Non-State Actors in Asymmetric Conflicts: What does It Mean and What Follows of It

Using the recently concluded Canada-European Union (EU) Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) as a case study, this chapter aims to assess the nature, scope, and implications of shifting forms of cooperation observable in the negotiation/ratification process of mega-regional economic agreements. The emphasis would be on how sub-national and non-state actors, which are conventionally non-traditional actors in international relations, have influenced the outcome of CETA. The analysis in this chapter will also serve as a basis for identifying emerging patterns in the institutional evolution of international economic governance. To put the discussions in the context of the overarching theme of the Volume, the analyses in this chapter will be framed within two forms of interaction observable from the CETA negotiations. They are: shifting forms of cooperation between central and sub-national actors in international economic relations as evidenced by the collaboration strategies adopted during the CETA negotiations, and shifting forms of cooperation between sub-national governments and non-state actors in international economic relations.

The participation of non-state actors in multilateral institutions is often portrayed as one way of decreasing the perceived legitimacy deficit in global governance. The literature on non-state actors has identified several ways in which these actors can enhance the legitimacy of intergovernmental organisations and global governance arrangements. Three partially competing normative arguments, or rationales, for the inclusion of non-state actors in international policymaking — functionalism, neocorporatism and democratic pluralism — have been identified. Whereas functionalism highlights the contribution of non-state actors to output legitimacy in terms of expertise, neocorporatism emphasises the inclusion of affected interests, and democratic pluralism claims that non-state actors increase input legitimacy through procedural values. These three normative arguments thus offer different understandings of the motives for the inclusion and representation of non-state actors in international negotiations and diplomacy. Through a single case study of United Nations climate diplomacy, we analyse the extent to which the three rationales for non-state actor inclusion are found in views held by state and non-state actors participating in the annual United Nations climate change conferences. Our results show that different actor groups place varying degrees of emphasis on the different rationales for non-state actor inclusion, even though the neocorporatist rationale remains most favoured overall. We discuss the implications of our findings for the democratic legitimacy of increasing participation of non-state actors in intergovernmental affairs and recent trends in the participation of non-state actors in the international climate change policymaking process.

In any country, the role of media is vital as it is a medium to keep the people informed on the latest developments in the country and elsewhere. Due to this assumed role of the press, media outlets are expected to remain objective, honest, and free from biases. Furthermore, media outlets were more localized traditionally. However, this media aspect has changed extensively in recent decades, most notably with the rise of the internet. Today, many prominent media outlets are either inclined toward a fixed political ideology or are owned by large media conglomerates with their corporate interests to look out for. This report aims to identify the role of media as a non-state actor in international relations. This is an important study to conduct in an era when media outlets are no longer limited to just their domestic market but instead have a truly global reach. Using a case study analysis method of data collection with a qualitative methodology, this study analyzes two prominent recent international events, the Syrian refugee crisis, and the Ukrainian refugee crisis. From the case study analysis, this study has established that the media now has the power of public diplomacy to influence policies in international relations as well.

ABSTRACTThis article examines the little explored issue of non-state actor (NSA) participation in the European Union’s (EU) Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). Despite the fact that NGOs and civil society are shielded from formal access to CSDP, EU staff in both Brussels and the missions engage with them informally. Drawing on interviews with policy-makers and NSA representatives, the article analyses the practices of the EU in its engagement with NSAs, focusing on civilian missions in Georgia and Palestine. It shows that such engagement is more intense during implementation at the level of CSDP missions rather than during policy-making in Brussels. It argues that a combination of rational choice-based (functional needs of policy-makers and intensity of NSA advocacy) and constructivist (organisational and individual cultures) explanations helps us better understand why CSDP structures open up to NSAs. The article contributes to the nascent academic and policy debate on EU–civil society cooperation in CSDP and, more broadly, to the studies of informal governance in the EU and NSA participation in international organisations.

The historical tension between the powers of states and the rights of individuals sets the context for this look at the evolving role of non-state actors in international relations. Global connectivity has diluted state power, blurred borders and added a new dimension of non-state actor empowerment. The author’s firsthand observations, drawn from a career as a Canadian diplomat, bear witness to the ever-increasing role of non-state actors in foreign policy and international relations. This practitioner’s perspective presents some personal observations on how non-state actors have helped to shape Canada–Asia relations, with brief and selective examples from the author’s work in and on Indonesia, Japan, Myanmar, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The piece also offers some concluding thoughts on the significance of this phenomenon for the broader conduct of international relations and the study of foreign policy.

