Security Governance, Non-Governmental Actors, and the Limited Statehood Legitimacy in the Southeast Asia Landscape: A Conceptual Analysis

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

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.

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.

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.

This chapter engages the key legal debates surrounding the role of non-state actors (NSAs) in climate law. NSAs—a wide category that reflects the expansion of international climate governance beyond the state—include entities as diverse as individuals, companies, international organizations, industry associations, cities, indigenous peoples, and civil-society organizations. Over the past decades, and especially since the adoption of the Paris Agreement, the many roles of NSAs in addressing climate change have attracted significant interest from treaty negotiators, business man-agers, environmental activists, policymakers, and researchers. Seen as performing vital functions ranging from innovation and agenda-setting to implementation, monitoring, and enforcement, NSAs are widely considered as bringing about dynamic forms of climate governance. The potential of direct mitigation effort by NSAs, such as voluntary emission-reduction commitments by companies and cities, is similarly highlighted as a key component in any future solution to climate change. The growing climate action by NSAs forces a rethink of the legal underpinnings of the climate regime and opens new perspectives on the logic of NSA-driven climate governance. This chapter discusses the legal dynamics of non-state climate governance. Using three archetypical NSAs—companies, cities, and civil-society organizations—as proxies, the chapter isolates three primary debates that frame the interactions between NSAs and climate law. These debates focus on the responsibility of NSAs for causing climate change, the legal techniques of NSA governance, and the role of NSAs as agents of legal change and they reflect the rise of polycentric climate governance and illustrate the expansion of climate law beyond its original emphasis on states. However, the discussion also exposes the difficulties that emerge when embedding different NSAs in a single conceptual frame, as well as the limits of NSA-driven governance more broadly.

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.

This research aims to discuss actors’ network in handling flood disasters in DKI Jakarta in January 2020. With the increasing number of disasters globally and in Indonesia, the discussion about non-government actors’ role in disaster response is relevant to disaster management studies. Disaster response, as one of the disaster management phases in the case of flood disasters, is crucial for reducing the impact of a catastrophe and increasing the public sector’s resilience and society after a disaster happens. This research was conducted with mass-media content analysis, using the keyword “DKI Jakarta flood” to collect published news between 1-6 January 2020. Then, the collected news was analyzed with Discourse Network Analyzer. The analysis found that there were contributions from both government and non-government. Food support is the most common type of contribution that was chosen for disaster management assistance. The private sector and community organizations were the non-state actors that played a huge part in post-disaster aid. Although there are roles of non-state actors in disaster management, there are obstacles in its implementation. Some of those are unsupportive regulation, the absence of an institutional framework, and various actors’ commitment to collaborative disaster management.

This study examined the role of Non State Actors (NSAs) in strengthening the developmental capacity of the state, using a case study of Cross River State, Nigeria. Primary and secondary data on selected constituents of NSAs including Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs), Privately Owned Companies, Banks, Private Hospitals and Private Schools were analyzed using tables and charts. The results revealed that activities of NSAs significantly enhance the developmental capacity of Cross River State especially in the areas of provision of public services, knowledge and skill acquisition, infrastructural development and employment generation. Besides other recommendations, it was recommended that NSAs and the government should perform complementary roles in enhancing developmental capacity and that the establishment of more NSAs in the rural areas should be encouraged through the provision of special funding and other incentives for NSAs that have their offices in the rural areas.

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.

This chapter examines the role of non-state actors in promoting compliance with climate change instruments and finds that their contribution has been substantial. Non-state actors are proven enforcers – sometimes more effective than states. Climate cases brought by non-state actors to non-climate institutions help to demonstrate this point, and effective mechanisms for non-state access to compliance are modeled within multilateral environmental agreements ranging from Aarhus to NAFTA. The author argues that the role of non-state actors should be expanded as climate change frameworks evolve and compliance mechanisms are strengthened. Leaving the public without standing within formal enforcement mechanisms misses a critical opportunity to promote compliance.

Introduction. The evolving landscape of international relations has witnessed a profound transformation in the concept of security. Traditionally, governments held an exclusive monopoly over the provision of security, relying on their military and defense forces to safeguard their interests and protect their citizens. However, the post-Cold War era has ushered in a paradigm shift, with non-state actors emerging as formidable challengers to this traditional monopoly. At the forefront of these non-governmental actors stand private military and security companies (PMSCs), organizations that offer a diverse array of military and security services to governments across the globe. Methods and materials. This comprehensive study explores the multifaceted world of PMSCs, categorizing them into three distinct types based on the nature of the services they provide: offensive, reactive, and defensive. Through an analytical-descriptive research approach and the innovative lens of postinternational theory, this research delves deep into the role of PMSCs in an increasingly interconnected world. Analysis. The central question that underpins this study is the extent of PMSCs’ influence in a post-international world and their responses to the evolving global military security environment. It scrutinizes whether governments continue to maintain an exclusive monopoly over security and military operations or if these responsibilities have been increasingly assumed by non-governmental actors like PMSCs. Results. The study comes to the conclusion that in the post-international world, governments are no longer the sole arbiters of security, and the role of nonstate actors, particularly PMSCs, has grown substantially. Their extensive military and security services, often serving as alternatives to official national armies, have reduced the necessity for government forces in conflictprone regions. This paradigm shift has effectively transformed security into a “tradable commodity,” giving further initiative and importance to the PMSCs across the international arena. Autors’ contribution. Reza Javadi has outlined the scope, idea, purpose, and objectives of the paper. He has also been engaged in the gathering, classification, and analysis of the documents that make up the main source base of the article. The second author, M. Saeid-Abadi, has helped find the library sources for the study, commented on the materials, and shared ideas about the beginning parts of the study.

