Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768ffcd9cc-kfj7r Total loading time: 0.325 Render date: 2022-12-03T23:15:38.742Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Vetting the Advocacy Agenda: Network Centrality and the Paradox of Weapons Norms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2011

R. Charli Carpenter
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Massachusetts-Amherst. E-mail: charli.carpenter@gmail.com
Get access

Abstract

While a number of significant campaigns since the early 1990s have resulted in bans of particular weapons, at least as many equivalent systems have gone unscrutinized and uncondemned by transnational campaigners. How can this variation be explained? Focusing on the issue area of arms control advocacy, this article argues that an important influence on the advocacy agenda within transnational networks is the decision-making process not of norm entrepreneurs nor of states but of highly connected organizations within a given network. The argument is illustrated through a comparison between existing norms against landmines and blinding laser weapons, and the absence of serious current consideration of such norms against depleted uranium and autonomous weapons. Thus, the process of organizational issue selection within nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and international organizations (IOs) most central to particular advocacy networks, rather than the existence of transnational networks around an issue per se, should be a closer focus of attention for scholars interested in norm creation in world politics.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderberg, Bengt, Bring, Ove, and Wolbarsht, Myron. 1992. Blinding Laser Weapons and International Humanitarian Law. Journal of Peace Research 29 (3):287–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Kenneth. 2008a. Lawfare as Illegal Behavioral Counters to Superior Military Forces, and the Limits of Technological Responses to It. Opinio Juris Blog. Available at ⟨http://opiniojuris.org/?s=battlefield+robots⟩. May 22. Accessed 30 October 2010.Google Scholar
Anderson, Kenneth. 2008b. “Battlefield Robotics: A Very Brief Introduction” and “The Ethically Ideal Autonomous Battlefield Robot as Ethically Ideal Human Soldier?Opinio Juris Blog. Available at ⟨http://opiniojuris.org/?s=battlefield+robots⟩. May 21. Accessed 30 October 2010.Google Scholar
Arkin, Ronald. 2008. Governing Lethal Behavior. Mobile Robot Laboratory Working Paper. Atlanta, Ga.: Georgia Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Barabasi, Albert-Lazslo. 2003. Linked: The New Science of Networks. New York: Perseus.Google Scholar
Barnett, Michael, and Duvall, Robert. 2005. Power and Global Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blinding Weapons. 1994. Conf. Doc. CCW/Conf.I/GE/14.Google Scholar
Bob, Clifford. 2005. The Marketing of Rebellion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bob, Clifford. 2009. Introduction: Fighting for New Rights. In The International Struggle for New Human Rights, edited by Bob, Clifford, 6. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Bob, Clifford. 2010. Packing Heat. In Who Governs the Globe?, edited by Finnemore, Martha, Avant, Deborah, and Sell, Susan, 183201. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borenstein, Jason. 2008. The Ethics of Autonomous Military Robots. Studies in Ethics Law and Technology 2 (1):117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewington, David, Davis, David, and Murdie, Amanda. 2009. The Ties That Bind: A Network Analysis of Human Rights INGOs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISA, February, New Orleans, La.Google Scholar
Burgerman, Susan. 2001. Moral Victories: How Activists Provoke Multilateral Action. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Burt, Ronald. 1999. The Social Capital of Opinion Leaders. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 566:3754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Maxwell. 1998. Democratization of Foreign Policy. In To Walk Without Fear: The Global Movement to Ban Landmines, edited by Cameron, Maxwell A., Lawson, Robert J., and Tomlin, Brian W., 424–47. Toronto: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cameron, Maxwell, Lawson, Robert, and Tomlin, Brian W., eds. 1998. To Walk Without Fear: The Global Movement to Ban Landmines. Toronto: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carnahan, Burrus M., and Robertson, Marjorie. 1996. The Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons. American Journal of International Law 90 (3):484–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, Charli. 2007a. Setting the Advocacy Agenda. International Studies Quarterly 51 (1):99120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, Charli. 2007b. Studying Issue Adoption in Transnational Advocacy Networks. International Organization 61 (3):643–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, Charli. 2009. Orphaned Again: Children Born of Wartime Rape as a Non-Issue for the Human Rights Network. In The International Struggle for New Human Rights, edited by Bob, Clifford, 1429. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Charli. 2010. Governing the Global Agenda: “Gatekeepers” and “Issue Adoption” in Transnational Advocacy Networks. In Who Governs the Globe?, edited by Avant, Deborah, Finnemore, Martha, and Sell, Susan, 202–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooley, Alex, and Ron, James. 2002. The NGO Scramble. International Security 27 (1):539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cottrell, M. Patrick. 2009. Legitimacy and Institutional Replacement: The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and the Mine Ban Treaty. International Organization 63 (2):217–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dimitrov, Radoslav S., Sprinz, Detlef F., DiGiusto, Gerald M., and Kelle, Alexander. 2007. International Non-Regimes: A Research Agenda. International Studies Review 9 (2):230–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doswald-Beck, Louise. 1996. New Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons. International Review of the Red Cross 312:272–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fahey, Dan. 2004. The Emergence and Decline of the Debate over Depleted Uranium Munitions. Working Paper, University of California, Berkeley. Available at ⟨http://doc.danfahey.com/EmergenceDecline.pdf⟩. Accessed 30 October 2010.Google Scholar
Fairlie, Ian. 2008. The Health Hazards of Depleted Uranium. Disarmament Forum 3. Available at ⟨http://www.unidir.ch/pdf/articles/pdf-art2756.pdf⟩. Accessed 30 October 2010.Google Scholar
Fiddina, Paul. 2008. British Military Using Hellfire Weapons in Afghanistan. Military Suppliers and News. Available at ⟨http://www.armedforces-int.com/news/british-military-using-hellfire-weapons-in-afghanistan.html⟩. Accessed 30 October 2010.Google Scholar
Finnemore, Martha. 1996. National Interests in International Society. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Finnemore, Martha, and Sikkink, Kathryn. 1998. International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. International Organization 52 (4):887918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, Linton. 1979. Centrality in Social Networks. Social Networks 1:215–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gendercide Watch. Case Study: Conscription and Impressment. Gendercide Watch. Available at ⟨http://www.gendercide.org/case_conscription.html⟩. Accessed 30 October 2010.Google Scholar
Goddard, Stacie. 2009. Brokering Change: Networks and Entrepreneurs in International Politics. International Theory 1 (2):249–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grau, Lester, and Smith, Timothy. 2000. A Crushing Victory: Fuel-Air Explosives and Grozny. Marine Corps Gazette. Available online at ⟨http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/fuelair/fuelair.htm⟩. Accessed 30 October 2010.Google Scholar
Gross, Michael. 2010. Moral Dilemmas of Modern War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gwozdecky, Mark, and Sinclair, Jill. 2001. Landmines and Human Security. In Human Security and the New Diplomacy, edited by McRae, Rob and Hubert, Don, 2840. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
Hafner-Burton, Emilie, Kahler, Miles, and Montgomery, Alex. 2009. Network Theory in International Relations. International Organization 63 (3):559–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilgartner, Stephen, and Bosk, Charles L.. 1988. The Rise and Fall of Social Problems: A Public Arenas Model. American Journal of Sociology 94 (1):5378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubert, Don. 2000. The Landmine Ban. Occasional Paper #42. Providence, R.I.: Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University.Google Scholar
Hubert, Don. 2007. Humanitarian Advocacy Campaigns. Available at ⟨http://www.gppac.net/uploads/File/Programmes/Interaction%20and%20Advocacy/Chapter_7.pdf⟩. Accessed 30 October 2010.Google Scholar
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). 1993. Blinding Lasers. Geneva: ICRC, 1994.Google Scholar
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). 1994. Gas 1918 … Lasers 1990s? ICRC Campaign Brochure. Geneva: ICRC.Google Scholar
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). 2001. Depleted Uranium Munitions: Comments of the International Committee of the Red Cross, June 30. Available at: ⟨http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57JQXP⟩. Accessed 30 October 2010.Google Scholar
Joachim, Jutta. 2007. Agenda Setting, the UN, and NGOs: Gender Violence and Reproductive Rights. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Keck, Margaret E., and Sikkink, Kathryn. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Khagram, Sanjeev, Riker, James, and Sikkink, Kathryn, eds. 2002. Restructuring World Politics: Transnational Social Movements, Networks and Norms. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Klotz, Audie 1996. Norms and International Relations. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Lake, David, and Wong, Wendy. 2005. The Politics of Networks: Interests, Power and Human Rights Norms. Working Paper. La Jolla: University of California San Diego.Google Scholar
Lin, Patrick, Bekey, George, and Abney, Keith. 2008. Autonomous Military Robots: Risk, Ethics and Design. San Luis Obispo: California Polytechnic University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, Avril. 2008. Depleted Uranium Weapons: The Next Target for Disarmament? Disarmament Forum 3:1724.Google Scholar
Mahoney, James, and Goertz, Gary. 2004. The Possibility Principle: Choosing Negative Cases in Comparative Research. American Political Science Review 98 (4):653–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks, Paul. 2008. Anti-Landmine Campaigners Turn Sights on War Robots. New Scientist. Available at ⟨http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13550-antilandmine-campaigners-turn-sights-on-war-robots.html⟩. Accessed 30 October 2010.Google Scholar
Maslen, Stuart. 1998. The Role of the International Committee of the Red Cross. In To Walk Without Fear: The Global Movement to Ban Landmines, edited by Cameron, Maxwell A., Tomlin, Brian W., and Lawson, Robert J., 8098. Toronto: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Matthew, Richard, and Rutherford, Kenneth. 2003. The Evolutionary Dynamics of the Movement to Ban Landmines. Alternatives 28 (1):2956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merry, Sally Engle. 2006. Human Rights and Gender Violence: Translating International Law into Local Justice. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Minkel, J. R. 2008. Robotics Professor Sees Threat in Military Robots. Scientific American, February 28. Available online at ⟨http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=robotics-prof-sees-threat-in-robots⟩. Accessed 30 October 2010.Google Scholar
Moreno, Jonathan. 2006. Mind Wars: Brain Research and National Defense. New York: Dana Press.Google Scholar
Nexon, Dan. 2009. The Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, Ann. 1995. Blinding Laser Weapons: The Need to Ban a Cruel and Inhumane Weapons. New York: Human Rights Watch.Google Scholar
Peters, Ann. 1996. Blinding Laser Weapons. Medicine, Conflict and Survival 12:107–13.Google ScholarPubMed
Price, Richard. 1997. The Chemical Weapons Taboo. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Price, Richard. 2003. Transnational Civil Society and Advocacy in World Politics. World Politics 55 (4):579606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ron, James, Ramos, Howard, and Rodgers, Kathleen. 2005. Transnational Information Politics: NGO Human Rights Reporting 1986–2000. International Studies Quarterly 49 (3):557–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenau, James. 1990. Turbulence in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rutherford, Kenneth. 2000. The Evolving Arms Control Agenda. World Politics 53:74114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, Kenneth. 2009. Lethal Fragments: The Cluster Munitions' Legacy of Destruction. Paper presented at the ISSS/ISAC Conference, October, Monterey, Calif.Google Scholar
Sharkey, Noel. 2007. Automated Killers and the Computing Profession. Computer 40 (11):122–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Short, Nicola. 1999. The Role of NGOs in the Ottawa Process to Ban Landmines. International Negotiation 4 (3):481500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, Robert. 2009. Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century. New York: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
Sparrow, Robert. 2007. Killer Robots. Journal of Applied Philosophy 24 (1):6277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spector, Malcom, and Kitsuse, John. 1977. Constructing Social Problems. Menlo Park, Calif.: Cummings.Google Scholar
Turns, David. 2006. Weapons in the ICRC Study on Customary IHL. Journal of Conflict Security and Law 11 (2):201–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Nations Environmental Program. 2001. Depleted Uranium in Kosovo: Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment. Geneva: UN.Google Scholar
Wasserman, Stanley, and Faust, Katherine. 1994. Social Network Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Jody, and Goose, Stephen. 1998. The International Campaign to Ban Landmines. In To Walk Without Fear: The Global Movement to Ban Landmines, edited by Cameron, Maxwell A., Tomlin, Brian W., and Lawson, Robert J., 2047. Toronto: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wong, Wendy. 2008. Centralizing Principles: How Amnesty International Shaped Human Rights Politics Through Its Transnational Network. Ph.D. diss., University of California San Diego.Google Scholar
106
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Vetting the Advocacy Agenda: Network Centrality and the Paradox of Weapons Norms
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Vetting the Advocacy Agenda: Network Centrality and the Paradox of Weapons Norms
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Vetting the Advocacy Agenda: Network Centrality and the Paradox of Weapons Norms
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *