NGOs and the Shaping of the European Controls on Small Arms Exports

  • Holger Anders

Abstract

The power to decide on foreign policy traditionally rests with governments. This is particularly so if policy decisions affect matters of national security such as the manufacture and trade of conventional weapons. During the Cold War, governments were largely autonomous from nongovernmental actors such as arms control campaigners and advocates in their policy formulation and making on arms control. Since the end of the Cold War, however, nongovernmental policy advocates have become prominent actors in policy debates on conventional weapons controls. This at least is suggested by the emergence of prominent policy coalitions between certain governmental and nongovernmental actors jointly pursuing shared aims such as the international ban of anti-personnel landmines or greater controls on the international trade in military small arms. Indeed, this increased role of nongovernmental participation in policy making on conventional arms control opens the question of whether we are witnessing a shift toward the governance of arms control. That is, is there a shift in policy-making authority on conventional arms control away from governments and to non-governmental policy actors?

Keywords

Europe Shipping Syria Indonesia Haas 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Don Hubert, The Landmine Ban: A Case Study in Humanitarian Advocacy, Occasional Paper 42 (Providence, R1 Thomas J. Watson Jr. Institute for International Studies, 2000), 1–3.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Peter Haas, “Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination,” International Organization 46, no. 1 (1992): 1–35, 3.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thomas Risse-Kappen, Cooperation among Democracies: The European Influence on U.S. Foreign Policy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Emanuel Adler, “The Emergence of Cooperation: National Epistemic Communities and the International Evolution of the Idea of Nuclear Arms Control,” International Organization 46, no. 1 (1992): 101–45.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Matthew Evangelista, Unarmed Forces: The Transnational Movement to End the Cold War (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999); Jeffrey Checkel, Ideas and International Political Change: Soviet/Russian Behavior and the End of the Cold War (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, Activists beyond Borders-Advocacy Networks in International Politics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ilhan Berkol, La Conference des Nations Unies de Juillet 2001 sur les Armes Legeres: Analyse du Processus et de ses Resultats, Rapport 2001/4 (Brussels: Groupe de Recherche et Information sur la Paix et la Sécurité, 2001). For further information on IANSA and its role in the field of SALW control see http://www.iansa.org.Google Scholar
  8. 14.
    Björn Hagelin, Pieter Wezeman, Siemon Wezeman, and Nicholas Chipperfield, “The Volume of Transfers of Major Conventional Weapons: By Recipients and Suppliers, 1998–2002,” in SIPRI Yearbook 2002: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 470.Google Scholar
  9. 25.
    Brian Wood and Johan Peleman, The Arms Fixers: Controlling the Brokers and Shipping Agents, Report 3/99 (Oslo: International Peace Research Institute, 1999).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Elke Krahmann 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Holger Anders

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations