UJIAN TENGAH SEMESTER SEMESTER GASAL: TEORI PERBANDINGAN POLITIK


UJIAN TENGAH SEMESTER SEMESTER GASAL 2009/ 2010

Mata kuliah: SOP 231 Teori perbandingan politik (A & B)

Hari, tanggal: kamis, 29 Oktober 2009

Pukul : 09.30-11.00

Ruang : A 302, A303, A304, A305

Penguji: Kacung Marijan, Haryadi, Fahrul Muzaqqi, hari Fitrianto

(Kerjakan 4 soal dari 7 soal di bawah ini!)

  1. Sebut dan jelaskan faktor-faktor yang mempercepat studi perbandingan politik pasca Perang Dunia II!
  2. Ronald H. Chilcote membedakan antara comparative government dengan comparative politics. Uraikan perbedaan tersebut dengan menyertakan ilustrasi contoh!
  3. Sebut dan jelaskan kelemahan-kelemahan studi perbandingan politik lama dan usulan-usulan untuk mengatasi kelemahan-kelemahan itu!
  4. Jelaskan manfaat yang bisa didapat dari belajar comparative politics sebagai teori maupun metode!
  5. Jelaskan level-level teori makro, meso, dan mikro dalam studi perbandingan politik! Ilustrasikan pula contoh-contoh teori pada masing-masing level teori-teori itu!
  6. Jelaskan kerangka teori sistem david Easton, serta berikan ilustrasi berupa contoh kasus berkaitan dengan proses politik di Indonesia?
  7. Sebut dan jelaskan asumsi-asumsi utama teori fungsionalisme structural Gabriel Almond, konseptualisasi sistem dan fungsi-fungsi spesialisasi struktur di dalam sistem menurut kerangka teori fungsionalisme structural!

UJIAN TENGAH SEMESTER GASAL TAHUN 2008/ 2009: PENG FILSAFAT & LOGIKA (C & D)


UJIAN TENGAH SEMESTER GASAL TAHUN 2008/ 2009

MATA KULIAH: NOF 11 PENG FILSAFAT & LOGIKA (C & D)

HARI/ TANGGAL : JUM’AT, 31 OKTOBER 2008

RUANG : A-306, A-307, & A-308

WAKTU : 15.30 s/d 17.10 (100 MENIT)

SIFAT : TERBUKA

1. Ada perbedaan yang mendasar antara filsafat da ilmu pengetahuan. Apa perbedaan tersebut dan bagaimana implementasi dan implikasinya dari keduanya? (Nilai maks. 15)

Bagaimanakah kait hubungan runtut dari empat macam pengetahuan, dari “tahu akan”, ‘tahu bahwa”, “tahu mengapa” sampai dengan “tahu bagaimana” sebagaimana yang dikemukakan oleh Michael Polanyi (lihat Keraf, 2005:40) dalam profesi bidang keilmuan Saudara! (nilai maks. 25)

Berikan pula contohnya masing-masing 4 contoh suatu pernyataan yang dapat digolongkan sebagai pengetahuan apriori dan aposteriori! (nilai maks. 10)

2. Uraikan suatu proses transformasi seperangkat informasi yaitu dari teori-hipotesis-observasi-generalisasi empiric sampai dengan teoritisasi kembali sebagaimana yang dikemukakan pada bagan/ struktur ilmu pengetahuan dari Walter L. Wallace dalam rangka membuktikan suatu teori Stimulus-Respon (Ketidakpedulian-unjuk rasa) terhadap masyarakat korban lumpur lapindo di porong-sidoarjo Jawa Timur, yang tiada lelah berunjuk rasa terhadap pihak-pihak yang bertanggung jawab terhadap nasib malang yang menimpa mereka. (Nilai maksimal 50)

UJIAN TENGAH SEMESTER (HI UNAIR 2008)


Semester Gasal 2009

Mat kuliah: SOP-241 Pemikiran Politik Barat (A&B)

