intertrendsМеждународные процессыInternational Trends / Mezhdunarodnye protsessy1728-27561811-2773AEFIR10.17994/IT.2022.20.1.68.5intertrends-174Research ArticleРЕАЛЬНОСТЬ И ТЕОРИЯREALITY AND THEORYОт политики убеждения к дипломатии. Уроки международной кампании по запрещению ядерного оружияFrom advocacy to diplomacy. The case of the international campaign to abolish nuclear weaponsМихайленкоЕ.MikhaylenkoE.

Екатерина Михайленко

Екатеринбург

Ekaterina Mikhaylenko

Ekaterinburg

Уральский федеральный университет имени первого президента России Б.Н. ЕльцинаРоссияUral Federal UniversityRussian Federation2022300320222015579Copyright © Михайленко Е., 20222022Михайленко Е.Mikhaylenko E.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.intertrends.ru/jour/article/view/174

Международная кампания по запрещению ядерного оружия (ИКАН) стала известной благодаря активному участию в разработке и продвижении Договора о запрещении ядерного оружия. Успех кампании связан с тем, что она объединила не только антиядерные неправительственные организации, но и ряд государственных деятелей и дипломатов. ИКАН – «транснациональная сеть убеждения» (ТСУ), сумевшая мобилизовать большое количество государственных и негосударственных акторов. Настоящая статья ставит своей целью изучение феномена этой кампании и выявление особенностей её работы. Источниковой базой исследования стали документы и материалы с официального сайта ИКАН, рабочие документы Конференций Договора о нераспространении ядерного оружия (ДНЯО) по рассмотрению его действия, а также интервью с представителями антиядерных неправительственных организаций (НПО). Новизна исследования заключается в том, что в российский научный дискурс введена новая интерпретация понятия «транснациональная сеть убеждения» и что на примере ИКАН были выявлены основные инструменты и принципы действия ТСУ. Исследование было реализовано в три этапа: 1) анализ деятельности НПО в переговорном процессе ДНЯО; 2) определение особенностей ИКАН как ТСУ, а также основных направлений и методов её работы; (3) выявление проблем и ограничений ИКАН. Отличительная особенность деятельности современных ТСУ состоит в сочетании политики убеждения и экспертизы, позволяющей таким коалициям успешно работать с международными организациями и государствами. ИКАН представляет собой интересный случай, так как в рамках этой кампании произошло совпадение интересов ряда государств и антиядерных НПО. Но при этом остаётся вопрос, насколько долго она сможет функционировать в формате ТСУ и влиять на формирование повестки Конференций ДНЯО. Продвижение идеи запрещения ядерного оружия, а далее и лоббирование подписания и ратификации ДЗЯО (Договор о запрещении ядерного оружия) продемонстрировало, что ИКАН перешла от общественной деятельности к дипломатии путём привлечения в ТСУ государств–членов ДНЯО в ходе переговорного процесса и влияния на формирование повестки дня. Тем не менее есть основания полагать, что ИКАН и её координирующая роль в переговорном процессе ДНЯО может стать менее значимой в силу смещения акцентов и интересов государств и переместиться обратно в сторону общественно-просветительской деятельности.

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) has become known for its active engagement in the drafting and promotion of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). The success of the campaign is related to the fact that not only other anti-nuclear non-governmental organizations (NGOs), but also a number of state figures and diplomats have joined the campaign. ICAN is a "transnational advocacy network" (TAN) that has managed to engage a significant pool of state and non-state stakeholders (actors). This paper aims to explore the ICAN phenomenon and identify the features of this transnational advocacy network. The study is based on documents and materials drawn from the official ICAN website, working papers from the NPT Review Conferences, as well as interviews with representatives of anti-nuclear NGOs. The novelty of the study consists in the fact that a new interpretation of the concept of "transnational advocacy network" was introduced into Russian academic discourse and the main instruments and principles of TAN were identified on the basis of the ICAN example. The research of ICAN was carried out according to three bullet-points: (1) analysis of NGO activities in the NPT negotiation process; (2) identification of the features of ICAN as a TAN, the main trends and methods of work; (3) problems and limitations of ICAN. A hallmark of today's TANs is that they combine advocacy and examination, allowing such coalitions to work successfully with international organizations and states. ICAN is an interesting case study because there has been a convergence of interests between a number of states and anti-nuclear NGOs. However, the question still remains how long will it be able to keep functioning in the TAN format and continue to frame the agenda of the NPT Conferences? The drive to ban nuclear weapons, and then to lobby for the signing and ratification of the NPT, demonstrated that ICAN had moved from public activity to direct diplomacy. Nevertheless, there is reason to assume that ICAN and its coordinating role in the NPT negotiation process may become less important as the focus and interests of states shift back to public outreach activities.

