Instructions

Students are required to write a 6-page reaction paper analyzing this week’s topic. This paper is intended for you to provide a critical analysis and review of the assigned weekly readings. It should identify the main themes and arguments of the readings, critically analyze those arguments (including an evaluation of evidence and support) and relate the articles to one another.

Week 4 Paper Focus: Global Civil Society

· Summary

We open the focus on these themes this week with an article by Neumann and Sending (2006) that harkens back to the debate from last week over the relative power of states versus non-state actors in global governance but adds a perspective on the changing role of civil society in relation to government as opposed to the more typical question of which actor is more powerful. Following this attempt to recast the debate between states and civil society, we read the review article by Price (2003) to get a lay of the land as it relates to the body of research on civil society and global governance. We close out the readings by taking a closer look into the origins of global civil society, and the extent to which it has emerged as a relatively new phenomenon or whether it can be traced back over long periods of time (Coleman and Wayland 2006), and a book review (Ferguson 2012) of Peter Willetts’ Non-Governmental Organizations in World Politics: The Construction of Global Governance to inspire further exploration.

References

Coleman, William D., and Sarah Wayland. 2006. “The Origins of Global Civil Society and Nonterritorial Governance: Some Empirical Reflections.” Global Governance 12(3): 241-261.

Dancy, Geoff, and Veronica Michel. 2016. “Human Rights Enforcement From Below: Private Actors and Prosecutorial Momentum in Latin America and Europe.” International Studies Quarterly 60(1): 173-188.

Ferguson, Yale H. 2012. “NGOs’ Role in Constructing Global Governance.” Global Governance 18(3): 383-386.

Finnemore, Martha and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change.” International Organization 52(4): 887-917.

Fox, Oliver, and Peter Stoett. 2016. “Citizen Participation in the UN Sustainable Development Goals Consultation Process: Toward Global Democratic Governance?” Global Governance 22(4): 555-573.

Joachim, Jutta. 2003. ‘‘Framing Issues and Seeking Opportunities: The UN, NGOs, and Women’s Rights.” International Studies Quarterly 47(2): 247-274.

Keck, Margaret and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. “Chapter 1: Transnational Advocacy Networks in International Politics: Introduction.” In Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 1998. Pages 1-38.

Meernik, James, Rosa Aloisi, Marsha Sowell, and Angela Nichols. 2012. “The Impact of Human Rights Organizations on Naming and Shaming Campaigns”. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 56(2): 233-256.

Neumann, Iver B. and Ole Jacob Sending. 2006. “Governance to Governmentality: Analyzing NGOs, States, and Power.” International Studies Quarterly 50(3): 651–672.

Price, Richard. 2003. “Transnational Civil Society and Advocacy in World Politics” (Review Article). World Politics 55(4): 579-606.

Renshaw, Catherine Shanahan. 2012. “National Human Rights Institutions and Civil Society Organizations: New Dynamics of Engagement at Domestic, Regional, and International Levels.” Global Governance 18(3): 299-316.

Rietig, Katharina. 2016. “The Power of Strategy: Environmental NGO Influence in International Climate Negotiations.” Global Governance 22(2): 269-288.

Papers will be graded using the following rubric:

	Exemplary 3	Proficient 2.4	Limited 1.8	Unsatisfactory 0

Arguments from Readings: Identify and describe main arguments of readings 25 percent	Identifies and describes main arguments of the set of readings presented with extensive scholarly discussion and detail	Identifies and describes main arguments of the set of readings presented with some scholarly discussion and detail	Identifies and describes main arguments of the set of readings presented with some gaps in scholarly discussion and detail	Does not identify and describe main arguments of the set of readings presented, or does so with little scholarly discussion or detail

Critique/Evidence Used: Evaluate arguments, including assessment of evidence and support 30 percent	Provides insightful critique of arguments, evidence, and support that is thoroughly defended with detailed evidence and examples. Includes both citations and a list of references	Provides thorough critique of arguments, evidence, and support that is justified with evidence	Provides meaningful critique of arguments, evidence, and/or support, but evidence is lacking	Does not provide meaningful critique of arguments, evidence, and/or support and evidence is lacking

Topic Understanding: Evaluate how articles together contribute to collective understanding of the topic 30 percent	Meets “Proficient” criteria and description demonstrates keen insight into how the studies collectively contribute to the shared understanding of the topic area	Describes how the studies contribute to the collective understanding of the topic, supporting response with example s and support from the research	Describes how the studies contribute to the collective understanding of the topic but description is cursory, contains inaccuracies, or does not support response with examples and support from the research	Does not describe how the studies contribute to the collective understanding of the topic

Writing 15 percent	Short paper is easily understood, clear, and concise using proper citation methods with no errors in citations	Short paper is easily understood using proper citation methods with few errors in citations or writing	Short paper is understandable using proper citation methods with a number of errors in citations or writing	Short paper is not understandable and does not use proper citation methods