Civil Society International Relations History 1. The classical school of realism in the international system denies any actor other than the State. Later, neo-realism recognizes that the State is the principal actor and that there are other actors that emerge in the second image of Kenneth Waltz, the home area, but not decisive for the third image that is international. These other international actors, these are the International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) are considered epiphenomena, mere reflections of the will of the state. However, neither realists nor neorealist reflect the true and actual role that state actors are in the international world.
society actors Civil perhaps were not considered in the classical literature of international relations as we know it today to INGOs, yet if they were taken into account in a broader concept that will lead to the emergence of INGOs in concept evolved. Examples are the partnership of I. Kant and the center of public life considered by Hegel and Marx. Also, when the liberals argue that one of the main objectives of the state is to protect the individual, which is necessary for peace, harmony and international cooperation, you are giving such importance to the individual who said that the state is seeking the interests of individuals, giving importance their political participation, freedom of the individual, economic and political. Will these individuals, who make up civil society, the sum of the action of each shape the common good as the liberal vision. Today, in the twenty-first century is an academic consensus that civil society goes beyond the domestic sphere to the international and has a prominent role in international politics. So says Mary Kaldor, "civil society is no longer confined to the borders of the territorial state" and "civil society is in the process of helping to form and be constituted by a system of rules." In this system of rules we will later from Grotian vision rescued by the English school to make an approach to the notion of global civil society. Furthermore, it indicated that Thomas Risse and in the seventies was focused studies of international relations in the private sector multinational corporations in the nineties have focused on the field of nonprofit organizations, transnational . Serbin agree with the non-state actors in the foreground are not only the transnational corporations and multinational companies, but a group of organizations and movements that make up a new international benchmark in ambiguous figure of a little-defined global civil society.
The point is to determine how much and in what situations or how they influence these actors.
As more and more multinational INGOs involved in international affairs, more influential have these actors, in a tendency for non-hierarchical relations, democratization and participation of all in perspective of governance. INGOs have power to influence world public opinion that is a factor in decisions of state governments and the international consensus.
Following the review of the theories of international relations about the role of non-state actors, we recall the statement Zacher and Matthew's in liberal theory argues that international relations are developing in greater freedom of human beings and that peace, justice and welfare, it is possible greatly to international cooperation. Cooperation that can influence the acceptance of moral standards, adherence to international law and cooperation through international organizations. International cooperation has included non-state actors in the projects and financing that was once exclusively for state actors. Economic cooperation is among the main topics of the international agenda and INGOs sit by States at international conferences through the empowerment they gained by this same cooperation. The authors referred to differentiate the nuances of liberal theory (liberal Republicans, commercial and military interdependence, cognitive, sociological and institutional). To refer to civil society actors I will stop at two. Republicans, for example, Michael Doyle, will assert that liberal peace is based on the existence of a moral community and respect international norms, democratic openness, transparency strengthens the international regime. Institutionalists assert that international rules and institutions are based on common values \u200b\u200band interests, vision Grotian ethics and international law says that this growing interdependence and communication will lead to a global civilization. These ideas of community
international morality, common standards are brought up because the foundation will give foundation to the role of nonstate actors in the international world. Many authors claim that some are James Rosenau, a political scientist and internationalist contemporaneous with the idea of \u200b\u200bglobal or cosmopolitan city like Kant. Diane
Panke and Thomas Risse noted that authors such as Alexander Wendt stopped to consider how those standards come from sociology proposed theory constructivist claim that would result establishing the interaction of individuals. These authors, away from the structural analysis to give more importance to the actors in the structure, contrary to the royalists. The English school will also focus on the interactions and the elements of cooperation between the actors giving rise to understand the present international system where state actors have increased their power of influence and participation. In fact, constructivist others cited by Bull, one of the most relevant figures of the English school.
It is important to study the approach to be made about the rules, international rules and institutions and international society to address the issue of non-state actors and their political, diplomatic and cooperation in the international system. Bull
interpretation of shared common assumptions or premises diplomatic summarizes three types of rules: 1) the main policy principles of world politics, 2) the rules of coexistence, 3) cooperation between states. But these rules are not sufficient to explain the international order, they must be communicated, interpreted, legitimated, and protected by international society institutions either balance of power, international law, diplomacy, concert of great powers. Since then the combination between rules and institutions key to the international order. Tim Dunne notes the convergence of the conventional English school constructivist Wendt Ruggie or because both are set in the interstate order as a fundamental social sphere where social agents as a key area where actors such as socialized States following rules and conventions.
