Suchergebnisse

Reinalda, B.; Arts, B.; Noortmann, M.: Non-state actors in international relations: do they matter? - S. 1-8. Reinalda, B.: Private in form, public in purpose: NGOs in international relations theory. - S. 11-40. Arts, B.: International policy arrangements of state and non-state actors. - S. 41-58. Noortmann, M.: Non-state actors in international law. - S. 59-76. Weenink, A.: The relevance of being important or the importance of being relevant? State and non-state actors in international relations theory. - S. 79-92. Vollaard, H.: The de-territorialisation of political authority by the European Union. - S. 93-108. Esch, F.: Defining national preferences: the influence of international non-state actors. - S. 109-125. Verbeek, B.; Quarles van Ufford,, P.: Non-state actors in foreign policy making: a policy subsystem approach. - S. 127-144. Reinalda, B.; Verbeek, B.: Theorising power relations between NGOs, inter-governmental organisations and states. - S. 145-158. Roozendaal, G.: The influence of trade unions on the social clause controversy in the International Labour Organisation and its working party. - S. 161-176. Hogenboom, B.: Co-operation and discord: NGOs and the NAFTA. - S. 177-193. Arts, B.: The impact of environmental NGOs on international conventions. - S. 195-210. Kolk, A.: Multinational enterprises and international climate policy. - S. 211-225. Chabot, S.: Building transnational advocacy networks before 1965: diffusion from the Indian nationalist movement to the American civil rights movement. - S. 229-245. Biekart, K.: The impact of private aid agencies on civil society development. - S. 247-262. Bakker, E.: Early warning by NGOs in conflict areas. - S. 263-277. Weenink, A.: The Russian mafiya: a private actor in international relations? - S. 279-296. Noortmann, M.; Arts, B.; Reinalda, B.: The quest for unity in empirical and conceptual complexity. - S. 299-307

This edited volume addresses the role of non-state actors (NSAs) in international relations. From their emergence in the early 20th century, entities of non-state status have played a role of increasing prominence in international politics. Scholarly work has been slow to catch up, approaching NSAs mainly through the scope of legitimacy and international law or limiting focus to NGOs, international organizations, and economic corporations. This volume remedies that, creating a typology of NSAs based on systematic and coherent analysis. Presenting a series of cases of NSAs across the continuum of international relations, the chapters firmly ground NSAs in the ontology of international relations theory. Filling a gap in the current literature, this book will be of interest to students and researchers of international relations theory, international politics, international security, diplomatic history, and European and Middle East politics, as well as policy-makers and practitioners.

Soft power has tended to be overlooked in the field of international relations, often dismissed as lacking relevance or robustness as a theoretical concept. This book seeks to expand upon the idea of 'soft power' in international relations and to investigate how it actually functions by looking at three case studies in Japan-China relations during the post-war period. These cases involve the action of Japan's soft power in China due to the activities of agents at three levels in society: the state level (an agency of the central government), the sub-state level (a local government), and at.

1. Introduction -- 2. Theories of power in international relations -- 3. Soft power : what is it and how does it function? -- 4. Japan's political and cultural relations with China -- 5. The activities of the Japan Foundation in China -- 6. Kobe City's activities in China -- 7. The activities of the Japan-China Friendship Association in China -- 8. Conclusions.

Bringing Transnational Relations Back In: Non-State Actors, Domestic Structures and International Institutions edited by Thomas Risse-Kappen. Bringing Transnational Relations Back In: Non-State Actors, Domestic Structures and International Institutions, a book edited by Thomas Risse-Kappen, is reviewed.

In the past 20 years, many States have purposefully shifted away from taking detainees in non-international armed conflicts (NIACs) and have instead relied on partner forces—both State and non-State actors—to take responsibility for any NIAC detainees. The question this article seeks to address is to what extent 'non-belligerent supporting States' have obligations to ensure that detainee transfers by partners comport with the principle of non-refoulement, by which a person may not be transferred if they are at a real (or substantial) risk of a violation of their fundamental rights. The authors explore several legal approaches to better understand how a non-belligerent supporting State may incur legal obligations in relation to detainee transfers through the support it provides. The article first examines how support triggers belligerent status (and thus belligerent obligations) under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), and tackles to what extent non-belligerent supporting States may incur legal obligations under IHL more generally, noting the gap between the rules of International Armed Conflict and NIACs in this respect. Secondly, specific obligations non-belligerent States may incur with respect to the principle of non-refoulement in relation to detainee transfers by a belligerent party during a NIAC are identified. Finally, the authors examine three categories of support—logistics/transportation support, intelligence sharing, and belligerent-party-to-non-belligerent-party detainee transfers—to demonstrate how varying degrees of support by non-belligerent States in the context of a NIAC could trigger the obligations to ensure respect of the prohibition against non-refoulement by belligerent partners through the auspices of Common Article 1. The article concludes that while Common Article 1 obligations indeed arise in these scenarios, the scope of the external or positive obligations of Common Article 1 are still unsettled under IHL and thus require further development to create a common understanding of the international legal obligations to avoid the violation of the principle of non-refoulement by partner forces.