From Advocacy to Diplomacy: The Case of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
https://doi.org/10.24833/RJWPLN-2023-12-33-57
Abstract
The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) has become known for its active engagement in the drafting and promotion of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). ICAN’s success is related to the fact that it counts other anti-nuclear non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and a number of state figures and diplomats among its members. ICAN is a “transnational advocacy network” (TAN) that has managed to engage a significant pool of state and non-state stakeholders (actors). This paper aims to explore the ICAN phenomenon and identify the features of this transnational advocacy network. The study is based on documents and materials drawn from the official ICAN website, working papers from the NPT Review Conferences, and interviews with representatives of anti-nuclear NGOs. The novelty of the study consists in the fact that a new interpretation of the concept of “transnational advocacy network” was introduced into Russian academic discourse and the main instruments and principles of TAN were identified on the basis of the ICAN example. The research into ICAN was carried out according to three bullet-points: (1) analysis of NGO activities in the NPT negotiation process; (2) identification of the features of ICAN as a TAN, the main trends and methods of work; (3) problems and limitations of ICAN. A hallmark of TANs today is that they combine advocacy and expert assessment, allowing such coalitions to work successfully with international organizations and states. ICAN is an interesting case study because there has been a convergence of interests between a number of states and anti-nuclear NGOs. However, the question remains as to how long it will be able to keep functioning in the TAN format and continue to frame the agenda of the NPT Conferences. The drive to ban nuclear weapons, and then to lobby for the signing and ratification of the NPT, demonstrated that ICAN had moved from public activity to direct diplomacy. However, there is reason to believe ICAN and its coordinating role in the NPT negotiation process may become less important as the focus and interests of states shifts back to public outreach activities.
Keywords
ICAN,
transnational advocacy network,
TAN,
regime,
NPT,
TPNW,
NGOs,
prohibition of nuclear weapons,
nuclear norms
About the Author
E. B. Mikhaylenko
Ural Federal University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Ekaterina B. Mikhaylenko – Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor, Department for Theory
and History of International Relations
51, Lenin Avenue, Yekaterinburg, Sverdlovskaya
oblast', 620075
References
1. Acheson R. 2018. Impact of The Nuclear Ban: How Outlawing Nuclear Weapons Is Changing The World. Global Change, Peace and Security. 30(2). P. 243–250. DOI: 10.1080/14781158.2018.1465907
2. Acheson R. 2019. The Nuclear Ban and The Patriarchy: A Feminist Analysis of Opposition To Prohibiting Nuclear Weapons. Critical Studies on Security. 7(1). P. 78–82. DOI: 10.1080/21624887.2018.1468127
3. Adami I., Verbitskaya T., Gileva P., Guseynov K., Dyagterev N., Zolotarev F., Kazantseva A., Lapanovich E., Mikhaylenko V., Mikhaylenko E., Muratshina K., Poryadina E. 2020. Dogovor o zapreshchenii yadernogo oruzhiya: formirovanie novogo rezhima? [Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons: Formation of a New Regime?]. Yekaterinburg: Izdatel'stvo Ural'skogo universiteta. 180 p. (In Russian)
4. Bolton M., Minor E. 2016. The Discursive Turn Arrives in Turtle Bay: The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons’ Operationalization of Critical IR theories. Global Policy. 7(3). P. 385–395.
5. Borrie J., Spies M., Wan W. 2018. Obstacles to Understanding the Emergence and Significance of The Treaty on The Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Global Change, Peace and Security. 30(2). P. 95–119. DOI: 10.1080/14781158.2018.1467394
6. Buzan B., Hansen L. 2009. The Evolution and International Security Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 384 p.
7. Carson L. 2018. Why Youth and Feminist Activism Matters: Insights from Anti-Nuclear Campaigns in Practice. Global Change, Peace and Security. 30(2). P. 261–269. DOI: 10.1080/14781158. 2018.1467395
8. Considine L. 2019. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Question Of Nuclear Meaning. Critical Studies on Security. 7(1). P. 87–90. DOI: 10.1080/21624887.2018.1468131
9. Crowley-Vigneau A., Baykov A. 2018. Pochemu gosudarstva zaimstvuyut ekologicheskie normy: opyt Rossii [Transnational Networks and Russia's Environmental Policies]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. 16(4). P. 137–153. DOI: 10.17994/IT.2018.16.4.55.8 (In Russian)
10. Crowley-Vigneau A., Baykov A. 2020. Transnational Expertise and Experience Networks and Russia’s Environmental Policies. Mezhdunarodnye Protsessy. 18(1). P. 106–118. DOI 10.17994/IT.2020.18.1.60.6.