Hari, tanggal: Senin, 2 Oktober 2009

Pukul: 09.30-11.00

Penguji: Dr. Dwi Widyastuti, Hari Fitrianto, Fahrul Muzaqqi

  1. Jika Aristoteles meletakkan demokrasi sebagai pilihan terakhir (terburuk) dalam klasifikasi mengenai negara yang baik dan negara yang buruk. Coba Anda jelaskan demokrasi yang didefinisikan oleh Aristoteles, berikut argumentasinya?
  2. Pada tahun 410, Kerajaan Romawi yang sangat besar, tumbang dengan dampak yang dramatis pada peradaban dunia. Coba Anda jelaskan bagaimana pendapat St. Agustinus terhadap fenomena kehancuran Kerajaan Romawi, dan kaitannya dengan konsep negara Surgawi dan negara Duniawi?
  3. Semangat Renaisance adalah menggugat dogmatika gereja, sehingga semangat pengetahuannya adalah menolak supremasi kekuasaan/ pengetahuan yang didasarkan pada zat-zat yang transeden (Tuhan). Selain itu, pembaharuan juga menjiwai semangat gerakan itu. Sebutkan tawaran metodologi yang benar-benar baru dikenalkan pada studi politik oleh Machiavelli?
  4. Semangat anti depotisme yang diusung Montesqueiu tentu sangat mempengaruhi pemikirannya ketika dia merumuskan prinsip separation of power, dimana kekuasaan oleh Montesqueiu dibagi dalam tiga kamar yang meliputi eksekutif, legislative, dan yudikatif. Separation of power ini dimaksudkan agar tiap lembaga mampu melakukan check and balance. Sebutkan asumsi dasar dan implikasi dari separation of power?
  5. Bagaimana perbedaan da ketertarikan karakteristik pemikiran politik barat dari era Yunani dan romawi klasik (yang direpresentasikan oleh Plato dan Aristoteles), Abad Pertengahan (yang diwakili oleh Agustinus dan Aquinas), dan Abad Pencerahan (yang ditandai oleh model pemikiran Machiavelli dan para pemikir sezaman maupun sesudahnya)?

ACTORS IN WORLD POLITIC


At the most general level, an actor in world politics has been defined as ‘any entity which plays an identifiable role in international relation’ (Evans and Nenham 1990, p.6)

This definition is so broad as even to encompass individuals. Although this inclusion is open to debate (Rossenau, 1990: Girrad, 1994), most authors reject it because the influence of individuals in international politics is most often incidental and tend 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 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 participate 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.

TYPES OF NON-STATE ACTORS

Non-state actors are non-sovereign entities that exercise significant economic, political, or social power and influence at a national, and in some cases international level.

  1. Non-Governmental Organization (NGOs). These groups are typically considered a part of civil society. A non-governmental organization is a legally constituted organization created by private organizations or people with no participation or representation of any government. In the cases in which NGOs are funded totally or partially by governments, the NGO maintains its non-governmental status in so far as it excludes government representative from membership in the organization. Example: Red Cross, Green Peace, etc.
  2. Multinational Corporation (MNCs). Multinational corporations are for profit organizations that operate in three or more sovereign states. The traditional multinational is a private company headquartered in one country and with subsidiaries in others, all operating in accordance with a coordinated global strategy to win market share and achieve cost efficiencies. A significant portion of the discussion, however, centered on the relatively recent “multi-nationalization” of state-owned enterprises, such as Russia’s arms-export monopoly Rosonboron export or Chinese oil company CNPC, which as state entities may or may not share the same incentives and goals as their private counterpart.
  3. The International Media. Example: BBC
  4. Armed Groups. Armed groups include for example rebel opposition forces, military, and warlords.
  5. Terrorist Organization. Including groups, such as Al-Qaeda. In addition to inflicting pain and damage and weakening the existing political order, terrorism, writes Hoffman, “is designed to create power where there is none or to consolidate power where there is very little. Through the publicity generated by their violence, terrorist seek to obtain the leverage, influence and power they otherwise lack to effect political change on either a local or an international scale.

As a ‘weapon weak’, terrorism is deployed by groups to gain media attention and visibility as the first step in gaining “name recognition” within the international community.

Even if acts of terrorism are universally commended, they can stimulate media coverage of an issue and provide an opening for the more moderate cause is being promotes. In this regard one must note that one of the observable outcomes of 9/ 11 has indeed been a spotlight of media attention on the Middle East and Isla, and an opening  for more moderate voices to have their grievances at least publicly considered and deliberated, to a much greater extent than had been possible prior to 9/ 10.

  1. Criminal Organization. Example of the criminal organizations is drug cartels such as the Gulf Cartel.
  2. Religious Groups. Politically active organization based on strong religious conviction.

The Quaker is quite active in their international advocacy effort and their supportive role at International conference.

