Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T21:27:00.978Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International commissions as norm entrepreneurs: Creating the normative idea of the responsibility to protect

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 August 2018

Daisuke Madokoro
Daisuke Madokoro*
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Law, Kobe University
*
*Corresponding author. Email: madokoro@dragon.kobe-u.ac.jp
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Discussion in international relations often centres on a wide variety of norms, such as sustainable development, global governance, human security, and the responsibility to protect. A significant amount of work focuses on not only the theoretical and policy development of these norms but also the role of various norm entrepreneurs in promoting norm emergence and diffusion. Yet there are still knowledge gaps regarding the norm entrepreneurship role of international commissions that engage in the early stage of the emergence of these norms and their processes. This article elucidates the process of creation of normative ideas by analysing the role of international commissions as norm entrepreneurs, utilising a case study of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), which proposed the normative idea of the responsibility to protect (R2P) in 2001. The theoretical contribution of this article is to expand the understanding of norm entrepreneurship by adding international commissions to the universe of norm entrepreneurs and illuminating their strategies for constructing normative ideas. Empirically, it explores the role and activities of the ICISS in creating the normative idea of R2P, which contrasts the existing literature that has only focused on the development of R2P after the Commission has finished its work.

Keywords

International CommissionNorm EntrepreneurNormative IdeaConstructivismResponsibility to ProtectInternational Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty
Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , January 2019 , pp. 100 - 119
Copyright
© British International Studies Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 According to the definition by Finnemore, I define norms in this article as ‘shared expectations about appropriate behaviour held by a community of actors’. See Finnemore, Martha, National Interests in International Society (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996), p. 22 Google Scholar.

2 Weiss, Thomas G., ‘To intervene or not to intervene? A contemporary snap-shot’, Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 9:2 (2002), p. 143 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Björkdahl invented the similar term of ‘norm candidates’ to differentiate from established norms, though she gave no clear definition and no adequate explanation of how different they are from foreign policy ideas. I do not, however, employ this term but normative ideas in this article. This is mainly because norm candidates make a seemingly false impression that they will be sure to become norms in the end, in the same way as the idea that any PhD candidate and candidates for election will be selected and eventually get a position if they follow the necessary procedures. See Björkdahl, Annika, From Idea to Norm – Promoting Conflict Prevention (Department of Political Science, Lund University, 2002)Google Scholar. I thank one of the reviewers for suggesting this study in order to clarify my argument.

4 Busby, Joshua W., Moral Movements and Foreign Policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Carpenter, Charli, ‘Lost’ Causes: Agenda Vetting in Global Issue Networks and the Shaping of Human Security (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Deitelhoff, Nicole, ‘The discursive process of legalization: Charting islands of persuasion in the ICC case’, International Organization, 63:1 (2009), pp. 33–65 CrossRefGoogle Scholar;

Finnemore, National Interests; Ingebritsen, Christine, ‘Norm entrepreneurs: Scandinavia’s role in world politics’, Cooperation and Conflict, 37:1 (2002), pp. 11–23 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Joachim, Jutta M., Agenda Setting, the UN, and the NGOs: Gender Violence and Reproductive Rights (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2007)Google Scholar; Keck, Margaret E. and Sikkink, Kathryn, Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998)Google Scholar; Madokoro, Daisuke, ‘How the United Nations secretary-general promotes international norms: Persuasion, collective legitimisation, and the responsibility to protect’, Global Responsibility to Protect, 7:1 (2015), pp. 31–55 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Müller, Harald and Wunderlich, Carmen (eds), Norm Dynamics in Multilateral Arms Control: Interests, Conflicts, and Justice (Athens: The University of Georgia Press, 2013)Google Scholar; Price, Richard, ‘Reversing the gun sights: Transnational civil society targets land mines’, International Organization, 52:3 (1998), pp. 613–644 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Risse, Thomas, Ropp, Stephen C., and Sikkink, Kathryn (eds), The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Falk, Richard, ‘Liberalism at the global level: the last of the independent commissions?’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 24:3 (1995), pp. 563–576 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Frédéric Lapeyre, ‘The Outcome and Impact of the Main International Commissions on Development Issues’, Working Paper No. 30 (Policy Integration Department, World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization, International Labour Office, Geneva, May 2004).

