The Role of Non-State Actors in Strengthening the Developmental Capacity of the State: A Case Study of Cross Rivers State, Nigeria

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 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.

Following the Beslan2 school hostage crisis in September 2004, the President of Russia Vladimir Putin proposed the creation of a Public Chamber, which was intended to function as a public oversight committee with consultation powers. This body, which was established in 2005 with 126 members, analyses draft legis lation and monitors the activities of parliament, government and other governmental bodies of Russia and its Federal Subjects. At the same time new laws on non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have been adopted on the federal3 and regional level,4 in order to restructure the interaction between state and nonstate actors. According to the government, the new NGO legislation created the legal basis for NGOs as a new type of actor in the policy arena, enabling them to participate in politics.5 The Public Chamber, in addition, provides a negotiation platform that involves NGOs in problem solving and in bargaining compromises with state actors. Many observers, however, criticized the legislation as it seemed to tighten the control of the state over NGOs and to create obstacles for negotiations between the state and NGOs (Nusberger and Schmidt 2007). These controversial interpretations raise the question whether state actors really involve NGOs in problem solving and bargaining compromises and why state actors negotiate with NGOs. Analyses of authoritarian corporatism showed that economically and socially complex states cannot be governed only by technocratic-authoritarian means (Stepan 1978) and that under these conditions authoritarian regimes negotiate politics with societal actors. The literature on governance explains in detail that hierarchical steering causes information problems. This means that decision makers often do not have the required information about the object of theirdecision. Thus, the capacity of the state to effectively steer and coordinate society is seriously challenged. Negotiations between stakeholders can provide information and knowledge and can thus enhance the state capacity to solve problems (Scharpf 2000). Nowadays the combination of traditional hierarchical governance and network governance with non-state actors becomes ever more necessary in order to provide state functions, because in modern societies the need for sophisticated information and knowledge is growing constantly (Mayntz 1993). According to Linz, relations between state and non-state actors in authoritarian states differ, however, from those in democratic ones in that they are limited pluralistic (Linz 2000). Thus, the existence and the leeway of political and societal actors in authoritarian states depend on the authoritarian regime. The state dictates the institutions and procedures for negotiations with non-state actors. This forced institutionalized model of solving conflicts allows for the representation of societal interests while at the same time limiting conflicts. Although the theory of authoritarian corporatism seems to be of great use in understanding why and how state actors involve non-state actors in negotiations in Russian politics, we propose that it does not sufficiently correspond to and explain reality. We claim that NGOs in Russia are nowadays sufficiently powerful to influence whether and how state actors involve them in negotiations. In order to address the question why and how state actors in Russia involve non-state actors in negotiated governance, we analyse and compare interactions between state and non-state actors in five regions and three policy fields. The chosen cases differ in two ways. First, the interest of state actors to cooperate with NGOs differs depending on the policy field. Second, each policy field is analysed in two regions with different resource distributions among involved actors. The cases are ethnic policy in the Krasnodar and Stavropol regions, social policy in the Perm and Nižnij Novgorod regions and environmental policy in the Krasnodar and Irkutsk regions. The cases were chosen in a way that allows for testing whether the theory of authoritarian corporatism sufficiently explains why and how state actors negotiate with NGOs or whether the resources of NGOs to force the state to involve them in negotiations is a necessary additional contributing cause. The non-state actors we consider are private business actors and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The term ‘non-governmental organization’ describes organizations, linked to civil society. The crucial characteristic is that they are independent of the government, which means autonomous from the state and not oriented to profit-making. They can be differentiated from citizen initiatives and social movements, which often follow close or similar interests by their concrete organizational structure (Nohlen 2002: 324ff.). In our analyses we include NGOs that have an independent articulation of interests, possess differentiated financing, are not profit oriented and have concrete organizational structures. The following section of the chapter will first introduce the issues at stake in the various cases as well as the interests and resources of the main actors. In thesecond section the interactions between state and non-state actors will be analysed. The chapter concludes with a summary of the findings.

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.

