Ezra Riley

February 18, 2013

Keck, Margaret E, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. Activists beyond borders: advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Chapter 1: Transnational Advocacy Networks In International Politics: Introduction Bridge the divide between international and national realms using an approach that is both structural and actor-centered; four questions: 1. What is a Transnational Advocacy Network? Networks are forms of organization characterized by voluntary, reciprocal, and horizontal patterns of communication and exchange (8); networks travel well between domestic/international; advocates plead the causes of others; 2. Why and How Have Transnational Advocacy Networks Emerged? TANs have grown dramatically in the last three decades (1960s-90s); emerge when 1) domestic channels are blocked (boomerang model); 2) activists belief networking will further goals; 3) international contact creates strengthening arenas The Boomerang Pattern State A blocks redress to organization within it; they activate network, whose members pressure their own states and (if relevant) a third-party organization, which in turn pressure State A (13, Figure 1) Political Entrepreneurs create networks when they believe it will further their mission The Growth of International Contact new global public from the 60s; different type from earlier religious or political motivated internationalism; labor internationalism depends on bounded constituencies; 3. How Do Transnational Advocacy Networks Work? Typology of tactics (of persuasion): Information Politics generate and move usable information; provides information that would otherwise not be available; locals may lose control of their narratives; call attention or create issues; have helped legitimize testimony; Symbolic Politics symbols used to make sense of a situation; create awareness and expand constituencies; Leverage Politics calling upon powerful actors; material links to money or goods; mobilization of shame; Accountability Politics holding actors to their principles; talk is cheap, but can be embarrassing (name and shame); courts can be used when available; 4. Under What Conditions do Advocacy Networks Have Influence? Issue Characteristics issues of right and wrong; intentional frames; issues of bodily harm (causal chain); issues of equality Actor Characteristics dense networks and vulnerable targets (leverage availability/sensitivity) Categories of transnational networks by motivation: 1) instrumental goals (corporations); 2) shared causal ideas (scientific groups); 3) shared principled ideas or values (TANs) Keck and Sikkink contend that the advocacy network concept cannot be subsumed under notions of transnational social movements or global civil society. Rather a conception of transnational civil society as an arena of struggle (33) Practice of norms is what gives them power; changing practices also change norms (sovereignty) Chapter 2: Historical Precursors to Modern Transnational Advocacy networks 3 guiding questions: Are these campaigns cultural imperialism? Are they a new phenomenon? Have they produced significant change?

The selected cases have an international centrality of the campaign, provide a wide variation of domestic structure, and represent drastically new ideas 1. International Pressure for the Abolition of Slavery in the US, 1833-1865 2. The International Movement for Woman Suffrage 3. The Campaign against Footbinding in China, 1874-1911 4. The Campaign against Female Circumcision in Kenya, 1923-1931 Domestic Structures and Domestic Politics Questions that domestic structures are key to explaining differing network impact (British control of Kenya yet little change; powerful China yet substantial change); however, particular historical moment is crucial (Chinese nationalism challenged tradition whereas Kenyan nationalism encouraged it); strength of the opposition is also important (US abolitionists faced strong opposition while British pro-slavery was much weaker; woman suffrage faced opposition of different strengths and achieved varying results) Ideas and Organizations Cases exhibit a variety of transnational linkages (Kenya only missionaries, China missionaries and internationalists, antislavery was largely religious, woman suffrage movement organized on members own behalf); international links of anti-footbinding campaign were part of activists identities and Chinese perception of them; the transnational ties of missionaries in Kenya were detrimental; the anti-slavery campaign was similar to modern TANs; all of these campaigns were first based in religious organizations What Kind of Values? 2 core issues in these cases: bodily harm to vulnerable individuals and lack of legal equality. Both issues were present in anti-slavery, woman suffrage focused almost solely on legal equality, and all campaigns featured a focus on individualism. What kind of Interests? To a certain extent each campaign included a degree of repugnant beliefs in moral and cultural superiority, racism, and paternalism. (77) Political interests in Kenya, British imperialism with anti-slavery, and class issues in woman suffrage were all present. Except in the woman suffrage movement, campaigns focused on assisting the other. Chapter 3: Human Rights Advocacy Networks in Latin America Keck and Sikkink first explore the networks role in the emergence of those norms, and then explore its effectiveness by comparing the impact of the international human rights pressures on Argentina and Mexico in the 1970s and 1980s. (79) Emergence of the Human Rights Idea and the Network The network developed with the expansion of the constituent organizations. Growth only came after Roosevelts Four Freedoms speech (1941) and H.G. Wells human rights campaign (1939). Latin America supported international law as a form of protection from stronger states, but it wasnt until the 1970s that human rights norms began to compete with the protection of sovereignty. NGOs, with Latin American support, played an important part in the inclusion of human rights in the UN Charter, although the result was weaker than NGOs had hoped. The 1973 coup in Chile led to greater awareness of human rights through existing organizations such as Amnesty International. INGOs grew extensively only in the 1970s and 80s, both in the north and south. As links among INGOs and with domestic organizations increased, so did TANs.

Domestic NGOs in Latin America often developed as personal experiences of repression created activists, such as the Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo and networks with scientific organizations in the north. Sections of IOs expanded their human rights activities in the 1970s, although they also came under fire from states. Groups such as the Ford Foundation have been critical in the funding and development of TANs through its support of researchers in Latin America. Human rights networks have been important in influencing government policies as well, although ties between the two are not reliable since they often depend on personal connections with officials who may change. Argentina early domestic human rights groups effectively used the boomerang model to obtain foreign pressure. Mexico no international response was seen to the 1968 massacre since the network did not yet exist, but abuses continued from 1970 to 1988 since no focus was on Mexico; finally in 1994 domestic groups worked with INGOs to address these abuses. Keck and Sikkink argue that international human rights pressures can lead to changes in human rights practices, helping to transform understandings about the nature of a states sovereign authority over its citizens (116). In places such as Mexico where NGOs were missing, human rights protection is limited. Foreign governments pressured Mexico and Argentina only after NGOs made abuses public, but this took much longer in Mexico. The vulnerability of the target state is thus a key factor in network effectiveness (117). Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, China, and Pakistan. Leverage must be available aid from the north to Mexico and Argentina provided it, but China has none of these incentives. Human rights are driven by principled ideas, and TANs are the primary movers. Discussion Questions: Chapter 1 1. Is the boomerang pattern a useful way to think about how transnational advocacy networks function? Does it miss important complexities or exaggerate the effectiveness of this kind of activism? 2. What do you think of the authors conception of transnational civil society as an arena of struggle (33)? Is it more helpful than the briefly described world polity theory (33) in understanding global civil society? Chapter 2 1. How relevant are the historical cases Keck and Sikkink provide for understanding current transnational advocacy networks? Are they comparable to post-1970s networks, or are they too different to be useful? 2. What do you think of the authors case selection? Is there too much variation or not enough? Chapter 3 1. Is the focus on Latin American human rights networks helpful in explaining the growth and limitations of this type of network, or does the exclusion of other regions avoid valid counterarguments to the authors understanding of this development? 2. Are you convinced by the authors explanation of the rise of human rights protection in Mexico? Is this explanation thrown into question by the killings and abuses (human rights abuses?) of the past decade?