Decolonisation and Environmentalism: Bringing the Winds of Change to Global Environmental History

Intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and international institutions have proliferated since the end of World War II. This development has changed the landscape of international relations not only for states, but also for nongovernmental organizations and social movements. The advocacy of international nongovernmental organizations (INGO) plays a central role in pushing IGOs and their member states toward action. INGOs’ success in doing so depends on a number of factors, opportunity prime among them. Political opportunity structures (the institutional arrangements and resources available for political and social mobilization) determine lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) INGO access to power holders and thus their chances of bringing their concerns, and possible solutions to those concerns, to IGOs. The opportunity structures vary significantly from one IGO to the next. For example, the political opportunity structure offered by the European Union (EU) has been favorable to LGBT activism, while the United Nations is much less open to comprehensive inclusion of LGBT and sexual orientation, gender identity, and expression (SOGIE) human rights. As LGBT issues move onto an IGO’s agenda, a symbiotic relationship develops between the IGO and advocacy organizations. The changing opportunity structures influence NGOs’ structure, strategy, and resource mobilization. Coordination between advocacy groups with similar goals becomes easier when many organizations have physical offices at IGOs. For diplomats and bureaucrats working at the IGO or national representative offices, INGOs can be beneficial, too. In particular, advocacy organizations are experts and purveyors of information. However, the interdependence between INGOs and IGOs has the potential of silencing voices that do not neatly fit into the internationalist, liberal rights-based discourse. Besides the political opportunity structures in IGOs, the frames INGOs use to advocate for issues have been found to be essential for campaign success. One tactic that often constitutes successful framing is the grafting of issues to existing norms. In the LGBT context, the frames proposed by activists include human rights, health (specifically HIV­-AIDS), and women and gender. International institutions assure that similar issues will be politicized in multiple countries. In order to meaningfully affect domestic populations, the policy needs to translate to the local level through norm diffusion. The mechanisms of diffusion include material inducement (e.g., conditions for membership), learning, and acculturation and socialization.

It has been determined that intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) play a key role in the international system, in the process of globalization they are gaining increasing importance. It has been pointed out that in recent decades there has been a large number of intergovernmental organizations that focus on diverse areas such as economics, education, culture, security, health and the environment, political science, and many others. Detailed information on intergovernmental organizations from 300 countries and territories, including intergovernmental and international non-governmental organizations (INGOs), contains the Yearbook of International Organizations, the Yearbook of International Organizations. It has been determined that most of the IGOs were created for economic purposes, namely, regulation of trade, financial markets and development projects. Based on the data of the Yearbook of international organizations, the distribution of the number of IGOs by types (B, C, D, E, F and G) and the main interests (security, economy, health and environment) are analyzed. It is proved that the number of IGOs, which are mainly focused on economic activity, is the largest in all types of organizations. It is indicated that in recent years, intergovernmental organizations have implemented the latest concepts of storage and analysis of statistical information in the form of databases that use innovative, promising technical software tools for their implementation. The available information resources of intergovernmental organizations are generalized and systematized, the main components of selected statistical databases are described.

As intergovernmental organizations (IOs) have grown in number and influence, there has been an increase in calls for their accountability, not just to governments but also toward the general public. One of the principal ways they can improve their accountability is by becoming more transparent, that is, offering more information to the public. Over the past decade, some IOs have adopted official policies and changed their practices concerning public access to information, while others have not. This study asks which IOs are likely to be transparent. To answer this question, it derives several hypotheses based on the existing international relations literature as well as the literature explaining government transparency in the domestic realm. The hypotheses focus on the roles of the principal actors affecting access-to-information from IOs: member states, IO bureaucracies and international nongovernmental organizations. This study tests these hypotheses across 72 IOs by using three newly developed measures of transparency. It finds that some of the main factors that explain IO transparency are analogous to those that have affected government transparency at the domestic level.

Enhancing public health and safety against biological threats arising from natural or man‐made causes is an overwhelming challenge for traditional governance structures. The rapid advances in the life sciences—although clearly bringing enormous benefits to public health—similarly raise concerns among governments, scientists and the public about potential risks and abuse. As seen in the 2003 SARS outbreak, increased transnational activities in trading, tourism and, in particular, air travel now allow infectious diseases to spread around the world in days. Ethical limits, owing to advances in such areas as genomics and stem‐cell research, are perceived to be under pressure. Similarly, security experts find it difficult to assess the potential implications of biological research, be it deliberate misuse by terrorists and government‐run weapons programmes or a lack of awareness by individual scientists. What is needed is an international and multidisciplinary effort to assess in full the risks involved and to identify methods to manage biological risks effectively. Communicating the results of risk assessment in a balanced and objective way is of equal importance, to ensure that public confidence in science is not undermined, and that sensible and practical regulations are developed and implemented where needed. Moreover, such an effort must be conducted at an international level with active participation—if not leadership—from the scientific community. The International Council for the Life Sciences (ICLS; Washington, DC, USA) was created specifically to help achieve this objective. The full spectrum of biological risks, ranging from emerging infectious disease to premeditated misuse, represents an urgent and global challenge for governments and intergovernmental organizations (Fig 1). Life‐science research and its commercial exploitation are essentially international in nature. They bring important benefits to medicine, public health, the food industry, agriculture and industrial processes; at the same time, potential risks to public safety and security from deliberate misuse or negligence are …

