Barriers to UN–Civil Society Collaborations: An Exploratory Study of CSOs Within the UN–ECOSOC Consultative Status Programme

IF 1.8 1区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS International Studies Perspectives Pub Date : 2021-10-01 DOI:10.1177/00208817211056751
B. Mowell
{"title":"Barriers to UN–Civil Society Collaborations: An Exploratory Study of CSOs Within the UN–ECOSOC Consultative Status Programme","authors":"B. Mowell","doi":"10.1177/00208817211056751","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In recent decades, civil society organizations (CSOs) have ostensibly attained increased access to the United Nations (UN) and other intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and, in turn, increased opportunities for collaboration with IGOs. However, in most cases, CSO access to IGOs remains limited and highly regimented. Little scholarship has been undertaken to examine barriers to effective CSO–IGO collaborations. Virtually, no empirical research has examined the degree or nature of the interaction between the UN and international civil society via the dynamic of the flagship programme designed to facilitate such collaborations—the consultative status framework. This exploratory study partially addresses the latter gap in the scholarship by undertaking a qualitative macro-scale examination of CSOs within the UN Economic and Social Council’s (ECOSOC) consultative status programme, the primary vehicle in the UN–civil society dynamic. Specifically, the study sought to identify barriers to UN–civil society collaboration within the consultative status programme as perceived by participating CSOs. Findings of a survey sent to a random sample of 10% of CSOs holding UN–ECOSOC consultative status revealed that barriers to participation in the programme varied with some obstacles far more common than others. The degree of barriers reported by CSOs also strongly reflected the level of accreditation they held within the programme. Additionally, survey respondents offered insight as to how impediments in the collaboration could potentially be addressed.","PeriodicalId":47002,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Perspectives","volume":"32 1","pages":"466 - 490"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Studies Perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00208817211056751","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In recent decades, civil society organizations (CSOs) have ostensibly attained increased access to the United Nations (UN) and other intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and, in turn, increased opportunities for collaboration with IGOs. However, in most cases, CSO access to IGOs remains limited and highly regimented. Little scholarship has been undertaken to examine barriers to effective CSO–IGO collaborations. Virtually, no empirical research has examined the degree or nature of the interaction between the UN and international civil society via the dynamic of the flagship programme designed to facilitate such collaborations—the consultative status framework. This exploratory study partially addresses the latter gap in the scholarship by undertaking a qualitative macro-scale examination of CSOs within the UN Economic and Social Council’s (ECOSOC) consultative status programme, the primary vehicle in the UN–civil society dynamic. Specifically, the study sought to identify barriers to UN–civil society collaboration within the consultative status programme as perceived by participating CSOs. Findings of a survey sent to a random sample of 10% of CSOs holding UN–ECOSOC consultative status revealed that barriers to participation in the programme varied with some obstacles far more common than others. The degree of barriers reported by CSOs also strongly reflected the level of accreditation they held within the programme. Additionally, survey respondents offered insight as to how impediments in the collaboration could potentially be addressed.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
联合国与民间社会合作的障碍:联合国经社理事会咨商地位方案下民间社会组织的探索性研究
近几十年来,民间社会组织(cso)表面上增加了与联合国(UN)和其他政府间组织(igo)的接触,从而增加了与政府间组织合作的机会。然而,在大多数情况下,民间社会组织接触政府间组织的机会仍然有限,而且受到严格管制。很少有学者研究阻碍民间组织与非政府组织有效合作的障碍。实际上,没有任何实证研究通过旨在促进这种合作的旗舰方案——咨商地位框架——的动态来考察联合国与国际民间社会之间互动的程度或性质。本探索性研究通过对联合国经济及社会理事会(ECOSOC)咨商地位方案(联合国民间社会动态的主要工具)内的民间社会组织进行定性宏观检查,部分解决了后一项奖学金差距。具体地说,这项研究试图找出参与的民间社会组织认为的联合国民间社会在咨商地位方案内进行合作的障碍。对具有联合国经社理事会咨商地位的10%的民间社会组织随机抽样进行的一项调查结果显示,参与该方案的障碍各不相同,有些障碍比其他障碍更为常见。民间社会组织报告的障碍程度也强烈反映了它们在方案内持有的认证水平。此外,调查受访者提供了关于如何潜在地解决合作中的障碍的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Studies Perspectives
International Studies Perspectives INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
12.50%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: International Studies Perspectives (ISP) publishes peer-reviewed articles that bridge the interests of researchers, teachers, and practitioners working within any and all subfields of international studies.
期刊最新文献
Learning Goals in Simulations Carlos Fortin, Jorge Heine and Carlos Ominami (Eds), Latin American Foreign Policies in the New World Order: The Active Non-Alignment Option (New York: Anthem Press, 2023) Re-Imagining Peace Education: Using Critical Pedagogy as a Transformative Tool The Port of Berbera and Geopolitics of the Western Indian Ocean Student-Designed Simulation: Teaching Global Governance in Practice through a Student-Led Role-Play for Practitioners
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1