ИКАНтранснациональная сеть убежденияТСУрежимДНЯОДЗЯОНПОзапрещение ядерного оружияядерные нормыICANtransnational advocacy networkTANregimeNPTTPNWNGOsprohibition of nuclear weaponsnuclear normsReferencesАдами И. М., Вербицкая Т.В., Гилева П.Л., Гусейнов К.К., Дегтярёв Н.С., Золотарёв Ф.Е., Казанцева А.Д., Лапанович Е.А., Михайленко В.И., Михайленко Е.Б., Муратшина К.Г., Порядина Е.С. Договор о запрещении ядерного оружия: формирование нового режима? Екатеринбург: Издательство Уральского университета, 2020.180 с.Acheson R. (2018). Impact of The Nuclear Ban: How Outlawing Nuclear Weapons Is Changing The World. Global Change, Peace and Security. Vol. 30. P. 243–250. DOI: 10.1080/14781158.2018.1465907.Виньо А., Байков А.А. Почему государства заимствуют экологические нормы: опыт России //Международные процессы. 2018. Т. 16. No 4(55). С. 137–153. DOI 10.17994/IT.2018.16.4.55.8.Acheson R. (2019). The Nuclear Ban and The Patriarchy: A Feminist Analysis of Opposition To Prohibiting Nuclear Weapons. Critical Studies on Security. Vol. 7. No.1. P. 78–82. DOI: 10.1080/21624887.2018.1468127.Воронков Л.С. Международные межправительственные и неправительственные организации в системе международных отношений. М.: Московский государственный институт международных отношений (Университет) Министерства иностранных дел Российской Федерации, 2018. 354 с.Adami I., Verbitskaya T., Gileva P., Guseynov K., Dyagterev N., Zolotarev F., Kazantseva A., Lapanovich E., Mikhaylenko V., Mikhaylenko E., Muratshina K., Poryadina E. (2020). Dogovor o zapreshchenii yadernogo oruzhiya: formirovanie novogo rezhima? [Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons: Formation of a New Regime?]. Ekaterinburg: Izdatel'stvo Ural'skogo universiteta. 180 p.Гуторова А.Н. Международные неправительственные организации: понятие, виды и роль в современном мире // Известия Юго-Западного государственного университета. 2017. No 4(73). С. 154–164. DOI 10.21869/2223-1560-2017-21-4-154-164.Bolton M., Minor E. (2016). The discursive turn arrives in Turtle Bay: the international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons’ operationalization of critical IR theories. Global Policy. Vol. 7. No. 3. P. 385–395.Евлаев А.Н., Зубков С.А. Глобальное гражданское общество и его роль в решении экологических проблем // Поиск: Политика. Обществоведение. Искусство. Социология. Культура. 2020. No 2(79). С. 80–91.Borrie J., Spies M., Wan W. (2018). Obstacles to Understanding the Emergence and Significance of The Treaty on The Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Global Change, Peace and Security. Vol. 30. No. 2. P. 95–119. DOI: 10.1080/14781158.2018.1467394.Ефимов О.И. Глобальное гражданское общество: характеристики и противоречия // Личность. Культура. Общество. 2010. Т. 12. No 4(59–60). С. 379–384.Buzan B., Hansen L. (2009). The Evolution and International Security Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 384 p.Иванов В.Г. Глобальное гражданское общество: становление нового актора мировой политики. Ч. 1 // Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Политология. 2010. No 4. С. 106–115.Carson L. (2018). Why Youth and Feminist Activism Matters: Insights from Anti-Nuclear Campaigns in Practice. Global Change, Peace and Security. Vol. 30. No.2. P. 261–269. DOI: 10.1080/14781158.2018.1467395.Иванова Е.Н., Иванов В.И. Взаимодействие международных неправительственных организаций с ООН и межправительственными организациями // Вестник РГГУ. Серия: Международные отношения. Зарубежное регионоведение. 2012. No 19(99). С. 57–67.Considine L. (2019). The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Question Of Nuclear Meaning. Critical Studies on Security. Vol. 7. No. 1. P.87–90. DOI: 10.1080/21624887.2018.1468131.Истомин И.А., Виньо А. Технологическая неопределённость нормы в области контроля над вооружениями // Будущее мировой политики: технологии, конфликты, институты / Под ред. А.А.Сушенцова, И.В.Фомина, У.К.Уолфорта. М.: Весь Мир, 2020. С. 115–161.Crowley-Vigneau A., Baykov A. (2018). Pochemu gosudarstva zaimstvuyut ekologicheskie normy: opyt Rossii [Transnational Networks and Russia's Environmental Policies]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 16. No. 4(55). P. 137–153. DOI 10.17994/IT.2018.16.4.55.8.