PAP21306 Hoorcolleges
Session 1
Central Question of the course: What actors, institutions and policies can legitimately and effectively
deal with global problems of today and in the future?
The problems include food crises, spread of diseases, transboundary wars, climate change and
violations of human rights
Actor + Institution + policy  problem
- Actors: state, businesses, civil society (NGO), scholars
- Institutions: IGO’s like UN’s agencies and the WTO; movements, partnerships, MNC’s
Also treaties, conventions and agreements: between states (on human rights and natural resources)
International norms and soft law helps understand treaties.
- Policies: Kyoto Protocol, MDG, LGBT rights.  Type of governance.
● Effectiveness:
- Goal Attainment
- Is the problem being solved? 
outputs (organizational, performance): visible products
outcomes: change in behavior. Output realizes outcome
impact: changes that lead to solving the problem
The Governance.
- Policy: instruments, desired situations
- Polity: institutional arrangements. determines whether a policy succeeds
- Politics: about conflicting values, which values are most important and underline the policy.
The Policy is determined by polity and politics
What is the problem:
- perceived problem usually deeper, underlying levels
(conflicting governmentbad infrastructure flat tire)
● Legitimacy = acceptance of authority
Explaining rise and diversity of global institutions
- World crises (WWII) – led to rise of new order and new way of thinking, IGO’s. Relevance today?
- 1989 end of Cold War – new era of globalization. Washington Consensus (liberalization). Also led to
rise of NGO’s (Food Sovereignty, Battle of Seattle, etc.). New way to organize. Provide security.
1. Ethical perspective: values (biodiversity, sustainability).
Sociological perspective: acceptance of (non)-state authority by society.
2. Mono-centric vs Pluri-centric (one authority or multiple authorities: religious, cultural, economic)
3. Given: defined by characteristics of authority and decision-making process. Transparency
to-be created: to be discussed by actors, develop new solutions and procedures, you deliberate on
where you want to go and discuss the means
Legitimacy of policy-making process
- Input: those being ruled are included in the process. democracy
- Throughput: quality of decision making. Accountability (regulatory, performance) and transparency
- Output: effectiveness
Session 2
Global Public Institutions
● International Organizations
- differ through membership, issues they cover, degree of institutionalization (staff, secretariat,
formal procedures, documents)
- UN is institutionalized. General Assembly, Secretariat, Security Council, ECOSOC, International Court
of Justice, Trusteeship Council
- Conferences, Summits, diversity in decision-making, talking to/with/learning/negotiating/discussing
the one man-one vote, veto, weighted voting, coalitions (joining forces)
- Organizations outside the UN: own membership rules. Organizations on energy, lack of agreement
in the UN. Made own rules to protect economy. Oil-producing countries not part.
● Global Public Norms (created through talking)
- As a policy instrument
- Norms = umbrella term for all institutions, rules, regulations, soft law and hard law
- standard of appropriate behavior for state nations, intend to influence/constrain
- more stable than a policy, takes more time and effort to create/change
- Hard law = criteria: obligation (legally binding), precision, delegation (granted authority to
implement and interpret the rules)
- Soft law = not binding, can still be legal, climate change measurements
- reasons states cooperate: they benefit (peace, security), global scale of issues, facilitate trade
- states behavior: rationalism (looking at consequences, incentives influence action) ; constructivism
(looking at appropriateness, ethical sense)
Session 3
Evaluating global institutions:
- Possible criteria
● influence (effectiveness): how good is it in solving the problem. Effectiveness is hard to measure,
many steps involved. Agreement on the (most important) problem?
● legitimacy: to what degree are the institutions seen as appropriate expressions of authority? Who
decides what is appropriate?
Influence of norms and organizations  on states
UN system (multilateral): high expectations, different interests, big mandates (limited human and
financial resources). Limited executive power (only security council).
Facilitating role. Bringing countries together. Share experiences and insights.
Global norms  states
● motivation is created
- states help make the laws  follow these laws. States interpret/frame them to own preference
- material incentives (hard and soft sanctions or rewards).
- changing identities or preferences (you agree with morality of human rights. A dialogue can change
identities and preferences)
● ability to comply is strengthened (they have more human capacity and financial resources)
- Hard sanctions: Kyoto Protocol compliance system
Compliance committee: facilitator branch (advice and assist compliance); enforcement branch
(determine sanctions): emissions assigned, extra reduction
- Soft sanctions: Reputation
Legitimacy: what gives global institutions authority?
● Source based
- expertise; tradition; discourse
● Process based (input)
- govt participation:
inclusive multilateralism (UN): all countries, and create universal norms. Ineffective . Can’t agree.
exclusive minilateralism (G8): Countries taking alternatives to negotiate climate change in forums. No
vulnerable nations. Mostly small group of powerful nations.
Inclusive minilateralism (UNFCCC): Powerful, capable and vulnerable nations. States have to admit
they’re responsible.
- NGO participation: bottom-up processes. Do they have influence? Who are they representing?
- transparency: what are doing countries doing to comply? What goes on in negotiating rooms?
Openness and reporting is important
- accountability: states can be held accountable for content of the norms they agree on and the way
them implement them? Who can hold states to account?
● Outcome based (output)
- effectiveness
- equity
Power and legitimacy: what is seen as legitimate by states and by us
Protection from powerful states to do whatever they want
Powerful states have the resources, but still seek legitimacy (it is easier and cheaper, get more
partners and access).
Inclusiveness  effectiveness??
Outcome more important than the process(input)?
Global Public institutions – Different levels of governance – who is responsible for what?
Session 4
Human Rights
● Architecture: design principles
1. HR regime as a house (roof as agreements between states, pillars are obligations of states)
2. Rights go together with obligations. States have a responsibility
3. Three obligations and human dignity:
-to respect (acknowledge the agency, ability, not to harm or ignore this ability)
-to protect (against 3rd parties that make life difficult, take measures)
-to fulfill (provide conditions under which people can make a living: security, education, training.
Acting as a bank of resort in case of emergencies)
4. From needs-based approaches to rights-based approaches
Architecture: building blocks
- Norms as fundaments and bricks
- general to specific: UDHR, covenants/treaties. General comments on the right to adequate food
makes obligations and commitments clear and implement them on national policies.
- universal principle (voluntary guidelines) to national law.
- local to global: local initiatives (farmer movements)  national food policy  collective HR
UN HR organizational structure
Economic and Social (ECOSOC) + Security Council (SC) goes together with Human Rights council for
overall development  treaty monitoring bodies
● Birth waves of human rights
1st generation: civil, political  amnesty, HR watch, freedom of speech
2nd generation: economic, social, cultural  Food Information and Action Network
3rd generation: Green environment; natural resources; future generations. Greenpeace
Making of Human Rights
- Grievances from citizens (torture, inequality, access)  gatekeepers ( Amnesty, FIAN) accept/deny
to become a right  state level recognizing/implementing  obligation of states to citizens
*Opponents
Shifts in thinking who the right-holder is
- State as duty barer and citizens right holder  state as duty barer + right holder
- states not the only sovereigns, organizations like Greenpeace also duty barer
- MNC’s becoming a critical duty barer (more relevant in a globalizing world).
- new human rights (food sovereignty) declared by movements (local and bottom up)
● Controversies and paradoxes
- need of adjusting HR on existing issues and developments (security, terrorism, natural resources)
modernize: use the discourse, agency. fetishism of law: believing in the power of a document
- expert-based or victim-based legitimacy (input and throughput)
Accountability and transparency on HR decision-making
- A core right: freedom from hunger (adequate food): Is there a core right for all (secondary) rights?
- To fulfill: States should have capability (maximum use of resources) to fulfill right to food. Lack of
willingness?
- state as duty barer and potential violator of human rights
- Frankenstein dilemma – a creator(HR regime), wanting HR to be respected.
But states doesn’t want to be told what to do
- Ratification by state does not automatically lead to reduction of HR violations (Efficiency, reputation
and power are among the motivations)  article
Logic of consequences changes behavior
● Prevent or reverse human rights abuse (article)
- developing more human rights law
- developing HR specific policies and instruments (articulation)
- multilateral mainstreaming (FAO guidelines on the right to food) include HR to policies
Understand the causes behind the violations
- violent conflict caused by poverty, unequal access  prevent
- massive centralization, too much power, no control
- too weak regime, limited statehood  strengthen democratic institutions, female representation
- education on HR, awareness
- military intervention, economic sanctions (hitting with sticks)
Session 5
Civil Society Organizations (CSO)
● castells: civil society organizations are key factors in legitimacy and effectiveness to the creation of
global governance structures
- Public sphere is a space of communication that emerges from society and is addressed to decisionmakers. Public sphere is a way to communicate and relate to authorities
- Global Civil Society is a way to organize and present values and interests of society (Amnesty, HR
Watch, Greenpeace).
- Interaction between the govt and civil society via the public sphere has created polity
- Globalization has complicated the existence of national public sphere and established forms of
global governance
- Global communication networks (mass media)  shapes global public sphere
- Public diplomacy: seen as instrument to solve global problems. To do that is to create shared
cultural meaning (shared public opinion).
