Melanie Coni-Zimmer, Annegret Flohr, and Klaus Dieter Wolf
- Published in print:
- 2019
- Published Online:
- September 2019
- ISBN:
- 9780198843047
- eISBN:
- 9780191878947
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/oso/9780198843047.003.0009
- Subject:
- Political Science, International Relations and Politics
The chapter investigates the preferences of BRICS and NGOs with regard to the exercise of transnational private authority. Three such governance schemes are selected: the Kimberley Process, the ...
More
The chapter investigates the preferences of BRICS and NGOs with regard to the exercise of transnational private authority. Three such governance schemes are selected: the Kimberley Process, the Global Compact, and the Social Accountability 8000 (SA8000) certification scheme. Transnational governance schemes are part of the liberal status quo. Yet, preferences of BRICS and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are so diverse that there is rarely joint contestation nor is there an alliance between the two groups of actors. The analysis shows that it is mainly civil society organizations (CSOs) which contest privatized governance schemes. Business-related interest groups are generally supporting such schemes, to little surprise. BRICS also show a remarkable level of support for privatized forms of governance. The clearest differences in preferences exist between CSOs and BRICS: whereas CSOs champion stronger international institutions, the support of BRICS for private governance schemes increases in proportion to the weakness of a given arrangement or to the extent of national discretion it still affords them. In light of BRICS’ and NGOs’ different preferences, on the one hand, and among the members of each of these groups, on the other hand, neither of these two ‘groups’ can be considered close to having a single shared vision of global order. As a result, there is also little potential for strategic cooperation between BRICS and NGOs when it comes to contesting the status quo of transnational private authority.Less
The chapter investigates the preferences of BRICS and NGOs with regard to the exercise of transnational private authority. Three such governance schemes are selected: the Kimberley Process, the Global Compact, and the Social Accountability 8000 (SA8000) certification scheme. Transnational governance schemes are part of the liberal status quo. Yet, preferences of BRICS and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are so diverse that there is rarely joint contestation nor is there an alliance between the two groups of actors. The analysis shows that it is mainly civil society organizations (CSOs) which contest privatized governance schemes. Business-related interest groups are generally supporting such schemes, to little surprise. BRICS also show a remarkable level of support for privatized forms of governance. The clearest differences in preferences exist between CSOs and BRICS: whereas CSOs champion stronger international institutions, the support of BRICS for private governance schemes increases in proportion to the weakness of a given arrangement or to the extent of national discretion it still affords them. In light of BRICS’ and NGOs’ different preferences, on the one hand, and among the members of each of these groups, on the other hand, neither of these two ‘groups’ can be considered close to having a single shared vision of global order. As a result, there is also little potential for strategic cooperation between BRICS and NGOs when it comes to contesting the status quo of transnational private authority.
Joy Onyesoh, Madeleine Rees, and Catia Cecilia Confortini
- Published in print:
- 2020
- Published Online:
- January 2021
- ISBN:
- 9781529207743
- eISBN:
- 9781529207767
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Policy Press
- DOI:
- 10.1332/policypress/9781529207743.003.0014
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Feminist Philosophy
In this conversation with Catia C. Confortini (former International Vice President), Madeleine Rees (Secretary General) and Joy Onyesoh (International President) reflect on the legacy of and ...
More
In this conversation with Catia C. Confortini (former International Vice President), Madeleine Rees (Secretary General) and Joy Onyesoh (International President) reflect on the legacy of and prospects for Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom’s feminist advocacy on WPS. Drawing on Nigerian and transnational experiences they lament the sidestepping of WILPF’s feminist peace analysis in favor of an agenda co-opted by states and narrow, militarized security interests. At the same time, engagement with the state is not only a necessity, but an opening to transform the global governance system in the direction of feminist peace.Less
In this conversation with Catia C. Confortini (former International Vice President), Madeleine Rees (Secretary General) and Joy Onyesoh (International President) reflect on the legacy of and prospects for Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom’s feminist advocacy on WPS. Drawing on Nigerian and transnational experiences they lament the sidestepping of WILPF’s feminist peace analysis in favor of an agenda co-opted by states and narrow, militarized security interests. At the same time, engagement with the state is not only a necessity, but an opening to transform the global governance system in the direction of feminist peace.
