Assessing the Small Arms Movement: The trials and tribulations of a transnational network

Grillot, Suzette R.; Stapley, Craig S.; Hanna, Molly E.

doi:10.1080/13523260600602354

Cited by 19 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In 1998 they formed the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) in order to raise public awareness and lobby for SALW regulation (Garcia, 2004, pp. 27–33; Grillot et al, 2006, p. 71; Krause, 2001, pp. 18–19).…”

Section: The Global Salw Campaign and Arms Trade Treaty Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are a variety of possible reasons for this lack of clarity about what the ATT is even as it comes closer to fruition. Key challenges lie in ‘the complexity of the problem and the complexity of the solutions’ (Grillot et al, 2006, p. 69). It is generally difficult to develop international legal instruments in the face of ‘problem diversity’– when an issue ‘is actually many distinct problems – each with its own attributes, administrative challenges, and distinctive political constituencies’ (Keohane and Victor, 2011, p. 13).…”

Section: Challenges Facing the Arms Trade Treaty Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Beyond the complexity of the issue and the nature of the opposition, the very structure of the campaign itself – diffuse, fragmented, globalized – may contribute a lack of clarity and specificity. Grillot et al (2006) note that research on global progressive campaigns often fails to look ‘inside’ the network, focusing instead on a network’s ‘external relations’ with other groups. They argue that network ‘structure affects impact’ (Grillot et al, 2006, p. 60) and distinguish between the centralized and coordinated ‘spider‐web’ structure of the landmine campaign and the fragmented and diffuse ‘honeycomb’ structure of the SALW campaign (Grillot et al, 2006, pp.…”

Section: Challenges Facing the Arms Trade Treaty Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…70–71; also Hubert, 2000, p. 53). They suggest that the weaker ties and non‐hierarchical structure derive from the complexity of the SALW issue and function to ‘ease tensions’ between the campaign’s diverse members (Grillot et al, 2006, pp. 64, 70).…”

Section: Challenges Facing the Arms Trade Treaty Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Globalization and the Kalashnikov: Public–Private Networks in the Trafficking and Control of Small Arms

Bolton¹,

Sakamoto²,

Griffiths³

2012

Global Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article will show how trends of globalization have transformed both the proliferation of and efforts to control small arms and light weapons (SALW). We first examine how the distribution of small arms has become more diffused, moving away from a state‐centric model of ‘arms transfers’ to circulations of SALW through outsourced networks comprising a myriad of public and private actors. We then show how the post‐Cold War international environment has allowed progressive norm entrepreneurs like middle powers and NGOs greater voice in determining SALW policy. Simultaneously, however, it has also allowed great power states and defense companies to benefit from the legitimacy of associating with human rights groups, ‘capturing’ the SALW policy process, particularly the Arms Trade Treaty, in a way that protects their interests. Efforts to transfer, exchange and control small arms and light weapons are thus indicative of wider global political processes in which power is diffused through multilayered networks and complexes. Exploring the policy implications, we argue that these networks enable actors to augment their power and capacity through alliances with other agents, but simultaneously constrain their scope of action and ability to control the process. This makes it more difficult for actors representing the public interest to override those acting in private or particularist interests. Policy Implications Globalization makes it more difficult for those making policy in the public interest to constrain and resist capture by private interests, or to control the direction of the process when there are many actors involved. Therefore: Global policy success requires a thorough understanding of how to navigate and operate in multilevel, multi‐actor, multinational and multi‐scale networks. Global policy makers and activists need to become increasingly familiar with operating strategically in networks and complexes of public and private actors, selecting allies and contractors who share values and interests that are consistent with the intended policy outcomes. A smaller, more coherent campaign network can sometimes be more effective and mobilize more strategically than a broad‐based, diffused coalition. Rather than focusing simply on state‐centric treaties, global policy making around multifaceted issues like SALW proliferation may be better served by created multilayered ‘regime complexes’, incorporating a network of mutually reinforcing institutions, norms, treaties, programs, embargoes and campaigns.

show abstract

Section: The Global Salw Campaign and Arms Trade Treaty Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Challenges Facing the Arms Trade Treaty Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Challenges Facing the Arms Trade Treaty Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Challenges Facing the Arms Trade Treaty Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Globalization and the Kalashnikov: Public–Private Networks in the Trafficking and Control of Small Arms

Bolton¹,

Sakamoto²,

Griffiths³

2012

Global Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In other words, the campaign 'never found the single normative principle required to build an international consensus and guide its long-term action' (Grillot et al 2006;interview 17;interview 18;Karp 2002: 182). In other words, the campaign 'never found the single normative principle required to build an international consensus and guide its long-term action' (Grillot et al 2006;interview 17;interview 18;Karp 2002: 182).…”

Section: The Low Density Of Network Tiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Organizational structure and strength and transnational campaign outcomes: a comparison of two transnational advocacy networks

Shawki¹

2010

Global Networks

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article I address the question of why some transnational advocacy networks (TANs) are better able to influence policy outcomes than others. How do we explain the variation in the political impact of TAN campaigns? Drawing on some of the theoretical formulations developed by social movement and international relations scholars, I argue that organizational structure and organizational strength can help us understand this variation. A comparison of a highly influential and successful TAN, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, with a less successful TAN, the International Action Network on Small Arms, demonstrates that such networks can mobilize a large number of diverse civil society groups. However, a coherent and well‐coordinated campaign with a clear political message provides the major explanation as to why some TANs are more likely to shape the global policy process than others.

show abstract

Humanitarian Disarmament and the Era of Disarmament Without Disarmament

Cooper

2021

The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Peace and Conflict Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assessing the Small Arms Movement: The trials and tribulations of a transnational network

Cited by 19 publications

References 0 publications

Globalization and the Kalashnikov: Public–Private Networks in the Trafficking and Control of Small Arms

Globalization and the Kalashnikov: Public–Private Networks in the Trafficking and Control of Small Arms

Organizational structure and strength and transnational campaign outcomes: a comparison of two transnational advocacy networks

Humanitarian Disarmament and the Era of Disarmament Without Disarmament

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About