Contents: Introduction: relativizing the subjects or subjectivizing the actors: is that the question? Part I Non-State Actors in the Theory of International Law: The subjects of international law, Hersch Lauterpacht Critical reflections on the Westphalian assumptions of international law and organization: a crisis of legitimacy, A. Claire Cutler (I can't get no) recognition: subjects doctrine and the emergence of non-state actors, Jan Klabbers The emergence of non-governmental organizations and transnational enterprises in international law and the changing role of the state, Daniel ThA rer Paul Ricoeur and international law: beyond 'the end of the subject', Janne E. Nijman. Part II The Empirical Approach: Selected Non-State Actors: The individual and the international legal system, Robert McCorquodale Nongovernmental organizations and international law, Steve Charnovitz The invisible college of international lawyers, Oscar Schachter. Part III Participation by Non-State Actors in International Legal Processes: Law Making: NGOs, the International Criminal Court and the politics of writing international law, Michael J. Struett The Ottawa Convention banning landmines, the role of international non-governmental organizations and the idea of international civil society, Kenneth Anderson Law Adjudication: The amicis curiae before international courts and tribunals, Lance Bartholomeusz Law Enforcement: The environmental accountability of the World Bank to non-state actors: insights from the inspection panel, Alix Gowlland Gualtieri Globalization of human rights: the role of non-state actors, Andrea Bianchi. Part IV Non-State Actors' Accountability: the Quest for New Paradigms: The changing international legal framework for dealing with non-state actors, August Reinisch Punishment of non-state actors in non-international armed conflict, William A. Schabas Torture committed by non-state actors: the developing jurisprudence from the ad hoc tribunals, Jill Marshall Responsibility beyond borders: state responsibility for extraterritorial violations by corporations of international human rights law, Robert McCorquodale and Penelope Simons Overcoming NGO accountability concerns in international governance, Erik B. Bluemel Name index.

The study investigated the role of Non-State Peace Actors in promoting international peace and stability within the context of the Peace Actors Forum in Nairobi. Specifically, the study objectives sought to: Assess the effectiveness of the non-state peace actors’ Forum initiatives; examine how the Peace Actors Forum's work in Nairobi contributes to broader international peace and stabilization; and lastly analyze the challenges and opportunities faced by non-state peace actors in advancing international peace and stability. The significance of this study includes providing practical implications for peace and diplomacy practitioners, as well as stakeholders. It also contributes to scholarly research. The study was framed by Liberalism, Constructivism, and Track II Diplomacy. Descriptive research design was employed, with a case study on Nairobi PAF platform population. The study administered interviews, survey and Focus Group Discussion., targeting 120 members of the platform. Questionnaires were administered to 93 members, 7 key informant interview informants and two FGDs targeting 15 participants, a response rate of 91.83% was secured. The results were analyzed using both quantitative and qualitative techniques; quantitative data is presented through frequency distribution tables, pie charts, and bar graphs, while qualitative data is presented in verbatim quotes to provide a nuanced understanding of the findings From the findings, a significant majority of respondents reported positive outcomes of the initiatives by Nairobi non-state peace actors’ forum, particularly in interventions like the Sondu conflict. Non-state peace actors had more international collaborations than state actors, facilitating access to resources and knowledge sharing. Nonetheless, non-state peace actors commanded higher legitimacy and trust from the local communities. Among the key points of departure between Non-State Peace Actors and State Peace Actors was that the state actors had government authority unlike the non-state peace actors who lacked powers to enforce peace policies or any agreement. The major challenge experienced by non-state peace actors was reducing donor funding; divisive politics and ethnic mobilization that instigated conflicts; and security risks among the non-state peace actors. The State Peace Actors relied on public funds from the government, which is always available through national budgets and donors, to fund their operation unlike non-state peace actors who relied on donations to fund their operations and given the diminishing availability of donors. The study concludes by confirming that non-state actors provide distinct advantages that are crucial to establishing sustainable peace, despite having fewer resources and institutional power. Finally, the study recommended that stakeholders in peace and conflict resolution should strengthen coordination among non-state actors and State Actors; Strengthen local capacity building; engage in research; and advocate for supportive legal and policy framework.

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.


