6. STRAT GROUP - Buoni, ma anche no... Attori non-statali e ordine internazionale nel XXI secolo
Dal XVII secolo sino all’ultimo decennio del XX secolo, gli apparati statali hanno conosciuto uno sviluppo pressoché incessante, tali da renderli i protagonisti della politica internazionale. La concentrazione nelle loro mani di risorse economiche, simboliche e coercitive ha raggiunto i livelli più elevati durante la guerra fredda incontrando, dopo la sua conclusione, se non un’inversione di tendenza un’evoluzione certamente variegata e per molti versi difficile da interpretare. Durante gli anni Novanta, infatti, il primato americano è stato affiancato sia dall’esplosione di nuovi tipi di guerra sia dalla comparsa sulla scena internazionale di un numero crescente di attori diversi dagli stati - organizzazioni internazionali e regionali; organizzazioni non governative; attori normativi; aziende di sicurezza privata; e infine reti politiche, economiche e criminali transazionali. La polarità del sistema, i tipi di conflitto e gli attori sul campo prima dello scoppio delle ostilità, durante il loro svolgimento e dopo la loro conclusione non erano più quelli che avevano accompagnato l’ascesa dello stato nazione. Amici e nemici difficilmente avrebbero potuto essere identificati in base alla loro uniforme, né gli effetti del loro comportamento esclusivamente in base alla loro appartenenza formale al gruppo dei buoni, come nel caso di una ONG, o dei cattivi come in quello di un’organizzazione criminale. Dal primo confronto tra attori non-statali - nel 1992 in Somalia - queste organizzazioni hanno infatti affrontato un processo di evoluzione interna e adattamento ambientale che ne ha modificato la struttura, gli strumenti, in certi casi gli scopi e talora ne ha favorito l’insorgere di rapporti trasversali. Nell’ottica di esaminare i cambiamenti a cui questi soggetti sono andati incontro negli ultimi due decenni, e come il loro operato abbia inciso sull’ordine e la stabilità del sistema internazionale questo panel si occuperà degli attori non-statali da quattro differenti prospettive di analisi.
Chair: Raffaele Marchetti (Luiss "Guido Carli" - Rome)
Discussant: Stefano Ruzza (University of Turin and Twai)
1. Alessia Chiriatti (University of Perugia) - The impact of non-state actors on Caucasus equilibrium: the Caspian Sea case study
Caspian regional geopolitics is partly determined by strategic key issues, like energy and security: it had become a zone not only of strategic importance, but also of growing commercial significance. This scenario is constantly eroded by the role of Russia and others regional players, involving state and non – state actors, which try to weaken their dependence from Russian – dominated infrastructures. “Regular interactions across national boundaries when at least one actor is a non – state agent” (Keohane and Nye, 1971) clashes with problem of security in a situation of conflict early warning, like Caspian contest. Changes in domestic politics, as Georgian elections, could have consequences on regional equilibrium or on interest of transnational actors to invest in Caspian countries. Independentist pressures by minorities could, on the other hand, shock the development and peace – building process. The status of democratization in the single states of region is another variable to consider which could strengthen interstate cooperation. In front of these considerations, the paper pretends to respond to this question: could the action of transnational actors problematize the security in the vulnerable regions of Caucasus and Caspian Sea, which are constantly in an imbalanced situation?
2. Francesco Giumelli (Metropolitan University - Prague) - Il ruolo degli attori private nelle sanzioni dell’Unione Europea
Nonostante si sia prestata un'attenzione crescente al ruolo dell'Unione Europea come "sanzionatore" emergente nel sistema internazionale, in pochi si sono chiesti cosa accade quando le sanzioni sono decise e come gli istituti finanziari oppure le aziende operati in territorio europeo si comportano per rispettare le regole comunitarie di politica estera. L'articolo tratta il caso italiano e cerca di fare luce su un aspetto inesplorato nella pratica delle sanzioni.
3. Daniela Irrera (University of Catania) - Policing the disorder- Multilateral response in tackling the organised crime-terrorism nexus
This paper aims at analysing the crime-terror nexus, by assessing and evaluating the current state of multilateral response. The nexus between terrorism and organised crime is basically perceived as a strategic alliance between two non-state actors, both able to exploit illegal markets and to influence policy-making on a global level. The presence of troubled contexts, affected by war and insurgency can constitute only an additional variable, which may deteriorate the effects of such alliances. Therefore, since this can be conceived as a phenomenon challenging both states and international level, producing important implications for policy at national and international level, there is a need to understand how multilateral is the current state of response and how efficient are the present countermeasures. In the first part, the nexus will be analysed through its components and towards other security threats as ethnic wars, and failed States. In the second one, the present set of strategies and approaches developed by the leading political actors will be assessed. The role of strategy developed by the European Union will be particularly stressed. In the last part, some conclusions on the nexus perception within the political agendas at a global level – as well as potential future perspectives - will be exposed.
4. Sonia Lucarelli (University of Bologna) - Multilateralism and Non-State Actors: an Oxymoron or a Natural Evolution?
For a long time multilateralism has been understood as a form of coordination among three or more states on the basis of generalized principles of conduct. The literature on the definition has debated on the number of states, the type of generalized principles, the institutional form that multilateralism takes, but only seldom and very recently it has started to debate on the actors involved: states have always been considered the only actors in the game. This reflected both a state of affairs in international politics (where states were indeed the main actors and international organizations were strictly intergovernmental) and a mental attitude on the side of scholars. With the end of the Cold War, the rise of visibility of non state actors and the rise in number and power of regional aggregations, the logic of the web society & politics has influence also the reflection on Multilateralism and scholars have coined new terms to refer to a modality of interaction (Multilateralism) which does not include only states but also non state actors. This article reconstructs this shift and evaluates the extent to which a concept such as that of Multilateralism can indeed be stretched to become applicable to a world made of a plurality of actors with non-state characteristics. In doing this, a specific attention will be paid to the real of security and to the recently coined term of “multilateral security governance”.
