International Non-Governmental Organizations in the Constructivist Paradigm of International Relations Research

Gurkovskii Aleksandr Andreevich Postgraduate student; Department of International Relations, Political Science and World Economy; Pyatigorsk State University 357532, Russia, Stavropol Territory, Pyatigorsk, Kalinin Ave., 9 gurkovskiy-93@mail.ru Other publications by this author     Klichnikov Yurii YUr'evich Doctor of History Professor; Department of Historical and Socio-Philosophical Disciplines, Oriental Studies and Theology; Pyatigorsk State University 357532, Russia, Stavropol Territory, Pyatigorsk, Kalinin Ave., 9 klichnikov@mail.ru

Linets Sergei Ivanovich Doctor of History Professor; Department of Historical and Socio-Philosophical Disciplines, Oriental Studies and Theology; Pyatigorsk State University 357532, Russia, Stavropol Territory, Pyatigorsk, Kalinin Ave., 9 linets-history@yandex.ru

Introduction and relevance

Neorealism and neoliberalism as the leading paradigms in the study of international relations demonstrate a certain indifference to international non-governmental organizations (NGOs). At one time, K. Waltz noted that states are not and have never been the only international actors, however, the structure of the system is determined not by all actors, but only by the main ones ^{[16, p. 88]}. D. Mearsheimer shares a similar opinion, arguing that great powers are always in focus, since they have the strongest impact on what is happening in international politics ^{[12, p. 5]}.

By perceiving states as "black boxes," Neorealists ignore their internal differences. Neither the type of regime, nor the economic structure, nor the institutional design, in their opinion, have any significant impact on the behavior of States within the international system. In other words, in neorealism, with the exception of differences in geographical location and military power, there are no more distinctions between states. Regardless of their internal organization, all states, as emphasized, give priority to optimizing their chances of survival and, therefore, act in a comparable way ^{[4, p. 7]}. Since MNOs are based in a particular state, they, following Neorealist logic, find themselves inside this very "black box", not deserving of research attention, unlike states, or rather great powers.

Neoliberalism provides more prerequisites than neorealism for the study of IPOs. It postulates the idea that various forms of cooperation and transnational interaction are possible in the world, going beyond the functional sphere of states. At the same time, the emphasis is on cooperation, restrictive international norms, global public opinion and the participation of various non-state actors in world politics. However, neoliberalism generally ignores MNOs, since it focuses on states, less often on TNCs, considering them to be central participants in international relations.

According to the provisions of neoliberalism, global peace and cooperation are possible only with the spread and development of international institutions. At the same time, such distribution is initiated and controlled by states, or rather by leading states. Although the spread and development of international institutions results in the strengthening of non-State actors, States are considered key actors in neoliberalism. According to U. Demars and D. Dykzoul, it is the initial idea that the state is the cause and international institutions are the effect that explains the existing paradox: neoliberalism recognizes the diversity of actors in world politics, but rarely pays serious attention to anyone other than states ^{[6, p. 10]}.

Unlike neoliberalism and neorealism, constructivism is more open to NGOs, recognizing the possibility of their participation in world politics. NGOs act as agents of various ideas, principles, and agendas that can potentially lead to political change. Due to their role in building a picture of the world and their attempts to exert their influence within various political platforms and forums, MNOs turn out to be a significant analytical unit in the constructivist approach. These circumstances make it relevant to study the interpretative features of MNPO within the framework of constructivism.

Materials and methods

The main research material was scientific publications devoted both to the development of the constructivist paradigm proper (for example, D. McCourt ^[10]) and to the consideration of non-state actors through the prism of constructivism (for example, M. Charountaki ^[5]). The methodological foundation was provided by the well-known works of K. Waltz ^[17], D. Mearsheimer ^[12], D. Eikenberry ^[8], A. Wendt ^[18]. At the same time, methods of classification, comparison, and content analysis were used, which made it possible to substantiate the analytical openness of constructivism for MNOs and to show the specifics of their interpretation within this paradigm.

Key provisions of constructivism

In constructivism, the emphasis is on identities and roles. ^{[14] [11] [15]}. Constructivists criticize the realistic conclusion that anarchy, characteristic of the international level, inevitably generates a security dilemma, leading to a conflict of states. Constructivists insist that the international system is not something unchangeable and therefore cannot determine the behavior of its own actors. Rather, an international system is created through repeated interactions between States and other actors. What kind of international system will be depends on its understanding by key actors and their narratives ^{[1, p. 87]}. Constructivists argue that the state will cooperate or compete with another state, depending on how it defines its identity and that of the opposite side ^{[3, p. 13-14]}.

All supporters of constructivism, regardless of which generation they belong to, claim that the world is created as a result of social practice ^{[2, p. 6, 8]}. It turns out that the international system, including institutions, actors, and rules, is socially constructed ^{[13] [18]}. The international system does not arise from nature, but is the result of human interaction, it is historically random and subject to change. The subjects that make up the system are interpreted in constructivism as potential forces that can lead to change. Such entities include NGOs that can influence the evolution of an international system dominated by States.

