Search

This paper examines corporate social responsibility (CSR) and climate change. Based on Grant's typology of green strategies -as presented in "Green Marketing Manifesto" - it compares what a set of firms do to contribute to reducing their climate impact as ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Much of the growing research on how norms influence state behaviour has focused on successful norm diffusion and revealed much about the identity of norm-promoters, their strategies and their resources. Empirical research has also made it clear that norm entrepreneurs' efforts to bring about change encounter (and often provoke) resistance - both indifference and outright opposition. Broadly speaking, our interest in this paper is those who openly oppose attempts to establish new international norms. Who are these resisters? What arguments do they make? Our goal in this paper is to study resisters and their arguments in deliberations and debates at the UN. We focus on two specific cases: gender non discrimination and Responsibility to Protect. Building on the norm diffusion literature and insights from the literature on transnational advocacy networks, we develop an analytical framework that enables us to identify and categorize the arguments resisters use. We expect that many of these will be based on principled ideas. This means that we conceptualize opposition/resistance to new norms as a political struggle over which norm rather than a norm-or-no-norm struggle.Please e-mail for a full copy of the paper. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, a considerable body of research has shown that norms influence state behavior and international politics more generally. Moreover, norms are not static, but develop and change over time. It follows from this that efforts to shape and transform norms as well as what we refer to as opposition to such efforts are important aspects of international politics. This paper?s main focus is the latter ? i.e. opposition to efforts to change international norms.Research devoted to explaining how and why international norms change is large and growing. Most of it focuses on actors seeking to create new norms and/or supposedly successful examples of progressive norm change. There is much less research about opposition to norm change ? that is, research that focuses on actors who are opposed to others? efforts to bring about change. There is also a lack of research that does not implicitly view opponents as reactionary or non-progressive. As a result, research on norms can downplay or underestimate how efforts to develop new norms or change old ones are processes characterized by conflict, disagreement about values, the exercise of power and the presence of superiority/subordination in international politics: This paper seeks to address this under-researched topic. It will do so in three ways. First, we present a theoretical framework for studying opposition to norm change. Second, we use the framework to examine opposition in two cases of norm development: the responsibility to protect and women?s human rights. Finally, the paper compares and contrasts the finding of the two cases in order to evaluate the usefulness of the framework and to problematize the meaning of success and failure as regards efforts to shape and/or change international norms. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Are state behavior and international politics strongly influenced by roles? If so, are these roles largely a product of domestic politics or is their production and reproduction linked to systemic factors? In this paper I assume that national roles might be important influences in international politics. I focus on two questions. The first question is what system level theories suggest about the sources and/or importance of national roles in international politics. The second is how we might develop an approach to national roles which links them to the international system rather than to domestic politics alone. I provide some tentative answers with the help of work by Lake (2005) and Holsti (1970) and discuss how this might be explored further in future research. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the rules governing trade relations in North America underwent important changes as a result of the successful negotiation and ratification of two treaties. First came the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement (CUFTA) in 1987. This was followed by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) ratified by Canada, Mexico and the US in 1993. CUFTA was largely absorbed into NAFTA - alternatively one might say that CUFTA was "enlarged". More than 10 years have past since NAFTA came into effect in January 1994, and numerous observers have begun to reflect over what the agreement has accomplished and how North Americanism can be protected and further developed. These reflections are usually based on a favorable view of both the agreement itself and "North Americanism" and rooted in a conviction that they need to be further developed in order to avoid the risk of stagnation, irrelevance, or even backsliding. The negative consequences of September 11 also highlighted NAFTA weaknesses and vulnerabilities. Finally, and not least, the example of European integration, which has deepened and grown considerably in the past 15 years, has encouraged reflection about the future of North American regional integration. The purpose of this paper is to think about the possibility of increased North American integration in light of what the European experience reveals about regional integration. It is obvious that the European context and experience are quite different from North America, and this often leads observers to conclude that there is little about the former that will help us understand the latter. While I do not want to argue that North American developments will mirror Europe's, I do think we gain insights from studying European developments. A considerable body of theory has been developed to explain cooperation in Europe. I will summarize what it suggests about driving forces behind integration. I also look at the empirical record of European integration. I then compare similarities and differences between the European and North American experiences. I conclude by discussing proposals for pushing North American integration further and whether recent Canadian and US elections can be expected to make any difference in this regard. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]