Abstract
This chapter outlines four key characteristics of the supranational coalitions of non-state actors and differentiates them from other typologies of networks and/or groupings of civil society actors. The first underlying characteristic of supranational coalitions of civil society is the composition. Non-governmental organisations are the most recurring typology of member of such coalitions. As a general rule, individuals are not admitted as members. This helps to distinguish formalised networks of civil society actors from Social Movements, Social Networks, Trans-Governmental Committees and the so-called “QUANGOs”. The second key characteristic illustrated in this chapter concerns the rules for accession to supranational coalitions of civil society actors. Focus is put on the distinction between a technical and a political component present in each coalition. The third key characteristic concerns the rules governing the supranational coalition of civil society actors. These coalitions are not governed through public elections or governmental structures. Rather, they are controlled by their members through specific agreements aimed at providing regularity to their operations, whether or not they are formally constituted or legally registered. Agreements governing coalitions might have a variety of degrees in structure, from codes of conduct to more nuanced agreements. Finally, this chapter discusses the supranational nature of the coalitions of civil society actors. These coalitions are rooted in the perception that civil society constitutes a class with a common cause that transcends domestic boundaries. In this sense they are simultaneously designated as both a network of people and the infrastructure that sustain it. Thus, even when operating locally, these coalitions maintain a close and constant relationship with the supranational regulatory level.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See www.agp.org. See also S. Tarrow, Power in Movements: Social Movements and Contentious Politics (Cambridge, 1998); “ Transnational Politics: Contentions and Institutions in International Politics” (2001) 4 Annual Review of Political Science 1. See generally H. Kohn, “Pan-Movements” (1935) 11 Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences New York; R. Kolins Givan, K.M. Roberts, S.A. Soule (eds.), The Diffusion of Social Movements. Actors, Mechanisms, and Political Effects (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2010).
- 2.
See D. Fuchs, The Normalization of the Unconventional: Forms of Political Action and New Social Movements (Berlin, 1990); D. Meyer, S. Tarrow (eds.), The Social Movement Society (Oxford, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1998); E. Avril, J.N. Neem (eds.), Democracy, Participation and Contestation (Abingdon, Routledge, 2015).
- 3.
See M. Castels, Networks of Outrage and Hope. Social Movements in the Internet Age (Cambridge, Polity Press, 2012), at 4.
- 4.
See C. Warkentin, Reshaping World Politics, see chapter 1 at section 6.1, at 21.
- 5.
See D. Singh Grewal, Network Power, see chapter 2 at section 1, at 21.
- 6.
See generally C. Joerges, E. Vods (ed.), E.U. Committees: Social Regulation, Law and Politics (Oxford-Portland, Hart Publishing, 1999).
- 7.
See, for instance, G. Sgueo, Counter-terrorism financing in the EU budget (2015) European Parliament.
- 8.
See M. Savino, “The role of Transnational Committees in the European and Global Orders” (2006) 6 Global Jurist Advances article 5, and I comitati dell’Unione europea. La collegialità negli ordinamenti composite (Milano, Giuffrè, 2005). On the contribution of trans-governmental committees to the shaping of global governance See A.M. Slaughter, “The Accountability of Government Networks” (2000–2001) 8 Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 347; and “Global Government Networks, Global Information Agencies, and Disaggregated Democracy” (2002–2003) 24 Michigan Journal of International Law 1041. See also K. Raustiala, “The Architecture of International cooperation: Transgovernmental Networks and the Future of International Law” (2002–2003) 43 Virginia Journal of International Law 1; F. Bignami, “Transgovernmental Networks vs. Democracy: The Case of the European Information Privacy Network” (2004–2005) 26 Michigan Journal of International Law 807. For more specific analysis on trans-governmental networks in economic regulation See S. Picciotto, “ Networks in International Economic Integration: Fragmented States and the Dilemmas of Neo-Liberalism” (1996–1997) 17 North-western Journal of International Law & Business 1014. On G8 meetings See R.D. Putnam, N. Bayne, Hanging Together: The Seven-power Summits (Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press, 1984); M. Conticelli, “The G8 and “The Others”” (2006) 6 Global Jurist Advances article 2. On G20 meetings (in comparison to G8 meetings) See R. Goldbach, T. Hasche, J. Muller, S. Schuder, “Global Governance of the World Financial Crisis?” (2010) 2 Göttingen Journal of International Law 11.
