IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/intorg/v65y2011i01p69-102_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Carpenter, R. Charli

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Carpenter, R. Charli, 2011. "Vetting the Advocacy Agenda: Network Centrality and the Paradox of Weapons Norms," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 65(1), pages 69-102, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:intorg:v:65:y:2011:i:01:p:69-102_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0020818310000329/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Niina Meriläinen & Marita Vos, 2015. "Public Discourse on Human Trafficking in International Issue Arenas," Societies, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-29, January.
    2. Winecoff William Kindred, 2015. "Structural power and the global financial crisis: a network analytical approach," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 17(3), pages 495-525, October.
    3. Kristian Skrede Gleditsch & Simon Hug & Livia Isabella Schubiger & Julian Wucherpfennig, 2011. "International Conventions and Non-State Actors: Selection, Signaling, and Reputation Effects," HiCN Working Papers 108, Households in Conflict Network.
    4. Mintao Nie, 2023. "IOs’ selective adoption of NGO information: Evidence from the Universal Periodic Review," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 27-59, January.
    5. Alexandra‐Maria Bocse, 2021. "Relational Power, Brokers and Influence: A Study on the Controversial Issue of Fracking in the European Union," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(5), pages 1267-1283, September.
    6. Alexandra-Maria Bocse, 0. "Hybrid transnational advocacy networks in environmental protection: banning the use of cyanide in European gold mining," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-19.
    7. George E. Mitchell & Sarah S. Stroup, 2017. "The reputations of NGOs: Peer evaluations of effectiveness," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 397-419, September.
    8. Oliver Westerwinter, 2021. "Transnational public-private governance initiatives in world politics: Introducing a new dataset," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 137-174, January.
    9. Alexandra-Maria Bocse, 2021. "Hybrid transnational advocacy networks in environmental protection: banning the use of cyanide in European gold mining," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 285-303, June.
    10. David J. Gordon, 2016. "Lament for a network? Cities and networked climate governance in Canada," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 34(3), pages 529-545, May.
    11. Gallemore, Caleb & Jespersen, Kristjan, 2016. "Transnational Markets for Sustainable Development Governance: The Case of REDD+," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 79-94.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:intorg:v:65:y:2011:i:01:p:69-102_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ino .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.