However, the English school will differ by saying that the real actors in international society are diplomatic leaders who think and act on behalf of States and their institutions. Bull difference international society of world society, which regards the interests and values \u200b\u200bshared by the entire human community.
Identity of the actors and the social process of diffusion of standards (constructivist actor-centric) mimics the observation, democratic peace constructivism liberal theory. Then there are similarities between these theories. Liberal structuralist theory, as neorealist theory provides two explanations for cooperation in the West after the Second World War is the balance of power and hegemony. Ikenberry For Deudney and transnational relations have been derived from the hegemonic power, resorting to a more realistic-like but nevertheless takes the Republicans claim that "the Western mind, common standards and political identities give this place political cohesion and solidarity. "
response to the question of whether I agree with the realists, with a negative answer and I choose English as the school that best defines and clarifies that despite being anarchic international system is governed by rules and there is a degree of order that the order international order is different from home. This idea contradicts the concept of the inevitable clash between the states of the realists and neo-realists.
The teacher and then colleague Bull, Charles Manning attributed to international law to international order and Hedley Bull does to international society, yet both claim the possibility of establishing an order in an anarchist society. As Stanley Hoffman said in the foreword to "The Company anarchy" of H. Bull, it was "too indebted to Grotius to Machiavellian and Hobbesian and Kantian too statist for and cosmopolitan." Following the analysis of Hoffman, Bull ultimately takes three ideas dismissed by Waltz, norms and common interests arising from transnational relations, the undeniable interdependence between states and international institutions. These concepts summarize the observations made so far and help to understand the current international system where state actors are systematically involved and influence political decision-making. When
Linklater and Suganami school studying English and Bull's arguments to show that Grotius Oppenheim disagreed with regard to the sources of law, the first based on natural law and the second in the positivist system. Bull rescues the contribution of Grotius's natural law for solidarity and justice that applies to international relations and Oppeheim in the historical events and bend to pluralism.
The three objectives of the global society of Bull 1) peace and security, 2) social and economic justice, 3) environmental protection are the ultimate goals that are generally agreed upon by the international community and persecuted by society civil and what will give legitimacy in acting in the international system together with the States in search of order, noting that order is not defined by Bull as a value, an end to achieve but a situation or state of affairs real or possible (which point Unlike Kantian cosmopolitan). Moral community of humanity that prioritizes Grotius, Bull's ransom for the justification of humanitarian intervention. In conclusion, Bull's international society evolves in the direction of increased solidarity, normative aspirations to be taken by States and finally we see that in Bullde analysis of the interaction and relationships of actors in the international system results not only the existence but also the importance of other actors of international society.
2. The civil society organizations, which have been considered in the international system as secondary players traditionally low-power and influence in international politics have gained popularity in recent years in which it has been characterized by the global phenomenon known process as globalization. The domestic incorporation of international norms and laws leads to the homogenization that through epistemic communities and the power of broadcasting and communication in the era of globalization, facilitated by new communication technologies and Information (ICTs). As Manuel Castells noted in the information age that makes even the political leadership is dependent on the media and new technology.
INGOs tend to the consolidation of strategies, activities taken for the provision of ICTs for communication and networking. The same international standards permit such activities proliferate. Epistemic communities conceptualized by constructivists take center stage in studies of international relations in a globalized world where knowledge is disseminated through various means used by them, especially when it relates to public policy that spread and different countries adopt similar models of governance promoted by the interaction of networks, individuals and civil society. States but do not acknowledge it, are more influenced by these and obey their logic more than they would like to admit.
