Non-state Actors and Global Crime Governance: Explaining the Variance of Public-private Interaction

Contents: Part I Introduction and Sources: Non-state actors in the international system of states, Bob Reinalda The Yearbook of International Organizations and quantitative non-state actor research, Elizabeth Bloodgood Researching transnational history: the example of peace activism, Thomas Richard Davies The United Nations Intellectual History Project and the role of ideas, Francis Baert. Part II Actors Other than Governments:Transnational religious actors, John T.S. Madeley and Jeffrey Haynes Transnational corporations and the regulation of business at the global level, Karsten Ronit Unravelling the political role of experts and expertise in the professional services industry, Angela Wigger Parliaments and parliamentarians as international actors, AndrA(c)s Malamud and Stelios Stavridis Autonomous agencies of the European Union as non-state actors, Martijn Groenleer. Part III Perceptions and Understanding: Liberal political philosophy: the role of non-state actors and considerations of global justice, Geoff Gordon and Roland Pierik Non-governmental organizations and non-state actors in international law, Anna-Karin Lindblom Intergovernmental organizations in international relations theory and as actors in world politics, Joel E. Oestreich Inter-organizational relations: an emerging research programme, Rafael Biermann Civil society and NGO: far from unproblematic concepts, Norbert GA tz Non-state and state actors in global governance, Martin Koch Limitations of intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, Dennis Dijkzeul and William E. DeMars. Part IV Nature and Impact: Non-state actors and the transformation of diplomacy, Brian Hocking Dynamism and resilience of intergovernmental organizations in a world of persisting state power and rising non-state actors, Yves Schemeil International bureaucracies: organizing world politics, Steffen Bauer and Silke Weinlich Interest representation and advocacy within the European Union: the making of democracy?, Sabine Saurugger From agenda setting to decision making: opening the black box of non-governmental organizations, Liesbet Heyse Non-governmental organizations and decision making in the United Nations, Jutta Joachim The ongoing organizational reform of the United Nations, Yves Beigbeder Reporting and peer review in the implementation of international rules: what role for non-state actors?, Thomas Conzelmann Accountability of public and private international organizations, Steve Charnovitz Non-state actors and the proliferation and individualization of international dispute settlement, Eric De Brabandere. Part V Separate Worlds: Politics and the world of humanitarian aid, Wolf-Dieter Eberwein Non-governmental organizations in the human rights world, Anja Mihr Non-state actors in the global security world, Carolyn M. Stephenson Non-state actors in the development aid world as seen from the South, Moushumi Basu Cities for citizens in the global South: approaches of non-governmental organizations working in urban development, Diana Mitlin Non-state actors in the global health world, Peter Hough Non-state actors in multilateral trade governance, Dirk De BiAvre and Marcel Hanegraaff Non-state actors and environmental governance: comparing multinational, supranational and transnational rule making, Lars H. Gulbrandsen, Steinar Andresen and Jon Birger SkjA|rseth Bibliography Index.

Many observers view the 1972 United Nations (UN) Conference on the Human Environment, held in Stockholm, as the event that heralded the active involvement of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in international policy making. In the intervening years, NGO participation in international policy making has grown exponentially, as has the number of multilateral environmental conventions, global environmental conferences and other efforts to facilitate a global governance of the human environment. The increasing numbers of NGOs with a stake in global environmental politics has been well documented, as has the presence at multilateral negotiations and their influence on negotiation outcomes (Betsill and Corell 2008). This paper examines the role and influence of non-state actors (NSAs) in multinational, supranational and transnational policy making. We have selected three models of rulemaking to help explain the role and influence of NSAs in different governance systems, reflecting developments within global environmental governance over the past three decades. Whereas multinational cooperation remained the model of choice whenever international environmental rules were created until the 1980s, the model has been joined in recent years by supranational and transnational rulemaking models. We begin by briefly reviewing the three models before presenting three case studies. In the first we examine how NSAs brought their influence to bear in a particular case of multinational environmental negotiations: the International Whaling Commission (IWC). This should shed light on some of the conditions that allow NGOs to exert such a high degree of influence in multinational policy-making processes. Next we explore the role and influence of NSAs in the making of the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading System (ETS). This is a prime example of supranational policy making, and serves to demonstrate the complexity of assessing the influence of NSAs in a dense institutional context. Focusing on social and environmental certification programs, the third case examines a growing tendency for NSAs to act as transnational rule makers in policy areas where states have been unwilling or unable to provide governance. Three Models of Rule Making and the Role of Non-State Actors In multinational cooperation, here represented by the IWC, member states enjoy in principle full authority. The legitimacy of rule-making is ensured by consent between sovereign states based on international law. In this liberal intergovernmental rule-making model, NSAs belong to the set of domestic special interest organizations with sufficient clout to influence negotiating positions. Of course, their efforts to influence negotiation positions meet with varying success; nation-states always have the final word. In supranational cooperation, in this paper represented by the EU ETS scheme, nationstates have transferred some of their sovereignty to other actors. In the EU case, this is most visible is the rules on qualified majority voting, co-decision making by the European Parliament and the policy-initiating role of the Commission. In short, as the consent of a state in itself is sometimes wanting in terms of legitimacy, there need additional sources of