Castells: Globalization is the motor of change creating norms, values on a global leve.
Nation state: character is changing, but still relevant.
There is no authority to rule the population of the world. There is global governance, not a global
nation state.
civil society – civil/representative? Criminal organizations have groups with common interests
Privatization of the public sphere  Facebook
Public sphere scrutinized by government (NSA)
Public sphere: fragmented? Multiple public spheres  diverse in religion, politics, culture
History of public sphere:
18th century physical space;
19th century newspaper;
1970- radio+tv+transport;
21st century age of information
excluded by: women, colonial populations, lower classes. Public sphere dominated by western elite
Public sphere in the making: MNC’s (and govt) working with CSO (NGO). Treaties and Arrangements
 global governance, creating effectivity, expertise, but legitimate?
Gap between arising issues (global) and where issues are managed (nation-state). Source:
Efficiency crisis:
Legitimacy crisis:
Identity crisis: national identity being questioned. Global identity?
Equity crisis: savers have a higher return to capital than workers
Types of CSO
1. Local CSO: communities. Traditions, helping others being lost with the age of information
2. International NGO’s: Amnesty International, HR Watch. Became powerful and professional
3. Social alter-globalization movements: represent those who are not part of the network. reactive
4. Movement of public opinion: demonstrations Brazil, Turkey. Use of public space
Paradox: Globalization creates problems. Solves by supporting global public sphere
The private is the domain of self-defined interests and values, while the public is the domain of the
shared interests and values.
The goal of public diplomacy: to reflect not only interests and power making but also meaning and
sharing
Session 6
How accountable are Transnational CSO’s
Piewitt article:
In favor of transnational CSO
- a civilizing and democratizing force in world politics (becoming the conscience of the world)
- represent the voices of marginalized populations neglected by governments
- provide much-needed expertise and local knowledge for global governance and contribute to the
creation of a global public sphere
- promote accountability of global governance in rendering states and public institutions more
transparent
Against transnational CSO
- CSOs are unable to represent a significant share of the world’s population as they are populated by
Western activists, usually urban, white and well-educated. Therefore they reproduce, rather than
mitigate, global asymmetries in political participation and influence
- They lack accountability; externally to the wider public and elected bodies; internally to their own
constituencies; organizationally as for transparency standards
Accountability of CSO
= refers to the relation between power wielders and ‘accountability holders’
- Accountability concerns the production of responsibility for past choices and future decisions.
- CSOs are ‘private in form but public in purpose’  featuring complex forms of accountability
- capacity to influence public policies or to improve the provision of a (global) public good
An accountability regime consists of an organization’s accountability relations plus the institutional
preconditions (transparency and financial+organizational independence) that make accountability
work.
Indicators of accountability:
● independence: 3 indicators:
1. CSOs establishment and/or contracting by IOs
2. A ‘cosy’ approach to advocacy, such as confrontation avoidance with government
3. An over-reliance on public sources of funding
Independence ensures that CSOs are accountable above all to their members and those affected by
their work
● transparency: Defined as ‘easy access to accurate and comprehensible information about policy
decisions and decision-making processes.
How? Making expenditure items public. Making clear how decision-making is made, how are policies
formulated.
Transparency ensures that information is accesible to hold CSOs to account
● participation: strategic and tactical
Participation refers to the inclusion of CSOs members into organizational decision-making
procedures.
Strategic decision-making: long-term goals and policies.
Tactical decision-making: the day-to-day business and implementation
● evaluations: Defined as ‘the proceses through which an organization, with involvement of key
stakeholders, monitors and reviews its progress and results against goals and objectives; feeds
learning from this basic organization on an ongoing basis; and reports on the results of the process
● self-regulation as a social mechanism
Self-regulation is practiced through peer reviews or by signing codes of conduct. They are meant to
prevent the proliferation of fraudulent CSOs.
Self-regulation clearly states standards of conduct for CSO officials
● complaint procedures:
Is it possible for accountability holders (members, the target group) to complain about the practices
of an CSO?
Two mechanisms for sanctioning organizational behavior: voice and exit. As CSOs are membership
organizations exit is always possible. Objections can be made through panels, juries and informal
complaints to the organization’s leadership.
Compliant procedures enable members to challenge decisions made by the CSO leadership.
The result of the empirical study is that the general claim that transnational CSOs lack accountability
is overblown.
3 issues that merit attention:
1. Some CSOs are so highly dependent on public funding that one might question their advocacy
independence
2. Some organizations, especially among those defending special interests are not particularly
transparent to the general public.
3. It is unclear why so few CSOs are signatories to codes of conduct as a tool for enhancing both good
governance and within the organization and external accountability
Brattman article:
Belo Monte Dam in Brazil : reflects transnational activists on a global level
Activists: in favor of local cultures, indigenous people, environment.
Against: capitalism, authoritarianism, bureaucracies
An analysis of the three-decades-old transnational struggle to stop the construction of the Belo
Monte Hydroelectric Dam shows that:
1. Changing domestic political contexts significantly altered the course of activist alliances and
strategies
2. Theories of Transnational Activist Networks and norm diffusion are therefore not able to explain
the evolution of struggles such as that of Belo Monte
3. Factors not taken into account by TAN theory such as the deployment of the ‘development card’
and nationalist frames play a key role in shaping the evolution of struggles
4. The case of the Belo Monte anti-dam construction struggle raises wider questions about theories
of globalization and the global public sphere as expounded by Castells (but also Beck and Giddens)
Verder is alles te halen uit de powerpoints
Session 7
Global Private Civil Institutions
The rise of private-civil institutions on sustainability. ‘Non-state-market-driven (NSMD)’. Roundtables
- Rio 1992 conference; MSC; RSPO; UTZ; Rio +20
Explaining the rise:
- instability of states do deal with global problems
- policy voids (lack of policy of states to deal with global problems)
- authority crisis (authority was criticized)
- no single actor is capable to tackle problems unilaterally (having the resource and knowledge)
- sovereignty over transnational
Sovereignty as key concept
- human rights as agreements between states. Sovereignty based on human rights
- Sovereignty also questioned: human rights meant to protect citizens of state power
Sovereignty
● State-centric approach: state (holder) has supreme authority in a territory (object).
On national scale. Sovereignty is given and exlusive.
● Pluralistic approach: state/non-state (holder) has supreme authority over territory, cultural,
people, etc. (multiple objects). Scale is also plural. Sovereignty is constructed and shared/overlapping
Main questions:
1. Why business and civil society collaborate to establish new private-civil institutions at the global
level?
If there is no concern on sustainability, their supply on raw materials cannot be secured. For
economic (first reason) and environmental reasons, businesses has committed themselves to
sustainability. Profit-driven, but more and more environmental concern.
2. What or whose problem business and civil society want to solve?
Article Bernstein: Strategic interest of business in the first place (logic of consequences).
NGO: Securing a good reputation, and the donor money.
The problem: unsustainable production of raw materials (soy, palm oil). NGO’s setting new
sustainability standards. Creating better labor conditions and planet friendly production.
3. Are private-civil institutions at the global level North-South partnerships, or in(ter)vention from
the North to dictate the South
4. Can private-civil partnerships be seen as new sovereigns over sustainability?
‘While industry represents perhaps the single biggest threat to society and the natural world, it can
also represent one of our greatest allies in our mission to safeguard it and provide for its sustainable
development.’ – WWF philosophy
from protecting rare species to protecting ecosystems to controlling agricultural expansion to
targeting multinational business
Bernstein Main argument: Business: strategic reasons (logic of consequences). NGO’s: normative
thinking (logic of appropriateness). This distinction is too simple. There’s more diversity.
Second argument: There’s an evolutionary logic in the development NSMD governance.
- First there’s strategic calculations, that bring business and NGO’s together.
- Strategic calculations leads to divergence. Traceability measures and adjusting to more principles
are too costly  divergence.
- Gradually, businesses realize that they have to be sustainable and transparent to move forward
(norm generation), bringing business and NGO’s back together.
- establishment of political legitimacy
how non-state are these NSMD actors if they refer to compliance with national law and regulations?
Several actors in RSPO/RTRS complain on lack of effectiveness on ending deforestation. The
partnerships focus on securing supply of resources  profit.
Kalfagianni: legitimacy and effectiveness relation.
Specify legitimacy: the scope (who) and quality (representation) of inclusiveness.
Actors in the palm oil production: retailers, traders, manufacturers, retailers, consumers
RSPO: want to transform the trade on palm oil and contribute to sustainable production.
Membership RSPO: producers (traders, manufacturers, retailers, investors), growers, and CSO’s
(being a minority in the board).
Main argument: There is no linear relationship between democratic legitimacy and effectiveness in
NSMD global systems in the field of fishery and aquaculture
More participatory inclusiveness  the more stringent/precise the criteria, strictness of compliance,
lower standard uptake (number of producers and consumers complying).
Because if organizations have a strong voice in the development of principles, they develop high
standards, that lead to low adoption of standards.
Should we lower the inclusiveness? Lower the standards?
Session 8
Why exclusion is good (and inclusion is desired)
Exclusion
 breeding ground for innovation
 explains dynamics in governance of global problems
 leads to change, rivalry, diversity
Framing (construction of a meaning) sovereignty
- palm oil and soy production countries (local) but trade and consumption (global)  what scale to
address?
- sustainability is a ‘wicked’ problem: Complex relationships between ecological and social systems
and processes; Lack of agreement on what is the problem, where it starts, and at what level to
address the problem; Organizational explosion and proliferation of standards, authorities and
authority crises
To assess the legitimacy of global civil-private institutions: six dimensions of legitimacy (ethical,
sociological, source of knowledge based and then input, output and throughput)
- static perspective: where to focus on? ‘a photograph’. Legitimacy is given
- process perspective: (article Schouten&Glasbergen): legitimacy is multidimensional and to be
created. 
1. Legal approach: creating legality, (procedural)
2. Sociological approach: creating acceptance (empirical)
3. Political-philosophical approach: creating moral justification, reason to participate (normative)
Pragmatic approach: principles are part of organization’s values (biodiversity, labor conditions, etc).
Actors see their own issues on the principles and sign  common moral justification. Together they
form the right actors.
Critical reflections on the process:
● RSPO: lack of acceptance of smallholders and local communities. Too global?
● tensions between two regimes of engagement:
- functional/strategic regime: stakeholder is organized and capable to represent; effective;
sustainability defined by criteria
- justifiable regime: more inclusive; understanding root causes, seeking justice; sustainability:
discussing what kind of agriculture and society we want, local knowledge and stories
● the inclusive paradigm ‘sucks’
Key actors in sustainability on palm oil production:
RSPO, GAKPI (association of Indonesian palm oil producers), Indonesian state
Rise of national standards (ISPO): copy of global standards (RSPO)
Difference ISPO-RSPO in article.
- National standards are softer: more room for expansion of firms. Sovereignty over territory
National sustainability standards for the legitimacy and effectiveness of global standards?
States using sovereignty to keep control over their territory. Keeping RSPO at a distance.
Undermining the legitimacy and effectiveness of RSPO (global standards).
Session 9 Global public-private institutions: The role of MNC’s/businesses. Becoming more global
actors through involvement in global trade/FDI.
Andanova:
PP-institutions: rules, practices, principles, norms and decision making procedures, agreed upon
jointly by state and non-state actors, and intended to influence behavior at multiple levels of
governance.
UN General Assembly:
Voluntary and collaborative relationships between state and non-state actors.
PPI:
- include state and non-state actors
- voluntary mechanism
- horizontal, network structure (no hierarchical, top down)
- focus on more narrowly defined governance problems (e.g. malaria)
Institutions  focus on providing public goods, sustainable activities, market failures.
Role for the govt and private actors to intervene.
Types of PPI
- two sector partnerships (govt and business)
- multi-sector/tri-sector/multi-stakeholder partnerships (govt, business, cso)
- type of goals: policy; capacity building; advocacy; information production; facilitating
- degree of state involvement (public regulation); business involvement (private self-regulation) or
mixed (co-regulation/public adoption of private regulation)
CDM: Clean Development Mechanism = public driven, tasks and projects done by private sector
(Delegation to private actors)
Reasons of existing
- Demand side: market or govt failure;
local level: market failure, lack of expertise or budgetary means; bad governance
global level: need of collective action; blurred responsibilities; differed information
Why do state actors participate
- governance gaps
- keep some control over global governance
- to deter negative public pressure and overcome principles’ unwillingness to cooperate
Why do private actors participate
mainly strategic reasons
- public good dependence (need clean water for making coca cola)
- want to open new markets (improve healtheducationeconomic growthlarger markets
- cutting costs: setting standardscompliance in productionconsumers know what they buy (?)
- rent-seeking: involvement in tough standards, some competitors can’t comply with
- brand positioning or showing you’re a good corporate citizen (image)
- public policy. Influence policy makers
- a learning network to problem solving
PPI most active in places with weak regime (public institutions) and high pressure from society
(transnational actor interests).
Legitimacy
- input (including relevant actors) – cso?
- throughput (transparency)
- output (strategic reasons of MNC can be effective)
- Normative (theoretical): fairness, justice, norms like human rights and biodiversity. MNC’s in for its
own interest?
- Empirical (sociological or popular): public’s attitude on right to govern. Observation-based on
acceptance on the institution
- Source or knowledge-based: expertise
Session 10
Global public-private institutions: new forms of governance in climate protection
Session 11
Session 12