- 9.
See generally www.g20civil.com
- 10.
See for further details E. Lynn Heinisch, “West Africa Versus the United States on Cotton Subsidies: How, Why and What Next?” (2006) 44 Journal of Modern African Studies 251.
- 11.
See www.uclg.org
- 12.
See G. de Beco, “Networks of European National Human Rights Institutions” (2008) 14 European Law Journal 860.
- 13.
See W.H. Reinicke, F. Deng, Critical Choices. The United Nations, Networks, and the Future of Global Governance (Ottawa, International Development Research Centre, 2000).
- 14.
See www.iucn.org.
- 15.
See G. de Burca, R.O. Keohane, C. Sabel, New Modes of Pluralist Global Governance, see chapter 1 at section 3 and chapter 2 n 4.
- 16.
See Article 7 of Regulation 2001/546/EC.
- 17.
See also P.M. Haas, “Do Regimes Matter? Epistemic Communities and Mediterranean Pollution Control” (1999) 34 International Organizations 377 and, also, P.M. Haas, Saving the Mediterranean, (New York, Columbia University Press, 1990). References on epistemic communities can be also found in P.H. Sand, “Lessons Learned in Global Environmental Governance” (1991) 18 BC Environmental Affair Law Review 213.
- 18.
On the concept of “epistemic authority” See T.J. Sinclair, “A private Authority Perspective on Global Governance”, in A.D. Ba, M.J. Hoffmann see chapter 1 n 27, at 179; S. Wheatley, “Democratic Governance Beyond the State: The Legitimacy of Non-State Actors as Standard Setters”, in A. Peters, L. Koechlin, T. Forster, G Fenner Zinkernagel (eds.), Non-state Actors as Standard Setters (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2009), at 216.
- 19.
See generally www.gdnet.org
- 20.
See also D. Stone, “Non-Governmental Policy Transfer: The Strategies of Independent Policy Institutes” (2000) 13:1 Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration 45.
- 21.
See generally www.simpol.org
- 22.
See generally www.globalfootprintnetwork.org
- 23.
See also K. Hewit (ed.), Interpretations of Calamity, from the Viewpoint of Human Ecology (Boston, Allen & Urwin, 1983).
- 24.
See D.E. Abelson, Do Think Tanks Matter? Assessing the Impact of Public Policy Institutes (Montreal, McGill Queen’s University Press, 2002); S. Boucher (ed.), Europe and Its Think Tanks: A Promise To Be Fulfilled (Paris, Notre Europe, 2004); S. Diane, Capturing the Political Imagination: Think Tanks and the Policy Process (London, Routledge, 1996).
- 25.
See generally www.csopartnership.org
- 26.
See S. Tierney, S. Toddington, “Societas, universitas and the third order of the political” (2005) 16 King’s College Law Journal 215.
- 27.
See F. Longo, Unione Europea e scienza politica (Milano, Giuffrè, 2005).
- 28.
See M.E. Keck, K. Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders, see chapter 1 at section 1, chapter 1 n 60 and n 68, chapter 4 n 29 and chapter 6 n 24, at 3.
- 29.
See P. Van den Bossche, “NGO Involvement in the WTO: A Lawyer’s Perspective on a Glass Half-full or Half-empty” (2006) Maastricht Faculty of Law Working Paper 10, available at www.unimaas.nl/bestand.asp?id=6981
- 30.
See 1949 ICJ Reports, p. 178. See also J. Klabbers, (I Can’t Get No) Recognition: Subjects Doctrine and the Emergence of Non-State Actors“, in J. Peterman, J. Klabbers (eds.), Nordic Cosmopolitanism: Essays in International Law for Martti Koskenniemi (Leiden, Kluwer Law International, 2003).
