group.

James Rosenau's characterization of transnational organization in Turbulence In

World Politics (1990), however, is confusing because he does not give a clear
definition of the term. Rosenau contends that 'proliferation of these various types of
actors has occurred among both governmental and nongovernmental organizations'
(Rosenau, 1990, p. 136). He gives four examples of transnational organizations: the
United Nations (UN), alliances such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO), non-governmental associations such as the International Political Science
Association and private banks under the heading of transnational organizations
(Rosenau, 1990, pp. 136-37). Transnational organizations thus include governmental
(IGOs), nongovernmental (INGOs) and profit making organizations. However, he is
unclear because he adds a few dimensions to characterize transnational
organizations. He contends that TNOs have a non-hierarchical and decentralized
structure and that they need the consent of their membership for taking important
actions. Rosenau adds that 'as a result of their decentralized structures ...
transnational organizations normally encounter some difficulty in implementing their
policies' (Rosenau, 1990, p. 137). These criteria are too restrictive to characterize
simultaneously IGOs, INGOs and profit-making organizations. Banks, as was
illustrated by Huntington, illustrate a hierarchical and relatively centralized structure.

Philip Taylor in his work Non-state Actors in International Politics: From

Transregional to Sub state Organizations (1974) also equates transnational
organizations with non-state actors. He defines non-state actors as units that are
transnational - consisting of individuals or groups residing in two or more states -
and formally organized. He subdivides these units into IGOs and INGOs and
thereafter groups them according to the geographical scope of their memberships:
regional and supraregional groups. Taylor contends that these four groups still
compress too many dissimilar organizations into categories too broadly defined, and
suggests a further division based on the task performed by organizations. In this way
he identifies four general categories: economic, security, political and
cultural/ideological groups (Taylor, 1974, pp. 20-21). While acknowledging that
there may be some disagreements over how to place some organizations, his
typology yields a matrix consisting of sixteen categories (Taylor,1974, p. 22). By
dividing non-state actors solely into IGOs and INGOs, Taylor places multinational
corporations under the category of INGOs. However, this decision is at odds with the
well accepted definition of an INGO as a non-profit making organization involving
representatives from more than one country.

Toward a New Typology of Non-State Actors in World Politics

Two main problems have been encountered in the above overview of typologies of
non-state actors. First, the widely used UN distinction between IGOs and INGOs
hides important membership characteristics and clearly overlooks an important
category of mixed non-state actors. Second, there is confusion and disagreement over
the definition of a transnational organization. In view of the importance of a clear
working definition for the analysis of non-state actors, this article sets forth a
typology of actors based on a broad definition of transnational organizations and
differentiating between mixed and pure types of non-state actors.

Following Hocking and Smith (1990) and applying the principles of representation,
autonomy and influence as criteria for actorness, a major distinction can be made
between state and non-state actors (see figure 1).
Figure 1: State and Non-State Actors

This initial division places states in the important position which they still retain
(Hollis and Smith, 1992, pp. 41-42), while recognizing non-sovereign or non-state
entities as actors in their own right (Hocking and Smith, 1990, pp. 70-71; McGrew,
1989; Rosenau, 1990). Non-state actors are then divided into international
governmental organizations (IGOs) on the one hand, and transnational organizations
(TNOs) on the other (see figure 2).

Figure 2: The Two Main Categories of Non-State Actors

An international governmental organization we define as an institutional structure

created by agreement among two or more sovereign states for the conduct of regular
political interactions. IGOs differ from traditional diplomatic facilities in their
structure and permanence. They have meetings of representatives of the member
states at regular intervals, specified decision making procedures, and a permanent
secretariat or headquarters staff. As such they can be regarded as continual networks
linking states (Jacobson, 1984, p. 8).

Transnational organizations we define as transnational relations institutionalized.