Interpretations of MNPO in Constructivism

Constructivist studies are divided into two groups, each of which has its own interpretation of INGS: pluralistic and globalist ^{[6, p. 11-12]}. In pluralistic studies, MNOs are understood as an element of a transnational civil society operating primarily independently of Governments. They are portrayed as "servants" of disadvantaged groups, as the "mouthpiece" of those who are deprived of a voice in governments and international governmental organizations (IGOs), as transnational "pilgrims" who create self-regulating communities along the way instead of despotic rule. In globalist studies, MNOs are considered to be actors that promote compliance with global norms, actors that "socialize" states, which eventually must agree and accept global norms. They are sometimes referred to as UN agents who bring power and order to remote areas, and UN civil servants responsible for implementing multilateral agreements. If in a pluralistic group, NGOs are considered actors defending the interests of society, then in a globalist group they are considered actors improving states.

The Nature of MNPO power from a Constructivist perspective

When researching MNOs, constructivists often wonder what type of power these organizations have. MNOs do not have the same power resources that States have, they do not represent a sovereign actor and for this reason are not legally equal to States. Nevertheless, they are participants in international politics with some power. The power of MNOs, as constructivists emphasize, is based on a belief through which they try to show that there are alternative ways of organizing modern social and political structures. Their activities do not involve coercion; instead, persuasive communication is used, aimed at forming or changing an understanding of how the world works and why it works the way it does ^{[3, p. 14-15]}.

Constructivists call MNOs the bearers of one of the types of private power – moral power. Moral authority does not come from the possibilities of coercion of those who intend to exercise it, but from the consent of those who will obey it. Consent, in turn, depends on persuasion and trust. R. Hall and T. Biershteker noted that consent to power is socially constructed by a variety of different political and rhetorical practices, from behavioral permission to regime, norms, and public statements of recognition ^{[7, p. 6]}.

The moral authority of MNOs, according to constructivism, is explained by three inherent characteristics. Firstly, MNOs are actors who set the agenda. They are able to raise important issues in the international arena. Secondly, they often have experiences that can be considered unique. Many INPOS conduct expert consultations in an effort to influence political preferences. Thirdly, they claim to be objective and neutral, being non-State actors. It is believed that many MNPOS act in a "normatively progressive way" as a moral authority ^{[7, p. 14]}.

Independence of MNPO: a constructivist position

At the same time, constructivists do not idealize MNOs in terms of their independence. The involvement of MNOs in governance processes, it is argued, only complements, but does not replace, the regulatory activities of States and IGOs. Many INPOS receive huge amounts of funding from States, which thereby gain the opportunity to delegate some of their functions to them or co-opt them completely in order to realize their own interests. Consequently, the activities of MNPO often continue to be subordinated to the state-hierarchical order, being "in the shadow" of states ^{[9, p. 122]}.

In the context of constructivist reasoning, MNOs are agents of a wide variety of ideas that resonate with certain groups and individuals who are willing to financially support their activities. At the same time, as constructivists emphasize, MNOs often act as performers who are guided neither by the logic of rationalism nor the logic of expediency.

In general, scientists working within the constructivist paradigm agree that their methodology, focused on identities and roles, ideas and discourses, is well suited for the analysis of INGS, as it offers useful tools for understanding and explaining the activities of these actors in various political circumstances. Constructivism is a methodological platform for the study of international relations in terms of the distinction between public and private spheres. He does not exclude the possibility that NGOs operating in different public areas may, under certain conditions, become real agents of structural changes that may eventually develop into systemic transformations. However, in other situations, they may be highly dependent on States.

Constructivists also note that many constructivist principles are reflected in the activities of MNPO, i.e. MNPO empirically substantiate the main provisions of the constructivist paradigm. They have the potential to influence by conducting propaganda, participating in setting the agenda and monitoring. Having the appropriate resources and a certain authority, they, as constructivists emphasize, form identities, create systems of norms and generate knowledge that can contribute to political changes in which certain parties are interested, as well as undermine the legitimacy of institutions of certain countries ^{[9, p. 123-124]}.

Conclusion

Thus, in the constructivist paradigm, NGOs are interpreted either as an element of a transnational civil society that acts largely independently of governments, or as actors that promote compliance with global norms and "socialize" states. Constructivism recognizes the possibility of INGO participation in world politics, as they are often agents of various ideas, principles, and agendas that could potentially lead to political change. At the same time, constructivism is far from calling MNOs completely independent actors. The involvement of MNOs in global governance processes only complements, but in no way replaces, the regulatory activities of States and IGOs. Many INPOS are directly funded by the States. The latter thus have the opportunity to delegate some of their functions to the MNPO or to co-opt them completely in order to realize their own international political interests. Based on this, it can be argued that the constructivist interpretation of MNOs, which postulates their inclusion in the state-hierarchical order, to some extent correlates with the "state approach" to the study of MNOs, which is being developed in modern political science.