This chapter analyzes the different roles of non-state actors in global crime governance. The chapter starts by elaborating on the complexity of global crime governance, which makes the involvement of non-state actors in governance efforts more likely. In a second step, different categories of non-state contributions are presented, showing that the different attempts of global crime governance presented in the book vary significantly in how far they involve non-state actors. In the following section, the role of non-state actors in the global policy process is presented, showing that moral entrepreneurship at the beginning of a norm life cycle is only one among other crucial roles non-state actors play. In sum, the chapter shows that world society formation in global crime governance is accompanied by various and different contributions of non-state actors.

Over the two decades prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, a powerful class of large private foundations emerged as influential actors in global governance. Their presence is more prominent in global health than any other issue area: foundations now account for 20 percent of all development assistance for health, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) became the World Health Organization's second largest donor behind the United States government. This dissertation examines the core question: Under what conditions do private foundations influence policies and institutions governing health crises at the global and state levels? I argue private foundations influence global policy outcomes primarily through strategic engagement in public-private partnerships (PPPs)-through which they gain voting power typically reserved for states in global governance-alongside institutional embeddedness achieved through repeated interactions with other global health actors. This runs counter to prior findings suggesting donation amount and policy windows created by crises may facilitate foundation policy influence. Findings furthermore suggest private foundations may circumvent regulations against lobbying domestic or foreign governments via PPP engagement, to influence domestic policy outcomes in low-and-middle-income countries. While a body of global health research examines similar issues, foundations as non-state actors in global governance are largely under-theorized in international relations (IR). This project seeks to bridge global health scholarship with IR theory, integrating both philanthropy as an actor and global health as an issue area with broader IR theoretical approaches. The first article presents a novel data set to analyze trends and mechanisms by which foundations engage in global outbreak response between 2002 and 2019. The second draws on these data, utilizing a mixed-method approach to argue foundation policy influence occurs primarily through PPP engagement and repeated interactions with other governance actors. Building on these findings and engaging with a case study from the COVID-19 response, the third article presents a theory of large private foundation engagement in global health governance, to be tested in future research both in the context of other issue areas, using new data from the COVID-19 pandemic.--Author's abstract

The rise of non-state (international, private, and transnational) actors in global politics has far-reaching consequences for foreign policy theory and practice. In order to be able to explain foreign policy in the 21st century, foreign policy research needs to take into account the growing importance of nonstate actorss. A good way to do this would be to engage the literature on globalization and global governance. Both fields would benefit from such an exchange of ideas because their respective strengths could cancel out each other’s weaknesses. Foreign policy research, on the one hand, has a strong track record explaining foreign policy outcomes, using a broad range of theoretical concepts, but almost completely ignores non-state actors. This is highly problematic for at least two reasons: first, foreign policy is increasingly made in international organizations and intergovernmental and transnational governance networks instead of national institutions like foreign ministries. Second, the latter increasingly open up to, and involve, non-state actors in their policymaking procedures. Thus, if foreign policy research wants to avoid becoming marginalized in the future, it needs to take into account this change. However, systemic approaches like neorealism or constructivism have difficulties adapting to the new reality of foreign policy. They stress the importance of states at the expense of non-state actors, which are only of marginal interest to them, as is global governance. Moreover, they also conceptualize states as unitary actors, which forecloses the possibility of examining the involvement of non-state actors in states’ decision-making processes. Agency-based approaches such as foreign policy analysis (FPA) fare much better, at least in principle. FPA scholars stress the importance of disaggregating the state and looking at the individuals and group dynamics that influence their decision-making. However, while this commitment to opening up the state allows for a great deal more flexibility vis-à-vis different types of actors, FPA research has so far remained state-centric and only very recently turned to non-state actors. On the other hand, non-state actors’ involvement in policymaking is the strong suit of the literature on globalization and global governance, which has spent a lot of time and effort analyzing various forms of “hybrid” governance. At the same time, however, this literature has been rather descriptive, so far mainly systematizing different governance arrangements and the conditions under which non-state actors are included in governance arrangements. This literature could profit from foreign policy research’s rich theoretical knowledge in explaining policy outcomes in hybrid governance networks and international organizations (IOs). Foreign policy researchers should take non-state actors seriously. In this regard, three avenues in particular are relevant for future research: (1) comparative empirical research to establish the extent of non-state actors’ participation in foreign policymaking across different countries and governance arrangements; (2) explanatory studies that analyze the conditions under which non-state actors are involved in states’ foreign policymaking processes; and (3) the normative implications of increased hybrid foreign policymaking for democratic legitimacy.

Where does change come from in the architecture of global environmental governance? To the extent that a traditional answer to this question exists, it is that states self-consciously make changes in the architecture, to meet specific cooperative goals and in response to new information about the state of the natural environment. This is the classical neoliberal, institutionalist, regime theory answer: States, understood as rational unitary actors, create new institutions to reduce the market imperfections in international cooperation. This answer has informed much good work on global environmental politics over the past two decades, but it is limited by its terms of reference. States are often neither rational nor unitary, and they are not the only actors of relevance to global environmental governance. A more recent counter-narrative to state-based regime theory abjures the state and the formal intergovernmental organizations created by states, looking both to other levels of government and to nongovernmental actors as sources of environmental governance. This approach looks at networks of nonstate actors as the source of voluntary global environmental leadership, built up from the grass roots rather than imposed from the top. This is a useful corrective to an exclusive focus on the state as the unit of analysis, and on conscious design rather

The emerging global governance of artificial intelligence (AI) is shaped by numerous political actors. Inviting non-state actors into such processes is typically assumed to address a perceived democratic deficit, by promoting increased representation, transparency, and openness. In the AI sphere, however, non-state actors include the same multinational companies that develop the technology to be regulated. Surprisingly, the task of normatively theorizing the democratic role of non-state actors in global AI governance has nevertheless been largely ignored. This paper addresses this by specifying, first, under what conditions non-state actors contribute to the actual democratization of global AI governance, as ‘democratic agents’, and second, under what conditions they instead contribute to the strengthening of the prerequisites for future democratization, as ‘agents of democracy’. We conclude that, although few non-state actors are authorized to act as ‘democratic agents’, their exercise of ‘moral’, ‘epistemic’, and ‘market authority’ could make them legitimate ‘agents of democracy’.

Cyberwarfare has become one of the most prominent aspects of global geopolitical competition, introducing a new dimension of conflict involving states and non-state actors. Although research on the role of states in cyber warfare has been amplacious, research on the role of non-state actors is still limited. This study aims to analyze the role and impact of non-state actors in global cyber warfare. In cyber warfare, non-state actors can exploit the vulnerabilities of security systems to achieve their political or ideological goals, changing geopolitical dynamics in unexpected ways. Case studies raised in this study include cyber attacks by Anonymous groups against governments and companies, cyber acts of terrorism by ISIS, manipulation of information by extremist groups to achieve their political goals, and the use of digital propaganda in regional conflicts. By paying attention to the concept of force and security in the perspective of realism, this research is expected to provide a better understanding of how non-state actors influence global geopolitical dynamics through cyber warfare. The implication of this research is the importance of strengthening national cyber defense and international cooperation in the face of threats presented by non-state actors in the cyber domain.

Oberthür, Sebastian, and G. Kristin Rosendal, eds. 2014. Global Governance of Genetic Resources: Access and Benefit Sharing after the Nagoya Protocol. New York and London: Routledge.

One of the central challenges for scholars of global governance is that the published charters, guidelines, rules, and final documents of global governance frameworks provide an incomplete understanding of how decisions are actually made within such international forums. Much of what is considered global governance occurs behind closed doors during teleconferences, official meetings, and informal side-meetings. This challenge is magnified in global governance frameworks that are driven by consensus-based decision-making. This article tackles this challenge by providing insights into the consensus-based decision-making processes of the Kimberley Process on conflict diamonds. In so doing, the article advances the debates on global governance in two ways. First, it draws upon participant observations, interviews with state and non-state actors, and privileged access to key documents in order to illustrate and assess how governance ‘crises’ concerning two Kimberley Process Participants – Republic of the Congo and Zimbabwe – are addressed by this global governance framework. Second, the article discusses future governance challenges for the Kimberley Process as well as highlights the promise and limitations of consensus-based decision-making within global governance frameworks.

