Transnational Civil Society and Advocacy in World Politics

Abstract

This article takes stock of a plethora of recent works examining the flowering of transnational civil society activism in world politics. The author argues that this work contributes to a progressive research agenda that responds to a succession of criticisms from alternative perspectives. As the research program has advanced, new areas of inquiry have been opened up, including the need for a central place for normative international theory. The author also contends that the focus of this research on the transnationalization of civil society provides a trenchant response to an important puzzle concerning the leverage of civil society vis-à-vis the contemporary state in an era of globalization. Further, the liberal variant of transnational advocacy research constitutes a powerful theoretical counter not only to other nonliberal theories that privilege other agents or structures but also to other varieties of contemporary liberal international theory, such as those privileging preexisting domestic preference formation or state centric versions of liberal constructivism.

Vetting the Advocacy Agenda: Network Centrality and the Paradox of Weapons Norms

“…Antipersonnel landmines have historically been used to fortify areas held by the defense or to channel opposing troops into specific targeting areas+ 49+ See Rutherford 2000;Price 1997;Cameron 1998;Gwozdecky and Sinclair 2001;andHubert 2000+ 50+ Klotz 1996+ However, it became increasingly clear over the past few decades that the weapons, which often sit in the ground undetonated long after conflicts end, pose a significant risk to civilian populations, affecting their ability to make use of land for farming or transport, and causing deaths, mutilations, and psychosocial traumas+ 54 The founding meeting for the ICBL took place at HRW's offices; HRW was one of six founding members of the campaign, which later began to function as a network node in its own right+ 55 The early adoption by a powerful human rights NGO played a crucial role in professionalizing the movement, providing activists access to funding and global political centers, and reframing landmines from a security issue to a human rights and humanitarian law concern+ 56 The proliferation of the mine ban issue through global civil society and among governments-an issue that had festered for two decades-happened rapidly after 51+ Cameron,Lawson,and Of these 1,200, however, a small number of nonstate organizations appears to have been predominantly involved in affecting the negotiations, and these were the organizations most centrally connected to the human rights and humanitarian law machinery of world politics+ Hubert writes: "Fundamental to the success of the landmines campaign was the effective working relationship between the ICBL and other crucial non-state actors+ In analyses to date, the importance of the ICRC and UN agencies as partners in the campaign has received insufficient attention+" 60 With its special role and diplomatic access, both the ICRC and UN agencies such as UNICEF and the UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs UNDHA! took a leading role among nonstate organizations+ 61 Beyond these key players, while 400 NGOs attended the Ottawa Conference, the active participation of NGOs in the discussion was highly centralized through the ICBL+ Short argues, "The ICBL did not function entirely as a coalition of 1,000 organizations but rather as a single, homogenous bargaining voice with a unitary position+"…”

Strategies of transnational advocacy networks for Brazilian foreign policy: an introduction

“…The book is a seminal, interdisciplinary work on transnational advocacy networks and puts into perspective the role of these actors in influencing the foreign policy decision-making processes around the world and changing violating Human Rights practices. Other important contributions that will shape this section should be mentioned: the work of Richard Price (2003), that does an extensive literature review on the role of transnational civil society advocacy in world politics; the essay by Hans Peter Schmitz (2010) that looks to "open the black box" of advocacy networks and explore their internal debates; and the work of Robert Charles Blitt (2004) on Human Rights NGOs' regulation. Keck and Sikkink (1998) call networks motivated by shared principles and values, transnational advocacy networks.…”

From coastal timber supply area to Great Bear Rainforest: exploring power in a social–ecological governance innovation.

“…Several scholars have described the types of power employed by actor groups as they engage in governance activities (Cutler 1999, Price 2003, Fuchs 2005, but these tend to be discussed as distinct from a governance transformation process. Within the literature on social and policy transformations, Avelino and Rotmans (2009) attempted to develop a framework that conceived of power as a capacity of agents to interact with material and immaterial resources in the system, thus emphasizing what power enables actors to "do."…”

“…Expanding on the four components of Barnett and Duvall's (2005) taxonomy of power: (1) "Compulsory power" involves a direct, intentional interaction between specific actors and the deployment of resources to achieve a specific goal. Resources may be material, but also may be symbolic or normative, as in, for example, the resources marshaled by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to "name and shame" states and corporations into altering their policies (Khagram et al 2002, Price 2003, Betsill and Corell 2008. "Institutional power" involves individual actors controlling others indirectly through rules and procedures.…”