The purpose of this article is to analyze the concept, features and the role of nonstate actors in international relations. Through analyzed non-state actors are international intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, transnational companies, terrorist groups etc. It is an analytical study that is based on an interdisciplinary approach. The methods used in this research paper are literature review and systemic method of analysis that, has provided the necessary framework for outlining the process of repositioning of non-state actors in contemporary international system. The study highlights in which way non-state actors contribute to the international agenda setting, resolution of international community's issues, as well as the ways of their influence on world political processes and challenges that may appear in the relation of traditional and non-state actors.

Over the last decades, the participation of State and non-State actors (NSAs) in the process of international law-making has become one of the basic features of international law. As multifunctional actors, the role of international courts and tribunals (ICTs) encompasses the protection and development of the international community. Together with ICTs’ role in the promotion, recognition and application of community interest norms, the growing participation of State and NSAs in international dispute settlement mechanisms also plays an increasingly important role in ensuring and facilitating compliance and enforcement of community interest norms. Whereas the non-party participation of State and NSAs has only very exceptionally been recognized, their influence in international dispute settlement cannot be ignored. By applying empirical research methodology for mapping the practice of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concerning the participation of State and NSAs under the ICJ Statute and Rules of Court, this paper addresses the existing mechanisms of non-party participation in both contentious cases and advisory proceedings. There is no doubt that ICJ procedural law remains outdated and disconnected from the contemporary developments characterizing the international community nowadays. Broadening the possibilities for participation by State and NSAs would imply the recognition of the plurilateral nature of international disputes. In this context, the paper also discusses the challenges and possible alternatives for expanding participation via teleological interpretation of the ICJ Statute and potential amendments to the Rules of Court and Practice Directions.

Over the last decades, the participation of State and non-State actors (NSAs) in the process of international law-making has become one of the basic features of international law. As multifunctional actors, the role of international courts and tribunals (ICTs) encompasses the protection and development of the international community. Together with ICTs’ role in the promotion, recognition and application of community interest norms, the growing participation of State and NSAs in international dispute settlement mechanisms also plays an increasingly important role in ensuring and facilitating compliance and enforcement of community interest norms. Whereas the non-party participation of State and NSAs has only very exceptionally been recognized, their influence in international dispute settlement cannot be ignored. By applying empirical research methodology for mapping the practice of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concerning the participation of State and NSAs under the ICJ Statute and Rules of Court, this paper addresses the existing mechanisms of non-party participation in both contentious cases and advisory proceedings. There is no doubt that ICJ procedural law remains outdated and disconnected from the contemporary developments characterizing the international community nowadays. Broadening the possibilities for participation by State and NSAs would imply the recognition of the plurilateral nature of international disputes. In this context, the paper also discusses the challenges and possible alternatives for expanding participation via teleological interpretation of the ICJ Statute and potential amendments to the Rules of Court and Practice Directions.

Since the early days of modern public international law, the state has been the most important subject thereof. However, today, it is neither the sole, nor necessarily the primary, actor in international (environmental) relations. In recent years, the role of the state and, notably, the ability of the state to address environmental risks and threats, have increasingly come to be scrutinised. While states' standard setting remains important, commentators have argued that the ability and willingness of states to implement and enforce such standards have major weaknesses. Nevertheless, the state remains a truly important actor in international relations. It forms part of international governance, which has become multilevel governance. This article discusses the changing role of the state in international environmental governance. It examines states as authors, addressees, and guardians of international environmental law. The article also considers the over-estimation of Westphalian concepts of sovereignty, international environmental agreements, international environmental obligations, statehood as an element of a global system of environmental governance, and the role of the state in the transformation of the international legal system.