11. della Porta D., Tarrow, S., eds. 2005. Transnational Protest and Global Activism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 304 p.
12. Efimov O. I. 2010. Global'noe grazhdanskoe obshchestvo: kharakteristiki i protivorechiya [Global Civil Society: Characteristics and Contradictions]. Lichnost’. Kultura. Obschestvo. 12(4) (59- 60). P. 379–384. (In Russian)
13. Egeland K. 2019. Introduction: The Nuclear Ban Treaty as Negation of Negation. Critical Studies on Security. 7(1). P. 69–72. DOI: 10.1080/21624887.2018.1468102
14. Evlaev A. N., Zubkov S. A. 2020. Global'noe grazhdanskoe obshchestvo i ego rol' v reshenii ekologicheskikh problem [Global civil society and its role in solving environmental problems]. Poisk: Politika. Obshchestvovedenie. Iskusstvo. Sociologiya. Kul'tura. 2(79). P. 80–91. (In Russian)
15. Finnemore M., Sikkink K. 1998. International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. International Organization. 52(4). P. 887–917. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/002081898550789
16. Gutorova A. N. 2017. Mezhdunarodnye nepravitel'stvennye organizatsii: ponyatie, vidy i rol' v sovremennom mire [International non-governmental organizations: concept, types and role in the modern world]. Izvestiya YUgo-Zapadnogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. 4(73). P. 154–164. DOI: 10.21869/2223-1560-2017-21-4-154-164 (In Russian)
17. Hansen L. 2010. Poststructuralism and Security. In R. Denemark,R. Marlin-Bennett, eds. The International Studies Encyclopedia: Volume IX. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. P. 5876–5892.
18. Istomin I., Crowley-Vigneau A. 2020. Tekhnologicheskaya neopredelennost' normy v oblasti kontrolya nad vooruzheniyami [Technological Uncertainty of the Norm in Arms Control]. In A. Sushentsov, I. Fomin, W. Wolforth, eds. Budushchee mirovoy politiki: tekhnologii, konflikty. Moscow: Ves' mir. P. 115–161.(In Russian)
19. Ivanov V. G. 2010. Global'noe grazhdanskoe obshchestvo: stanovlenie novogo aktora mirovoj politiki. CHast' 1 [Global Civil Society: Formation of a New Actor in World Politics. Part 1]. Vestnik Rossiyskogo universiteta druzgby narodov. No. 4. P. 106–115. (In Russian)
20. Ivanova E. N., Ivanov V. I. 2012. Vzaimodeystvie mezhdunarodnykh nepravitel'stvennykh organizatsiy s OON i mezhpravitel'stvennymi organizatsiyami [Interaction of international non-governmental organizations with the UN and intergovernmental organizations]. Vestnik RGGU. Seriya: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. Zarubezhnoe regionovedenie. 19(99). P. 57–67. (In Russian)
21. Keck M. E., Sikkink K. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks In International Politics. New York: Cornell University Press. 228 p.
22. Keck M. E., Sikkink K. 1999. Transnational Advocacy Networks in International and Regional Politics. International Social Science Journal.51(159). P. 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2451.00179
23. Kelly R. E. 2007. From International Relations to Global Governance Theory: Conceptualizing NGOs after the Rio Breakthrough of 1992. Journal of Civil Society. 3(1). P. 81–99. DOI: 10.1080/17448680701390786
24. Kmentt A. 2015. The Development of the International Initiative on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons and Its Effect on the Nuclear Weapons Debate. International Review of the Red Cross. 97(899). 681–709. DOI:10.1017/S1816383116000059
25. Mæland J. G., Akhtar S. 2018. Collaboration and Confrontation: The Norwegian Humanitarian Initiative Experience. Medicine, Conflict and Survival. 34(4). P. 324–329. DOI: 10.1080/13623699.2 018.1560622
26. Mato D. 2005. Social Production of Representations of Ideas of Civil Society: The Role of Transnational Networks of Local and Global Actors. Comparative American Studies. An International Journal. 3(4). P. 470–494. DOI: 10.1177/1477570005058962
27. Mekata M. 2018. How Transnational Civil Society Realized the Ban Treaty: An Interview with Beatrice Fihn. Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament. 1(1). P. 79–92. DOI: 10.1080/25751654. 2018.1441583
28. Meyer P., Sauer T. 2018. The Nuclear Ban Treaty: A Sign of Global Impatience. Survival. 60(2). P. 61–72. DOI: 10.1080/00396338.2018.1448574
29. Mikhaylenko E. B., Degtyarev N. S. 2019. Evolyutsiya idei zapreshcheniya yadernogo oruzhiya v kontekste rezhima yadernogo nerasprostraneniya [The Evolution of The Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons Idea in the Context of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Regime]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. 62(62). P. 115–127. DOI: 10.17223/19988613/62/14 (In Russian)
30. Müller M., Wunderlich C. 2018. Not Lost in Contestation: How Norm Entrepreneurs Frame Norm Development in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime. Contemporary Security Policy. 39(3). P. 341–366. DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2017.1394032