Михайленко Е.Б., Дегтярёв Н.С. Эволюция идеи запрещения ядерного оружия в контексте режима ядерного нераспространения // Вестник Томского государственного университета. История. 2019. No 62(62). С. 115–127. DOI: 10.17223/19988613/62/14.Crowley-Vigneau A., Baykov A. (2020). Transnational expertise and experience networks and Russia's environmental policies. Mezhdunarodnye Protsessy. Vol. 18. No. 1(60). P. 106–118. DOI 10.17994/IT.2020.18.1.60.6.Наумов А.О. Международные неправительственные организации в современной мирополитической системе. М.: Красанд, 2009. 272 с.della Porta D., Tarrow S. (eds.). (2005). Transnational Protest & Global Activism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 304 p.Стецко Е.В. «Глобальное управление» и роль неправительственных организаций в его становлении //Общество. Среда. Развитие. 2012. No 4(25). С. 110–115.Efimov O. I. (2010). Global'noe grazhdanskoe obshchestvo: harakteristiki i protivorechiya [Global civil society: characteristics and contradictions]. Lichnost’. Kultura. Obschestvo. Vol.12. No. 4(59-60). P. 379–384.Шагабиева Е.М. Международные неправительственные организации: их виды, особенности, категории и характеристика // Власть. 2010. No 9. С. 94–96.Egeland K. (2019). Introduction: The Nuclear Ban Treaty as Negation of Negation. Critical Studies on Security. Vol. 7. No. 1. P. 69–72. DOI: 10.1080/21624887.2018.1468102.Acheson R. Impact of the nuclear ban: how outlawing nuclear weapons is changing the world //Global Change, Peace and Security. 2018. Vol. 30. No.1. P. 243–250. DOI: 10.1080/14781158.2018.1465907.Evlaev A. N., Zubkov S. A. (2020). Global'noe grazhdanskoe obshchestvo i ego rol' v reshenii ekologicheskih problem [Global civil society and its role in solving environmental problems]. Poisk: Politika. Obshchestvovedenie. Iskusstvo. Sociologiya. Kul'tura. Vol. 2. No. 79. P. 80–91.Acheson R. The nuclear ban and the patriarchy: a feminist analysis of opposition to prohibiting nuclear weapons // Critical Studies on Security. 2019. Vol. 7. No. 1. P. 78–82. DOI: 10.1080/21624887.2018.1468127.Finnemore M., Sikkink K. (1998). International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. International organization. Vol. 52. No. 4. P. 887–917. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/002081898550789.Bolton M., Minor E. The discursive turn arrives in Turtle Bay: the international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons’ operationalization of critical IR theories // Global Policy. 2016. Vol. 7. No. 3. P. 385–395.Gutorova A. N. (2017). Mezhdunarodnye nepravitel'stvennye organizacii: ponyatie, vidy i rol' v sovremennom mire [International non-governmental organizations: concept, types and role in the modern world]. Izvestiya YUgoZapadnogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Vol. 4. No. 73. P. 154–164. DOI: 10.21869/2223-1560-2017-21-4-154-164.Borrie J., Spies M., Wan W. Obstacles to understanding the emergence and significance of the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons // Global Change, Peace and Security. 2018. Vol. 30. No. 2. P. 95–119. DOI: 10.1080/14781158.2018.1467394.Hansen L. (2010). Poststructuralism and Security. In: Denemark R., Marlin-Bennett R. (eds.) The International Studies Encyclopedia: Volume IX. Malden, MA. USA: Wiley-Blackwell. P. 5876–5892.Buzan B., Hansen L. The Evolution and International Security Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. 384 p.Istomin I., Crowley-Vigneau A. (2020). Tekhnologicheskaya neopredelennost' normy v oblasti kontrolya nad vooruzheniyami [Technological Uncertainty of the Norm in Arms Control]. In: Sushentsov A., Fomin I., Wolforth W. (eds.). Budushchee mirovoj politiki: tekhnologii, konflikty. Moscow: Ves' mir. P. 115–161.Carson L. Why youth and feminist activism matters: insights from anti-nuclear campaigns in practice //Global Change, Peace and Security. 