The latter describe those networks, associations or interactions which cut across
national societies, creating linkages between individuals, groups, organizations and
communities within different nation-states (McGrew, 1992, p. 7). Typical of
transnational relations is that in effect they bypass governments because they operate
within the societal domain and beyond direct state control. Following Keohane and
Nye (1971, p. 332) we further specify that for an interaction or organization to be
called 'transnational' at least one of the actors involved must be non-governmental in
character. As far as governmental bodies are operating within a TNO they are
assumed to do so primarily in the societal domain and in ways those go beyond
direct governmental control. As such TNOs are non-governmental bodies operating
'across national boundaries, sometimes on a global scale, which seek as far as
possible to disregard these boundaries, and which serve to establish links between
different national societies, or sections of those societies' (Bull, 1977, p. 270;
compare with Badie & Smouts (1992:70).

By adopting the above definition of transnational organizations we reject the

restrictive ones used by the Huntington/Jacobson group. This implies that INGOs can
now be placed under the category of a transnational organization (TNO). This
decision is in accordance with the Dictionary of World Politics which notes that
'international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) are, by definition,
transnational organizations...' (Evans and Newnham, 1990, p. 397). It also rejects the
broader approach of Rosenau and Taylor by excluding IGOs, such as the United
Nations, from the category of transnational organizations. While this decision is
subjective and open to controversy, it is justified by the fact that IGOs regroup only
state representatives and are founded by explicit agreement between national
governments.

In addition to INGOs, three other types of transnational organizations can be

identified - transgovernmental organizations (TGOs), transnational corporate
organizations (TCOs), and transnational non-cooperate organizations (TNCOs). A
transgovernmental organization results from the 'interactions between governmental
subunits across state boundaries' when the governmental actors are 'not controlled by
the central foreign policy organs of their governments' (Keohane and Nye, 1971, p.
733). Because of the latter characteristic transgovernmental organizations have a
strong non-governmental flavour, and as such we deem it plausible to place them
within the category of transnational organizations. Although contacts between
governmental bureaucracies may often remain non-institutionalized, a number of
such organizations have been created (Archer, 1992, p. 43). A prime example is the
International Union of Local Authorities (IULA) which is an association of the local
government authorities of the European Union.

The transnational corporate organization is a second type of TNO. The prime

example of such an actor is the transnational corporation because it controls assets in
at least two states and is non-governmental in nature (Evans and Newnham, 1990, p.
249). It is clearly distinguishable from INGOs in that it is a private corporate
organization geared to profit making and non-representative organization. The most
recent classification of actors by Clive Archer (1992), however, eliminates
transnational corporations (TNCs) from the TNO category. The author's main reason
is that TNCs do not match his own definition of a transnational organization as the

institutionalization of a relationship between more than two participants into a

formal, continuous structure in order to pursue the common interests of the
participants, one of which is not an agent of government or an
intergovernmental organization (Archer, 1992, p. 42).

Transnational corporations such as IBM or General Motors cannot conform to the

representative criteria of Archer's definition. Adopting such a restrictive criterion,
has the serious drawback of overlooking multinational corporations as an important
TNO in world politics. Since World War II, multinational corporations have been
increasingly recognized as one of the most salient and powerful categories of non-
state actors, performing activities across national borders and in relative disregard of
nation-states (Strange, 1988; Stopford & Strange, 1991; Stopford, 1994; Junne,
1994). The broader definition of transnational organization used in the typology
proposed in this article redresses this weakness.

Finally we have the category of the transnational non-corporate organization

(TNCO). This is in fact a residual division consisting of private voluntary
associations which on the one hand are clearly distinguishable from corporations,
and on the other do not fit in the class of INGOs. Examples would include the
churches, transnationally organized political parties or political movements,
international trade secretariats, transnational terrorist networks, and internationally
supported insurgent groups.