Liberals argue that multinational enterprises and strengthen the pattern of international economic policy also justify the participation of NGOs as a means of strengthening democracy. Liberals give rise to a fertile ground for the proliferation of NGOs as promoting freedom of expression, assembly, participation and other rights that under the rule of law and democracy are fundamental. Undoubtedly
is a two way street, globalization leads to the proliferation of NGOs and their strengthening, as we said in the facilitation of media, working in a network, the dissemination of democratic values \u200b\u200bworldwide, etc. and on the other hand, the same NGOs collaborate to create bonds of interdependence and do commercial ties in the economic and the dissemination of values \u200b\u200band knowledge globally.
Andrew Hurrell is an author who argues that globalization has facilitated the spread of values, knowledge and ideas and enables the connection of these groups interests and the organization beyond national borders. Refers to those organizations which transnational civil society is self-organized and relatively interdependent are both public authorities and private economic actors, who are able to act collectively and to pursue their interests and values. Hurrell examines four issues on which civil society will take care on the basis of social order, international law undermines the concept of sovereignty which endorses the concept of legal order, the power of transnational networks for global governance, international action based on an interstate relationship challenged by the growing relations existing public-private partnership in pursuit of finding balance in local and international governance and finally the issue of legitimacy, intergovernmental transnational networks has a legitimacy that transnational networks of non-State actors have in terms of representativeness.
If we speak of globalization we must conceptualize it, and especially want to highlight the distinction that has made Michael Zurn between interdependence and globalization. While the notion of interdependence is a growing sensitivity and vulnerability among different units, globalization refers to the "unification" merging of units.
interdependence among states for the system is establishing Westphalian state. Bull is the author analyzes the concept of international society and Zurn it takes to point out that without interdependence of states, there can be no U.S. company. Zurn coined the term denationalization of society "societal desnationalization" as a process to define the starting point is the national society.
During the last two or three decades the growth of international institutions could change the constitution of world politics as part of this process of political globalization. The proliferation of NGOs has been as much as OI.
We must differentiate the role of non-state actors of intergovernmental when many times it refers to the global civil society actors can be mixed both by nature are very different. For this, I'll just pause a moment in the conceptualization that makes the international jurist Diez de Velasco on international organizations (IOs) that we are interested in how it affects the international community. The author suggests that the presence of OI in international life is favoring humanization, socialization and democratization of the organization itself. First, have served as forums where they have sprouted new values \u200b\u200b(human rights, environmental protection). Second, have encouraged the incorporation of new actors, as individuals (to be les reconoce derechos) y las ONGs (estado consultivo). En tercer lugar, han dado voz no sólo a diplomáticos o representantes de gobierno sino también a otros sectores. Ej. OIT foro tripartito. En cuarto lugar, han dado lugar a la creación de red de relaciones en torno a las OI, red del derecho internacional (comunidades espistémicas).
Volviendo a Zurn, estudiamos que es la regulación de la relación entre estados pero además entre actores de la sociedad internacional podría responder a la transnacionalización. Los efectos estructurales pueden ser separados en 2 categorías: 1) Reducción de la distancia y las diferencias de los estados, y 2) Desafío de las capacidades de los estados nación unilaterally to achieve its objectives of governance. Not for nothing, Giddens said that "civil society is the terrain on which they are to develop democratic attitudes."
addition, Dirk Messner mentioned that the architecture of global governance must develop strategies for solving border problems and global action at various levels along the local-global axis. This is not to transfer the elements of national policy (sovereignty, majoritarian democracy, etc) to the various levels of overall structure. Among the challenges of global governance highlights the development of mechanisms and institutional structures to ensure effectiveness of policy in the architecture of global governance, the transformation of democracy in the globalization process, but overall social integration in an interdependent world, how they can mobilize and stabilize cohesive social forces.
I think it is clear that non-state actors have a role to play in international politics and in fact the place was already taken by international bodies, intergovernmental express the will of the states and state institutions themselves are increasingly being generated permanent spaces and institutionalized participation of NGOs. We conclude that in these political changes that occur with greater international interdependence with loss of state power in the hands of transnational corporations, regional or supranational legislation and adoption of international standards are also sum NGOs. The rescue is the concept of governance that contribute to the international system when state actors interact with non-state actors.
The civil society networks provide opportunities for participation to the public with greater legitimacy that often the same state, so you should take advantage of this democratic experience and cooperate in the construction of international society desired by Republicans. Click
