Non-State Actors in Global Crime Governance

How can we explain the varying participation of non-state actors in UN cybersecurity governance? While research often underlines the importance of non-state actors in governing cybersecurity, research on international non-state actors’ activities also shows that shrinking spaces reduce opportunities for these actors. So far, we do not know how these two seemingly opposing developments impact UN cybersecurity governance. In this article, we analyze how state interests, ideas on representation, and institutional context affect non-state actor participation in three UN forums for cybersecurity, namely the IGF, OEWG, and AHC. Based on qualitative data and a quantitative participation analysis, we find that institutional mandates of forums remain open to non-state actors but to varying degrees. Conflicts among states affect non-state actors strongly, but often indirectly, because their participation becomes politicized, and states increasingly contest ideas on their participation. These effects concern all groups of non-state actors. All in all, our results suggest that UN cybersecurity governance is still open to non-state actors, but despite functional arguments, their participation is facing growing resistance over time. At the same time, reasons why non-state actors choose to participate or not require more consideration.

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.

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

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’.

This article: Shows the variance of non-state actors in global crime governance and transnational governance in general, and shows that existent accounts fail to explain this variance. Proposes a model of how we can understand the different roles of non-state actors, distinguishing normative from rationalist reasons for non-state actor involvement. Compares different forms of current global crime governance (human trafficking, conflict diamonds, money laundering, cybercrime) to explore the validity of the model. Shows that non-state activism and public debate are usually only related to a specific type of crime, turning a ‘blind eye’ to other forms of crime and their governance. Argues that this creates problems with regard to oversight and discussion of global crime governance, exemplified with regard to intelligence surveillance via internet traffic. Global crime governance has become a major area of international activity, including a growing number of public and private regulatory efforts. Yet it is puzzling that a considerable variance exists in how state and non-state actors interact: non-state actors have been important agenda-setters in some issue areas, while they have been absent in others. Sometimes they are implementation bodies, sometimes they set regulations themselves. I argue that this variance is caused by issue characteristics: If an issue area is framed in a highly moralised way, it is likely that resulting non-governmental activity can be explained by normative convictions, and in particular advocacy occurs frequently. If an issue area is framed in a technical way, resource exchange is central, and delegation to non-state actors becomes more prominent. A comparison of human trafficking, conflict diamonds, money laundering and cybercrime shows that this relation can be found on the global and national level.

In this article, we review the dynamic role of state and nonstate actors in governance. We first discuss the main arguments for and against the state being the main actor in governance in recent literature. Then, we review some of the literature about the changing role of state and nonstate actors in response to the 2007–08 global financial crisis from 2011 to 2015. The two themes under examination are, first, more control over financial markets and second, austerity measures. They illustrate different trajectories of governance that go beyond the now well‐established New Public Management paradigm of public sector reforms. Our review shows that no single actor provides the best mode of governance for all circumstances. Instead, governance is hybrid and dynamic. The mode of governance is dependent on the circumstances under which an actor is more capable of interacting with other actors to provide public services.

Since anthropogenic causes accelerate rapid climate change with intensifying the adverse impacts of climate induce hazards, Non-State Actors (NSAs) have emerged as pivotal actors in climate governance. The aim of this research is to explore the diverse roles and contributions of NSAs in climate governance and analyze the challenges and institutional barriers they encounter with proposing some recommendations to strengthen their impact. It employs a qualitative approach where data were collected through KII method. Thematic analysis reveals some meaningful role of NSAs in climate governance including advocating for climate justice, raising awareness, promoting sustainable technologies, enhancing community adaptation and resilience, and collaborating across sectors. Digital awareness campaign of Greenpeace during the Copenhagen and Paris Conference and BRAC's climate-resilient housing and rainwater harvesting initiatives in Bangladesh can be placed as notable examples of NSAs’ roles. Despite their significant contributions, several persistent challenges such as poor coordination among NSAs and with state actors, legitimacy deficits, governance gaps, lack of institutional support and insufficient financing impedes them to realize their full potential. To overcome these challenges, this study recommends the need for legal inclusion of NSAs’ roles, inclusive participation, incorporating intersectionality, stronger accountability mechanisms and sustainable financial frameworks. Furthermore, this study offers actionable recommendations for policymakers and practitioners seeking to enhance the effectiveness of non-state engagement in climate action.

