非政府组织、互联网与国际经济政策制定:经合组织多边投资协定的失败

J. Kurtz
{"title":"非政府组织、互联网与国际经济政策制定:经合组织多边投资协定的失败","authors":"J. Kurtz","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.364900","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The research question posed by this article is how the Internet has affected the debate on whether to provide non-governmental organisations (\"NGOs\") with access to trade and investment negotiations. The article begins by summarising the key arguments for and against increased NGO participation. Within this debate, international lawyers have largely ignored the question of whether the Internet pushes the debate in either direction. This article offers a contribution to this gap in the analysis. The methodology employed in examining this question is that of a case study of the failed negotiations among the member states of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (\"OECD\") from 1995 to 1998 towards the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (\"MAI\"). The MAI was chosen because the OECD approach to negotiations was characterised by low levels of transparency and little scope for NGO participation. Further, the very active (and to some extent successful) campaign by NGOs against the MAI relied heavily on the Internet. The article finds that the MAI case study pushes the debate slightly in favour of greater NGO access to negotiations. Of itself, the Internet does not overcome the proper concerns of opponents based on questions of representativeness and accountability of NGOs. However, the article argues that these problems are counterbalanced to some degree by the expanded ability of electronically networked NGOs to assist in the sensitive process of conferring (or opposing) public approval and hence legitimacy for new agreements. The article concludes with some modest suggestions for greater transparency in negotiations as a response to these research findings.","PeriodicalId":42243,"journal":{"name":"Melbourne Journal of International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"NGOs, the Internet and International Economic Policy Making: The Failure of the OECD Multilateral Agreement on Investment\",\"authors\":\"J. Kurtz\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.364900\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The research question posed by this article is how the Internet has affected the debate on whether to provide non-governmental organisations (\\\"NGOs\\\") with access to trade and investment negotiations. The article begins by summarising the key arguments for and against increased NGO participation. Within this debate, international lawyers have largely ignored the question of whether the Internet pushes the debate in either direction. This article offers a contribution to this gap in the analysis. The methodology employed in examining this question is that of a case study of the failed negotiations among the member states of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (\\\"OECD\\\") from 1995 to 1998 towards the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (\\\"MAI\\\"). The MAI was chosen because the OECD approach to negotiations was characterised by low levels of transparency and little scope for NGO participation. Further, the very active (and to some extent successful) campaign by NGOs against the MAI relied heavily on the Internet. The article finds that the MAI case study pushes the debate slightly in favour of greater NGO access to negotiations. Of itself, the Internet does not overcome the proper concerns of opponents based on questions of representativeness and accountability of NGOs. However, the article argues that these problems are counterbalanced to some degree by the expanded ability of electronically networked NGOs to assist in the sensitive process of conferring (or opposing) public approval and hence legitimacy for new agreements. The article concludes with some modest suggestions for greater transparency in negotiations as a response to these research findings.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42243,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Melbourne Journal of International Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2003-01-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Melbourne Journal of International Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.364900\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Melbourne Journal of International Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.364900","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

本文提出的研究问题是,互联网如何影响有关是否向非政府组织(“ngo”)提供贸易和投资谈判机会的辩论。文章首先总结了支持和反对增加非政府组织参与的主要论据。在这场辩论中,国际律师在很大程度上忽略了互联网是否会推动辩论朝任何一个方向发展的问题。本文对分析中的这一空白做出了贡献。研究这一问题所采用的方法是对经济合作与发展组织(“经合发组织”)成员国1995年至1998年就多边投资协定(“多边投资协定”)谈判失败的案例进行研究。之所以选择MAI,是因为经合组织的谈判方式的特点是透明度低,非政府组织参与的余地很小。此外,非政府组织反对MAI的非常积极(在某种程度上是成功的)的运动严重依赖于互联网。文章发现,MAI案例研究略微推动了这场辩论,有利于非政府组织更多地参与谈判。互联网本身并没有克服反对者基于非政府组织的代表性和问责性问题的适当关切。然而,这篇文章认为,这些问题在一定程度上被电子网络化的非政府组织的能力所抵消,这些非政府组织可以在授予(或反对)公众认可的敏感过程中提供帮助,从而为新协议提供合法性。作为对这些研究结果的回应,文章最后提出了一些提高谈判透明度的适度建议。
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
NGOs, the Internet and International Economic Policy Making: The Failure of the OECD Multilateral Agreement on Investment
The research question posed by this article is how the Internet has affected the debate on whether to provide non-governmental organisations ("NGOs") with access to trade and investment negotiations. The article begins by summarising the key arguments for and against increased NGO participation. Within this debate, international lawyers have largely ignored the question of whether the Internet pushes the debate in either direction. This article offers a contribution to this gap in the analysis. The methodology employed in examining this question is that of a case study of the failed negotiations among the member states of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development ("OECD") from 1995 to 1998 towards the Multilateral Agreement on Investment ("MAI"). The MAI was chosen because the OECD approach to negotiations was characterised by low levels of transparency and little scope for NGO participation. Further, the very active (and to some extent successful) campaign by NGOs against the MAI relied heavily on the Internet. The article finds that the MAI case study pushes the debate slightly in favour of greater NGO access to negotiations. Of itself, the Internet does not overcome the proper concerns of opponents based on questions of representativeness and accountability of NGOs. However, the article argues that these problems are counterbalanced to some degree by the expanded ability of electronically networked NGOs to assist in the sensitive process of conferring (or opposing) public approval and hence legitimacy for new agreements. The article concludes with some modest suggestions for greater transparency in negotiations as a response to these research findings.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
期刊最新文献
Protection of Climate Displaced Persons under International Law: A Case Study from Mataso Island, Vanuatu Indigenous Consent: A Self-Determination Perspective A Requiem for the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Something New, Something Old and Something Borrowed? International cooperation and responsibility sharing to combat climate change: Lessons for international refugee law Affective Critique: Fear, Hope, Abandonment and Pleasure in Dianne Otto's Living with International Law
×
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