Over the past two decades, maritime security threats such as piracy, illegal fishing and maritime terrorism in Southeast Asia have attracted greater attention and concern. Responding to these threats and ensuring national security have long been seen as the responsibility of governments. This is reflected in much of the literature on Southeast Asian security issues, which focuses largely on state responses to threats. However, the notion of the state as the sole provider of security is being increasingly challenged in many parts of the world, with actors such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and private businesses playing ever more important roles in providing security. To gain a comprehensive understanding of the security sectors of Southeast Asian countries and security governance in the region, it is important to ask if this trend can also be observed in Southeast Asia. This special issue of Contemporary Southeast Asia (1) demonstrates that in recent years new actors have become involved in addressing national and regional security threats in Southeast Asia. The focus is on three distinctive types of actors--for-profit actors, not-for-profit actors and multilateral institutions--in responding to maritime security threats such as smuggling, piracy and illegal fishing. This issue investigates the ways in which new actors address these threats and considers how their participation has affected the role of the state as the primary provider of maritime security. It therefore offers insights into alternative methods for tackling contemporary maritime security threats in Southeast Asia, including hybrid forms of maritime security governance. Significantly, by revealing the contribution of new actors in Southeast Asia, a region where government responses and sovereignty have long played a central role, it demonstrates how and why established patterns of security governance in Southeast Asia are changing. This paper first situates our discussion in the broader theoretical debate that focuses on the rise of new actors in security governance around the world. The second section narrows the lens to Southeast Asia. It provides a brief overview of contemporary maritime security threats in Southeast Asia and discusses state responses to these threats. The third section elaborates our analytical framework, identifying the new actors discussed in this special issue and the nature of their responses to maritime security threats. It also examines the distinctive, often complex inter-relationships between these actors and the state across the region. Changes in Security Governance Economic, political and social problems such as financial crises and climate change that have emerged since the end of the Cold War seriously challenge existing state institutions worldwide. As a result, new actors have emerged that offer a wide range of governance responses to current problems at sub-national, national and international levels. (2) One area where new actors play an ever more important role is in responses to national and international security threats. Indeed, it has become increasingly clear that many contemporary non-traditional security threats, such as terrorism or transnational crime, cannot be addressed by existing national agencies or individual states alone. As a result, the line between national and international security has become blurred and security challenges are today met by a range of new actors. Three kinds of actors are arguably most important in addressing security challenges: (1) for-profit actors; (2) not-for-profit actors; and (3) multilateral institutions. The nature and scale of these actors' involvement depends on their motivations, capacities and interests. Their involvement can also be regarded in different ways. On the one hand, the involvement of new actors can be seen as ineffective in addressing security problems or as problematic --as exemplified by, the controversy and scandals that followed the large scale employment of private security firms in Iraq. …

The involvement of non-state actors in legal regimes concerning the protection of cultural heritage has been identified as a key challenge facing the development of international law in this field. This challenge is intensified when the relevant cultural heritage under consideration takes the form of religious sites whose use by a church community (non-state actor) for the purposes of its religious activities has been impacted upon by circumstances such as war or inter-ethnic conflict resulting in the displacement of that church community. This article contributes to this discussion by reference to a significant non-state actor in the field of religion and global affairs – the Orthodox Church – and specifically by reference to the Church’s heritage in Turkey. After providing the reasons which justify a scholarly legal examination of the Church’s assertion of rights with respect to its heritage in Turkey, as well as an outline of the main measures which have been applied by Turkish authorities to this heritage, the article proceeds to offer a tentative overview and analysis of the relevant legal and policy framework and suggests certain issues requiring further scholarly exploration. It is argued that in addition to providing useful insights about the role of nonstate actors in the cultural heritage field, such further exploration can offer useful insights about a related topic which is currently relatively unexplored by cultural heritage commentators, namely, the post-conflict management of religious sites.

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’.

Since the 1990s, Brazil’s foreign policy-making, traditionally a highly centralised and hierarchical process, has become more fragmented, plural and horizontal. In this context, the role of non-state actors has been increasingly relevant. The impact and significance of these actors have been however a matter of debate. While there are authors that consider that non-state actors play only a secondary role in the policy-making process, there are others that assert that these actors work alongside governmental actors and directly influence policy choices. Drawing on the concept of network governance, the paper proposes a different view from the two recurrent approaches in the literature mentioned above. It argues that the recent steps to transform Brazil’s state governance from hierarchy to horizontal networks have indeed expanded the room for the direct participation of non-state actors in the policy process. However, state authorities fought to adjust this tendency, in order to retain control over the decision-making process, by putting in place formal and informal coordinating mechanisms led by the Ministry of Foreign Relations and the Presidency. This suggests Brazil’s foreign policy was made in the shadow of hierarchy. The paper demonstrates the argument using the case of Brazil’s foreign policy towards China.