Nonviolence beyond the state: International NGOs and local nonviolent mobilization

Abstract

Studies of nonviolence have taught us much about what makes nonviolence successful, emphasizing the importance of local circumstance and strategy. Little attention has been given to the effect of ties with international organizations on nonviolence: that is, how the embeddedness of local actors in global networks shapes nonviolent mobilization. In this article, a world society framework is applied with the objective of understanding the transnational factors shaping local nonviolent mobilization. Through global and historical models exploring political, economic, and cultural factors, it is found that: first, the global integration and structure of the nation-state is an important and significant factor in shaping the emergence of nonviolent movements; second, integration into global civil society networks significantly increases the likelihood for large-scale nonviolent resistance; and third, ties to a specialized network of nonviolent organizations significantly shape the path toward nonviolence over violent means of resistance.

Exploring transterranean activism as a research site beyond local protest sites

“…That is mirrored by social movements themselves frequently doing so, e.g., through pro-migrant activism or environmental activism transcending state borders as well as areas of immediate state control on land. Research on transnational movements (Gallo-Cruz, 2019; Smith et al, 1998, 2017; Tilly and Brooks, 2005), translocality and translocal geographies (Brickell and Datta, 2011; Freitag and von Oppen, 2010; Greiner and Sakdapolrak, 2013; McFarlane, 2009), digital spaces as sites of protests (AlSayyad and Guvenc, 2015; Bennett and Segerberg, 2012; Melgaço and Monaghan, 2018), and on protests challenging borders and boundaries of the nation state (Ataç et al, 2018; Rigby and Schlembach, 2013; Monforte, 2016) raises doubts over juxtapositions of the nation state and activists. Similarly, another line of research has called into question the unified nation state as an actor (Migdal, 1988; Migdal and Schlichte, 2016), instead opting to analyse multiple societal and statal actors forming alliances and conducting contentions within political arenas (Goldstone, 2015; Jasper, 2015a, 2015b).…”