One further problem arises with respect to INGOs. As a transnational organization,

the membership of an INGO must be composed of at least one non-governmental
actor. However, as we have seen, INGOs differ with respect to the proportion of their
non-governmental and governmental representation. Archer (1992, p. 42) solves this
problem by identifying two different types of INGOs: the 'genuine' INGO and the
'hybrid' INGO. He defines the genuine INGO (GINGO) as 'an organization with only
non-governmental members', examples being the International Olympic Committee
and the World Council of Churches. The hybrid INGO (HINGO), on the other hand,
allows for both governmental and non-governmental representation. He classifies
these ‘mixed’ organizations as IGOs if the latter have been created by 'a treaty or
convention between governments' (Archer, 1992, p. 43). An example of such an
organization is the International Labour Organization (ILO) whose members include
trade union, employers and governmental representatives. If, on the other hand, the
mixed organization is not the result of a purely intergovernmental agreement, they
fall under the hybrid INGO type of actor. An example of such organizations is the
Council of Scientific Unions, whose membership includes scientific unions,
scientific academies, national research councils and governments. The Berne Union
also corresponds to this category.

On the basis of the argument brought forward, Archer's classification can be

improved by categorizing those organizations with mixed membership which have
been established by governmental treaty as 'hybrid IGOs' (HIGOs). Such
classification would indicate that these organizations are governmental by foundation
but at the same time constitute a mixture of public and private organizations if types
of members are taken into consideration. Hybrid IGOs (i.e. ILO) would then come
close to the category of transnational organizations as they involve at least one actor
that is not governmental.

Conclusion

By way of conclusion we present our new typology of non-state actors in world

politics in figure 3. However, it should be immediately added that the typology
developed here only represents a first step. We have mostly been looking at
membership criteria and varieties of foundation. Somewhat more implicitly, we
have also dealt with organizational characteristics and levels of participation. It is
obvious that additional aspects have to be taken into consideration. For example,
following Hocking and Smith (1990), a number of additional criteria can be used,
e.g. the aims of organizations (general versus specific), level of involvement
(continuous or sporadic, wide ranging or concentrated on one issue area,
institutionalized or not); structure (representative, bureaucratic, political,
industrial...); and resources (financial, informational, technical, membership...).
Adopting such further criteria requires extensive conceptual work that goes well
beyond the scope of this paper.

The further development of the present typology is suggested as a programme of

future research. Still, as it stands, the typology solves some of the problems met by
earlier attempts at classification. Furthermore, it opens up possibilities for a more
discriminating investigation into the current generation of what Buzan, Jones and
Little (1993, pp. 78, 216-232, 238) see as a new kind of type 4 international system,
that is an anarchic system, with functionally differentiated units and a high
interaction capacity. Especially with regard to the structures of non-state systems in
the economic and ideological spheres the proposed classification seems to be highly
relevant.

Figure 3: Typology of Non-State Actors in World Politics

References

Archer, C. (1992) International Organizations. Second Edition. London: Rutledge.

Badie, B. and M. Smouts (1992) Le retournement du monde. Sociologie de la

scene internationale. Paris: Dalloz.

Banks, M. (1985) 'The Inter-Paradigm Debate', in M. Light & J. Groom (eds)

International Relations: A Handbook of Current Theory, pp. 7-26. London: Pinter.

Bennet, A.L. (1988) International Organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall

Bull, H. (1977) The anarchical society. A study of world order. London:

Macmillan.

Buzan, B., Ch. Jones and R. Little (1993) The Logic of Anarchy: Neorealism to
Structural Realism. New York: Columbia University Press.

Evans, G. and J. Newnham (1990) The Dictionary of World Politics. New York:
Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Frankel, J. (1988) International Relations in a Changing World. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.
Girard, M. (ed) (1994) Les Individus dans la Politique Internationale. Paris:
Economica.

Grieco, J. M. (1988) 'Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of

the Newest Liberal Institutionalism'. International Organization, 42(3): 485-508.

Grieves, F. L. (1979) Transnationalism in World Politics and Business. New York:

Pergamon Press.

Haufler, V. (1993) 'Crossing the Boundary between Public and Private:

International Regimes and Non-State Actors', in V. Rittberger (ed.) Regime Theory
and International Relations, pp. 94-111. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hocking, B. and M. Smith 1990 World Politics. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Hollis, M. and S. Smith (1992) Explaining and Understanding International

Relations. Oxford: Clarandon Press.

Huntington, S.P. (1973) 'Transnational Organisation in World Politics'. World

Politics, 25(3).

Jacobson, H.K. (1984) Networks of Interdependence: International Organizations

and the Global Political System. New York: Knopf.

Junne, G. 'Multinational Enterprises as Actors', in Carlsnaes, W. and S.Smith (eds),

European Foreign Policy. The EC and Changing Perspectives in Europe, pp. 84-
102. London: Sage.

Kegley, Ch.W. and E. R. Wittkopf (1989) World Politics. Trend and

Transformation. New York: MacMillan.

Keohane, R.O. (ed.) (1986) Neorealism and Its Critics. New York: Columbia
University Press.

Keohane, R.O. (1989) International Insitutions and State Power. Boulder:

Westview Press.

Keohane, R.O. and J.S. Nye (eds) (1971) Transnational Relations and World
Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press..
Keohane, R.O. and J.S. Nye (1977, 1989) Power and Interdependence. Second
Edition. Glenview: Scott Foresman.

Lieshout, R.H. (1992) 'Neo-institutional Realism and the Possibilities of

Cooperation'. Acta Politica, 27(4): 405-424.

Maghoori, R. and B. Ramberg (eds) (1982) Globalism Versus Realism:

International Relations' Third Debate. Colorado: Westview Press.

Mansbach, R.W., Y. Ferguson and D. Lampert (1976) The Web of World Politics:
Non-State Actors in the Global System. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Mansbach, R.W. and J.A. Vasquez (1981) In Search of Theory: A New Paradigm
for Global Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.

McGrew, A.G. (1992) 'Conceptualizing Global Politics', in A.G. McGrew et al.

Global Politics, pp. 1-30. Oxford: Polity.

Morgenthau, H. (1949) Politics Among Nations. New York: Knopf.

Rosenau, J.N. (1990) Turbulence in World Politics. New York: Harvester

Wheatsheaf

Russett, B. and H. Starr (1989) Choices in World Politics: Sovereignty and

Interdependence. New York: Freeman.

Skjelsbaek, K. (1971) 'The Growth of International Nongovernmental Organization

in the twentieth Century'. International Organization, 25(3).

Smith, S. (1989) 'Paradigm Dominance in International Relations: The

Development of International Relations as a Social Science', in H.C. Dyer & L.
Mangaserian (eds) The Study of International Relations: The State of the Art.
London: McMillan.

Stopford, J. and S. Strange (1991) Rival States, Rival Firms. Competition for
World Market Shares. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stopford, J.M. (1994) 'The Growing Interdependence between Transnational

Corporations and Governments'. Transnational Corporations, 3(1): 53-76.

Strange, S. (1988) States and Markets. London: Pinter.

Sullivan, M.P. (1989) 'Transnationalism, Power Politics, and the Realities of the
Present System', in M.Williams (ed) International Relations in the Twentieth
Century, pp. 255-274. London: MacMillan.

Taylor, Ph. (1984) Nonstate Actors in International Politics: From transregional to

Sub state Organizations. Boulder: Westview Press.

Union of International Associations (1990) Yearbook of International

Organizations. Munich: Saur.

Viotti, P. & M.V. Kauppi (eds) International Relations Theory. Second Edition.
New York: MacMillan.

Young, O.R. (1972) 'The Actors in World Politics', in J. N. Rosenau and M. A.

East (eds) The Analysis of International Politics, pp. 125-144. New York: The Free
Press.

Zacher, M.W. (1992) 'The Decaying Pillars of the Westphalian Temple:

Implications for International Order and Governance', in J.N. Rosenau & E-O.
Czempiel (eds) Governance Without Government. Order and Change in World
Poltics, pp. 58-101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.