From advocacy to diplomacy. The case of the international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons

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.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. Buzan B., Hansen L. (2009). The Evolution and International Security Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 384 p.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. della Porta D., Tarrow S. (eds.). (2005). Transnational Protest & Global Activism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 304 p.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. Keck M.E., Sikkink K. (1998). Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks In International Politics. New York: Cornell University Press. 228 p.

22. Keck M.E., Sikkink K. (1999). Transnational Advocacy Networks in International and Regional Politics. International Social Science Journal. Vol. 51. P. 89–101.

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. Müller M., Wunderlich C. (2020). Nuclear Disarmament without the Nuclear-Weapon States. Daedalus. Vol. 149. No. 2. P. 171–189.

32. 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.

33. 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.

34. 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.

35. Ritchie N. (2019). Inventing Nuclear Disarmament. Critical Studies on Security. Vol. 7. No. 1. P. 73–77. DOI: 10.1080/21624887.2018.1468083.

36. 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.

37. 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.

38. 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.

39. 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.

40. 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.

41. 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.

42. 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.

43. 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.

44. 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.

45. 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.

46. 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.

47. Williams R.E., Viotti P.R. (2012). Arms Control: History, Theory, and Policy. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, LLC. 440 p.

48. Zajak S. (2017). Rethinking Pathways of Transnational Activism. Global Society. Vol. 31. No.1. P. 125–143. DOI: 10.1080/13600826.2016.1235549.