Search results

The standard approach of international organizations (IOs) makes no formal distinctions between nonprofit private sector associations, known as trade or industry groups, and public interest groups like Amnesty International or Greenpeace. After all, these groups are all organized as nonprofits; they may all be characterized as nongovernmental organizations representing the interests of their memberships; and the groups all seek to advance the agendas of members by offering ideas and expertise to international officials or bodies—classic lobbying activity. Thus, most IOs offer accreditation and access to both private sector and public interest groups on equal terms, without differentiating between them. I will call this approach "interest blind" and use this essay to examine its origins and consequences. Specifically, the interest blind approach has resulted in robust participation by private sector groups, and their contributions affect the quality of deliberation at international organizations, and of information that international lawmakers receive. While there are dangers, a successful reform will not seek rigid divisions between public interest and private sector groups, as the World Health Organization has recently tried to do, but will instead capture the informational and practical contributions of all nonstate participants, while introducing more functional registration and disclosure rules.

Within a conflictual international milieu, Amnesty International (AI) works to enforce international human rights norms when the organization would seem to have little or no legal, economic, or physical force to wield against sovereign states. Three aspects of AI's activity that have contributed to its effectiveness are delineated: (1) by incorporating an international, "public" audience into ostensibly "private" conflicts between individuals & their governments, AI makes it more likely that international norms governing fair treatment of prisoners will be invoked. (2) AI uses particularly powerful symbols to moblize individuals, & (3) AI has focused on pragmatic demands for action by target countries. Adapted from the source document.

PurposeInternational entrepreneurship (IE) has received a considerable amount of attention in the recent decades as a result of globalization enabling access to new international markets and business opportunities. Despite the growing increase in academic publications, IE still faces certain inconsistencies, with doubts remaining as regards its boundaries and the thematic groups making up the field. The purpose of this article is to systematically analyse the IE, mapping the intellectual territory and the evolution of the field.Design/methodology/approachIndexed to Web of Science( WoS) database until 2021, from 52 journals, 130 articles were selected, applying content analyses techniques to identify the main research lines.FindingsThe results reveal that IE presents four conceptual themes/clusters: (1) international business networks and opportunities; (2) institutional environments; (3) the characteristics and motivations of entrepreneurs; and (4) internationalisation drivers and processes. Extant analysis show that IE has progressed immensely, concentrating a good diversity of subtopics and research trends. An integrative framework bringing together 27 years of publications and 67 future research lines, detailed by cluster, were also presented in this study to improve understanding and guide future studies.Originality/valueThis review makes a broad contribution to the IE literature, assisting in consolidating the academic field, expanding and complementing the results of previous theoretical–conceptual studies. We reflect and individually discuss the state of the art of the four streams that characterize IE to identify key themes, points of convergence and advance new subfields.