2018. Vol. 30. No. 2. P. 261–269. DOI: 10.1080/14781158.2018.1467395.Ivanov V.G. (2010). Global'noe grazhdanskoe obshchestvo: stanovlenie novogo aktora mirovoj politiki. CHast' 1 [Global Civil Society: Formation of a New Actor in World Politics. Part 1].Vestnik Rossijskogo universiteta druzgby narodov. No. 4. P. 106–115.Considine L. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the question of nuclear meaning //Critical Studies on Security. 2019. Vol. 7. No. 1. P. 87–90. DOI: 10.1080/21624887.2018.1468131.Ivanova E. N., Ivanov V. I. (2012). Vzaimodejstvie mezhdunarodnyh nepravitel'stvennyh organizacij s OON i mezhpravitel'stvennymi organizaciyami [Interaction of international non-governmental organizations with the UN and intergovernmental organizations]. Vestnik RGGU. Seriya: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. Zarubezhnoe regionovedenie. Vol. 19. No. 99. P. 57–67.CrowleyVigneau A., Baykov A. Transnational expertise and experience networks and Russia's environmental policies // Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. 2020. Vol. 18. No. 1(60). P. 106–118. DOI: 10.17994/IT.2020.18.1.60.6.Keck M.E., Sikkink K. (1998). Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks In International Politics. New York: Cornell University Press. 228 p.Egeland K. Introduction: the nuclear ban treaty as negation of negation // Critical Studies on Security. 2019. Vol. 7. No. 1. P. 69–72. DOI:10.1080/21624887.2018.1468102.Keck M.E., Sikkink K. (1999). Transnational Advocacy Networks in International and Regional Politics. International Social Science Journal. Vol. 51. P. 89–101.Finnemore M., Sikkink K. International norm dynamics and political change // International Organization. 1998. Vol. 52. No. 4. P. 887–917. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/002081898550789.Kelly R. E. (2007). From International Relations to Global Governance Theory: Conceptualizing NGOs after the Rio Breakthrough of 1992. Journal of Civil Society. Vol. 3. No. 1. P. 81–99. DOI: 10.1080/17448680701390786.Hansen L. Poststructuralism and Security // The International Studies Encyclopedia: Volume IX / ed.by R. Denemark, R. Marlin-Bennett. Malden, MA, USA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. P. 5876–5892.Kmentt A. (2015). The development of the international initiative on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons and its effect on the nuclear weapons debate. International Review of the Red Cross. Vol. 97. No. 899. P. 681–709. DOI:10.1017/S1816383116000059.Keck M.E., Sikkink K. Activists beyond borders: advocacy networks in international politics. New York: Cornell University Press, 1998. 228 p.Mato D. (2005). Social Production of Representations of Ideas of Civil Society: The Role of Transnational Networks of Local and Global Actors. Comparative American Studies. An International Journal. Vol. 3. No. 4. P. 470–494. DOI: 10.1177/1477570005058962.Keck M.E., Sikkink K. Transnational advocacy networks in international and regional politics // International Social Science Journal. 1999. Vol. 51. No. 159. P. 89–101.Mæland J. G., Akhtar S. (2018). Collaboration and confrontation: the Norwegian humanitarian initiative experience. Medicine, Conflict and Survival. Vol. 34. No. 4. P. 324–329. DOI: 10.1080/13623699.2018.1560622.Kelly R.E. From International Relations to Global Governance Theory: Conceptualizing NGOs after the Rio Breakthrough of 1992 // Journal of Civil Society. 2007. Vol. 3. No. 1. P. 81–99. DOI: 10.1080/17448680701390786.Mekata M. (2018). How Transnational Civil Society Realized the Ban Treaty: An Interview with Beatrice Fihn. Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament. Vol.1. No.1 P. 79–92. DOI: 10.1080/25751654.2018.1441583.Kmentt A. The development of the international initiative on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons and its effect on the nuclear weapons debate // International Review of the Red Cross. 2015. Vol. 97. No. 899. P. 681–709. DOI:10.1017/S1816383116000059.Meyer P., Sauer T. (2018). The Nuclear Ban Treaty: A Sign of Global Impatience.Survival. Vol.60. No. 2. P. 61–72. DOI: 10.1080/00396338.2018.1448574.Mato D. Social production of representations of ideas of civil society: The role of transnational networks of local and global actors // Comparative American Studies An International Journal. 