Non-State Actors: NGOs and IOs, matter in IR? Flashcards
NSA
Non-State actor
piracy and IR
start study of NSAs (which has foundations in international law)
pirates are foundational for international law and states
since 1990s increase of piracy and armed robbery at sea with increasing maritime flows
piracy is anti-sovereign -> helps define sovereignty + reach of sovereign power
e.g. NSAs
- pirates
- cyber-hackers
- terrorists
- MNCs
- International banks
- IOs (debatable)
- NGOs
- psuedo-states
definitions NSA
textbook: any actor that is not a government
focus on actors which aren’t part of government
- NGOs, MNCs, transnational militias, terrorist groups
focus on NSAs which have an impact on IR events
- influential, transnational or international actors
complications definition NSAs
what to do with:
Sub-national actors
- actors within the disaggregated state
IOs:
- intergovernmental & suprantational institutions
- independence is key (NGOs, IOs are often reliant on states and other actors for funding)
categories NSA
- INGOs
- violent NSAs (VNSAs)
- private economic actors
- ethnic/religious actors
- civil society
- pseudo/de facto/quasi-states
INGOs
International Non-Governmental Organization
IOs with some degree of autonomy
not directly dependent on the state for funding and agenda
VNSAs
- terrorist organizations, militias, paramilitary forces, insurgents, mercenary armies, warlords, pirates, drug traffickers, cyber-hacktivists
- been around for millennia
- dwarfed by state consolidation
- re-emergence in a post-cold war period
- provide and supported by noncombatant infrastructure
- can become states
private economic actors
- MNCs, trade associations, rating agencies
- not a new phenomenon: VOC, East India Company
- thrived when sovereign states were weak
- declined as global geopolitical competition increased
questions
- comeback in age of globalization?
- completely independent?
Ethnic/religous actors
- diasporas
- refugees
- religious movements
- Holy See
groups that have ethnic/religious communities that aren’t related to states/borders
civil society
transnational social movements
pseudo/de facto/quasi-state
- Somaliland
- Transnistria
- Abkhazia
- Chechnya
- Nagorno-Karabahk
- Turkish Republic of Norhtern Cyprus
have reached more autonomy, statelikeness than VNSAs
sub-national actors
debatable if they are non-state actors
Blarel doesn’t see them as non-state actors
NSAs + realism
NO, don’t matter
- except if power derived from states: proxies
- except if NSAs have aspiration to be states (act/talk like states, e.g. national interest, balancing, security dilemma)
NSAs + liberalism
Mainly don’t matter
- IOs seen as key actors
- IOs facilitate collective action
- IOs have some autonomy (principal-agent problem)
- role of NGOs, lobbies, organized interests in domestics politics
liberal internationalism: IOs as means of advancing international peace + common interests
neofunctionalism: international cooperation can lead to political integration (cooperation spills over)
*neofunctionalism abandoned in the 70s: regional integration and world government didn’t function as predicted
NSAs + constructivism
- NSAs as norm entrepreneurs
- NSAs as ideological, social movements, identity movements
NSAs + marxism
dominant transnational economic interests
(marxism = theory that emphasizes non-state actors: classes, not states)
NSAs control state and IOs agenda
IOs help construct and reproduce the global capitalist system + advance capitalist interests
NSAs + critical theories
distinction(s) are problematic
mind the stateless within, outside and beyond the state: marginalized matter even if not ‘‘subjects’’ of IR, IL, IOs
questions and debate NSAs
IR still state-centered
vacuum of power/governance in certain regions, issue areas: opportunities for NSAs
- e.g. climate action: states aren’t doing enough (UN pushes national debates)
varying actors with different objectives, strategies, actions relationships with states
increasingly subjects of IR (rights and responsibilities, theories of IR are applicable under some conditions)
Hybrid governance: multiple actors have authority over certain areas of governance
hybrid international organizations
IOs that also have non-state actors in their decision-making structure
- e.g. ILO and ISO
emanation
way for IOs to be formed: members of a pre-exiting IO can vote in favor to establish a ‘‘spin off’’ IO
PIU
Public International Union
apolitical technical organizations created to devise solutions to differing standards among states
Why are IOs important?
- once established, they tend to endure
- activities of IOs increasingly affect countless aspects of individuals’ lives, reaching down into domestic political processes in ways they never have before
- affect how states respond to complex issues including regional and international stability
informal multilateralism
states meet as groups, rather than creating a permanent structure in which they establish rules and procedures for their interactions (e.g. G7, G20)
- not established by an international treaty, no permanent secretariat, no headquarters
benefits:
- quick decisions
- change direction as circumstances warrant
- avoid being bound by international pledges
- not having to ratify agreements domestically
IOs + principle-agent model
principle = member states
- agent = IOs
agents have been empowered to act on behalf of the principles
- agency slack = IO may shirk its activities
- agency slippage = IO redirects efforts to its own preferred activities rather than meet the preferences of its principles
NGO
non-governmental organization
independent from states, aspirations to work for the common good rather than for profit
don’t have international legal personality
*identities aren’t fixed: socially constructed and shaped both by the organizations themselves and their environment
TNC
transnational company
work for profit
TSMO
transnational social movement organizations
- informal coalitions of mass publics, individuals and organizations dedicated to social change
- no formal structure
how do different actors work together?
MSDs
- TNCs, states and TNGOs participate together in multi-stakeholder dialogues
PPPs
- TNGOs, states and TNCs cooperate in public-private partnerships
*PPP offers TNC reputation effects
*cooperation with TNCs can be costly for TNGOs (loss of independence and credibility)
for-profit TNGO
professionalization (permanent staff instead of volunteers) +
commercialization (e.g. branding or selling merchandise to generate income)
TAN
transnational advocacy network
- compose out of TNGOs, but sometimes also other actors
- amplify the voices of weaker organizations, enable TNGOs to engage in a division of labor
- participants often disagree over strategy (e.g. through state institutions or not)
- TANs frequently exhibit and reinforce power asymmetries between gatekeeper NGOs (resource rich, often from the global west) and follower NGOs (mostly from the global south)
phases of INGO engagement at the international level
(don’t memorize)
- Emergence (18th century)
- Engagement (interwar period, within the network of the League of Nations)
- Disengagement (world war)
- Formalization (establishment UN + recognition TNGOs)
- Underachievement (cold war)
- Intensification (arms control and environmental problems)
- Empowerment (from the 1990s to now)
TNGOs and IR
understudied until the mid-1970s
changed since the end of the cold war: came to the center of IR
TNGO consultative status
some IOs offer TNGOs consultative status
- UN
has to be treated with care:
- subject to politicization
- rules of access have been moulded and augmented by informal practices
- rules don’t apply equally to all UN bodies, nor do they guarantee access across the policy cycle for all TNGOs (role mostly in the agenda-setting phase)
- not all TNGOs are capable of maintaining a continuous presence at the UN
how do NSAs make their voices heard
- information politics
- symbolic politics
- leverage politics
- naming and shaming
- accountability politics (ensure that actors hold their commitments by monitoring)
