Deliberations on state and non-state actors begin by putting a clear line between the two and further coming up with an example of each, for the purpose of this study. To begin with, state actors are people who act in a capacity that indicates that they do so on behalf of government. This means that state actors have to act within the law and therefore the law prohibits them from infringing certain rights when they act in such positions. Following such an understanding, the state actor in this case in the U.S government. Conversely, non-state actors are individuals who do not draw their influence from any state or government an example of which is ISIS (Murray & Kumar, 2016). However, it is important to note that such individuals command influence on political fronts thus making them essential for the discussion (Fukukawa et al., 2014). Further matters of interest to look at are the links between global challenges and geopolitical influence, similarities and differences of influences as well as security issues that shape globalization.
Geopolitical shifts are definitely having significant global implications for example on matters economics. The U.S government has for quite some time been showing immense economic growth. However, China is constantly narrowing that gap, which raises concerns on the balance of power with regard to global economy. Besides China, other countries such as Brazil and Turkey have joined the pursuit of economic advancement. This has had serious implications on NGOs that operate within the different countries that are showing such economic rivalry. As Clarke & Leach (2015) indicate, the UK ceased sending funds to India, probably due to the economic growth that India is indicating. This has however led the NGOs to seek support from the private sector while at the same time viewing that the new economic powers are beginning to support fellow countries.
In trying to define the similarities and differences of influences of state and non-state actors, it is first important to examine the influences of each. One of the non-state actors, ISIS, has led to serious globalization and geopolitical influences as the group continues to further their agendas (Parkes, 2016). Through activities such as murder and use of powerful weapons, ISIS continues to threaten the peace of people around the world. ISIS has continued to influence places such as Turkey, Iran, Syria and Iraq thus causing economic shakeups. The difference with state actors such as the US government is that while non-state actors look to disrupt peace pursuing their radical beliefs, state actors are still putting forward policies and agendas to enhance peace (Ogbonnaya, 2013). However, there is still a huge similarity between the state and non-state actors with relation to economic instability as both have posed significant threats to the balance of power.
It is pertinent to examine the security considerations that actors such as the US government and the United Nations are making with relation to globalization efforts. For example, what such actors decide on tackling terrorism ought to have a direct impact on globalization owing to the fact that this would be targeted towards non-state actors such as ISIS that have political influence as well (Oludimu, 2014). Direct attacks on ISIS, for example, on leads to retaliation that has affected the public and crippling globalization. There have been cases of bombings and kidnapping of journalists that ISIS and other radical groups propagate in response to security meaning that it is impossible to undermine security policies.