6 Evans, Gareth, ‘Commission diplomacy’, in Andrew Cooper, Jorge Heine, and Ramesh Thakur (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 278–302 Google Scholar; Luck, Edward, ‘Blue ribbon power: Independent commissions and UN reform’, International Studies Perspectives, 1:1 (2000), pp. 89–104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Vesa, Unto (ed.), Global Commissions Assessed (Helsinki: Edita Publishing Ltd, 2005)Google Scholar.

7 Thakur, Ramesh, Cooper, Andrew F., and English, John (eds), International Commissions and the Power of Ideas (New York: United Nations University Press, 2005)Google Scholar.

8 Helge Hveem, ‘Ideas, processes and context: the politics of independent international commissions’, in Vesa (ed.), Global Commissions Assessed, p. 16.

9 As one of the few studies, Björkdahl, in a case study of Swedish engagement in conflict prevention, cast a spotlight on the very process of ‘idea takeoff’ and ‘norm initiation’ in which a ‘norm candidate’ was selected and created by norm entrepreneurs. See Björkdahl, From Idea to Norm. Contrary to Björkdahl, I make a contribution to the field by analysing the norm entrepreneurship role of international commissions and their strategies in creating new normative ideas. Carpenter also paid attention to the early stage of norm emergence and analysed ‘the process by which advocacy networks select issues around which to mobilize in the first place’, yet her main interest was norm selection from different types of pre-existing norms, not norm creation. See Carpenter, R. Charli, ‘Setting the advocacy agenda: Theorizing issue emergence and nonemergence in transnational advocacy networks’, International Studies Quarterly, 51:1 (2007), pp. 99–120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Checkel, Jeffrey T., ‘The constructivist turn in International Relations theory’, World Politics, 50:2 (1998), pp. 324–348 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kowert, Paul and Legro, Jeffrey, ‘Norms, identity, and their limits: a theoretical reprise’, in Peter J. Katzenstein (ed.), The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics (New York: Columbia University, 1996), pp. 451–497 Google Scholar;

Kathryn Sikkink, ‘Beyond the Justice Cascade: How Agentic Constructivism could Help Explain Change in International Politics’, revised paper from a keynote address, Millennium Annual Conference (22 October 2011), ‘Out of the Ivory Tower: Weaving the Theories and Practice of International Relations’, London School of Economics, to be presented at the Princeton University IR Colloquium (21 November 2011), available at: {https://www.princeton.edu/politics/about/file-repository/public/Agentic-Constructivism-paper-sent-to-the-Princeton-IR-Colloquium.pdf#search=%27Beyond+the+justice+cascade%3A+How+agentic+constructivism+could+help+explain+change+in+international+politics%E2%80%99%2C+revised+paper+from+a+Keynote+Address%2C+Millennium+Annual+Conference%2C+22+October+2011%2C+Out+of+the+Ivory+Tower%3A+Weaving+the+Theories+and+Practice+of+International+Relations%2C+London+School+of+Economics%2C+to+be+presented+at+the+Princeton+University+IR+Colloquium%2C+21+November+2011%27}.

