Advertisement

How Participatory is Global Governance of Trade and Environment? The Cases of WTO and UN Climate Summits

  • Marcel Hanegraaff
  • Arlo Poletti
Chapter
Part of the International Series on Public Policy book series (ISPP)

Abstract

Granting greater access to civil society actors in international institutional venues is widely perceived as one potentially effective solution to provide global governance with more expertise, accountability and, ultimately, legitimacy. While recent research shows that global governance has witnessed a systematic shift towards greater involvement of civil society actors, we know little about these transformations’ effects on the nature of political mobilization by non-state actors. On the basis of a dataset collecting information on the participation of 2000 societal groups at WTO Ministerial Conferences and 6500 societal groups at UN Climate Summits over the 1995–2012 period, we show that the nature of political mobilization in these global governance venues remains largely ‘domestic’, both with respect to the organizational character and the priorities of these groups.

Keywords

World Trade Organization Global Governance Organizational Character Civil Society Actor Democratic Legitimacy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Archibugi, D., Koenig-Archibugi, M., & Marchetti, R. (2011). Introduction: Mapping global democracy. In D. Archibugi, M. Koenig-Archibugi, & R. Marchetti (Eds.), Global democracy: Normative and empirical perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Castells, M. (2008). The new public sphere: Global civil society, communication networks, and global governance. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616, 78–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Charnovitz, S. (2000). Opening the WTO to non-governmental interests. Fordham International Law Journal, 24(1), 173–216.Google Scholar
  4. De Bièvre, D., Poletti, A., & Hanegraaff, M.C. (in press). WTO judicial politics and EU trade policy: Business associations as vessels of special interest? British Journal of Politics and International Relations. doi: 10.1111/1467-856X.12071.
  5. De Bièvre, D., Poletti, A., Hanegraaff, M. & Beyers, J. (2016). ‘International institutions and interest mobilization: the WTO and lobbying in EU and US trade policy’, Journal of World Trade, 50(2), 289–312.Google Scholar
  6. Fischer, D. (2010). COP-15 in Copenhagen: How the merging’, of movements left civil society out in the cold. Global Environmental Politics, 10(2), 11–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fischer, D., & Green, J. (2004). Understanding disenfranchisement: Civil society and developing countries’ influence and participation in global governance for sustainable development. Global Environmental Politics, 4(3), 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fried, A. (1997). Muffled echoes: Oliver north and the politics of public opinion. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Glasius, M., Kaldor, M., & Anheier, H. (Eds.). (2005). Global civil society 2005/2006, London: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Hanegraaff, M. C. (2015). Interest groups at transnational conferences: Goals, strategies, interactions and influence. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 21(4), 599–620.Google Scholar
  11. Hanegraaff, M. C. (2015a). Transnational advocacy over time: Business and NGO mobilization at UN climate summits. Global Environmental Politics, 15(1), 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hanegraaff, M. C., Braun, C., De Bièvre, D., & Beyers, J. (2015). The global and domestic origins of transnational advocacy. Explaining interest representation at the WTO. Comparative Political Studies, 48(12), 1591–1621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hanegraaff, M. C., Braun-Poppelaars, C., & Beyers, J. (2011). Open the door to more of the same? The development of interest group representation at the WTO. World Trade Review, 10(4), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Held, D. (1995). Democracy and the global order: From the modern state to cosmopolitan governance. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  15. Held, D. (2004). Democratic accountability and political effectiveness from a cosmopolitan perspective. Government and Opposition, 39(2), 364–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Keck, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Macdonald, T. (2008). Global stakeholder democracy: Power and representation beyond liberal states. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marchetti, R. (2008). Global democracy: For and against. Ethical theory, institutional design and social struggles. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Marchetti, R. (2011). Models of global democracy: In defense of cosmo-federalism. In D. Archibugi, M. Koenig-Archibugi, & R. Marchetti (Eds.), Global democracy: Normative and empirical perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mattli, W., & Woods, N. (2009). The politics of global regulation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Muñoz Cabré, M. (2011). Issue-linkages to climate change measured through NGO participation in the UNFCCC. Global Environmental Politics, 11(3), 10–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nanz, P., & Steffeck, J. (2004). Global governance, participation and the public sphere. Government and Opposition, 39(2), 314–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nordang-Uhre, A. (2014). ‘Exploring the Diversity of Transantional Actors in Global Environmental Governance’, Interest Groups & Advocacy, 3(1), 59–78.Google Scholar
  24. Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Robertson, D. (2000). Civil society and the WTO. World Economy, 23(9), 1119–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Scholte, J. A. (2000). Civil society and democratically accountable global governance. Government and Opposition, 39(2), 211–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Scholte, J. A. (2002). Civil society and democracy in global governance. Global Governance, 8(3), 281–304.Google Scholar
  28. Spiro, P. (2000). The new sovereigntists: American exceptionalism and its false prophets’. Foreign Affairs, 79(9), 9–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Steffek, J., & Kissling, C. (2006). Civil society participation in international governance: The UN and the WTO compared, TranState Working Papers, Bremen: University of Bremen.Google Scholar
  30. Tallberg, J., Sommerer, T., Squatrito, T., & Jonsson, C. (2014). Explaining the transnational design of international organizations. International Organization, 68(4), 741–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Van den Bossche, P. (2008). NGO involvement in the WTO: A comparative perspective. Journal of International Economic Law, 11(4), 717–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcel Hanegraaff
    • 1
  • Arlo Poletti
    • 2
  1. 1.University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceLUISSRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations