Transnational Networks and Russia's Environmental Policies

This article offers an analysis of why Russia does not implement the environmental policies adopted by the government. Transnational Advocacy Networks have an impact on the adoption of environmental laws as they act through various mechanisms and among others on an inter-governmental level without necessarily having an impact on the society itself. This explains why norms get adopted but may not get implemented. Based on the existing literature on TANs the authors analyze the fact that TANs operate not only as Advocacy Networks for the adoption of norms but also as what the authors of this article coin as Expertise and Experience Networks which aid norm implementation. Countries can be affected by TANs but not by TEENs, which explains the paradoxical situation in Russia regarding norm implementation. The difference between the two only becomes apparent in cases when they do not operate simultaneously. The four presented models of the emergence and diffusion of norms show that in the process of adoption of new legislative acts in the country, the initiative can come from political actors of different levels with varying degrees of international pressure. In turn, in the case of states concerned with the problem of protecting their sovereignty, international pressure, as a rule, is carried out not directly, but as a result of routine intergovernmental interaction. At the same time, the effectiveness and degree of such an impact is the higher, the more transnational expertise and experience network are active in this matter, the purpose of which is to adapt the international norm to local country conditions and to facilitate its implementation. Each of the described models for the emergence of norms implies its own peculiarities in relation to the implementation of the relevant norms.

1. Bakalova Е. (2015). Konstruktivizm v issledovanii mezhdunarodnykh norm: ot genezisa, priznaniya i soblyudeniya k narusheniyu, osparivaniyu i erozii [Constructivism in the study of International Human Rights Norms: from genesis, acceptance and compliance to violation, contestation and erosion]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 13. No. 1. P. 48–67.

2. Bob C. (2010). The market for human rights. Advocacy organizations and collective action. Pp. 133–54.

3. Brühl T. et al. (eds) (2001). Die Privatisierung der Weltpolitik. Entstaatlichung und Kommerzialisierung im Globalisierungsprozess. Bonn: Dietz Verlag. 320 p.

4. Cortell A.P., Davis J.W. (2000). Understanding the domestic impact of international norms: A research agenda. International Studies Review. Vol. 2. No. 1. P. 65–87.

5. Daley D.M., Garand J.C. (2005). Horizontal Diffusion, Vertical Diffusion and Internal Pressure in State Environmental Policymaking. American Politics Research. Vol. 33. No. 5. P. 615–644.

6. Doron G., Harris M. (2000). Public Policy and Electoral Reform: The Case of Israel. Md.: Lexington Books. 160 p.

7. Erickson J. (2015). Dangerous trade: arms exports, human rights, and international reputation. Columbia University Press. 269 p.

8. Finnemore M., Sikkink K. (1998). International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. International Organization. Vol. 52. No. 4. P. 887–917.

9. Giussani V. (1994) The UK Clean Air Act 1956: An Empirical Investigation. CSERGE Working Paper. Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment.

10. Haas P.M. (1992). Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination. International Organization. Vol. 46. No. 1. P. 1–35.

11. National Research Council (2001). The Role of Environmental NGOs: Russian Challenges, American Lessons: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10240. 215 p.

12. Jaeger H.-M. (2007). ‘Global Civil Society’ and the Political Depoliticization of Global Governance. International Political Sociology. Vol. 1. No. 3. P. 257–277.

13. Kamens D.H., Meyer J.W., Benavot A. (1996). Worldwide Patterns in Academic Secondary Education Curricula. Comparative Education Review. Vol. 40. No. 2. P. 116–138.

14. Keck M.E., Sikkink K. (1998). Activists Beyond Borders, Advocacy Networks in International Politics. New York: Cornel University Press. 294 p.

15. Kennedy D. (2004). The Dark Sides of Virtue. Reassessing International Humanitarianism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 400 p.

16. Naisbitt J. (2009). Vertikal’naya demokratiya v Kitae [Vertical Democracy in China]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 7. No. 3. P. 45–46.

17. Mendelson S.E., Glenn J.K. (eds.) (2002). The Power and Limits of NGOs: A Critical Look at Building Democracy in Eastern Europe and Eurasia. New York: Columbia University Press. 300 p.

18. Meyer J.W., Boli J., Thomas G.M., Ramirez F.O. (1997) World Society and the Nation-State. American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 103. No. 1. P. 144–181.

19. Risse T. (2012), Identity Matters: Exploring the Ambivalence of EU Foreign Policy. Global Policy. No. 3. P. 87–95.

20. Sapozhnikova V (2005) Environmental Protection in Russia: The Evolution from Strict Enforcement Measures and Environmental Compliance Control to New Combined Approaches Based upon Preventive Strategies. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference and Enforcement, INECE, 7th Conference. Washington DC. P. 183–188.

21. Slaughter, A. (1997). The Real New World Order. Foreign Affairs. Vol. 76. No. 5. P. 183–197.

22. Tarrow S. (2005). The New Transnational Activism. Cambridge University Press. 258 p.

23. Vylegzhanin A.N. (2010). Developing International Law Teachings for Preventing Interstate Disaccords in the Arctic Ocean. New Chances and New Responsibilities in the Arctic Region: Papers from the International Conference at the German Federal Foreign Office in Cooperation with the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of Denmark and Norway, 11–13 March 2009, Berlin. P. 209–222.