- 31.
For further details on Dietrich Schindler’s view See D. Thurer, “The Emergence of Non-Governmental Organizations and Transnational Enterprises in International Law and the Changing Role of the State”, in A. Bianchi (ed.), Non State Actors in International Law, see chapter 1 n 72 and chapter 4 n 52.
- 32.
See A. Orakhelashvili, “The Position of the Individual in International Law” (2001) 31 California Western International Law Journal 241.
- 33.
See S. Charnovitz, Two Centuries of Participation see text n 38 and chapter 1 n 68;K. Martens, “Examining the (Non-)Status of NGOs in International Law” (2003) 10 Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 1.
- 34.
See Resolution 1996/31 concerning “Consultative relationship between the United Nations and non-governmental organizations”, adopted by the Economic and Social Council at its 49th plenary meeting on 25 July 1996.
- 35.
These conditions are familiar to the idea of corporatism. See M. Ottaway, Corporatism Goes Global , see chapter 1 at section 7.1.
- 36.
See the NETmundial Multi-stakeholder Statement here: www.irpa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/2014_04_24_NETmundial_Multistakeholder_Statement_-_NETmundial.pdf
- 37.
See P. Willets, Pressure Groups in the Global System (London, F. Pinte, 1982), at 15.
- 38.
See S. Charnovitz, Two Centuries of Participation, see chapter 1 n 68 and text n 33.
- 39.
See E. Benvenisti, “Exit and Voice in the Age of Globalization” (1999) 98 Michigan Law Review 167.
References
Bruno, I., and E. Didier. 2013. Benchmarking. L’état sous pression statistique. Paris: Zones.
De Waal, A. 1997. Famine crimes: Politics and the disaster relief industry in Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haas, P.M. 1992. Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organizations 46: 1.
Haunss, S., and D.K. Leach. 2007. Social movement scenes: Infrastructures of opposition in civil society. In Civil societies and social movements, ed. D. Purdue. New York: Routledge.
Kaufmann, W. 1908. Die modernen nicht-staatlichen internationalen Verbände und Kongresse und das internationale Recht. Zeitschrift für Völkerrecht und Bundesstaatsrecht 2: 434.
Oliver, P.E., and G. Marwell. 1992. Mobilizing technologies for collective actions. In Frontiers in social movement theory, ed. A.D. Morris and C. Mcclug Mueller. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Peterson, J. 1992. Whalers, cetologists, environmentalists, and the international management of whaling. International Organization 46: 149.
Peterson, J. 1995. Decision-making in the European Union: Towards a framework for analysis. Journal of European Public Policy 1: 69.
Pianta, M. 2001. Parallel summits of global civil society. In Global civil society, ed. H. Anheier, M. Glasius, and M. Kaldor. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sabel, C., and Zeitlin J. 2006. Learning from difference: The new architecture of experimentalist governance in the European Union. European Governance. Paper No. C-07-02.
Schachter, O. 1971. The twilight existence of nonbinding international agreements. The American Journal of International Law 71: 296.
Scholte, J.A. 2000. Global civil society. In The political economy of globalization, ed. N. Woods. London: Palgrave Publisher.
Stiglitz, J. 2000. Scan globally, reinvent locally: Knowledge infrastructure and the localization of knowledge. In Banking on knowledge: The genesis of the global development network, ed. D. Stone. London: Routledge.
Stone, D. 2004. Transfer agents and global networks in the “Transnationalization” of policy. Journal of European Public Policy 11(3): 545.
Stone, D. 2008. The new networks of knowledge: Think tanks and the transnationalization of governance. New York: The Social Science Research Council.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sgueo, G. (2016). The Interlocutory Coalitions: Composition, Governance and Supranational Stance. In: Beyond Networks - Interlocutory Coalitions, the European and Global Legal Orders. Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation, vol 8. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28875-8_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28875-8_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-28873-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-28875-8
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)