How Participatory is Global Governance of Trade and Environment? The Cases of WTO and UN Climate Summits
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.
KeywordsWorld Trade Organization Global Governance Organizational Character Civil Society Actor Democratic Legitimacy
- Charnovitz, S. (2000). Opening the WTO to non-governmental interests. Fordham International Law Journal, 24(1), 173–216.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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
- Fried, A. (1997). Muffled echoes: Oliver north and the politics of public opinion. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- Glasius, M., Kaldor, M., & Anheier, H. (Eds.). (2005). Global civil society 2005/2006, London: Sage.Google Scholar
- 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
- Held, D. (1995). Democracy and the global order: From the modern state to cosmopolitan governance. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
- Keck, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
- Marchetti, R. (2008). Global democracy: For and against. Ethical theory, institutional design and social struggles. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Nordang-Uhre, A. (2014). ‘Exploring the Diversity of Transantional Actors in Global Environmental Governance’, Interest Groups & Advocacy, 3(1), 59–78.Google Scholar
- Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Scholte, J. A. (2002). Civil society and democracy in global governance. Global Governance, 8(3), 281–304.Google Scholar
- 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