To explain how globalization rebuilt public policy and social behavior, we study the different political, economic, and social actors - public or private, individual or collective - and the exchanges and interactions between them that are remaking international relations. This course is inspired by a French sociological and historical approach to international relations. This course is also available in french version: www.coursera.org/learn/espace-mondial-fr/
Multifunctional NGOs
Loading...
來自 Sciences Po 的課程
Espace mondial：法国视角下的国际研究
個評分
Explore Related Videos
At Coursera, you will find the best lectures in the world. Here are some of our personalized recommendations for you
從本節課中
World Actors
Nation-states are no more the only international actor. Many groups and 7 billions of individuals are now potential actors of our current international system.
與講師見面
Bertrand BadieProfessor
Marie-Françoise DurandProfessor
Let’s now take into account
some examples of these non states actors
and their roles on the international scene.
We could choose any kinds of actors.
Of course international transnational media,
we know the role played by CNN
during for instance the Golf war,
we know also the role played by Al Jazeera
in shaping the Arab spring,
and we can find also many others example
which are giving the clear evidence
of the transnational role
of these international transnational media.
We could also take the example
of religious actors and churches
and religious entrepreneurs,
but we will have a special chapter devoted
to religious issues and so I will be able
to go back to this question.
Let’s consider now
two important predominant non state actors:
multinational corporations and NGOs.
What is a multinational corporation?
It’s a firm which has multiple settings
in different countries but a strategic unity.
We know that these multinational corporations
have a turn over which is even bigger
than a developed country GNP,
Exxon has a turn over which is
equivalent to the Denmark or Finland GNP.
For these reasons and many others
multinational corporations
have to be considered now
as a non state actor,
as a predominant international
and transnational actor.
First of all because of its capacity
of pressure on governments,
second because of the capacity of promoting
there own participation in the international life
through negotiation
with governments for instance.
We have also to take into account
their capacity of ruling the areas
they are using for there own production,
like for instance oils companies in Africa.
We have also to consider
their capacity of shaping public policies,
transforming international
and global public policies.
But I would like to stress on one aspect
which is probably the most surprising one
that’s to say the capacity
of multinational corporations
of treating as equal partners
with sovereign states for sentencing
and also ordering them to pay
in case of investment disputes.
Let’s consider the famous institution
which means International Center
for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID),
this institution which depends
on the Worldbank
is equally composed of states,
sovereign states and multinational firms,
and multinational firms
are able to defeat states in very famous cases.
I would give you some examples.
First one, when a tobacco company made Uruguay
- the state of Uruguay -
sentences to find and pay damages
when the Uruguayan government decided
to restrict tobacco consumption.
A multinational corporation could defeat a state
in his sovereign decision.
Another example is after the famous well known
Argentine collapse in 2001-2002,
29 cases against Argentine where registered
by foreign investors who complain
of damages caused
by the economic measures adopted
by the Argentinean government.
That’s to say in our global world now
the distinction between
private and public actors is blurring,
the distinction between state
and non-state actors is blurring,
the real meaning of sovereignty is fading.
What is a sovereign state
when it can be condemned by a private actor?
Now if we move to NGOs,
that’s to say non governmental organizations.
We have first to take into account that since 1960
we have a number of NGOs
which is multiplied by 10.
In the mean time, all the NGOs which are present
and accredited in the United Nations
is growing from 15 just after the War
up to 3000 now in the famous ECOSOC
where they are sitting, acting,
playing a very very important role.
That’s to say
NGOs are now considered as official,
as real international actors
and they are accomplishing many new functions
which are more and more crucial
in the international present dynamics.
I would take some example.
First NGOs are more and more structured
and rooted in the different countries
around the world.
If you take into account for instance
Amnesty International,
Amnesty International is really rooted
in more than 160 countries around the world.
This is probably a new kind of diversification
of this new actor everywhere around the world.
Second function:
the NGOs are playing a function of advocacy,
that’s to say they are more and more
appealing to the public opinion,
to the international public opinion that I mentioned,
giving information, and now, thanks to the NOGs,
public opinion is more and more informed
about what is happening in the international arena.
But it also able by this advocacy function
to push some protest, to push some demand
and to make pressure on government
for transforming their own laws
or for triggering new kinds
of national public policies.
Third function: the role playing by NGOs
for the international development.
The role of NGOs in development
is clearly substituted to states
which are less and less keen
to participate in the international effort
for world development.
Fourth function:
participating in the international debate.
NGOs are at the first rank
of this new international debate
when the state diplomacy leads the nation states
to be more discrete or sometimes absent
in international Forums
and in international debates.
Fifth function: which is the fact finding function.
Fact finding function
is something very important, that’s to say
because they are rooted,
because they are structured,
because they are involved to national societies,
NGOs are well informed about the situation
in every country around the world
and even in authoritarian societies,
in authoritarian nation states
and are able to transmit these information.
If you take into account for instance
the Amnesty international Yearbook
you will find there probably the most achieved
the most completed Yearbook
that youcan find in the world
for giving the present situation
of human rights around the world.
All the dictators are really fearing
of this kind of publication
and know that through this kind of publication
all the world are now aware of what they are
currently doing in they own country.
And the last function,
which is more and more important to,
is writing norms.
Writing norms mean that international law
is not only written by states,
but are more and more written also by NGOs.
If you take into account for instance
the Rome Treaty, the Rome Convention
which was creating
the International Criminal Court,
this text was partly written
by some human right NGOs
like Human Rights Watch
or the International Federation of Human Rights
or also Amnesty international.
If you take into account
the famous Ottawa Convention
on the anti-personal mines
you will see that this text
has been mainly written
by Handicap international
which is as you know
a specialized NGO in this field.
That’s why now NGOs are playing a role
which would be similar
to the role played by bourgeoisie
in the 18th century in Europe when appears
what Jürgen Habermas called public space.
There is now through this new activity of NGOs
a kind of international "public space"
which is organized by these private actors
which are much more able
to act freely than the states are.
And that’s why
what the state diplomacy is nor able to promote
more and more NGOs are able to do
through there own actions
and through there own networks.
That's why I would say
that NGOs are now a kind of substitute
to the states which are limited
in their activities and their capacity.
Of course the situation is much more complex
and NGOs are limited in their actions
by many constraints.
NGOs are also structured by a kind of oligarchy
sometime this oligarchy
is very closed to the state
and especially in the authoritarian regimes,
governments are promoting NGOs
which are controlled by the political actors
and which are considered as GONGOs
Government Oriented NGOs
that’s to say manipulated, instrumentalized
by the political actors
and by the authoritarian regimes.
Of course, there is also a problem
of founding for these NGOs:
who are those who are founding this NGOs?
Are they free actors
or are they themselves controlled by a power
which would limit the power of these NGOs?
But in any case now we know
that this kind of actors
have to be consider as one of the major players
on the international arena.