This book provides a critical assessment of the broadly held view that states ‘own’ war. The central theme of the book is that the persistence of non-state actors in historical as well as contemporary conflicts challenges this narrative. It takes a multidisciplinary approach to address a host of questions concerning the role of non-state actors, both armed and unarmed, in conflict and their relationship with states. Recurring themes are issues of loyalty, accountability and effectiveness. Part I is subdivided into two separate themes. The first is the use of civilians in war from a legal and military operational perspective, the second the question of loyalty and accountability of the private sector. Part II considers the cases of several non-state armed actors from the past and the present, showcasing the variety of actors and roles they play. Together, the contributions to this book provide an important new perspective on the role of non-state (armed) actors in war.

While multilateral approaches and national policies have been unable to halt the unprecedented loss of biodiversity, responses from non-state and subnational initiatives are increasing. The successful implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework (GBF), to be agreed upon under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), ultimately depends on commitments and action by state and non-state actors, including subnational actors. However, non-state and subnational actors have so far received little attention in academic analysis of global biodiversity governance. In order to better understand and harness the potential of non-state and subnational involvement, this paper addresses the ways in which non-state initiatives contribute to global biodiversity governance and how productive linkages can be built between state and non-state actors in the post-2020 GBF. This paper applies an explorative case study approach and analyses six international cooperative initiatives (ICIs) that highlight novel approaches in international biodiversity governance. We analyse the qualities of ICIs for biodiversity governance in terms of strengths and potential, the governance functions that they fulfil, and how they are engaging with the CBD and the post-2020 GBF. Based on this analysis, we discuss challenges and opportunities related to non-state and subnational actors involvement in global biodiversity governance and identify possible steps forward. We emphasise the importance of a collaborative framework for non-state action within the CBD that builds on existing and emerging activities of non-state actors, organises monitoring and review as part of an accountability framework of state and non-state actors, and provides for learning, capacity building and follow-up action.

Small states and growing economies face a large number of challenges due to current and historical geopolitical forces and the various non-state actors that play a role in policymaking which have long-standing direct and indirect impacts on these societies’ social and economic development. One underlying question is “on what level of governance—national, regional, local, or community level are non-state actors best equipped to support social and economic development?” This paper will seek to answer that question by examining the context in which non-state actors play a role in violence prevention—a key factor in the social and economic development of any nation—using a global public health approach. This paper will provide a conceptual framework utilizing the global ecological model of violence prevention and will analyze and discuss at what level of interaction can non-state actors in this arena best support the economic and social development of growing economies and small states that are prone to high rates of violence.

In recent decades, one of the most prominent trends in global governance has been the increasing openness of international organizations (IOs) toward non-state actors (NSAs). As participants in the policymaking bodies of IOs, NSAs have become important actors in global governance, providing policy-relevant information to decision makers, representing constituency interests, and ultimately, influencing policies. Yet to date, we have little systematic comparative knowledge about the NSAs that participate in IO bodies. This article introduces the Non-State Participation in International Organizations (N-PINION) dataset, which maps NSA participant populations across eighty one policymaking bodies in twenty four global IOs between 1998 and 2017. The dataset provides indicators on the density, diversity, and volatility of NSA populations, available yearly across IO bodies. These indicators provide potential dependent and independent variables for scholars interested in a wide variety of research questions relating to the drivers, consequences, and normative merits of NSA participation in IOs.

Non-state actors (NSA) have become increasingly important in forest management and governance but with strikingly limited research on this subject. Here, we critically review the historical evolution and roles of major NSA in forest governance in selected tropical countries identifying the major challenges regarding sustainable and effective engagement of NSA and suggest pathways for better utilization of NSA. Historical evolution of forest governance revealed that the nature and role of NSA have substantially changed over time and NSA has expanded and diversified since the late 1970s with the introduction of different forms of community-based forest management (CBFM) models. Nevertheless, due to challenges such as predominant revenue orientation of forest governance that overshadows effective participation of NSA in governance, tenurial uncertainty, dependence on external funds and facilitation, ad hoc and project-based nature of operation, and sustainability of the relevant institutions, the outcomes of CBFM were limited. We conclude our synthesis calling for stronger policy, financial, and procedural support that ensures effective collaborations and partnerships with NSA that can result in positive outcomes for forest conservation and improvement of forest dependent local peoples’ livelihoods.