11 Acharya, Amitav, ‘How ideas spread: Whose norms matter? Norm localization and institutional change in Asian regionalism’, International Organization, 58:2 (2004), pp. 239–275 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Betts, Alexander and Orchard, Phil (eds), Implementation and World Politics: How International Norms Change Practice (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Checkel, Jeffrey T., ‘Why comply? Social learning and European identity change’, International Organization, 55:3 (2001), pp. 553–588 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Finnemore, Martha and Sikkink, Kathryn, ‘International norm dynamics and political change’, International Organization, 52:4 (1998), pp. 887–917 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Keck and Sikkink, Activists beyond Borders; Risse, Ropp, and Sikkink (eds), The Power of Human Rights; Zimmermann, Lisbeth, ‘More for less: the interactive translation of global norms in postconflict Guatemala’, International Studies Quarterly, 61:4 (2017), pp. 774–785 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Nicole Deitelhoff and Lisbeth Zimmermann, ‘Things We Lost in the Fire: How Different Types of Contestation Affect the Validity of International Norms’, PRIF Working Papers No. 18 (Frankfurt am Main, December 2013); Lena Krook, Mona and True, Jacqui, ‘Rethinking the life cycles of international norms: the United Nations and the global promotion of gender equality’, European Journal of International Relations, 18:1 (2012), pp. 103–127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sandholtz, Wayne and Stiles, Kendall, International Norms and Cycles of Change (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009)Google Scholar; Wiener, Antje, A Theory of Contestation (Berlin: Springer, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Badescu, Christina G., Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: Security and Human Rights (Abingdon: Routledge, 2011)Google Scholar; Bellamy, Alex J., Davies, Sara E., and Glanville, Luke (eds), The Responsibility to Protect and International Law (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2011)Google Scholar; Hehir, Aidan, The Responsibility to Protect: Rhetoric, Reality and the Future of Humanitarian Intervention (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hoffman, Julia and André, Nollkaemper (eds), Responsibility to Protect: From Principle to Practice (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2012)Google Scholar; Pattison, James, Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: Who Should Intervene? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012)Google Scholar.

14 There are some studies focused on the ICISS’s activities, but they are more descriptive and evaluative than explanatory and analytic. See Bellamy, Alex J., Responsibility to Protect: The Global Effort to End Mass Atrocities (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2009)Google Scholar; Evans, Gareth, The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and for All (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2008)Google Scholar; Thakur, Ramesh, ‘Intervention, sovereignty and the responsibility to protect: Experiences from ICISS’, Security Dialogue, 33:3 (2002), pp. 323–340 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Welsh, Jennifer, Carolin Thielking, and S. Neil MacFarlane, ‘The responsibility to protect: Assessing the report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty’, International Journal, 57:4 (2002), pp. 489–512 Google Scholar.

15 Michael Barnett, ‘Impact without imprint? The commissions on preventing deadly conflicts, intervention and state sovereignty, and human security’, in Vesa (ed.), Global Commissions Assessed, p. 57; Bellamy, Alex J., The Responsibility to Protect: A Defence (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015)Google Scholar.

16 According to Sikkink, principled actors are those who ‘are driven primarily by shared values or principled ideas – ideas about what is right and wrong – rather than shared causal ideas or instrumental goals’. See Sikkink, Kathryn, ‘Human rights, principled issue-networks, and sovereignty in Latin America’, International Organization, 47:3 (1993), p. 412 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the difference between these ideas, see Goldstein, Judith and Keohane, Robert O. (eds), Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions and Political Change (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993)Google Scholar.

17 Evans, ‘Commission diplomacy’, p. 278.

18 Barnett, Michael and Finnemore, Martha, Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2004)Google Scholar; Cooley, Alexander and Ron, James, ‘The NGO scramble: Organizational insecurity and the political economy of transnational action’, International Security, 27:1 (2002), pp. 5–39 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stroup, Sarah S. and Wong, Wendy H., The Authority Trap: Strategic Choices of International NGOs (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2017)Google Scholar.

19 Evans, ‘Commission diplomacy’, p. 293.

20 Andrew F. Cooper and John English, ‘International commissions and the mind of global governance’, in Thakur, Cooper, and English (eds), International Commissions, pp. 12–17.

21 Raimo Värynen, ‘The relevance of global commissions: an introduction’, in Vesa (ed.), Global Commissions Assessed, pp. 7–13.

22 W. Andy. Knight, ‘Equivocating on the future of world order: the commission on global governance’, in Thakur, Cooper, and English (eds), International Commissions, p. 102.

23 Falk, ‘Liberalism at the global level’, p. 565.

24 Cooper and English, ‘International commissions’, p. 11.

25 Luck, ‘Blue ribbon power’, p. 102.

26 Ibid., pp. 102–03.

27 Finnemore and Sikkink, ‘International norm dynamics’, p. 910.

28 Ibid., pp. 896–7. See also Björkdahl, From Idea to Norm, pp. 45–6.

29 For the detailed description of the process, see Bellamy, Responsibility to Protect, pp. 35–51.

30 Annan, Kofi, Interventions: A Life in War and Peace (New York: The Penguin Press, 2012), pp. 29–114 Google Scholar.

31 UN, S/1999/957, Report of the Secretary-General to the Security Council on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict (8 September 1999); S/PRST/1999/6 (12 February 1999); S/RES/1265 (17 September 1999); S/RES/1296 (19 April 2000).

32 Neil MacFarlane, S. and Yuen Foong, Khong, Human Security and the UN: A Critical History (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2006)Google Scholar.

33 UN, A/54/PV.4 (20 September 1999), pp. 2, 4.

34 Annan, Kofi, We the Peoples: The Role of the United Nations in the 21 st Century (New York: United Nations Department of Public Information, 2000), p. 48 Google Scholar.

35 Author’s interview with Lloyd Axworthy, Kyoto, 22 January 2015.

36 For details on the commissioners, see International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, The Responsibility to Protect (Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, 2001), pp. 77–79 Google Scholar.

37 Axworthy, Lloyd, Navigating a New World: Canada’s Global Future (Toronto: Vintage Canada, 2004), p. 191 Google Scholar.

38 Weiss, Thomas G., Carayannis, Tatiana, Emmerij, Louis, and Jolly, Richard, UN Voices: The Struggle for Development and Social Justice (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2005), p. 304 Google Scholar.

39 UN, A/55/PV.15 (14 September 2000), p. 3.

40 ICISS, The Responsibility to Protect, pp. 82–3.

41 Ibid., p. VII.

42 UN, A/55/PV.15, pp. 3–4.

43 Evans, Gareth and Sahnoun, Mohamed, ‘Intervention and state sovereignty: Breaking new ground’, Global Governance, 7:2 (2001), p. 121 Google Scholar.

44 Ibid., p. 123.

45 Evans, Gareth and Sahnoun, Mohamed, ‘The responsibility to protect’, Foreign Affairs, 81:6 (2002), p. 101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46 Supplementary Volume to the Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, The Responsibility to Protect: Research, Bibliography, Background (Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, 2001), p. 350.

47 Evans, The Responsibility to Protect, p. 5.

48 Author’s interview with Ramesh Thakur, Canberra, 6 March 2014.

49 Thakur, ‘Intervention, sovereignty and the responsibility to protect’, p. 327.

50 Anne Ryniker, ‘The ICRC’s position on “humanitarian intervention”’, International Review of the Red Cross, 83:842 (2001), p. 529.

51 UN, SG/SM/7632, ‘Military Operations Should Not Be Described as Humanitarian Action, Secretary-General Tells Symposium’ (20 November 2000).

52 Supplementary Volume, The Responsibility to Protect, p. 375.

53 Ibid., p. 392.

54 Axworthy, Navigating a New World, p. 414.

55 Author’s interview with Thakur.

56 Evans, The Responsibility to Protect, p. 5.

57 Supplementary Volume, The Responsibility to Protect, p. 355.

58 Ibid., pp. 391, 397; Samkange, Stanlake J. T. M., ‘African perspectives on intervention and state sovereignty’, African Security Review, 11:1 (2002), p. 80 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

59 ICISS, The Responsibility to Protect, p. XI.

60 Supplementary Volume, The Responsibility to Protect, pp. 360, 363.

61 Global Responsibility to Protect, ‘Interview with Mohamed Sahnoun (30 July 2011)’, Global Responsibility to Protect, 3:4 (2011), p. 475 Google Scholar.

62 Author’s interview with Vesselin Popovski, a participant of the London roundtable, Tokyo, 24 February 2014. See also Canadian Centre for Foreign Policy Development (CCFPD), 1011.9E, ‘Report from the Ottawa Roundtable for the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty’ (15 January 2001, Ottawa), p. 3; Supplementary Volume, The Responsibility to Protect, pp. 357–8, 385–6.

63 Supplementary Volume, The Responsibility to Protect, pp. 363–4, 368, 380, 398.

64 Evans, The Responsibility to Protect, p. 32.

65 Supplementary Volume, The Responsibility to Protect, pp. 351, 377.

66 ICISS, The Responsibility to Protect, p. XII.

67 CCFPD, ‘Report from the Ottawa Roundtable’, p. 5.

68 Author’s interview with Thakur. See also ICISS, The Responsibility to Protect, pp. 32–3.

69 ICISS, The Responsibility to Protect, p. XI.

70 Author’s interview with ICISS research director Thomas G. Weiss, New York, 30 October 2014.

71 ICISS, The Responsibility to Protect, p. XII.

72 Supplementary Volume, The Responsibility to Protect, pp. 356, 367, 373, 376, 389, 393.

73 ICISS, The Responsibility to Protect, p. VIII.

74 Evans, The Responsibility to Protect, pp. 4–5.

75 Evans and Sahnoun, ‘Intervention and state sovereignty’, p. 121.

76 Axworthy, Navigating a New World, p. 191.

77 Ibid.

78 UN, SG/SM/7632, ‘Secretary-General Addresses International Peace Academy Seminar on “the Responsibility to Protect”’ (15 February 2002).

79 ICISS, The Responsibility to Protect, p. 82.

80 Ibid., p. 84.

81 Author’s interview with Popovski.

82 Author’s interview with Thakur.

83 ICISS, The Responsibility to Protect, p. 84.

84 As for the R2PCS, see: {http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/rtop}.

85 Joon Kim, Hun and Sharman, J. C., ‘Accounts and accountability: Corruption, human rights, and individual accountability norms’, International Organization, 68:2 (2014), pp. 417–448 Google Scholar.

86 Acharya, ‘How ideas spread’, pp. 246–7.

87 Carmen Wunderlich, ‘Theoretical approaches in norm dynamics’, in Müller and Wunderlich (eds), Norm Dynamics in Multilateral Arms Control, p. 27.

88 According to Kornprobst, the former ‘makes clear that the old ways of doing things have become obsolete and have to be replaced by something new’, while the latter ‘replaces old tools for making the world intelligible with new ones’. These two structural factors are intimately intertwined, as revolutionary events do not necessarily prompt a change in the repertoire of commonplaces, but the former must be observed prior to the latter. See Kornprobst, Markus, ‘Argumentation and compromise: Ireland’s selection of the territorial status quo norm’, International Organization, 61:1 (2007), p. 78 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

89 Keck and Sikkink, Activists beyond Borders, p. 204.

90 Joachim, Agenda Setting, pp. 6–7.

91 Bloomfield, Alan and Scott, Shirley V. (eds), Norm Antipreneurs and the Politics of Resistance to Global Normative Change (Abingdon: Routledge, 2017)Google Scholar; Bob, Clifford, The Global Right Wing and the Clash of World Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Payne, Rodger A., ‘Persuasion, frames and norm construction’, European Journal of International Relations, 7:1 (2001), pp. 37–61 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wiener, A Theory of Contestation.