 Jouko Nikula – PhD, Senior Researcher, Finnish Centre for Russian and Eastern European Studies, University of Helsinki, Finland. Email: jounikul@gmail.com
 Nina Ivashinenko – Doktor Nauk in Economics, Professor, Head of Economic Sociology Department, Lobachevsky State University of N. Novgorod, Head of UNN-ISESP RAS Laboratory. Russian Federation. Email: nni@fsn.unn.ru
 
 This article discusses on-going foster care reform in Russia and analyses possibilities for the evolution of partnerships between stakeholders. The role of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in the realisation of programmes related to child welfare reform is considered, revealing that social partnership is a form of collaborative action. In other words, drawing on the work of Sandra Waddock, social partnership involves interactions performed by various actors to achieve common goals. The main characteristics of social partnerships are that they are specialised, voluntary and collaborative, and their main goal is to try to solve a common problem. However, not all cooperation between public authorities, NGOs and business is a partnership; in fact a successful partnership is characterised by a variety of features. These include mutual trust, complementary strengths, reciprocal accountability, joint decision-making, clearly articulated goals, equitable distribution of costs and benefits, performance indicators, as well as mechanisms to measure and monitor performance and a clear delineation of responsibilities. The role of non-state actors is increasing in welfare and other social services due to adverse demographic trends and the diminishing economic base available to the state for delivering social services. The state’s efforts to dismantle the former state-centred system of welfare has also resulted in the outsourcing of welfare responsibilities and services in child welfare to non-state actors. Alongside their growing role, many new questions have been raised about the quality of the NGOs’ activities and their skills. Therefore, the expansion of NGOs’ social functions potentially generates both opportunities and risks in the transformation of child welfare. Even if there are some green shoots of partnership between the public authorities and NGOs in this field, their relationship is not reciprocal. We argue that Russian NGOs need to improve their social status and the quality of their work to allow them to have their own voice when negotiating their relationship with different state actors.

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.

The role of Non-State Actors (NSAs) in the SADC regional integration was approved by the Council of Ministers in 2022. The Council gave the NSAs the mandate to participate in the regional integration agenda and contribute into SADC policy development, roll out, monitoring and evaluation. Ironically, there are no clear systematic mechanisms providing for NSAs’ engagement within the SADC structures and processes despite existence of SADC institutions. The coming in of the AfCFTA agreement sought to create a single African market thereby creating opportunities for NSAs. To date no noticeable increase in Africa intra-trade has been recorded. The study therefore, examines the perspectives on engagement of Non-State-Actors in the context of Regional Integration focusing on SADC region. The findings show that state actors are not involving non-state actors as they discuss regional economic integration agreements. The researcher recommends that valuable additions to regional economic integration and strengthening should be premised on an environment where policies and regulations are formulated from a consultative and inclusivity of NSAs. It is concluded that, when NSAs explore regional markets or create regional value chains, they facilitate regional economic integration from the bottom-up approach through their activities.

Legitimation has been conceived mostly as an exercise in justification by international/regional organisations needing to convince audiences of the rightfulness of their behaviour. What we could call the external dimension of legitimation. The internal dimension, what happens between an organisation and its stakeholders, remains understudied. Analysing internal legitimation practices becomes important in the context of the opening-up of international organisations. Aside from the EU, however, evidence is still lacking as to the nature and extent of this opening-up, and the role of non-state actors (NSAs) in this context. The article seeks to fill part of this void using the OAS as a case study. It examines actors' practices during three central moments in the legitimation process. At each stage, OAS' legitimation-seeking practices and NSAs' legitimation/de-legitimation practices are analysed. The study reveals that NSAs have responded positively to the opening-up by the OAS despite tensions among member States.

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’.

Global climate governance is multilateral and involves both state and non-state actors. This study sets to identify the ways in which non-state actors can access and participate in the international climate change regime under the UNFCCC and the 2015 Paris Agreement and to evaluate how they can influence law-making processes and outcomes under the agreements. The study further provides recommendations on how the involvement of non-state actors can be improved under the agreements. The study emphasizes that under the UNFCCC, non-state actors have an important role in acting as intermediaries under the orchestration governance model and in participating to the Conference of Parties and under the Paris Agreement, by exerting influence on state’s nationally determined contributions. The study suggests that the role of non-state actors in formulating nationally determined contributions and in participating to the Conference of Parties should be further formalised and that the NAZCA portal should be improved.

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.