While Waltz might not appreciate such a refinement of his paradigm, there is no reason why a worthy non-state actor should not be considered a legitimate unit of the global political structure nor any reason why the advent of such non-state units should spell the end of the nation-state system.
Furthermore, when attempting to characterize an actor or a trend within global politics as a "new force" based on the three aforementioned guidelines, one should be careful not to approach these guidelines as historically based absolutes, the violation or preservation of which unequivocally signals or denies fundamental change. The history of the nation-state system has known no era in which states were the sole institutional forms nor in which the line between international and domestic politics was absolute nor in which a state was immune to any sort of international pressure. These standards should be approached as just that, standards, benchmarks from which discourse may be fostered, tools with which one may begin to analyze the nature of global politics.
Now that the idea of change has been addressed, it is time to look at a few examples of international actors and trends which may or may not be characterized as legitimately new forces.
Without a doubt, the most highly publicized potentially new force in the world today is terrorism. From the incidents of 9/11 to the train station bombing in Madrid to what is currently being referred to as terrorism on the part of Iraqi, one cannot escape the impact which this disturbing trend has had on the world. Many scholars attribute the recent proliferation of terrorist activities to a kind of "new terrorism" which they claim has emerged. .
Proponents of the theory of a "new terrorism" cite a number of factors as evidence for their claim. Their primary claim is based on an alleged change in the organizational structures of terrorist groups.