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

ABSTRACTThis article investigates positions on network governance-type arrangements in Russian non-oppositional media. State-based actors articulated a discourse of mutual dependency, akin to observations in liberal parliamentary democracies. The state described itself as possessing necessary funding and competence to regulate and coordinate, while non-state actors were described as possessing resources necessary to fulfil state policy. Non-state actors occasionally cast doubt on the state's competence to regulate, but fears of state cooptation were rarely articulated. The hegemonic discourse on mutual dependency, and the state as an active network manager, mirrors the observed growth of state-controlled arenas for civil society inclusion in Russia.

Private actors and their interplay with public actors in global governance have become a prominent focus of global governance institutions and research alike. The last decade has witnessed a remarkable growth in the number of private actors in global governance and an increase in public-private partnerships, multi-stakeholder initiatives, informal coalitions between states, NGOs and business partners, and the emergence of private self-regulatory mechanisms. With their problem-solving capacities stretched thin in the wake of globalization and denationalization, states and international organizations began to reach out to the private sector and its resources. Private actors have been brought in to set and locally implement international regulations and have contributed to the provision of collective goods. Lately the private business sector has become a prominent partner of governments, international organizations and NGOs in areas such as environmental problems, labour and social standards, and human rights more broadly. The sheer growth in the number of private actors in global governance is astonishing; equally dramatic is their changed role within the governance initiatives. While their role was initially confined to functions such as agenda setting in the input phase or norm implementation and evaluation on the output side of global governance, it has since expanded to include core decision-making, taking part in all phases of the policy-making process.

Globalization processes have rendered non-state actors an integral part of global governance. The body of literature that has examined non-state actor involvement in global governance has focused m ...

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

Violence and crime have been a continuous challenge to states, and this book has shown how states and non-state actors cope with this problem. Defining violence and crime as overarching terms, the volume presented different governance efforts that included more passive and more active roles of non-state actors. As addressees, non-state actors cause governance problems through norm violation. Classical examples are rebel groups in civil wars or organized crime. In the case of delegation, non-state actors implement public regulations, thus executing functions that the state cannot or does not want to provide. Examples of this include banks that oversee financial transactions or internet providers that store traffic data. Non-state actors play an even more active role as co-regulators, when non-state actors become partners in governance and implementation. Prominent cases are public—private partnerships or self-regulatory schemes. Finally, non-state actors can act as advocates, which is the most autonomous role. In this case, they initiate and consult on governance as moral entrepreneurs or lobbyists. Against this background, the introductory chapter presented different roles of non-state actors in terms of an ‘interaction triangle’.

BackgroundHealth systems worldwide increasingly involve non-state actors in governance and service provision, often to address perceived limitations in public sector capacity to achieve or maintain universal health coverage. Contracts are a key mechanism for structuring such cooperation, enabling governments to define public priorities, specify the resources and services required to achieve them, establish performance requirements for contractors, and define accountability mechanisms. Moreover, community participation in the design and monitoring—or governance—of contracts could enhance the effectiveness of contracting by making services more locally responsive and accountable. This article reviews the global evidence on contracting out—with and without community participation—and its effects on access to primary care services, the quality of these services, and equity in health.MethodsA scoping review was undertaken following the PRISMA checklist for evidence synthesis. A common search string was applied to five databases – SciELO, LILACS, EBSCOhost, Scopus, and Google Scholar – to search for articles relating to our research questions in English, Spanish and Portuguese, with no restrictions on publication date. After three rounds of review, 81 articles were selected from a universe of 3,276 articles and subjected to full data analysis. These were complemented by 14 handpicked articles meeting our study criteria and 26 supplementary references.ResultsWe find that community participation in the governance of contracting is rare, but can promote access and quality. However, it requires a contracting environment that supports transparency, cooperation from governments and providers, and resourcing commitments. More generally, contracting is often associated with access gains, but the evidence on quality and equity is mixed.ConclusionsContracting of non-state providers in pluralistic primary care systems that incorporates the participation of communities in its governance could be a feasible policy to promote universal health coverage while also effecting democratic rights of citizens to participate in healthcare governance. Primary research is required to better understand how to promote meaningful community participation, and to identify the contractual details and features of specific contractual environments that are connected to better outcomes.