Response to Syria's health crisis—poor and uncoordinated

Vision Zero is a term mainly connected to road traffic safety and has its roots in the Swedish road safety policy, although similar concepts are used in other countries. It was adopted by the Swedish Parliament in 1997, and due to the success of lowering the number of deaths in traffic crashes significantly, it has become an inspiration to road safety strategies in countries and cities all over the world. An important factor as to why Vision Zero diffuses is the incorporation of the vision in reports and strategies from international intergovernmental organizations and through the work of nongovernmental organizations. The development of finding a common global strategy for road safety has been an ongoing process for many years, and the purpose of this chapter is to map the role of Vision Zero in this global development process. This is performed by studying the integration of Vision Zero in the road safety work and strategies of key international intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations. The chapter also contains an account of possible opportunities and advantages of working with Vision Zero as a tool on the global level as well as the criticism towards the approach. This chapter discusses the content of what is being diffused, why it is diffused, who is diffusing, and how it is diffusing. The material consists of key global policy documents and 29 semi-structured interviews with senior experts working with road safety on a global level. The main conclusions are that Vision Zero is a well-established global road safety policy program and a road safety philosophy integrated into both the work and texts of the major intergovernmental organizations working with road safety. There is a widespread opinion that Vision Zero and other safe system approaches constitute a paradigm shift in global road safety work. It is regarded as an innovative and inspiring policy based primarily on its ethical approach. It is also regarded as a coherent policy program and rests firmly upon years of progress and experience. Even though many of the respondents are positive towards the ethical base and the systematic approach, there are still those who argue that Vision Zero cannot be used as a policy tool, at least not in low- and middle-income countries. It is obvious that Vision Zero is not interpreted and reproduced in the same way in all contexts, but the question is if that is part of a natural transformation process leading to new interpretations or if it is a problem for the Vision Zero trademark.

Vision Zero is a term mainly connected to road traffic safety and has its roots in the Swedish road safety policy, although similar concepts are used in other countries. It was adopted by the Swedish Parliament in 1997, and due to the success of lowering the number of deaths in traffic crashes significantly, it has become an inspiration to road safety strategies in countries and cities all over the world. An important factor as to why Vision Zero diffuses is the incorporation of the vision in reports and strategies from international intergovernmental organizations and through the work of nongovernmental organizations. The development of finding a common global strategy for road safety has been an ongoing process for many years, and the purpose of this chapter is to map the role of Vision Zero in this global development process. This is performed by studying the integration of Vision Zero in the road safety work and strategies of key international intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations. The chapter also contains an account of possible opportunities and advantages of working with Vision Zero as a tool on the global level as well as the criticism towards the approach. This chapter discusses the content of what is being diffused, why it is diffused, who is diffusing, and how it is diffusing. The material consists of key global policy documents and 29 semi-structured interviews with senior experts working with road safety on a global level. The main conclusions are that Vision Zero is a well-established global road safety policy program and a road safety philosophy integrated into both the work and texts of the major intergovernmental organizations working with road safety. There is a widespread opinion that Vision Zero and other safe system approaches constitute a paradigm shift in global road safety work. It is regarded as an innovative and inspiring policy based primarily on its ethical approach. It is also regarded as a coherent policy program and rests firmly upon years of progress and experience. Even though many of the respondents are positive towards the ethical base and the systematic approach, there are still those who argue that Vision Zero cannot be used as a policy tool, at least not in low- and middle-income countries. It is obvious that Vision Zero is not interpreted and reproduced in the same way in all contexts, but the question is if that is part of a natural transformation process leading to new interpretations or if it is a problem for the Vision Zero trademark.

While recent concepts from the sociology of science stress novel sites of knowledge production (e.g. government, industry), they ignore international organizations’ (IOs) growing research capacity. Conversely, prevailing theories of IOs stress their regulative and normative influence in national policymaking, equally neglecting their scientific work. Using bibliometric data for a large sample of 1325 international organizations, this work examines, for the first time, the evolution of scientific output from international intergovernmental research organizations, intergovernmental organizations, and nongovernmental organizations in the period 1950–2015. The analysis finds a striking increase in scientific activity since the late 1980s and particularly since the early 2000s across organizational types, sectors (e.g. law, nutrition), research fields (e.g. life science, social sciences), output formats (e.g. articles, books), and geographic areas. Indeed, some of these organizations are among the most productive science producers worldwide. Additional analyses of IOs’ research collaborations suggest strong cross-organizational diversity reflecting wider trends of scientific internationalization and integration. The article argues that IOs’ scientization requires a thorough revision of theories of institutional change in science and research systems and of theories about the nature and role of IOs. These organizations reflect, and, indeed, spearhead, wider trends of the rationalization of social order and evidence-based global governance.

The growth in the number and activities of NGOs has not been confined within the boundaries of nation states. In 1993 only 48 NGOs had consultative status at the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). Now, according to Clark et al., tens of thousands of NGOs participate ‘in new ways’ especially in ‘world conference processes’ (Clark et al. in Wilkinson 2005: 295). The creation of the structural adjustment programme review initiative (SAPRI) has led to hundreds of civil society organisations (CSOs) joining with the World Bank in reviewing the impact of its policies (Scholte 2004: 211–33). World membership of international NGOs (INGOs) rose from 148, 501 in 1990 to 255, 432 in 2000 (Anheier et al. 2001: 4–5), and the number and range of, and participation at, global NGO conferences rose rapidly. In 1972 fewer than 300 delegates attended the Stockholm Conference on the Environment. In 1992 1,400 attended the Rio Earth Summit (Clark et al. in Wilkinson 2005: 295) and 130,000 attended the World Social Forum at Mumbai in 2004 (Wainwright in Anheier et al. 2005: 94–115). It is now common for NGOs to hold ‘parallel conferences’ when inter-governmental organisations (IGOs) hold their conferences, with a view to monitoring and lobbying the official bodies (Clark et al. in Wilkinson 2005: 297). It is estimated that there are now over 5,000 world congresses of NGOs every year (Keane 2003: 5).

An integral part of the international legal functioning of international organizations is their participation in civil and economic relations. Participation of international organizations, both intergovernmental and non-governmental, in international relations of powerless character has a certain specificity and raises a number of theoretical and practical issues. An international organization in such relations is a foreign element, the presence of which qualifies relations as international private relations. The volume and types of private transactions involving international organizations vary. On the one hand, all international organizations in order to ensure their daily activities come into private-law relations with the host country, in particular, about the communication (postal, telephone, cellular, et al.), stationery and other products or equipment, utilities consumption and t. e., on the other - organizations implement their statutory capacity through participation in international private law relations. There are number scientific researches devoted to these issues, in particular of V. Barbin, V. Kanashevsky and E. Shilina. In international relations, private international organizations act as legal entities. Usually these organizations acquire the specified status from the registration of their statutes or the roster of legal entities in the State of the location of their headquarters. Often, in the absence of regulations in the statutes of specialized agencies of the UN concerning their status in private law relations, only their active practice of involving into private transactions suggests that they act as legal entities. Regarding the international organizations the same issues arise concerning participation in private law relations of legal persons, of which the definition legal capacity goes beyond the law of one state. International organizations are the main type of international legal persons. The very concept of "international organization" covers both international intergovernmental and international non-governmental organizations. Both the first and second are the special subjects of law, they can only participate in the legal relationship defined by goals and objectives for which they were created, and the relevant statute. Typical international legal persons are an international intergovernmental organization, their participation in the relations of private character differs established practice. Regulation of the legal status of international intergovernmental organizations comes under the Vienna Convention on the Representation of States in their Relations with International Organizations of a Universal character (1975), the Law of Treaties (1986), the Convention on the legal status, privileges and immunities of intergovernmental organizations operating in specific areas of cooperation (1980). In turn, a special international agreement concluded between States Parties of international intergovernmental organization is its charter, which can fix the status of organization as a legal entity. Participation of the intergovernmental organization in international relations of a private nature entails the need for a regulation by complex set of rules. Such a complex may contains rules of public international law, international organizations and certain rules of national law. At the same time, taking into account the specifics, the conclusion of agreements with international intergovernmental organizations is considered prestigious, profitable and responsible act for many persons of private law. The same prestigious are economic relations with international non-governmental organizations, whose participation in international private law relations, in turn, entails significantly fewer complications.