2005. Vol. 3. No. 4. P. 470–494. DOI: 10.1177/1477570005058962.Mikhaylenko E.B., Degtyarev N.S. (2019). Evolyutsiya idei zapreshcheniya yadernogo oruzhiya v kontekste rezhima yadernogo nerasprostraneniya [The Evolution of The Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons Idea In The Context Of The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Regime]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Vol. 62(62). P. 115–127. DOI: 10.17223/19988613/62/14.Mæland J.G., Akhtar S. Collaboration and confrontation: the Norwegian humanitarian initiative experience // Medicine, Conflict and Survival. 2018. Vol. 34. No. 4. P. 324–329. DOI: 10.1080/13623699.2018.1560622.Müller M., Wunderlich C. (2018). Not lost in contestation: How norm entrepreneurs frame norm development in the nuclear nonproliferation regime. Contemporary Security Policy. Vol. 39. No. 3. P. 341–366. DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2017.1394032.Mekata M. How Transnational Civil Society Realized the Ban Treaty: An Interview with Beatrice Fihn //Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament. 2018. Vol.1. No. 1. P. 79–92. DOI: 10.1080/25751654.2018.1441583.Müller M., Wunderlich C. (2020). Nuclear Disarmament without the Nuclear-Weapon States. Daedalus. Vol. 149. No. 2. P. 171–189.Meyer P., Sauer T. The Nuclear Ban Treaty: A Sign of Global Impatience // Survival. 2018. Vol. 60. No.2. P. 61–72. DOI: 10.1080/00396338.2018.1448574.Naumov A.O. (2009). Mezhdunarodnye nepravitel'stvennye organizacii v sovremennoj miropoliticheskoj sisteme [International Non-Governmental Organizations in the Modern World Political System]. Moscow: Krasand. 272 p.Müller M., Wunderlich C. Not lost in contestation: How norm entrepreneurs frame norm development in the nuclear nonproliferation regime // Contemporary Security Policy. 2018. Vol. 39. No. 3. P. 341–366. DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2017.1394032.Pieck S. K. (2013). Transnational Activist Networks: Mobilization between Emotion and Bureaucracy. Social Movement Studies. Vol. 12. No. 2. P. 121–137. DOI:10.1080/14742837.2012.664423.Müller M., Wunderlich C. Nuclear Disarmament without the Nuclear-Weapon States // Daedalus. 2020.Vol. 149. No. 2. P. 171–189.Price R., Tannenwald N. (1996). Norms and Deterrence: The Nuclear and Chemical Weapons Taboo. In: Katzenstein P. (ed.) The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press. P. 114–152.Pieck S.K. Transnational Activist Networks: Mobilization between Emotion and Bureaucracy // Social Movement Studies. 2013. Vol. 12. No. 2. P. 121–137. DOI:10.1080/14742837.2012.664423Ritchie N. (2019). Inventing Nuclear Disarmament. Critical Studies on Security. Vol. 7. No. 1. P. 73–77. DOI: 10.1080/21624887.2018.1468083.Price R., Tannenwald N. Norms and Deterrence: The Nuclear and Chemical Weapons Taboo // The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics / ed. by P. Katzenstein. New York: Columbia University Press, 1996. P. 114–152.Ritchie N., Egeland K. (2018). The Diplomacy of Resistance: Power, Hegemony And Nuclear Disarmament. Global Change, Peace and Security. Vol. 30. No. 2. P. 121–141. DOI: 10.1080/14781158.2018.1467393.Ritchie N. Inventing nuclear disarmament // Critical Studies on Security. 2019. Vol. 7. No. 1. P. 73–77. DOI: 10.1080/21624887.2018.1468083.Rublee M. R., Cohen A. (2018). Nuclear norms in global governance: A progressive research agenda. Contemporary Security Policy. Vol. 39. No. 3. P. 317–340. DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2018.1451428.Ritchie N., Egeland K. The diplomacy of resistance: power, hegemony and nuclear disarmament // Global Change, Peace and Security. 2018. Vol. 30. No. 2. P. 121–141. DOI: 10.1080/14781158.2018.1467393.Ruff T. (2018). Negotiating The UN Treaty on The Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and The Role of ICAN. Global Change, Peace and Security. Vol. 30. No. 2. P. 233–241. DOI: 10.1080/14781158.2018.1465908.Rublee M.R., Cohen A. Nuclear norms in global governance: A progressive research agenda //Contemporary Security Policy. 