92 Björkdahl, From Idea to Norm, pp. 52–4.

93 Carpenter, ‘Setting the advocacy agenda’, p. 111.

94 Payne, ‘Persuasion, frames and norm construction’, p. 42.

95 Luck, ‘Blue ribbon power’, pp. 102–03.

96 Evans, ‘Commission diplomacy’, p. 295.

97 Supplementary Volume, The Responsibility to Protect, p. 392.

98 Cooper and English, ‘International commissions’, p. 21.

99 Unto Vesa, ‘Global commissions added value’, in Vesa (ed.), Global Commissions Assessed, p. 122.

100 Benford, Robert D. and Snow, David A., ‘Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment’, Annual Review of Sociology, 26 (2000), p. 625 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

101 Madokoro, Daisuke, ‘The formation of the “responsibility to protect”: the role of norm entrepreneur and the influence of normative environment’, International Public Policy Studies, 14:1 (2009), pp. 234–5 Google Scholar, in Japanese. I do not argue that all efforts to name new normative ideas would be successful in encouraging actors to rethink and redefine their views on existing problems, thereby resulting in the promotion of norm emergence. Indeed, it is said that normative ideas with new names sometimes ‘fail to generate much or any discernible buzz in the media or among policy-makers, while there have been plenty of reports lacking such a badge … which are generally seen as successes’. See Evans, ‘Commission diplomacy’, p. 296.

102 Kurusu, Kaoru, ‘Development of human security “norm” and global governance: How is a norm-complex constructed in world politics’, International Relations, 143 (2005), pp. 78–79 Google Scholar, in Japanese.

103 Raimo Värynen, ‘The relevance of global commissions: an introduction’, in Vesa (ed.), Global Commissions Assessed, p. 11.

104 Kurusu, ‘Development of human security “norm”’, p. 78; Welsh, Jennifer M., ‘Norm contestation and the responsibility to protect’, Global Responsibility to Protect, 5:4 (2013), pp. 386–7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

105 Keck and Sikkink argued that, in order to make advocacy campaigns successful, norm entrepreneurs must ‘show that a given state of affairs is neither natural nor accidental, identify the responsible party or parties, and propose credible solutions’. See Keck and Sikkink, Activists beyond Borders, p. 19.

106 Benford and Snow, ‘Framing processes’, p. 616. See also Joachim, Agenda Setting, pp. 19–22.

107 Värynen, ‘The relevance of global commissions’, p. 10.

108 Luck, ‘Blue ribbon power’, p. 98.

109 Björkdahl, From Idea to Norm, p. 50.

110 Finnemore and Sikkink, ‘International norm dynamics’, pp. 899–901.

111 Madokoro, ‘How the United Nations secretary-general promotes international norms’.

112 UN, A/59/2005, Report of the Secretary-General on In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All (21 March 2005).

113 Jon Pedersen, ‘Ideas, think-tanks, commissions, and global politics’, in Thakur, Cooper, and English (eds), International Commissions, p. 274.

114 Luck, ‘Blue ribbon power’, p. 100; Vesa, ‘Global commissions added value’, p. 138.

115 The network was established in 1999 at the initiative of Canada and Norway, and consisted of Austria, Chile, Costa Rica, Greece, Ireland, Jordan, Mali, Panama, Slovenia, Switzerland, and Thailand, with South Africa as an observer.

116 UN, A/RES/60/1, 2005 World Summit Outcome (24 October 2005), paras 138–9.

117 David Cortright, ‘Making the case for disarmament: an analysis of the Palme and Canberra commissions’, in Vesa (ed.), Global Commissions Assessed, p. 74.

118 Busby, Moral Movements; Glasius, Marlies, ‘Does the involvement of global civil society make international decision-making more democratic? The case of the International Criminal Court’, Journal of Civil Society, 4:1 (2008), pp. 43–60 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Price, Richard, ‘Transnational civil society and advocacy in world politics’, World Politics, 55:4 (2003), pp. 579–606 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

119 For an example, Edward Luck, who contributed to the intellectual background of the ICISS’s campaign, was appointed as the Special Adviser for the UN Secretary-General on R2P in 2008.

120 UN, A/RES/60/1; A/63/677, Report of the Secretary-General on Implementing the Responsibility to Protect (12 January 2009).