  1. Transnational Diaspora communities. A Diaspora is a transnational community that defined itself as a singular ethnic group based upon its shared identity. Ethno-political groups: common nationality, language, cultural tradition, kinship ties.
  2. Certain Individuals/ Super-empowered individuals is a person who have overcome constraints, conventions, and rules to wield unique political, economic, intellectual, or cultural influence over the course of human events. They generated the most wide-raging discussion. “Archetypes” include industrialists, criminals, financiers, media moguls, celebrity activists, religious leaders, and terrorists. The ways in which they exert their influence (money, moral authority, expertise) are as varied as their fields of endeavor. As bounded by seminar participants, this category excludes political office holders (although some super empowered individuals eventually attain political office), those with heredity power, or the merely rich or famous. This includes an individual such as Victor Bout.

REALIST AND LIBERALIST

The realist perspective acknowledges the existence of non-state actors, but argues that they are peripheral to the international security environment as compared to states. Security threats emanate primarily from states and are responded to primarily by states. Power is treated as an attribute that is distributed across unitary state actors who must each prioritize their own security interest. When realist does look explicitly at the activities of non-state actors, they often view them as being mere extensions of existing configurations of state power and capabilities. The realist lens suggests a particular response is to either refocus attention on threats from states, treat violent non-state actors as proxies for state interest, or to view non-state actors as being “state-like”. The overall policy response is therefore to combat terrorism as one would combat security threats emanating from state through a military response.

In the Liberal Perspective, non-state actors have figured much more prominently in their view of the international security environment. Liberals view power as being distributed not just across state, but also embedded in other entities such as international institution and NGOs. Their view of power is multidimensional, with an emphasis on the “soft power” of economic factors or the power of ideas, in addition to military power. In this world-view, non-state actors have been largely assumed to play a stabilizing role in the international system as extensions of domestic interest groups, or as members of a global civil society that can contribute to international stability by performing tasks such as monitoring human rights violations and assisting in post-conflict reconstruction and development.

THE EFFECT OF NON-STATE ACTORS ON THE WESTPHALIAN STATE MODEL

The proliferation of non-state actors in the post-Cold War era has been one of the factors leading to the theorizing of the Cobweb paradigm in international Politics. Under this paradigm, the traditional Westphalian non-state is experiencing an erosion of power and sovereignty, and non-state actors are part of the cause. Facilitated by globalization, NSAs have challenged nation-state borders and claims to sovereignty. MNCs are not always sympathetic to home country’s or host country’s national interests, but instead loyalty is given to the corporation’s interest. NGOs are challenging the nation-state’s sovereignty over internal matters through advocacy for societal issues, human right, and the environment.

Many armed non-state actors, opposition group, that operate without state control and are involved in trans-border conflicts. The prevalence of these groups in armed conflicts has added layers of complexity to traditional conflict management and resolution. These conflicts are often fought not only between non-state actors and states, but also between non-state actors. Any attempts at intervention in such conflicts has been particularly challenging given the fact that international law and norms governing the use of force for intervention or peacekeeping purposes has been primarily written in the context of nation-state. So, the demands of non-state actors at the local and international level have further complicated international relations.

REFERENCES:

-          Rochester, Martin. J. 2002. Between Two Epochs: What’s Ahead for America, the World, and Global Politics in the Twenty First Century. NJ: Prentice Hall

-          Davies, Thomas Richard. 2007. The Possibilities of Transnational Activism: the Campaign for Disarmament between the two World War. ISBN 9789004162587

-          Stone, Diane. 2004. Transfer Agents and Global Networks in Trans-nationalization of Policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 11 (3) 2004: 545-66

-          Glasius, M; Kaldor, M; Anheier, H. 2006. Global Civil Society. London: Sage

-          Rossenau, JN. 1990. Turbulence in World Politics. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf

-          Smith, S. 1989. Paradigm Dominance in International Relation: The Development of International Relation as a Social Science, in H. C. Dyer & l. Mangaserian (eds) The Study of International Relation: The State of the Art. London: Mc Millan

-          http://docs.lib.duke.edu/igo/guides/ngo/define.htm.worldbankdefiningNGO

-          http://www.Ise.ac.uk/collections/CCS/pdf/int-work-paper.pdf(100KB)