\n Even if States are the central actors, this research is based on the premise that facing climate change requires the participation of subnational governments and non-state actors. Over the past few years, the landscape of global climate governance has changed with the participation of non-state and sub-national actors which are also called non-Party stakeholders. There is also a growing recognition of the role of non-Party stakeholders as implementers of climate actions that are complementary to the national commitments. Non-Party stakeholders can voluntarily pledge for climate commitments both individually and collectively as members of cooperative initiatives. Such pledges are recognized and promoted by the intergovernmental sphere in a governance mode called orchestration. This study focuses on the case of the Lima-Paris Action Agenda, an initiative led by the United Nations Secretary-General Office, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat, and the presidencies of the Conference of Parties 20 and 21, led respectively by the governments of Peru and France. The Lima-Paris Action Agenda was established as one of the pillars of the Conference of Parties 21. One of the Lima-Paris Action Agenda main objectives was to demonstrate the engagement of non-Party stakeholders by bringing together cooperative initiatives with ambitious climate commitments in terms of mitigation and adaptation impact. Based on the collection of primary data, this study reconstructs the emergence and operationalization of the Lima-Paris Action Agenda towards COP-21. Then, the research argues that the Lima-Paris Action Agenda catalyzed the institutionalization of orchestration as one of the governance modes of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat for the implementation phase of the Paris Agreement. In addition, the thesis presents an analysis of the performance and accountability mechanisms of the Lima-Paris Action Agenda initiatives. This research contributions to the global environmental governance literature are threefold. First, the thesis investigates the conditions that allowed the rapprochement between the intergovernmental sphere and the transnational sphere. Second, the study discusses orchestration as one of the governance modes employed by intergovernmental organizations. The third contribution is an analytical framework for assessing governance structures and accountability mechanisms for cooperative initiatives.\n

Non-State Actors in International Relations . Edited by B. Arts and B. Reinalda. Aldershot: Ashgate , 2001·352 pp. £ 47.50 Sorcha Macleod Sorcha Macleod Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar British Yearbook of International Law, Volume 74, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 436–437, https://doi.org/10.1093/bybil/74.1.436 Published: 01 November 2004

There has been a tremendous rise in the participation of non-state actors – notably business – in international rule-making. While such participation has many benefits, the risk that rule-making gets captured – that is, that rules are made in line with business’ profit-driven interest rather than in the public interest – has increased too. This article, first, explores the growing problem of capture in international rule-making and identifies three modes of capture that have become particularly prevalent in international policy-making: information capture, representational capture and resource capture. The article then explores the World Health Organization’s (WHO) 2016 Framework of Engagement with Non-State Actors (FENSA) and how effectively it manages these risks. FENSA is interesting because it is the first policy by an international organization seeking to comprehensively and systematically regulate non-state actor engagement and to prevent related risks. In assessing FENSA, the article focuses on the WHO’s engagement of two main actors: the Big Food industry and voluntary donors. Finally, the article seeks to draw more general lessons as to the capacity of FENSA-like reforms to prevent capture in international rule-making.

Developing the legal basis for non-state actors in China's ocean governance

Summary Public diplomacy emphasizes the participation of state and non-state actors to achieve common goals. This article recognizes the participation of state and non-state actors engaged in shaping the political environment of a host country to advance common interests, with different levels of leadership. A model comprised of state and non-state actors implementing reactive, proactive and relationship-building strategies and instruments is proposed. In Mexico, regulations for genetically modified (GM) foods have moved from a restrictive to a liberal approach, and this change may be explained by analysing US public diplomacy efforts to promote ideas related to GM foods. This is an ‘intermestic’ issue with international and domestic actors involved. Applying the proposed model thus helps us to understand the strategies and instruments that state actors, such as the US executive agencies, and non-state actors, including MNCs and NGOs, implement to target Mexican stakeholders and generate policy change.

This chapter introduces the concept of the legal personality of non-state actors as an indicator of the democratic legitimacy of international organizations (IOs). Both normatively and empirically based policy proposals tend to suggest an augmented role of the new actors — mainly civil society organizations (CSOs) or non-governmental organizations (NGOs) — in overcoming the legitimacy deficit of IOs. However, if the participation of non-state actors in international governance is to be effective, efficient and have a meaningful and lasting effect, institutional rights and duties are required — and, with them, legal personality. Thus, the legal personality of non-state actors can be taken as a minimum safeguard clause for surmounting the legitimacy deficit of international organizations (the normative approach). It can also be used as a helpful analytical framework for organizing empirical data on the participation of these actors in IOs (the empirical approach). This chapter evaluates the legal rights and duties of NGOs in their co-operation with more than 30 international organizations, and seeks to assess whether this implies that they have acquired legal personality — and, if so, what quality this personality assumes. Such a comparative study is a novelty in both political science and international law. By combining the perspectives of two different disciplines, this chapter illustrates the intrinsic empirical and theory-building value of (international) positive law in political science.