Suchergebnisse

pt. 1. Conflict governance NGOs : a practitioner's perspective -- pt. 2. Global civil society and legitimation of NGO conflict governance activities -- pt. 3. Conflict governance NGOs as norm entrepreneurs and norm diffusion in global governance -- pt. 4. Conflict governance NGOs in action -- pt. 5. Conclusions and directions.

"This book provides a comprehensive and accessible analysis whether, or the extent to which, NGOs can contribute as private actors to authoritative governance outcomes in the security realm"--

"NGOs have proliferated in number and become increasingly influential players in world politics in the past three decades. From the 1970s, with the access of social movements and private NGOs to local and international institutions, NGOs have enjoyed an opening to bring impact global policy debates. Yet NGOs find themselves highly constrained in bringing their material and epistemic resources to bear in the security arena where their activities normally must be authorized by states, or international organizations acting with authority delegated from states. They also find their activities, particularly in the security arena come frequently under attack as lacking accountability or lacking legitimacy, as NGOs are self-appointed private actors, often representing only themselves, they are seen by many as self-appointed meddlers in transnational affairs,This book provides a comprehensive and accessible analysis whether, or the extent to which, NGOs can contribute as private actors to authoritative governance outcomes in the security realm, and thereby help mitigate armed violence by plugging governance gaps in this arena that state actors, or international governmental organizations (IGOs) either neglect, or can better address with NGO assistance. This book examines the current and future issues surrounding this objective in four sections: (i) a practitioner's perspective of the potentials of conflict governance NGOs, (ii) global civil society and legitimation of conflict governance NGO activities, (iii) conflict governance NGOs as norm entrepreneurs and norm diffusion in global governance (iv) conflict governance NGOs in action."--

Barnett and Duvall have offered a highly useful constructivist taxonomy of power in response to the rationalist question of why constructivists formerly lacked a theory of power. However, in applying their taxonomy of power to the question of global governance, they draw upon a specific interpretation of their 'structural' form of power from the radical theory of Steven Lukes. This move generates a number of ontological and analytic issues that constructivists normally avoid. This article offers three amendments to Barnett and Duvall's thesis. These involve the (1) recognition and use of the subsumption of the constitutive forms of power that they theorize within the concept of 'deontic power', introduced in the institutional philosophy of John Searle and (2) recognition that the posited distinction between subjective and objective interests returns us to a rationalist and materialist ontology that resolves the question of actor interests and motivations through exogenous imputation by the analyst – a retrograde step for constructivist theory that can and should be avoided. (3) In developing the deontic bases of the constitutive forms of power introduced by Barnett and Duvall, we will recover the social means by which power can be exercised as authority.

Barnett and Duvall have offered a highly useful constructivist taxonomy of power in response to the rationalist question of why constructivists formerly lacked a theory of power. However, in applying their taxonomy of power to the question of global governance, they draw upon a specific interpretation of their 'structural' form of power from the radical theory of Steven Lukes. This move generates a number of ontological and analytic issues that constructivists normally avoid. This article offers three amendments to Barnett and Duvall's thesis. These involve the (1) recognition and use of the subsumption of the constitutive forms of power that they theorize within the concept of 'deontic power', introduced in the institutional philosophy of John Searle and (2) recognition that the posited distinction between subjective and objective interests returns us to a rationalist and materialist ontology that resolves the question of actor interests and motivations through exogenous imputation by the analyst – a retrograde step for constructivist theory that can and should be avoided. (3) In developing the deontic bases of the constitutive forms of power introduced by Barnett and Duvall, we will recover the social means by which power can be exercised as authority.

Irrespective of the occasionally destructive financial consequences for individuals and the global economy, and warnings of its imminent collapse by critics, a globalising regime of capital mobility and neoliberal domestic policies appears in no danger of imminent collapse. This article explores the sources of the erstwhile stability of a liberal global economic order. The social mechanisms whereby people in many of the most capable states give their consent to 'market authority' are explored with reference to Max Weber's sociology of legitimacy and Anthony Giddens' sociology of modernity. A constructivist theoretical construct of the changing 'structure of intersubjective public belief' is developed as an explanatory heuristic. Liberalism is criticised for its conflation of choice with consent regarding its treatment of market processes, and vulnerabilities resulting from inconsistencies among liberal treatments of these are discussed. Adapted from the source document.