5. Marco Valigi (University of Roma Tre) - Stati e non-stati: una riflessione sul concetto di monopolio dell’uso legittimo della forza
Partendo dalla classica formulazione webariana che intende lo stato come monopolista della violenza legittima, questo contributo intende riflettere su come, alla luce della teoria economica, il concetto stesso di “monopolio della violenza legittima” metta in guardia rispetto al fatto che questo tipo di rapporto tenda necessariamente a deteriorarsi nel lungo periodo permettendo, così, l’ascesa degli attori non-statali nelle relazioni internazionali. Ragionando sulla relazioni che intercorre tra l’arena politica interna e il sistema internazionale in una sorta di re-interpretazione e adattamento delle “immagini” di Waltz si cercherà di offrire una chiave di lettura della competizione tra attori statali e non statali.
6. Raffaele Marchetti (Luiss – Guido Carli, Rome) - Normative Power Italy, Transnational Activism, and the Other Side of Foreign Policy
Italian role in international affairs has been traditionally interpreted through the mainstream diplomatic lens of the governmental action. With very few exception (e.g., the ENI “diplomacy” of Mattei), the action of the Italian government has always been considered the exclusive Italian input into the international system. This understanding is increasingly proving limited. Focusing exclusively on governmental dynamics may prove a failing strategy to provide a comprehensive account of the Italian contribution to international affairs. In a world more and more characterized by a pluralist form of global governance, it is simply outdated to remain anchored to a state-centric reading of political interaction beyond borders. First of all, it is not simply the government that is acting at the international level, but a number of other components of the national institutional structure are more and more going global from regions (Alfieri, 2004) to cities but also to disaggregated elements of the state (Bonanni, 1967). Second, a number of non-governmental actors, including private firms (Renda and Ricciuti, 2010), trade unions (Varsori, 2005), political parties (Pilati, 1978), think tanks (Lucarelli and Radaelli, 2004), and civil society organizations (Cugliandro, 2009) are playing a significant role by impacting on different international domains. What is needed is first to take into account these new forms of political agency, and second to understand their interaction and synergy with the traditional forms of the external projection of state agency.
Studies on Italian civil society organizations and social movement with a view on the international dimension have been present in the debate (Pianta, 1998, Marcon, 2002, Moro and Vannini, 2008). Prominent among these studies have been those ones related to the issues of globalization and war. The mobilizations against neo-liberal globalization have been studied repeatedly, especially with regards to the Global Justice Movement and the G8 event of Genoa 2001 (Pianta, 2001, Andretta et al., 2002, Della Porta and Mosca, 2003, Reiter, 2007). The pacificist mobilizations from the eighties passing through the Balkan war and ending to the Iraq war have also been extensively studied (Lodi, 1984, Ilari, 1986, Giacomini, 1993, Ruzza, 1997, Marcon and Pianta, 1999, Marcon, 2000, Della Porta, 2004, Cugliandro, 2009). Beyond these two overall areas, a few other studies on specific campaigns have been developed (Marchetti, 2007, Nessuno tocchi Caino, 2007, Marchetti and Marino, 2011), or on specific actors of civil society, such as for instance those on Sant’Egidio (Giro, 1998, Morozzo della Rocca, 2010, Gentili, 2013) or the Commercio equo e solidale (Rosi, 2003).
What has been missing so far in the debate is the dialogue between the studies on Italian foreign policy and the works on Italian civil society. Foreign policy analysts have tended to underestimate, if not completely overlook, the relevance of nongovernmental actors in the impact of Italian foreign policy (see for instance the otherwise sophisticated study by Brighi, 2013). Civil society scholars have tended to interpret civil society organizations (CSOs) or social movements as actors playing a different game from that of the government (see for instance the comprehensive study by Reiter, 2007). A more correct understanding of the Italian contribution to international affairs is thus needed. A comprehensive reading needs to be developed which capture both the independent international relevance of Italian civil society actors and the synergy between the Italian government and its national societal counterpart.
In this paper I examine the actions and impact of a number of highly significant mobilization promoted by Italian nongovernmental actors and developed through transnational networks which proved able to co-generate a momentous impact on the international system. Such impact was due to a number of factors which include internal characteristics of such actors (i.e., goals and strategies), external conditions (i.e., the political opportunity structure within which they acted), but also, and significantly for this paper, the positive (or, at times, failed) interaction with the government. This way, the paper promises not only to provide a better understanding of the Italian role in international affairs, but also to advance the scholarly debate on nongovernmental actors which remains too often blind to the synergies that provide decisive political resources to the non governmental action.
The paper proceeds by examining six cases of Italian nongovernmental action and formulates a number of comparative reflections in the concluding remarks. The six cases are selected on the basis of their historical coverage (from the late seventies up to today), their differing impact (from success in creating new international institutions to failure to reform existing ones), their ideological divergence (from catholic to liberal orientation), and their different policy areas (from peacebuilding to a number of different human rights). On the overall, they represent a good sample of the most influential civil society campaigns at the international level promoted by Italian nongovernmental actors. Their main features are summarized in the table below (tab.1) for the reader’s convenience.