International nongovernmental organizations (INGOs) are growing in both numbers and influence around the world. INGOs range wildly in scope, size, membership, and home location. Examples of INGOs include Greenpeace, Human Rights Watch, and Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF; also known as Doctors Without Borders). INGOs have increasingly been involved in the policymaking and the policy process. Domestically, INGOs have access to policymakers and work to influence policy through lobbying efforts and information campaigns. Internationally, INGOs often work with intergovernmental organizations and donor agencies and can have tremendous sway in certain policy domains. Recent works have linked INGO efforts to changes in trade and investment patterns and decisions about humanitarian interventions, economic sanctions, and aid allocation. INGOs are defined and situated in the international system. The causal mechanisms connecting INGO activities to foreign policy decisions and decision-making are outlined and situated into the larger theoretical literature on foreign policy. The ways in which INGOs have been impacted by foreign policy decisions are explored, especially recent efforts by states to limit the work of foreign INGOs within their borders. There is a need for further research and data collection on INGOs and for more work on how INGOs interact with other actors in the foreign policy arena.

rticle III of the Antarctic Treaty provides, inter alia, that “to the greatest extent feasible and practicable” information regarding plans for scientific programs and scientific observations and results from Antarctica are to be exchanged and made freely available. In implementation of this article, every encouragement is to be given to establishing cooperative working relations with United Nations specialized agencies and other international organizations having a scientific or technical interest in Antarctica.1 Thus, from the beginning, and anchored in the treaty itself, was the concept that there was a role for international organizations having a scientific or technical interest in Antarctica, both nongovernmental and intergovernmental organizations. Nongovernmental organizations are generally created by private persons or groups with no participation or representation by governments. They may raise funds privately and may also receive funds from governments, often for specific projects. Intergovernmental organizations generally include as members sovereign states or other intergovernmental organizations. National academies of science are often chartered, and largely funded, by governments but operate as and are considered nongovernmental. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) is an interdisciplinary committee of the International Council for Science (ICSU), which, in turn, is a nongovernmental body made up of national scientific members (often national academies of science) and international scientific unions. At the First Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) in Canberra in 1961, the parties adopted two measures that confirmed this role. Recommendation IIV recognized that SCAR’s recommendations concerning scientific programs and cooperation were “a most valuable contribution” to international scientific cooperation in Antarctica” and that SCAR should be encouraged to continue its advisory work. Recommendation IV recommended that governments encourage the work of international organizations having a scientific or technical interest in Antarctica and was not limited in its reference only to intergovernmental bodies. Nevertheless, the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) could not be considered open to outside bodies during its first years, although SCAR’s advice and influence continued to play a prominent role.2 The first opening of Antarctic Treaty Public Participation in Antarctica: The Role of Nongovernmental and Intergovernmental Organizations

The Elusive Sources of Legitimacy Beliefs: Civil Society Views of International Election Observers

In recent decades, civil society organizations (CSOs) have ostensibly attained increased access to the United Nations (UN) and other intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and, in turn, increased opportunities for collaboration with IGOs. However, in most cases, CSO access to IGOs remains limited and highly regimented. Little scholarship has been undertaken to examine barriers to effective CSO–IGO collaborations. Virtually, no empirical research has examined the degree or nature of the interaction between the UN and international civil society via the dynamic of the flagship programme designed to facilitate such collaborations—the consultative status framework. This exploratory study partially addresses the latter gap in the scholarship by undertaking a qualitative macro-scale examination of CSOs within the UN Economic and Social Council’s (ECOSOC) consultative status programme, the primary vehicle in the UN–civil society dynamic. Specifically, the study sought to identify barriers to UN–civil society collaboration within the consultative status programme as perceived by participating CSOs. Findings of a survey sent to a random sample of 10% of CSOs holding UN–ECOSOC consultative status revealed that barriers to participation in the programme varied with some obstacles far more common than others. The degree of barriers reported by CSOs also strongly reflected the level of accreditation they held within the programme. Additionally, survey respondents offered insight as to how impediments in the collaboration could potentially be addressed.

This chapter centers on the global leadership of enterprises and their strategic business decisions as they interact with intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in constructing a supranational global governance regime to address complex global issues. As the world faces myriad issues that transcend state borders, negative externalities of globalization, such as climate change and pandemics, are straining the current system and threatening vulnerable populations. To better understand how firms address these challenges, we present a stakeholder framework involving multinational enterprises (MNEs) in a supranational context and examine their relationships with IGOs, international nongovernmental organizations, and NGOs. A typology of firm behavior is introduced to describe four strategic responses to increased pressure for corporate social responsibility that represent the extent to which firms take leadership roles. Case studies illustrate each of the four archetypes, namely the collaborator, the complier, the counteractor, and the combatant. The situational strength of global governance organizations can have an influence on which strategic response MNEs choose, and ultimately on how MNEs decide to engage in socially responsible behaviors. The interrelatedness of MNEs and global governance organizations will continue to grow as humankind grapples with complex global issues that threaten our way of life. The 4 Cs of MNE strategic responses inform how firms may choose to respond to these challenges.