How can we determine why actors do what they do?

In the lecture this week, the question was posed about why actions are taken. International actors may act for a variety of reasons. Sovereign states with little interest in cooperation may act based on their benefit alone without any regard for others. They may also act in coordination with other states for their mutual benefit. The basis of this decision could be a variety of things.

Values, beliefs and culture may drive an actor to move based on the overall ideas embedded in society or individually. On the other hand, rationally calculated decisions may be made either selfishly so that the actor benefits with maximum gains despite the cost to others, or with the interests of other actors in mind.

I would agree with Olivia B that the UK may fall under the category of both a sovereign actor with impermeable boundaries as well as a sovereign actor with permeable boundaries. It participates in the European Union, which is more like an empire more than a sovereign state.

On the other hand, the United States acts more like a sovereign state acting in its own interest than anything. The United States does help in humanitarian missions worldwide, but this is also a parochial interest, because this is part of the "identity" of the United States. It is what the United States has made its role on the world stage.

Why each of these particular countries, or any sovereign states in general, act in the way that they act is entirely subjective. The scholars of international relations have posed many theories.