-          http://www.intractableconlict.org

Sistem Politik Perbandingan Gabriel A. Almond


Gabriel A. Almond (1956) menyatakan, dalam jurnalnya yang berjudul Comparative Political System, bahwa teori sosial adalah sebuah konsep cure-all bagi semua “penyakit” disiplin ilmu (dalam konteks ini, perbandingan pemerintahan). Kegunaan konsep sosiologi dalam menemukan perbedaan yang esensial diantara sistem-sistem politik. Konsep pertama adalah sistem politik adalah sistem dari tindakan yang artinya perbandingan harus diobeservasi melalui empiris. Kedua, sistem politik didefinisikan sebagai satu set dari semua role yang berperan atau sebagai sebuah struktur role. Ketiga, perbedaan sistem politik merupakan monopoli legitimasi pada paksaan fisik terhadap teritori dan populasi tertentu. Konsep keempat adalah orientasi terhadap aksi politis (pemahaman, pilihan dan evaluasi).

Setiap sistem politik terikat pada pola tertentu orientasi pada aksi politis, yakni apa yang kita sebut budaya berpolitik. Perlu diketahui bahwa budaya politik sejalan dengan sistem politik/ masyarakat serta ia tidak sama dengan budaya umum kendati masih berhubungan. Sebab orientasi politik meliputi pemahaman, intelektual, dan adaptasi dari situasi eksternal. Orientasi politik terpisah dari standar dan nilai budaya umum serta memiliki otonomi tersendiri. Fungsi dari skema konseptual ini akan dijelaskan melalui studi kasus.

Sistem Politik Anglo-American

Sistem politik Anglo-American terkarakteristik oleh sebuah homogenitas, budaya politik sekuler. Yang dimaksud oleh budaya politik sekuler adalah budaya politik multinilai, rasional, bargaining,dan budaya politik eksperimental. Mayoritas aktor dalam sistem politiknya menerima tujuan terakhir sistem politik dari kombinasi nilai-nilai kebebasan, kemakmuran dan perlindungan bersama. Oleh karenanya sistem politik sekuler meliputi individu dan memiliki otonomi di setiap role-nya. Setiap orang dalam set role dilengkapi dengan otonomi dalam urusan politis, juga dalam berpendapat. Maka struktur role yang terjadi dala, grup sistem politik ini: (1) sangat beragam, (2) manifestasi, tertata, dan terbirokratisasi, (3) terkarakterisasi oleh taraf tinggi dalam fungsi-fungsi role, dan (4) cenderung memiliki difusi kekuatan dan melakukan sistem politik secara keseluruhan.

Struktur Role dalam Sistem Politik Anglo-American

Sistem Politik Praindustri

Sistem politik praindustri atau sebagian terindustrialisasi dan Westernisasi terdeskripsikan sebagai budaya politik campuran. Di sini parlemen bisa menjadi sesuatu yang lain dari parlemen, partai-partai dan grup penekan berperilaku dalam cara yang tak lazim, birokrasi dan angkatan bersenjata seringkali mendominasi sistem politik, serta terdapat atmosfer yang tidak dapat terprediksi secara keseluruhan. Karakteristik dari sistem politik ini menjadi jelas dalam analisis struktur role politik yang mana tidak terlalu berkarakter: (1)derajat rendah dalam diferensiasi, (2) derajat tinggi dalam pertukaran role, (3) merupakan campuran dari struktur role politik

Sistem Politik Totalitarian

Dalam budaya politik totalitarian terdapat kesan homogenitas, namun homogenitas tersebut bersifat sintetis. Sebab tidak ada organisasi sukarelawan dan media yang tidak dipegang oleh pusat maka tidak akan terjadi penilain terhadap jalan mana yang diterima baik dari perintah totalitarian. Maka dalam sistem politik ini terhadap adanya paksaan kekerasan yang kuat untuk mendukung berlangsungnya sistem. Banyak pengamat yang mengakui bahwa tak hany monopoli kekuatan absolut, namun juga kepastian ketidakpararelan atas segala komando yang akan dilakukan; tetapi juga memudahkan independen dictator dari bawahannya dan menjadikannya mungkin bagi pertukaran dan perubahan mendadak dalam kebijakan.

Terdapat dua karakteristik dari struktur role totalitarian ini: (1) dominansi coercive role, dan (2) ketidakstabilan fungsi power roles – birokrasi, partai, angkatan bersenjata, dan polisi rahasia.

