A shoe pyramid built by Handicap International to denounce landmines.

Throughout history, international campaigns have helped shape the norms that regulate, enable and constrain our interactions. William Wilberforce tirelessly campaigned to end the slave trade; Edna Gladney’s efforts saw the removal of the word “illegitimate” from birth certificates; and the suffragettes paved the way for women to vote. In the decades following World War II, opportunities for individuals and groups to mobilise across borders greatly increased. This was due partly to improvements in communications technology and partly to the growth of international and regional institutions providing additional opportunities for activists to pressure governments collectively, for example lobbying at international conferences, and for governments to be pressured from above, for example through the Human Rights Commission. In relatively short periods, NGOs like Greenpeace and Handicap International have achieved concrete change in several areas, such as the removal of ozone-depleting CFCs from household appliances; and the ban on use of landmines in conflict zones.

To date, scholars have tended to examine the role non-state actors play in international governance arrangements through separate studies on NGOs and civil society organisations, public-private partnerships, international institutions, the private sector, advocacy networks, etc. While these studies increase our understanding of the individual groups involved in international governance, they fall short of accounting for change because they exclude the role played by other actors. “Building” norms usually involves input from many different actors who in varying capacities influence the likelihood of a norm emerging, its type, and substance.

Read the rest of this article by Cecilia Cannon, PhD Candidate, International Relations / Political Science, in Globe N09, the spring 2012 issue.