2018. Vol. 39. No. 3. P. 317–340. DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2018.1451428.Santoro D., Ogilvie-White T. (2010). Introduction: The Dynamics Of Nuclear Disarmament. The Nonproliferation Review. Vol. 17. No. 1. P. 17–21. DOI: 10.1080/10736700903484645.Ruff T. Negotiating the UN treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons and the role of ICAN //Global Change, Peace and Security. 2018. Vol. 30. No. 2. P. 233–241. DOI: 10.1080/14781158.2018.1465908.Shagabieva E. M. (2010). Mezhdunarodnye nepravitel'stvennye organizacii: ih vidy, osobennosti, kategorii i harakteristika [International non-governmental organizations: their types, features, categories and characteristics]. Vlast'. Vol. 9. P. 94–96.Santoro D., OgilvieWhite T. Introduction: The Dynamics Of Nuclear Disarmament // The Nonproliferation Review. 2010. Vol. 17. No.1. P. 17–21. DOI: 10.1080/10736700903484645.Smith J., Hughes M. M., Plummer S., Duncan B. (2020). Inter-Organizational Relations in Transnational Environmental and Women’s Activism: Multilateralists, Pragmatists, and Rejectionists. Globalizations. Vol. 18. No. 2. P. 300–320. DOI: 10.1080/14747731.2020.1789028.Smith J., Hughes M.M., Plummer S., Duncan B. Inter-organizational relations in transnational environmental and women’s activism: multilateralists, pragmatists, and rejectionists // Globalizations. 2020. Vol. 18. No. 2. P. 300–320. DOI: 10.1080/14747731.2020.1789028.Stetsko E. V. (2012). “Global'noe upravlenie” i rol' nepravitel'stvennykh organizatsij v ego stanovlenii [“Global governance” and the role of non-governmental organizations in its development]. Obschestvo. Sreda. Razvitie. Vol. 4. No. 25. P. 110–115.Strange M. Why Network Across National Borders? TANs, their Discursivity, and the Case of the Anti-GATS Campaign // Journal of Civil Society. 2011. Vol. 7. No. 1. P. 63–79. DOI: 10.1080/17448689.2011.553432.Strange M. (2011). Why Network Across National Borders? TANs, their Discursivity, and the Case of the Anti-GATS Campaign. Journal of Civil Society. Vol. 7. No. 1. P. 63–79. DOI: 10.1080/17448689.2011.553432.Thomas D.C. Boomerangs and Superpowers: International Norms, Transnational Networks and US Foreign Policy // Cambridge Review of International Affairs. 2002. Vol. 15. No. 1. P. 25–44. DOI: 10.1080/09557570220126225.Thomas D. C. (2002). Boomerangs and Superpowers: International Norms, Transnational Networks and US Foreign Policy. Cambridge Review of International Affairs. Vol. 15. No. 1. P. 25–44. DOI: 10.1080/09557570220126225.Transnational Protest and Global Activism / ed. by D. della Porta, S. Tarrow. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005. 304 p.Trommer S. (2011). Activists beyond Brussels: Transnational NGO Strategies on EU–West African Trade Negotiations. Globalizations. Vol. 8. No. 1. P. 113–126. DOI: 10.1080/14747731.2011.544214.Trommer S. Activists beyond Brussels: Transnational NGO Strategies on EU–West African Trade Negotiations // Globalizations. 2011. Vol. 8. No. 1. P. 113–126. DOI: 10.1080/14747731.2011.544214.Voronkov L. S. (2018). Mezhdunarodnye mezhpravitel'stvennye i nepravitel'stvennye organizatsii v sisteme mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenij [International intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations in the system of international relations]. Moscow: Moskovskij gosudarstvennyj institute mezhdunarodnyh otnoshenij (universitet) Ministerstva inostrannyh del Rossijskoj Federacii. 354 p.Williams R.E., Viotti P.R. Arms control: history, theory, and policy. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, LLC, 2012. 440 p.Williams R.E., Viotti P.R. (2012). Arms Control: History, Theory, and Policy. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, LLC. 440 p.Zajak S. Rethinking Pathways of Transnational Activism // Global Society. 2017. Vol. 31. No. 1. P.125–143. DOI: 10.1080/13600826.2016.1235549.Zajak S. (2017). Rethinking Pathways of Transnational Activism. Global Society. Vol. 31. No.1. P. 125–143. DOI: 10.1080/13600826.2016.1235549.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.