Sistem Politik Benua Eropa

Sistem Eropa merupakan fragmentasi dari sistem politik budayanya. Berbeda dengan sistem non-Western yang merupakan campuran budaya-budaya politik yang sangat kontras satu sama lainnya, sistem Eropa pola budaya politik terkarakteristik oleh pola ketidakseimbangan perkembangan. Variasi kebudayaan mereka merupakan outcroppings dari kebudayaan-kebudayaan sebelumnya dan manifestasi politis. jadi variasi kebudayaan dari sistem Eropa, berbeda dengan non-Western, berasal dari satu akar kebudayaan yang sama dan berbagi warisan yang sama. Bisa dikatan pula bahwa sistem Eropa memiliki subkultur-subkultur politik.

Karakteristik struktur  role politik dari sistem ini berasal dari alienasi umum dari pasar politik dan tidak terdapatnya role politik indvidu sebab role terikat dalam subkultur dan mengkonstitusikan diri terpisah dari subkultur. Maka  karakteristiknya : (1) memiliki derajat yang tinggi dalam substitutabilitas roles daripada politik Anglo-Amerika dan derjar yang lebih kecil daripada sistem non-Western, (2) berpotensi adanya ancaman Caesaristic sebagaimana non-Western kendati dengan situasi dan penyebab yang berbeda.

Analisis

Kesimpulannya adalah bahwa pertumbuhan konseptual dan terminologikal dalam ilmu pengetahuan tidak bisa diacuhkan begitu saja sebagaimana pertumbuhan bahasa. Namun sebagaimana bahasa slang dan neologisme yang tidak bisa selamanya bertahan, akan begitu yang tersingkirkan dan hanya sedikit saja yang akan diterima. Dan itu penetua dari kriteria diterima atau tidaknya merupakan fasilitas yang berada di tangan pemikir masa  datang yang akan mencoba menemukan kecocokan. Masing-masing tempat memiliki karakteristik dan kebudayaan masing-masing yang tidak bisa diabaikan dalam sistem politik perbandingan

SUMBER:

—— Almond, Gabriel.1956.Comparative Political System.http://www.jstor.org/(diakses 26 September 2006)

ACTORS IN WORLD POLITIC


At the most general level, an actor in world politics has been defined as ‘any entity which plays an identifiable role in international relation’ (Evans and Nenham 1990, p.6)

This definition is so broad as even to encompass individuals. Although this inclusion is open to debate (Rossenau, 1990: Girrad, 1994), most authors reject it because the influence of individuals in international politics is most often incidental and tend 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 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 participate 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.

TYPES OF NON-STATE ACTORS

Non-state actors are non-sovereign entities that exercise significant economic, political, or social power and influence at a national, and in some cases international level.

  1. Non-Governmental Organization (NGOs). These groups are typically considered a part of civil society. A non-governmental organization is a legally constituted organization created by private organizations or people with no participation or representation of any government. In the cases in which NGOs are funded totally or partially by governments, the NGO maintains its non-governmental status in so far as it excludes government representative from membership in the organization. Example: Red Cross, Green Peace, etc.
  2. Multinational Corporation (MNCs). Multinational corporations are for profit organizations that operate in three or more sovereign states. The traditional multinational is a private company headquartered in one country and with subsidiaries in others, all operating in accordance with a coordinated global strategy to win market share and achieve cost efficiencies. A significant portion of the discussion, however, centered on the relatively recent “multi-nationalization” of state-owned enterprises, such as Russia’s arms-export monopoly Rosonboron export or Chinese oil company CNPC, which as state entities may or may not share the same incentives and goals as their private counterpart.
  3. The International Media. Example: BBC
  4. Armed Groups. Armed groups include for example rebel opposition forces, military, and warlords.
  5. Terrorist Organization. Including groups, such as Al-Qaeda. In addition to inflicting pain and damage and weakening the existing political order, terrorism, writes Hoffman, “is designed to create power where there is none or to consolidate power where there is very little. Through the publicity generated by their violence, terrorist seek to obtain the leverage, influence and power they otherwise lack to effect political change on either a local or an international scale.

As a ‘weapon weak’, terrorism is deployed by groups to gain media attention and visibility as the first step in gaining “name recognition” within the international community.

Even if acts of terrorism are universally commended, they can stimulate media coverage of an issue and provide an opening for the more moderate cause is being promotes. In this regard one must note that one of the observable outcomes of 9/ 11 has indeed been a spotlight of media attention on the Middle East and Isla, and an opening  for more moderate voices to have their grievances at least publicly considered and deliberated, to a much greater extent than had been possible prior to 9/ 10.

  1. Criminal Organization. Example of the criminal organizations is drug cartels such as the Gulf Cartel.
  2. Religious Groups. Politically active organization based on strong religious conviction.

