Civil networks international relations

Networks or Non-State Actors https://edge.apus.edu/messageforums-tool/images/collapse.gif?sakai.tool.placement.id=6aca60a4-4311-448e-9ca1-9328d44834afView Full Description and Attachment(s)

Enhanced communication has allowed for the growth of “networks” of organizations. What are the pros and cons of these new actors on the international stage? Refer to both civil and uncivil networks- use examples. Support your responses with references to the course material - be sure to read and reference the articles.

Instructions: Your initial post should be at least 350 words. Please respond to more than 2 other students. Responses should be a minimum of 150 words and include direct questions, evidence from the literature, alternative points of view or additional insight. For more information, please review the forum discussion rubric attached below. This is the rubric that will be used for all of the forums in this class.

-----------------------Break----------------------------------

Lesson

In this lesson we will learn about networks. Networks are, broadly defined, groups of connected individuals or entities. Members of networks share common goals or values, but tend to lack the centralized organization that characterizes the bureaucratic structures of states, intergovernmental organizations, or multinational corporations. In the past, international relations scholars have thought about networks primarily as one method of social organization. Since the mid-2000s, however, network theory (also called network analysis)—a methodology borrowed from other academic disciplines—has allowed for more intensive study of networks themselves. Network analysis provides tools for visualizing and measuring connections within networks. The study of networks provides a way for international relations scholars to consider how the specific forms of linkages between actors (whether states, IGOs, NGOs, MNCs, or individuals) shape the international system, rather than just focusing on how the traits of individual actors affect how they interact with each other. Such analysis shows how influential networks can be in influencing outcomes in international interactions. From a network theory perspective, then, networks have their own structural properties that allow actors to enhance their own power via their position in a network and, in turn, exert disproportionate influence over the international system. The spread of the internet has done much to speed the growth and influence of networks, especially those composed of individuals who share a common cause.

· Defining “network”

· Network analysis applied to international relations

· Networks and power in international relations

· Types and examples of networks in the international system

· Network Definition

The basic definition of a network is “a group or network of interconnected people or things.” This definition can encompass anything from a social network (friends and friends-of-friends connected on social media, for instance) to a computer network (two or more computers connected to each other either locally or remotely). When scholars of international relations talk about networks, however, they generally mean something a little more specific. Often, international relations analyses borrow their definition of networks from sociology and anthropology. By this definition, a network is a group of individuals or groups that interact regularly. These groups tend to be characterized by a low level of central control, high connectivity, and widely varied or dispersed members. In this sense, a network is essentially one method of organization (differentiated from state hierarchies or markets). Networks may be sanctioned by states, or not. John Arquilla argues that, in practice, most networks form in opposition to state power (Arquilla, 2007, p. 199-200).

· Network Theory Provides Insights

Other scholarship written since the early 2000s has argued that examining international relations from a network perspective actually allows for deeper investigation of outcomes in the international system. This theoretical perspective sees networks as more than just one form of organization, and argues that network theory can provide new insight into power dynamics in the international system. Networks can help to explain outcomes in the international system as the result of relational dynamics, rather than simply the result of preferences and capabilities intrinsic to states and other actors. Increasingly, more attention is being paid to the ways in which network structures affect the behavior of actors within those networks (recall the focus of reflectivist approaches to international relations, introduced in an earlier lesson), as well as to variation between networks.

· Hierarchies

Researchers who adhere to the definition of networks as a form of organization tend to argue that the primary differentiating trait of networks (as opposed to state hierarchies or multinational corporations) is that they lack hierarchy. A hierarchy is a system by which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority. In short, scholars who adhere to this view believe that networks provide equality of power. This view is rejected by most international relations experts today, however. Unequal power relations are readily apparent within many networks today, and network analysis can in fact be very useful in analyzing unequal relationships.

Origins

When are transnational networks of activists likely to emerge? Most of the research examining transnational activism proposes that we are likely to see transnational networks emerge when citizens or groups are shut out of the domestic political process. That is, when faced with a national political system that is either unresponsive or restrictive in light of groups’ demands, citizens will engage in transnational cooperation as an alternative arena in which to press their claims. Unresponsive or repressive governments, few alliance opportunities with political parties that share common issue concerns, and little possibility of expressing demands through conventional channels of participation constitute some of the national-level factors that can shape the decision to participate in transnational networks.

Authors Keck and Sikkink (1998) propose a “boomerang effect,” which is perhaps one of the most well-known articulations of how national-level constraints mobilize transnational activism. It posits that groups participate in transnational networks in order to pressure unresponsive governments at home in an indirect way. These citizen networks thereby gain leverage in pursuing their policy goals. The authors have demonstrated how human rights activists seek out cooperative networks beyond their home countries as a means of “leverage politics” (i.e., the ability to influence more powerful state actors and increase the political effectiveness of activists).