应对欧盟制裁的意外后果:非政府组织倡导人道主义例外

IF 3.1 1区 社会学 Q1 ECONOMICS Jcms-Journal of Common Market Studies Pub Date : 2024-04-05 DOI:10.1111/jcms.13606
Simone Manfredi, Marlene Jugl
{"title":"应对欧盟制裁的意外后果:非政府组织倡导人道主义例外","authors":"Simone Manfredi, Marlene Jugl","doi":"10.1111/jcms.13606","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Sanctions are increasingly prominent foreign policy tools, but research on the policy process that leads to specific sanction design is limited. Sanctions can have unintended effects on the provision of humanitarian aid in sanctioned countries, which has led to calls for humanitarian exceptions in sanction design. This study focuses on non‐governmental organizations' (NGOs) advocacy for a humanitarian perspective on European Union (EU) sanctions in the period 2020–2021. Building on the Advocacy Coalition Framework and the triangulation of qualitative data sources including interviews and document analysis, this study describes an advocacy coalition of humanitarian NGOs in Brussels, their advocacy strategies and the effectiveness of these strategies. The analysis highlights the coalition's common policy beliefs and documents three advocacy strategies: coalition building, knowledge leadership and lobbying. The analysis then traces the link between these strategies and recent policy changes, namely, clearer European Commission guidelines on the implementation of humanitarian derogations. This policy change was further facilitated by policy brokers and an external shock, the Covid‐19 pandemic. The findings shed light on an understudied design feature of sanctions, i.e., humanitarian exceptions, and on the role of non‐governmental actors in shaping sanction designs.","PeriodicalId":51369,"journal":{"name":"Jcms-Journal of Common Market Studies","volume":"48 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tackling Unintended Consequences of EU Sanctions: NGOs' Advocacy for Humanitarian Exceptions\",\"authors\":\"Simone Manfredi, Marlene Jugl\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jcms.13606\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Sanctions are increasingly prominent foreign policy tools, but research on the policy process that leads to specific sanction design is limited. Sanctions can have unintended effects on the provision of humanitarian aid in sanctioned countries, which has led to calls for humanitarian exceptions in sanction design. This study focuses on non‐governmental organizations' (NGOs) advocacy for a humanitarian perspective on European Union (EU) sanctions in the period 2020–2021. Building on the Advocacy Coalition Framework and the triangulation of qualitative data sources including interviews and document analysis, this study describes an advocacy coalition of humanitarian NGOs in Brussels, their advocacy strategies and the effectiveness of these strategies. The analysis highlights the coalition's common policy beliefs and documents three advocacy strategies: coalition building, knowledge leadership and lobbying. The analysis then traces the link between these strategies and recent policy changes, namely, clearer European Commission guidelines on the implementation of humanitarian derogations. This policy change was further facilitated by policy brokers and an external shock, the Covid‐19 pandemic. The findings shed light on an understudied design feature of sanctions, i.e., humanitarian exceptions, and on the role of non‐governmental actors in shaping sanction designs.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51369,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Jcms-Journal of Common Market Studies\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Jcms-Journal of Common Market Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13606\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jcms-Journal of Common Market Studies","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13606","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

制裁是日益突出的外交政策工具,但对导致具体制裁设计的政策过程的研究却很有限。制裁可能会对受制裁国家提供人道主义援助产生意想不到的影响,因此有人呼吁在制裁设计中将人道主义作为例外。本研究重点关注非政府组织(NGOs)在 2020-2021 年期间倡导从人道主义角度看待欧盟(EU)制裁的情况。本研究以倡导联盟框架(Advocacy Coalition Framework)为基础,通过对定性数据源(包括访谈和文件分析)进行三角测量,描述了布鲁塞尔的人道主义非政府组织倡导联盟、其倡导策略以及这些策略的有效性。分析强调了该联盟的共同政策理念,并记录了三种宣传策略:建立联盟、知识领导和游说。然后,分析追溯了这些战略与近期政策变化之间的联系,即欧盟委员会关于实施人道主义减损的更明确的指导方针。政策经纪人和外部冲击(Covid-19 大流行病)进一步推动了这一政策变化。研究结果揭示了一个未被充分研究的制裁设计特点,即人道主义例外情况,以及非政府行为者在形成制裁设计中的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Tackling Unintended Consequences of EU Sanctions: NGOs' Advocacy for Humanitarian Exceptions
Sanctions are increasingly prominent foreign policy tools, but research on the policy process that leads to specific sanction design is limited. Sanctions can have unintended effects on the provision of humanitarian aid in sanctioned countries, which has led to calls for humanitarian exceptions in sanction design. This study focuses on non‐governmental organizations' (NGOs) advocacy for a humanitarian perspective on European Union (EU) sanctions in the period 2020–2021. Building on the Advocacy Coalition Framework and the triangulation of qualitative data sources including interviews and document analysis, this study describes an advocacy coalition of humanitarian NGOs in Brussels, their advocacy strategies and the effectiveness of these strategies. The analysis highlights the coalition's common policy beliefs and documents three advocacy strategies: coalition building, knowledge leadership and lobbying. The analysis then traces the link between these strategies and recent policy changes, namely, clearer European Commission guidelines on the implementation of humanitarian derogations. This policy change was further facilitated by policy brokers and an external shock, the Covid‐19 pandemic. The findings shed light on an understudied design feature of sanctions, i.e., humanitarian exceptions, and on the role of non‐governmental actors in shaping sanction designs.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
18.20%
发文量
137
期刊最新文献
Contested but Resilient: Accounting for the Endurance of the European Union's Foreign Policy European Union Normative Positions, Resilience and Contestation: A Perceptual Approach Two Norms Collide: EU Policy on Fragile and Conflict‐Affected Countries Decentring European Union Foreign Policy: Addressing Colonial Dynamics in EU‐Algeria Relations Everything Everywhere All at Once? Introducing a Field‐Theoretic Model for Party Politics in the European Union
×
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