Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Theories of institutional change and political opportunity structures
also directly apply. The relative ability of international policy institutions
to exclude (or discourage) participation by their critics tends to reinforce
the status quo in international law (Clemens and Cook 1999; Chiang
1981; Willetts 2006). The United Nations and its corresponding agencies
walk a fi ne line as they attempt to bring together nation-states to solve
international problems. On the one hand, the UN's primary purpose
is to facilitate the collective interests of nation-states. In the process
of bringing states to consensus, however, they often rely on pressure
provided by NGOs, industry, scientists, and other nonstate actors to help
move states toward the policies the UN has identifi ed as either desirable
or feasible. This balancing act places the UN in a diffi cult situation as a
mediator between nation-states and civil society—a situation that is
increasingly coming to a head at international conferences. The United
Nations and its corresponding agencies grant consultative and observer
status to NGOs and have waxed and waned historically regarding their
tendencies toward openness to nonstate actor participation (Weiss and
Gordenker 1996; Willetts 1996, 2006; Chiang 1981; Third World
Network 2004; Tarrow 1988, 2005). Engagement by a diversity of non-
state actors—both inside the institutions and from the outside—creates
the conditions cited by institutional change scholars that facilitate change.
Therefore, the openness of international environmental policy institu-
tions is an important variable in the equation to bring about environ-
mental justice.
According to Clemens and Cook (1999, 451), “Institutional change is
most likely when (a) models of action are understood to be discretionary,
(b) social heterogeneity is high, and (c) social networks are fragmented
and cross important social cleavages.” This perspective is rooted in the
idea that increased heterogeneity will decrease the “common ground” of
shared understanding, which plays a critical role in the maintenance
of social systems. Since hybrid forms of governance that incorporate
nonstate actors are increasingly common, we should expect to fi nd
nonstate actors exerting more infl uence on the articulation of interna-
tional policy—especially in environmental governance (Karkkainen 2004;
Hemmati 2002). However, hybrid forms of governance are less common
and more symbolic within “hard-law” treaty institutions than they are
within “soft-law” agencies of the United Nations, which requires us to
consider a variety of pathways through which NGOs, social movement
groups, and other nonstate actors can effectively infl uence each of these
types of international law (Tarrow 2005; Willetts 1996).
Search WWH ::




Custom Search