Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Journal Article 1: Béland, D., & Orenstein, M. A. (2013). International organizations as policy actors: An ideational approach. Global Social Policy, 13(2), 125-143. doi:10.1177/1468018113484608

Summary: This article argues that international organizations are an important location for the development of ideas that can influence state policies. In this regard, the article is about the importance of international organizations as actors, but in a way somewhat different from the textbook. It is looking at the interplay of international organizations and domestic politics / policy development.

Questions to Consider

1. The article asserts that international organizations may be more flexible than domestic institutions and think tanks in the development of new policy ideas. Do you find the argument persuasive?

2. Are there areas in which the influence of international organizations in policy may be less welcome than others? In what kind of areas do you think the influence is preferred?

3. What does this article suggests about traditional ideas of how actors interact in the international arena?

 

Journal Article 2: Glanville, L. (2011). The antecedents of ‘sovereignty as responsibility’. European Journal of International Relations, 17(2), 233-255. doi:10.1177/1354066109346889

Summary: This article is an exploration of the idea of sovereignty as responsibility. While the responsibility to protect is often portrayed as a new conception of sovereignty, this article argues that the antecedents to this idea date back to the 16th and 17th centuries.

Questions to Consider

1. The theme of sovereignty will return in subsequent chapters, especially in the discussion of human rights. Should states have an absolute right to determine what goes on in their borders, or are international norms regarding responsibility appropriate?

2. If this article is correct, is it better to look at sovereignty as a slowly evolving concept, or is it more valuable to look at certain inflexion points in the development of sovereignty?

 

Journal Article 3: Krasner, S. D. (2001). Abiding sovereignty. International Political Science Review, 22(3), 229-251. doi:10.1177/0192512101223002

Summary: Krasner essentially argues that the conception of sovereignty has always allowed for different degrees of sovereignty by different states, and that challenges to the conception of sovereignty have always existed. Given this, he argues that the state-centric system is here to stay. While other actors in the system are important, the sovereign-state system remains central to understanding world politics.

Questions to Consider

1. Have states ever really enjoyed absolute sovereignty? What are some past challenges to state sovereignty?

2. Krasner argues that the replacement of the state-centric system will only occur through a slow evolution. Do we see elements of that now, or are states successfully reasserting their sovereign control?

3. In what ways might technology facilitate the retention of sovereignty by states? In what ways might technology challenge sovereignty?

 

Journal Article 4: Lansford, T. (2000). Post-Westphalian Europe? Sovereignty and the modern nation-state. International Studies, 37(1), 1-15. doi:10.1177/0020881700037001001

Summary: This article challenges the conception of sovereignty laid out by Krasner in the previous article (though this piece does not cite Krasner). This article argues that the evolution of international organizations and other regimes challenge the traditional notions of power and sovereignty associated with states.

Questions to Consider

1. In contrast to Krasner, this article suggests that the state system is changing dramatically. Which view do you find more persuasive?

2. One argument that Lansford makes is that states are trading away some of their sovereignty and becoming “member-states” in which they trade away some internal authority in order to better integrate with global economic systems. Do you find this argument persuasive, or do you believe a state’s capacity to withdraw that “membership” means that it retains traditional sovereignty?

3. Each of the articles on sovereignty suggests a very different conception of what sovereignty is – do you believe we can have a unified vision of sovereignty, or is it a concept that can be shaped to fit each individual state’s interest?

 

Journal Article 5: Nasiritousi, N., Hjerpe, M., & Bäckstrand, K. (2016). Normative arguments for non-state actor participation in international policymaking processes: Functionalism, neocorporatism or democratic pluralism? European Journal of International Relations, 22(4), 920-943. doi:10.1177/1354066115608926

Summary: This article explores three different justifications (functionalism, neocorporatism, and democratic pluralism) for the inclusion of non-state actors in international policy discussions. It uses the lens of climate negotiations to evaluate the three strands of thought.

Questions to Consider

1. Explain the difference in the three justifications for the inclusion of non-governmental organizations in international negotiations.

2. What is meant by the concept of a democratic deficit in international negotiations?

3. Are you persuaded by any of the arguments regarding the importance of non-governmental organization inclusion in negotiations?