1
NON-STATE ACTORS AND THEIR GROWING INFLUENCE IN INTERNATIONAL
LAW-MAKING PROCESSES
1. Types of Non-State Actors
I. International Organizations
Previously, it was thought that the state is the main driving force in the process of creating and
developing international law, but now this approach can be considered outdated since numerous
international organizations actively participate in the processes occurring in the world and affect
them. These are such as the United Nations, and European Union among others and despite
being formed of different sovereign nations, their role is mainly to coordinate and to set
standards internationally (Alvarez, 2019). This can be seen in the different spheres including
human rights and protection of the environment in which they act as a reference point behind
which states should operate. These changes marked the worthy aims of international
organizations as a new dimension to international relation with so many links that come with a
complicated interconnection. These organizations are more like conferences where state can
discuss on issues, solve conflict or even coordinate for the policy objectives. It has been found
highly useful in addressing contemporary inter – state problems like; climate change, terrorisms
and economic fluctuations. However, the trend that has seen power shift from the local to the
international level has also triggered important concerns with regard to legitimacy and
accountability. This, according to the critics, is because these bodies might not be democratically
accountable and can hence defend the right of might over the right of the oppressed (Klabbers,
2020). Thus, the need for continual reform to produce better positive changes in terms of the
better representation and decision making structures within those organizations. Nevertheless,
they order’s influence only grows stronger, much to the chagrin of skeptics who question their
presence in literally any field that requires inter-state collaboration. For instance, in health
governance, global organizations like the WHO is now a major player in the fight against the
current pandemics and a decision maker on the health policies of the world (Davies & True,
2021). The COVID-19 pandemic crisis has revealed the important function of these
organizations in; managing the global responses to such diseases. This is therefore particularly
true given the growing nature of complexity in international affairs; which has made such
organizations central to the achievement of solutions to problems that are thus international in
nature. This is true for both the newest efforts on the international level, such as peacekeeping
operations, and the traditionally vital spheres of the world’s cooperation, such as the sustainable
development initiatives.
II. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)
International organizations such as non-governmental organizations have now assumed
significant roles in the formulation of international law and sometimes have been in opposition to
states’ dominated structures. Such organizations starting from the globally recognized ones such
as Amnesty International to regional, minor special-purpose organizations have become essential
2
in setting the trends in the public opinion and the course of decisions in this sphere, not to
mention participating in the official forums (Gibney, 2019). Non-governmental organizations are
most active and most relevant in human rights, the environment and humanitarian law fields
since the most of them focus on problems which states do not pay sufficient attention to and
demand progressive changes within the field. They engage in lobbying, public campaigns and, in
the recent past, use of legal cases in international courts and other relevant tribunals [Duffy,
2018]. Due to their independent and local affiliations, NGOs are capable of offering critical
information and research to support international legal formation. Often they serve as
whistleblowers revealing the violation of state’s obligations under international law that would
otherwise remain unnoticed. Besides, the increased use of digital technologies has enriched the
opportunities for NGO activity since with the help of digital networks, one can quickly mobilize
global support, and coordinate transnational advocacy activities. Social networks, first of all, are
effective means for achieving the goals of NGOs to draw people’s attention to the problems
considered by the international legal system and to exert influence on the decision-makers. Yet,
the increasing roles of NGOs’ in the formulation of international law have not come without
controversy. The critics have pod by saying that due these organizations, may not be endowed
with democratic noble and accountability and hence the result, may end up to over-representing
of the specific interests or/and ideologies at the globe (Pattison, 2021). Some questions have
hailed; regarding the representativeness of certain NGOs and the tendency of donor interests to
color their agenda. Thus, the NGOs remain the important actors; continuing their work on the
promotion of the democratizing of the International law; working in favor of the marginalized
groups of the population and also the involvement of transparency of decisions made at the
global level. On a typically mobilize public opinion and specialists in certain areas thus adding
value to the otherwise conventional diplomacy of states in supporting a more open and
participative international legal framework (Scholte, 2018).
III. Multinational Corporations
MNCs, therefore, remain prominent and active players in the contemporary process of
international law making due to the globalization of economic activities. Their role in reforming
the international law is versatile; in that it starts with the regulation of trade and extends to labor
conditions and also environmental measures. Companies, including MNCs, engage in
international processes as members of international organizations or representatives of industries
and lobby for policies that are beneficial to their operations (Ruggie, 2018). Thus this growing
influence has opened doors and fronts; that have prompted both opportunities as well as
challenges in the field of international law. On the one side, MNCs can contribute their
professional experience and support in solving the global challenges, mainly in terms of
technology or sustainability. This they have done through entering into public-private partnership
deals which facilitates the coming together of forces and ideas to deal with global challenges
(Koenig-Archibugi, 2018). But it has also assumed criticism for the influence that MNCs hold in
international legislation and legislation making procedures whereby they might serve their self-
interest at the expense of the interest of the public and subjection of state authority. The
3
opponents claim that large corporations have too much influence in various economy-related
decisions, and thus may negatively affect the democratic processes, as well as contribute to
enhancing global inequalities (Fauchald & Stigen, 2019). The fact that MNCs create economic
benefits, as well as threats to basic human rights and the physical environment; has seen the push
for corporate accountability in international law. This has led to activities like the; United
Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the main goal being to therefore
develop human rights for the companies around the globe.
IV. Armed Non-State Groups
The non-state actors participating in the international law making especially on the subjects of
IHL and HR are armed non-state groups which are however contentious in participation. Such
actors of which rebel movements, insurgencies, and any other armed groups operating beyond
the state authority have gradually been admitted as key players in conflict settlement and post-
war reconstruction generally (Clapham, 2018). As such their participation in the creation of
international law is mostly passive; because they become part of the processes; by creating
practices in the international arena that can help shape customary law. For example, armed
groups’ participation in the peace processes as well as their compliance with or violation of IHL
can influence the development of legal norms in armed struggle. However, in relation to
operation and participation of armed non-state groups, it is still very much debatable. Some
concerns are that interacting with these actors may lead to the endorsement of violence and even
contribute to sovereignty inflictions (Deitelhoff, 2019). In contrast; arguments advanced in favor
of the approach include; the idea that by denying the armed groups the recognition of legal
actors; it is possible to restrain the reach and relevance of the international law to conflict
scenarios. The international community has faced this issue, getting different strategies to
address the armed groups in the legal frameworks, while their legitimation does not increase.
Such efforts include adopting codes of conducts, announcement of states’ commitment to the
standards of international law and participation of the armed groups in the peace agreements that
are based on the principles of international law (Mégret 2018). This is where the interaction of
conflicting subjects takes place, and the task for the international legal system remains relevant
in terms of further adaptation to the changing nature of conflict and the continued activity of
non-state armed groups in various regions of the world; on the one hand, the international legal
system seeks to incorporate the latter into legal processes, on the other, the state-centric
paradigm, as well as the non-recognition of violence as a tool for achieving political
2. Historical Evolution of Non-State Influence
I. Pre-World War II Era
Thus, the role of non-state actors in the processes of international law-making cannot be
described as a modern phenomenon that began after the Second World War. In the context of the
pre-war period of IR the state-centrism was already in the process of being relegated to the
background by the newly arising non-state actors. The relative importance of International
4
organizations like the League of Nations as key players in the international system increased
though with limited efficiency (Klabbers, 2020) . This time witnessed the beginning of
globalization leading to international decision-making inclusion even though it was fully
advanced during the post-war era. It was also during this period that transnational advocacy
networks emerged especially in the fields touching on labor rights and peace organizations
identifying the basis of subsequent NGO roles in international law (Keck and Sikkink, 2018).
These early networks showed how non-state actors are in a position to shape international norms
and standards as well as the policy framework, through use of public opinion and cross border
fellow feeling. Some of the MNEs, while not as interconnected as they are today, did start
playing roles on colonial policies and international trade relations. Yet, their influence on the
processes of official codifications of international law was far less compared to the post-work
period (O’Brien & Williams, 2018). The ability of these corporations was mostly of an economic
nature and the legal authority was limited to bi-lateral partnerships and colonial internments.
Armed non-state actors debated, established and contributed to the formation of international
norms mainly in relation to the national liberation movements and the forces of opposition that
helped in the conceptual evolution of self-determination and the laws of war (Clapham, 2018).
These groups questioned the legitimacy of the existing world order; seeking for their rights
while, also struggling for becoming subjects of international law that later on would; reflect the
processes of decolonization and the formation of the International Humanitarian Law.
Nonetheless, it was evident that prior to WW II, the overall nature of international legal system
was largely developed by the states with the activity of non-state actors simply subordinate to the
states’. The complete shift of perception of the international legal system whereby non-state
parties obtained the status of significant players in the system would not happen until after the
Second World War owing to the imperatives of the growth of the globally coordinated system of
governance in the international plane.
II. Post-World War II Developments
In essence, the post-WWII can be said to have triggered a new era of shifts in non-state actors’
engagement in international legal development. Speaking of the UN, the world saw the
emergence of new forms of non-state engagement in global management (Alvarez, 2019). Non-
governmental organizations, NGOs especially rose to have official accreditation by the United
Nations Economic and Social Council through which they engage in policy making and policy
lobbying for particular issues (Gibney, 2019). At the same time, the international human rights
system expanded and became qualitatively stronger with the active participation of NGOs in the
preparation and adoption of such documents as the Charter and the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. Globalization characterized by the expansion of transnational corporations and
internationalization accelerated bringing more frequently the companies in contact with the
international law and in particular trade and investment law (Ruggie, 2018). The Cold War
context thus defines the agents’ participation, which in turn entangled both state and non-state
actors within ideological battles conducted through international legal frameworks. Indirect
participants in armed conflict, especially those that participated in decolonization, post-colonial
5
conflicts, became of more importance in the formation of IHL as well as the right to self-
determination. This post-war development set a basis for what is today considered as the highly
diverse and many-sided engagements of the non-state actors in the processes of international law
making. Citizen Non-state actions were an important feature of this period due to the new
international legal instruments that gave them opportunities to participate actively. Transnational
networks and globalization of various issues also played a vital augmenter; in raising the
effectiveness of non-state actors in international law making. When decolonization progressed,
the new states and liberation movements provided new ideas into the legal structure of
governance and interrupted the traditional legal system with new liberated one. It explained how
the non-state actors’ global civil society movements; especially in the areas of environment and
disarmament; were capable of shaping international public opinion and forcing governments into
adopting new international legal norms. It can be stated that non-state actors were playing an
essential role in the development of the international law by the end of the Cold war, and their
part became even more imposing in the era of globalization in the second half of the twentieth
and at the beginning of the twenty-first century.