The Quaker is quite active in their international advocacy effort and their supportive role at International conference.

  1. Transnational Diaspora communities. A Diaspora is a transnational community that defined itself as a singular ethnic group based upon its shared identity. Ethno-political groups: common nationality, language, cultural tradition, kinship ties.
  2. Certain Individuals/ Super-empowered individuals is a person who have overcome constraints, conventions, and rules to wield unique political, economic, intellectual, or cultural influence over the course of human events. They generated the most wide-raging discussion. “Archetypes” include industrialists, criminals, financiers, media moguls, celebrity activists, religious leaders, and terrorists. The ways in which they exert their influence (money, moral authority, expertise) are as varied as their fields of endeavor. As bounded by seminar participants, this category excludes political office holders (although some super empowered individuals eventually attain political office), those with heredity power, or the merely rich or famous. This includes an individual such as Victor Bout.

REALIST AND LIBERALIST

The realist perspective acknowledges the existence of non-state actors, but argues that they are peripheral to the international security environment as compared to states. Security threats emanate primarily from states and are responded to primarily by states. Power is treated as an attribute that is distributed across unitary state actors who must each prioritize their own security interest. When realist does look explicitly at the activities of non-state actors, they often view them as being mere extensions of existing configurations of state power and capabilities. The realist lens suggests a particular response is to either refocus attention on threats from states, treat violent non-state actors as proxies for state interest, or to view non-state actors as being “state-like”. The overall policy response is therefore to combat terrorism as one would combat security threats emanating from state through a military response.

In the Liberal Perspective, non-state actors have figured much more prominently in their view of the international security environment. Liberals view power as being distributed not just across state, but also embedded in other entities such as international institution and NGOs. Their view of power is multidimensional, with an emphasis on the “soft power” of economic factors or the power of ideas, in addition to military power. In this world-view, non-state actors have been largely assumed to play a stabilizing role in the international system as extensions of domestic interest groups, or as members of a global civil society that can contribute to international stability by performing tasks such as monitoring human rights violations and assisting in post-conflict reconstruction and development.

THE EFFECT OF NON-STATE ACTORS ON THE WESTPHALIAN STATE MODEL

The proliferation of non-state actors in the post-Cold War era has been one of the factors leading to the theorizing of the Cobweb paradigm in international Politics. Under this paradigm, the traditional Westphalian non-state is experiencing an erosion of power and sovereignty, and non-state actors are part of the cause. Facilitated by globalization, NSAs have challenged nation-state borders and claims to sovereignty. MNCs are not always sympathetic to home country’s or host country’s national interests, but instead loyalty is given to the corporation’s interest. NGOs are challenging the nation-state’s sovereignty over internal matters through advocacy for societal issues, human right, and the environment.

Many armed non-state actors, opposition group, that operate without state control and are involved in trans-border conflicts. The prevalence of these groups in armed conflicts has added layers of complexity to traditional conflict management and resolution. These conflicts are often fought not only between non-state actors and states, but also between non-state actors. Any attempts at intervention in such conflicts has been particularly challenging given the fact that international law and norms governing the use of force for intervention or peacekeeping purposes has been primarily written in the context of nation-state. So, the demands of non-state actors at the local and international level have further complicated international relations.

REFERENCES:

-          Rochester, Martin. J. 2002. Between Two Epochs: What’s Ahead for America, the World, and Global Politics in the Twenty First Century. NJ: Prentice Hall

-          Davies, Thomas Richard. 2007. The Possibilities of Transnational Activism: the Campaign for Disarmament between the two World War. ISBN 9789004162587

-          Stone, Diane. 2004. Transfer Agents and Global Networks in Trans-nationalization of Policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 11 (3) 2004: 545-66

-          Glasius, M; Kaldor, M; Anheier, H. 2006. Global Civil Society. London: Sage

-          Rossenau, JN. 1990. Turbulence in World Politics. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf

-          Smith, S. 1989. Paradigm Dominance in International Relation: The Development of International Relation as a Social Science, in H. C. Dyer & l. Mangaserian (eds) The Study of International Relation: The State of the Art. London: Mc Millan

-          http://docs.lib.duke.edu/igo/guides/ngo/define.htm.worldbankdefiningNGO

-          http://www.Ise.ac.uk/collections/CCS/pdf/int-work-paper.pdf(100KB)

-          http://www.intractableconlict.org