31. Müller M., Wunderlich C. 2020. Nuclear Disarmament without the Nuclear-Weapon States. Daedalus. 149(2). P. 171–189.
32. Naumov A. O. 2009. Mezhdunarodnye nepravitel'stvennye organizacii v sovremennoj miropoliticheskoj sisteme [International Non-Governmental Organizations in the Modern World Political System]. Moscow: Krasand. 272 p. (In Russian)
33. Pieck S. K. 2013. Transnational Activist Networks: Mobilization between Emotion and Bureaucracy. Social Movement Studies. 12(2). P. 121–137. DOI:10.1080/14742837.2012.664423
34. Price R., Tannenwald N. 1996. Norms and Deterrence: The Nuclear and Chemical Weapons Taboo. In P. Katzenstein, ed. The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press. P. 114–152.
35. Ritchie N. 2019. Inventing Nuclear Disarmament. Critical Studies on Security. 7(1). P. 73–77. DOI: 10.1080/21624887.2018.1468083
36. Ritchie N., Egeland K. 2018. The Diplomacy of Resistance: Power, Hegemony and Nuclear Disarmament. Global Change, Peace and Security. 30(2). P. 121–141. DOI: 10.1080/14781158.2018.1467393
37. Rublee M. R., Cohen A. 2018. Nuclear Norms in Global Governance: A Progressive Research Agenda. Contemporary Security Policy. 39(3). P. 317–340. DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2018.1451428
38. Ruff T. 2018. Negotiating The UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and The Role of ICAN. Global Change, Peace and Security. 30(2). P. 233–241. DOI: 10.1080/14781158.2018.1465908
39. Santoro D., Ogilvie-White T. 2010. Introduction: The Dynamics of Nuclear Disarmament. The Nonproliferation Review. 17(1). P. 17–21. DOI: 10.1080/10736700903484645
40. Shagabieva E. M. 2010. Mezhdunarodnye nepravitel'stvennye organizatsii: ikh vidy, osobennosti, kategorii i kharakteristika [International Non-Governmental Organizations: Their Types, Features, Categories and Characteristics]. Vlast'. No. 9. P. 94–96. (In Russian)
41. Smith J., Hughes M. M., Plummer S., Duncan B. 2020. Inter-Organizational Relations in Transnational Environmental and Women’s Activism: Multilateralists, Pragmatists, and Rejectionists. Globalizations. 18(2). P. 300–320. DOI: 10.1080/14747731.2020.1789028
42. Stetsko E. V. 2012. “Global'noe upravlenie” i rol' nepravitel'stvennykh organizatsiy v ego stanovlenii [“Global Governance” and the Role of Non-Governmental Organizations in its Development]. Obschestvo. Sreda. Razvitie. 4(25). P. 110–115. (In Russian)
43. Strange M. 2011. Why Network Across National Borders? TANs, their Discursivity, and the Case of the Anti-GATS Campaign. Journal of Civil Society. 7(1). P. 63–79. DOI: 10.1080/17448689.2011.553432
44. Thomas D. C. 2002. Boomerangs and Superpowers: International Norms, Transnational Networks and US Foreign Policy. Cambridge Review of International Affairs. 15(1). P. 25–44. DOI: 10.1080/09557570220126225
45. Trommer S. 2011. Activists beyond Brussels: Transnational NGO Strategies on EU–West African Trade Negotiations. Globalizations. 8(1). P. 113–126. DOI: 10.1080/14747731.2011.544214
46. Voronkov L. S. 2018. Mezhdunarodnye mezhpravitel'stvennye i nepravitel'stvennye organizatsii v sisteme mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy [International Intergovernmental and Non-Governmental Organizations in the System of International Relations]. Moscow: MGIMO University Press. 354 p. (In Russian)
47. Williams R. E., Viotti P. R. 2012. Arms Control: History, Theory, and Policy. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, LLC. 440 p.
48. Zajak S. 2017. Rethinking Pathways of Transnational Activism. Global Society. 31(1). P. 125– 143. DOI: 10.1080/13600826.2016.1235549
Review
For citations:
Mikhaylenko E.B. From Advocacy to Diplomacy: The Case of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. Russian Journal of World Politics and Law of Nations. 2023;2(2):33-57. https://doi.org/10.24833/RJWPLN-2023-12-33-57
Views:
140
Email this article 