III. Globalization and Information Age
This contemporary world has seen intensified influence of non-state actors in the making of
international laws; through globalization and the information age. Global political economy has
continued to intensify the flow of communication technologies and the interconnection of global
markets, thus enhancing the non-state actors’ capacity to work across borders with immense ease
and impact (Sassen, 2019). This period has witnessed the formation of transnational advocacy
networks supported by cyberspace and social media platforms whereby they act as influential
forces of change in opinions and policies (Finnemore & Hollis, 2020). These technologies have
been used by the international Non-governmental organizations to campaign for support and
gather information and to co-ordinate their actions on the international level thereby increasing
their capacity to participate in the shaping of International legal systems. These big companies
have become even more dominant in this era,; there are those that control resources that can be
compared to countries. Thanks to their dimensions and capabilities, they have become more
prominent in setting trends of the international trade law, environmental norms, and labor laws
(Búrca & Scott, 2020). The enhance modern communication technology also affects the modern
warfare conflicts since the non-state armed groups have resorted to using modern technology in
their recruitment, propaganda, and even engage in cyber warfare contrary to the conventional
notion of warfare; this calls for new legal jurisdictions (Clapham, 2018). This process of
globalization has thus created complexities on the national and international laws; at the same
time opened up new possibilities thereby for the non-state actors in shaping and developing of
legal systems. The use of the social media platforms has made the access to information
universal and made it possible for the movements initiated at grassroots level to gain
international support within no time. Organizations and other groups have used big data and
artificial intelligence to; improve their activism and contribute relevant data in international law-
making procedures. Thus such phenomena as block-chain technology and crypto-currencies
6
create new non-state actors in the financial sphere; which shifts the focus from state-centered
financial regulation. In addition, the features of the global social media presence have enabled
non-state actors to by-pass state-control media and directly shape public opinion as well as
exerting pressure on governments toward obtaining or changing of international legal stances.
IV. 21st Century Landscape
The status of non-state actors also enters the era of ultra-complexity in the international legal
environment of the 21st century. This pattern was always traditional and formed based on the
state-centric approach but in the recent years has come under pressure from a range of non-state
actors all aspiring to shape international order in one way or another (Nye, 2020). Today
international organizations have expanded their focus to include recently emerging international
issues, for instance, climate change and cyber-security, tasks for which their activities may go
beyond the mandates granted to them. NGOs are increasingly professionalized and specialized
being able to produce research and gather expertise in certain areas of International Law and
often collaborating with states or IOs to affect policies (Rodriguez-Garavito, 2020). Business
people or multinationals especially technology firms causes of the alterations in understanding
the rules governing the international relations are endowed with coercive capacity (Mingst &
Peterson, 2016). New strands of norm making by social movements and grassroots organizations
which use social media and digital advances push for change and incorporate new impulses into
the process of formation of international norms and pressure for legal innovations. This is very
evident especially armed non-state groups and especially in the countries that are described to be
fragile and those that are in conflict (Mégret, 2018). This paper will demonstrate that today’s
international law-making processes are inseparable from state- and non-state actors wherein the
distinctions between public and private or domestic and international are increasingly becoming
intertwined. This state of affairs opens up the possibility of; more coalescing, multi-layered
forms of global governance and it also poses threats to the integration and functionality of the
international legal order.
3. Mechanisms of Non-State Actor Participation
I. Consultative Status in International Organizations
Even though many intergovernmental bodies still include only states as their members, the status
of a consultant in these organizations has emerged as the major way of active participation in the
processes of formation of the international legal order. This affiliation known as consultative
status is currently conferred upon NGOs and other CIVSOCs enabling the latter to engage in the
proceedings of international organizations’ and provide information and lobby for particular
agendas, as well as to make recommendations (Bartels and Paddeu, 2020). The consultative
status mechanism has extended not only to the members of the United Nations system, but to the
other international organizations which recognize the significance value that could be added to
the working of the intergovernmental system by the non-governmental organizations. This
system makes it possible to have a more diverse number of people presented at the international
7
level; consequently, to have more extensive policy approaches made. Nonetheless, consultative
status can be a relatively capacious and unpredictable tool of non-state actors’ influence within
international organizations, depending on the elements such as the resources, and capacities of
the non-state actor, the openness of the international organization, political properties of the
problem field (Tallberg et al. , 2020). There is criticism that the consultative status system may at
times grant an advantage to NGOs from the developed world thereby dominating the meetings
(Minority Report 2020). However, consulting status is still the key avenue through which non-
state actors can have direct access to the international organizations and participate; in the
process of elaborating the principles of International Law and International Relations. Some of
the advantages of this system include; the factor of incorporation of expertise, traditional
knowledge, and ground personality in the international forum; which may improve the global
policy implementations. Also, it enhances public participation and increases accountability in the
international governance processes; since it directs those decision-making processes that were
previously swayed by state actors to other groups. In sum; it is reasonable to pinpoint some
essential advantages of the consultative status: Democratization of international law-making and
taking into account more diverse stakeholders’ interests.
II. Amicus Curiae Submissions
Amicus curiae submissions have thus turned out to be a conspicuous means through which non-
state actors can participate in the international law-making processes especially in the
international courts and tribunals. This practice enables other individuals or organizations,
typically NGOs, academic institutions, and the likes or even other individuals, to give additional
information or opinions on cases that are before international courts (Clark, 2021). Amicus
Briefs are admissible in many international legal jurisdictions including the International Court
of Justice ICIJ, regional human rights courts and international criminal tribunals and are
particularly common in all of these. These submissions may be very valuable in expanding the
court’s knowledge on certain topics, in presenting the big picture where a case is implicated and
in drawing attention to other legal or factual matters that could be easily overlooked (Duffy,
2018). In the case of NGOs and other similar organizations, amicus briefs create a chance to be
involved in the shaping of the international judicial practice, as well as to call for the particular
legal perceptions and policy goals or the rejection of others. Nevertheless, the fact remains that
amicus submissions’ flexibility in influence over the courts decision-making cannot be easily
quantified and also varies from court to court and case to case. Some of the critics’ concerns
include a flood of information to the courts, and the possibility of the proceedings being skewed
(Koh, 2019, 2015). Nevertheless, amicus curiae submissions remain a resource through which;
non-state actors remain relevant to processes of international law and the development of
international law. The practice has perhaps helped in opening up judicial proceedings such that
more; diverse input is sought and considered in the issues of international legal jurisprudence. In
addition, it demonstrates the on-going social relations of non-state actors; with state legal
systems and emphasizes to what extent civil society can impact upon the literature of
international law. Not only does this mechanism increase the access of states to international
8
legal procedures but also enriches the international courts’ decision-making; by reflecting more
pluralism. In turn, in the future, with progressive development of the international law, amicus
curiae contributions are expected to increase so that non-state actors are actively incorporated
into the regulation of the international legal framework, and the international legal system
gradually becomes more accurate and unique.
III. Lobbying and Advocacy
The European Union and other interest groups are lobbying and advocacy activities that are
highly developed ways that non-state actors use to influence the processes of creating
international law. Interest groups involved in the policy-making process include the NGOs,
multinational corporations, etc. Strategies used by these interest groups include direct lobbying,
public consciousness, publicizing and media outreach (Keck & Sikkink 2018). Such activities are
directed at; forming partnerships, undertaking studies, and using knowledge to shape the stance
of states as well as international organizations on certain legal or policy matters. It has also been
complemented by accessibility and improvement in communication resource through the
development of communication technologies hence enhancing the lobbying and advocacy efforts
to gain support and coordinate the non-state actors’ actions at the international level (Finnemore
& Hollis, 2020). Such contingents’ especially non-governmental organizations have been
persistent in campaigning for new international treaties and enhancements of the current legal
frameworks in the human rights domain (Gibney, 2019). Also, business associations and
multinational corporations participate in lobbying processes to influence the international trade
and inversions laws in organizations and body of law in a way that favors’ them (Búrca & Scott,
2020). As seen earlier, lobbying and advocacy may help increase the UNIL’s sensitivity to its
audiences and bring change to the rules strengthening the position of actors with expertise
relevant for international law-making processes; at the same time, they have problems in terms
of transparency and accountability, as well as in the direction of their impact, which may benefit
well-endowed players disproportionately. The dilemma now facing the international community
is how to optimize states’ opportunities for non-state actors to participate while avoiding
distorting the legal process in favor of select actors and for certain selfish purposes. These
observations indicate that; the phenomenon of the subject under consideration corresponds to the
current trends; in the development of global governance, based on the active roles of non-state
actors. These practices will only keep changing and hence the need for better regulatory
mechanisms that will help understand and control the influence of these practices on different
producers and consumers, especially the minorities and less informed. Mitigating stakeholder
bias and ensuring the independence of genuinely multilateral processes will be critical for
creating fair and effective structures for international governance, something which has not yet
convincingly occurred for the world’s climate regime.
IV. Public-Private Partnerships
The involvement of the non-state actors in the formulation and application of international law;
is a vital problem that has been solved through Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs). Such
9
partnership between governmental agencies, intergovernmental organizations, and private actors
are seen as a way of realizing comparative advantages achievable in countering multifaceted
global issues (Bonnitcha & Brewin, 2019). PPPs have been adopted widely in sectors of;
sustainable development, world health, and environment; due to the ability of the PS in
mobilizing the resources and skills of the private sector in enhancing PSD. Speaking of the
potential impact of PPPs within the international legal framework, it is possible to note their
outcomes in the formation of novel legal norms and standards, which can be elaborated with the
help of best practices and standards, recommendations, or the conclusion of soft law agreements
that can further translate into binding regulations (Van der Heijden, 2019). For instance, the
United Nations Global Compact that is a policy-creation instrument which is based on the
commitment of CEOs of various companies to operate businesses according to the principles of
global sustainable development can be discussed. Depending on the specific, PPPs also help in
the ‘realization’ of international law when it comes to operationalizing global treaties and targets,
including the SDG Agenda (Koenig-Archibugi, 2018). Nonetheless, criticisms have emerged on
issues to do with conflict of interest, lack of accountability, and privatization of public tasks with
the evolving aspect of PPPS in the contemporary structure of global governance. Some of the
critics of PPPs state that the kind of transaction may at times more detriment to the commercial
gains of those involved than the general wellbeing of the public or may even compromise the
sovereignty of the state in policy matters (Pattison, 2021). Nevertheless, PPPs are still
developing as a form of non-state actors’ peculiar engagement in international law-making and
can be considered an indicator of the increased interdependence of modern international
relations.
4. Areas of Significant Non-State Impact
I. Human Rights Law
International human rights have been well enhanced and implemented by non –state actors. In
particular, the NGOs have held important positions in the development of human rights treaties,
evaluation of the states’ compliance with the norms adopted, and raising awareness of the
violation of human rights (Rodriguez-Garavito, 2020). Today, international NGO’s such as
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have emerged as authoritative for human rights
standards and the promotion of more vigorous mechanisms of implementation. This most of the
time entails researching on abuses, advocating with governments, and employing legal tools in
the battle for human rights. Multinational business organizations have also become more
involved with human rights as violators and as defenders for socially appropriate business
conduct. This has catalyzed the creation of platforms for example; The United Nation’s Guiding
Principles on Business and Human Rights, aimed at outlining the corporate obligations in matters
pertaining Human rights (Ruggie, 2018). Again, international organizations, especially the UN
agencies, have been very central in setting up human rights norms and then ensuring compliance
thereto. However, there is a concern as to who the non-state actors accountable to, as well as the
10
impacts that these actors could decide to bring in changes to the human rights norms that may
not benefit certain states or groups (Shelton, 2020). Nevertheless, due to these challenges it can
be concluded that non-state actors have indeed developed the international human rights regime
as being more strong and vibrant where mostly they advocate for a higher degree and area of
protection than many of the states would like to seek on their own. This has resulted in various
achievements in the area of human rights such as; development new legal tools as well as the
enhancing of the currently available tools. Non-state actors’ interaction with the international
organizations has also boosted accountability for the violations of Human rights standards
through improvement of the monitoring mechanism’s performances. Nevertheless, the
interactions of non-state actors remain dynamic, and this implies that; much effort has to be
devoted to ensuring that their participation does not overwhelm the process of democratic zones-
based global governance. Non-state actors are still central to the human rights panorama, and
their functions need to be rightly supervised so that they enhance rather than jeopardize the
general goals and targets of the IHRS.
II. Environmental Regulations
The area of international environmental law, presents a high level of interaction with actors
outside state boundaries; which is quite natural in the context of; global environmental processes
and the search for collective solutions for the mitigation of environmental problems. In
particular, environmental NGOs often make efforts to increase people’s awareness of ecological
problems, campaign for tougher environmental policies, and provide science-based input to
international conferences and negotiations (Howse & Langille, 2019). Environmental
organizations that include Green peace and world wildlife fund have therefore emerged to act as
pressure groups and influence the public and governments to adopt strict measures on
environmental conservation. Multinational corporations and industrial houses, which were earlier
regarded as polluters of the environment are now active in the development of environmental
standards, especially in formulating and implementing voluntary codes of conduct (Prakash,
2019). The private sector has also played a major role for instance in the generation of renewable
energy and management of resources. Thus, non-state actors claimed their voice in
environmental law making by participating engaging in the United Nations Environment
Program (UNEP) platforms. This has given rise to emergence of new form of governance in the
form of public private partnerships for environmental conservation and multipartite models of
development (Green, 2020). Civil society organizations have had a rather active participation in
climate change law and policy particularly because of their key participation in the Paris
Agreement (Mayer, 2019). This has thus provided rich expertise and resources to environmental
governance; however it also continuously provokes debates over the; emergence thereby of the
elite’s power and hence influence over environmental regulatory frameworks.
III. International Trade Agreements
There has been therefore a shift toward non-state actors’ involvement in directing international
trade liberalization thus providing understanding to the interaction between the global economy,
11
rules, and also administration. The private actors have organized themselves intensely in this
area by using their economic resources and knowledge to dictate trade relations and the
mechanisms for solving the arising conflicts (Búrca & Scott, 2020). Their participation
frequently centers on matters like; patent rights, investment policies and the steps aimed at
synchronizing legislation. The occupation of business has influenced the trade agreements
significantly and frequently led to provisions that are seen by critics as an obvious move towards
more benefit delivery to business at the cost of common public good or environment protection
(Fauchald & Stigen, 2019). At the same time; civil society organizations and labor unions have
also been exerting pressures for the improvements of the quality of; trade agreements,
particularly in such aspects as labor rights, environmental protection, and public services. They
have helped in enhancement of practice of bringing non-trade concerns into trade relations,
especially the labor and environmental clauses in recent free trade agreements (T and P 2018).
Non-state actors can participate in the international politics of IGOs particularly WTO through
other means like filing of amicus briefs in the dispute settlement processes. Nevertheless, the
quantitative and qualitative scale, the method, and the openness of non-state actors’ participation
in the formation of trade law continue to be questioned at present, focusing on aspects of
transparency, accountability, and a proper balance of the economic and societal nature of trade
regulation (Alvarez, 2019). The emergence of many players within the international trade system
shows that the characteristics of the governance structure are changing with regard to the fact
that the players of many different types are involved in setting rules and policies. Due to this
dynamism of the global environment, it becomes necessary to analyze the functions and effects
of these actors in order to guarantee that ‘mega-regional’ trade deals foster growth as well as
social and environmental development. Ensuring that corporations’ business interests and the
excluded voices as well as public interest are protected continues to be a major problem in the
policymaking process. Since non-state actors are also active key players that can greatly
influence trade policies, they have to be moderated in order for the ever diversifying nature of
the global economy to work positively towards trade liberalization.
IV. Humanitarian and Criminal Law
Non-state actors have also been playing an important role in the development of international
humanitarian and criminal law due to the changes in the character of conflicts and due to
recognition of new types of threats for the humanity. Many NGOs actively campaigned for
enhancing the protection of civilians in armed conflicts, the influence the results in the signing of
the Ottawa Convention on landmines for the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court,
among others. Some of the organizations that have played great roles in the elaboration and,
especially in; regulating the application of IHL are IHL for instance; the International Committee
of the Red Cross. These ASM (armed non-state groups) actors have been also traditionally seen
as violators of the international law by contributing to the formation of the said law as well as
engaging with humanitarian norms (2018 Clapham). They and the international community’s
reception to these prompted the development of laws concerning non-international armed
struggles. Non-governmental organizations and victims’ organizations advocate for justice or
12
adjustment for grievous international criminal offenses through documentation and/ or
campaigns for prosecution in the area of law known as international criminal law (Mégret, 2018).
Transnational corporations have also joined the list of the accused of International Criminal Law
with increasing discourses on business accountability for international crimes. In this regard, the
international organizations have offered opportunities for non-state actors’ engagement in
criminal proceedings such as Acting as a Victims and filing of Amicus Curiae by the
International Criminal court and other ad hoc tribunals (Duffy. 2018). Diverse non-state actors’
participation in this field has enriched a multidisciplinary approach to combating international
crimes and addressing humanitarian crises and has created numerous and intricate legal scholars’
issues regarding the limits of the international law and non-state actors’ rights and
responsibilities to enforce it.
5. Challenges to Traditional State Sovereignty
I. Erosion of State-Centric Model
The mentioned impact, therefore, means that the conventional state-centered model of
governance has been eroded today by non-state actors participating in numerous international
law-making processes. This shift interferes with herniated concepts of state sovereignty and state
centrality as stated in international relations journalism (Fox, 2019). Today international
organizations, NGOs, and multinational business actors, are involved in state activities that
earlier belonged exclusively to the sovereignty domain – introduction and enforcement of norms,
formulation and application of policies, and compliance with international law, respectively. This
has resulted into a closely woven and tangled web of the legal system across the globe making
state authority non absolute and non-exclusive. Continuing from the previous point, transnational
actors and global civil society have further weakened state-centric approaches to virtually all
aspects of global affairs, paving way for formation of hybrid forms of governance that are non-
state and transnational in character (Slaughter, 2019). Hence, it can be noted that international
organizations have gained much influence in different fields, whereby they perform tasks and
have powers that initially belonged to states alone (Alvarez, 2019). Despite the positive results of
this evolution on making global governance, at many levels more open sensitive and responsible
to people’s needs; there are also negative aspects, particularly the weakening of democratic
accountability. Critics contend that the decline of the state-centric system could lead to the
dilution of the basic principle of sovereign equality in international relations and the further
subjugation of the less powerful states in the making of international decisions (Deitelhoff,
2019). The problem for the international community hence remains to capture the value added of
engaging the non-state actors positively while at the same time maintaining critical issues such as
sovereignty and international system. Nonetheless, non-state actors were able to open certain
areas of governing to the rest of the public and incorporate various viewpoints and knowledge;
that would be a definite asset for policies and norms internationally. However, this shift also
requires the new paradigms to be put in place to reign in these actors and also ensure that ‘might
13
is not right’ where these actors have enormous power whereby their interests will lord it over the
weaker nations. Thus, the problem of addressing the role of non-state actors in the developments
of the global legal order as well as taking into account the principles of state sovereignty and the
overall architecture of the present day international system is one of the key issues that will have
to be solved in the further worldwide progress. This balance is important for; maintaining a pro-
justice and efficient international management order, to solve the challenges of modern
international relationships.
II. Transnational Networks and Governance
Transnational networks and new forms of governance based on them have put yet another dent
into the sovereignty of the state in the contemporary international legal system. Such networks
that are sometimes formed by a combination of state and non-state agencies span national
boundaries and are a source of new policy coordination and norm promotion channels
(Slaughter, 2019). They span from the official international bodies’ alliances, which include
those of governmental level, to non-governmental, non-profit organizations, entrepreneurs, and
state departments. Global civil society networks have gotten most prevalent within what are
known as the global issue areas including environmental issues, human rights, and the health
sector since the action on these sector requires enhanced cooperation across state borders (Davies
& True, 2021). Such networks can create their set of norms and standards as well as decide on
the corresponding practical application, which can result in further changes in national
legislation. The literature demonstrates that international problem solving has become gradually
organized in a more diffuse and dynamic manner due to the emergence of global governance
networks but there are concerns about accountability and democratic deficit associated with it
also pointed out by some scholars as Koenig-Archibugi (2018). Some of the critics have raised
concerns; regarding the opacity of these new networks and the ability of key leaders to dictate
ways, which ultimately erode the sovereignty of nations’ state in international relations.
Furthermore, practices of transnational governance entail a network of power structures and
multiple sources of legal authority, which emerged to replace the top-bottom approaches of the
international law grounded upon states’ consent (Kingsbury, 2019). The shifting of issue areas
into transnational networks is beneficial in as much as it presents new challenges particularly
when addressing sovereignty and authority within the international legal system. This shift from
an integrated, hierarchical form of global governance is caused by the fact that large numbers of
contemporary problems are international in their nature and require a multilateral approach.
However, promoting these networks to act in transparent, accountable and inclusive manner is
very important in order to avoid the domination of legitimate power in the international system.
In relation to the volume of creative potential existing in the sphere of transnational networks, it
is still very difficult to find this balance between democracy and its regulation, on the one hand,
and the need for fair participation in this process on the other hand. These networks will in the
future remain key to the developments of the international law and governance hence the
importance of continued dialogue that is capable of addressing the increasing interdependence
the world faces.
14
III. Legitimacy and Accountability Concerns
Despite the emergence of non-state actors, the contemporary international law-making processes
have been accompanied by legitimacy and accountability concerns. The more these actors
perform tasks that were earlier assumed by states, the following issues arise; Are they
representative structures and on what rationale do they derive their competence to set or
influence international norms and policies. Hence, while states attain legalization through
election and the framework of the constitution, non-state actors obtain legalization in terms of
proficiency, morality, and capital. This can cause criticism that they hardly derive their mandate
for their participation in international law formulation from a democratic principle. For instance,
NGOs, as the most typical actors claiming to act on behalf of civil society, might not be as
transparent and under the same level of public pressure as governmental institutions (Tallberg et
al. , 2020). Likewise, the global corporations’ impact in fields like international trade law also
poses dilemmas regarding the preference of corporate interests above the public good (Fauchald
& Stigen, 2019). Even formal IOs encounter legitimacy issues based on the sovereignty
dispensation where their actions may be perceived as undermining states’ authority or in decision
making where procedures are questionable. The question of accountability is also rather
provocative, as key international institutions aimed at holding states’ activity accountable may
not work on non-state actors (or will not work efficiently) (Hoffmann & Zurn, 2021). Such an
accountability deficit may easily contribute to lack of credibility and efficiency of the
international legal frameworks. This legitimacy and accountability deficits are critical issues that
need to be responded in order to enhance the international legal order’s persuasiveness and
efficacy while it is being adapted to the notion of non-state participants.
IV. Shifting Power Dynamics
Non-state actors’ participation directly in the formulation of the international legal systems has
altered the global structure of power relations. State-centric and coercive power resources are
being extended and, sometimes, countered by portable soft power stemming from economic,
technical, ethical, or connectivity assets (Nye, 2020). Global firms for example now possess
more economic and bargaining power than many states, and thus can basically dictate
international economic law and policy (Ruggie, 2018). International non-governmental
organizations have been able to seize such moral authority, and specialist knowledge to be heard
on a wide range of matters properly political and have been used to mobilize public opinion and
to apply pressure on the states to change their policies or their legal norms in particular way
(Rodriguez-Garavito, 2020). Speaking of IOs’ diplomacy, international organizations have
gained considerable independence and decision-making powers in different areas of activity,
even possessing powers that formerly belonged to states alone (Alvarez, 2019). They have
thereby resulted in the emergence of increased, multi-lateralized and also diversified global
governance where the power is more fragmented. Yet it has its challenges as well in the
following ways, we will attempt to explore these challenges. As such, smaller states and less
resourced actors may feel the pinch in this new environment and this may well compound
existing global inequalities. Also, the dispersion of power among several organizations other
15
than states may therefore sometimes hamper international cooperation, especially to address
emerging global issues. In this light, the participants of the global governance and international
law-making processes are constantly faced with the tasks of coming up with suitable models of
governance and legal regulation that would allow for the management of such power relations in
the contemporary international system in a fair, legitimate, and efficient manner.
6. Future Trends and Implications
I. Increasing Non-State Actor Recognition
The increase in the involvement and legal (or quasi-legal) status of non-state actors in
international law in general will probably become even more prominent in the future. Non-state
actors were found to be highly concerned for the international cooperation and for the global
agenda, especially in addressing the complexities and the interconnectivities of the contemporary
issues that can be seen in the global systems and structures (Morin and Orsini, 2019). This
situation may culminate in the emergence of, brand new institutions and laws; intended to seek
and control the auspices of non-state actors in global governance. For example, there could
emerge more of the consultative status arrangements different from the UN system or new types
of hybrid governance structures where state and non-state actors are legally included (Klabbers,
2020). New actors may also be recognized in the future as a result of new shifts in the global
political forums, for instance, artificial intelligence systems and decentralized autonomous
organizations in future as a result of the changing trends in technology. But this increasing
recognition will probably lead to more calls for more responsibility on the part of non-state
actors (Tallberg et al. , 2020). National governments, civil society organizations and institutions
will possibly seek stronger guarantees that non-state actors’ participation is conducted
appropriate and for the public good in the process of formation and adoption of International
Law. This could culminate into emergence of new international legal standards that regulates the
behavior of non-state actors in the realm of international governance thus transforming the legal
boundary between public and private in the international law. Thus the issue will be to promote
non-state actor participation and the concerns of democracy while the international system is in
the process of transition. By regulating and overseeing the participation of non-state actors, it
will be important to avoid over-empowering by the major players: this is a main challenge of
global governance that must be addressed to guarantee that non-state actors will energize
international governance systems that are more open and responsive to people’s needs. This
changing environment will persist and continue to develop and transform the international law as
concepts of sovereignty and state-centered systems will have to change adopting to the new
world and complex global issues. It must be assumed that tomorrow’s international law-making
processes will be more inclusive and complex and therefore the traditional frameworks and
modes of governance need to be further developed and adapted to new conditions in order to
ensure a more fair as well as effective regulation of international relations.
16
II. Potential Reforms in International Law
Thanks to the increase in the power of non-state actors, severe innovations in the system
international law will most probably occur. Such reforms thereof may use to try and establish
new and improved governance structures responsive to the diverse actors which are in a position
to contribute towards the international law system, while at the same time, preserving its
harmony and unity (Kingsbury, 2019). The identification of open problems that can be globally
addressed for reform purposes may include the adjustments of the current mechanisms of
involving non-state actors in the treaty-making process to make them more than consultative.
There might also be trends towards the procedural liberalization of international dispute
settlement mechanisms for example increased access for non-state actors to international courts
and tribunals or development of new dispute settlement platforms for non-state actors (Duffy,
2018). The third field of potential reform relates to the establishment of new international law for
the new global challenges which involve actors other than nation states, as internet regulation,
artificial intelligence or the governance of the global commons (Finnemore & Hollis, 2020).
Many of these reforms may involve a redefinition of basic principles of international law as legal
personality, responsibility for wrongful acts and the mechanism of enforcement thereof. Though,
that such reform shall likely meet the opposition of the states worried about sovereignty and of
critics as to the democratization grounds of the augmenting non-state actors’ participation (Fox,
2019). The difficulty will be to create changes in a way that increases the efficiency and
democracy of international law and at the same time does not erode its fundamentals or leave
insufficient responsibility. Overcoming of the above challenges is going to involve delicate
balance and coordination between the states and non-states actors and the international
institutions. That is why the work on the practical implementation of reforms along with the
focus on the fairness of reforms along with the need to innovate the structures of governance the
work on reforms will be contingent on the preservation of the key objective of international law.
In the future, as many aspects of global governance are increasingly associated with non-state
actors, the international legal system will have to reconcile pluralism with non-interference in the
internal affairs of nations and protection of volatility as the basis of the modern world. In this
changing environment, the belligerent involvement of non-state actors into the sphere of
International Law cannot be mere technical addition but is a qualitative shift in the process,
which comes closer to depict a world of the fourth dimension. Since the role of non-state actors
like multinational corporations, Non-Governmental Organizations and transnational advocacy
networks in the formulation of global policies rises then their decision making in international
norms and practices emerges strongly. This means that there should be a transition from the state
centered approach to the poly-centric approach that is embraces pluralism in governance. The
direct involvement of actors to the treaty making processes could potentially depoliticize
international law by offering mouthpieces for the voiceless actors. Nevertheless, this openness
must be accompanied by the checks and balances mechanism that provides for the regulation of
non-state powerful actors in order to avoid corruption in public decisions. In the sphere of
international dispute, allowing non-state actors to launch cases in courts and tribunals respond to
17
the growing roles of such actors in global relations and offer them legal redress. This may make
international legal institutions more legitimate and salient; to a wider constellation of actors,
thereby increasing the potential support for their reform at the international level. Also,
establishment of the legal frameworks that will allow addressing of the dispute involving non-
state actors could be considerably simplified and will be accompanied with the optimized set of
solutions for the number of multifaceted issues. The appearance of new legal norms as well as
the emergence of new globalization challenges; speak of the need for flexible legal governance
in today’s world. It makes it rather important that as non-state actors they are actively involved
in setting the pace on new innovations and advocacies in the different fields including internet
technology and management, Artificial intelligence and the management of global commons
among others. These frameworks have to be stable at the same time versatile, as they should
adapt to the changes in the technological landscape and the power relations on the international
level. Finally; it can be concluded that the extent to which the non-state actors may be admitted
within the international legal framework, depends upon a careful calibration of a number of
factors.
III. Balancing State and Non-State Interests
The case of the ICESDF reveals that as non-state actors engage themselves more in the
formulation of International law, there will be growing potential of getting the right balance
between the state and the other stakeholders. This balance is mandatory for the introduction of
legitimacy and effectiveness of the existence of the international legal system and to utilize the
valuable contribution of variety of actors (Pratt, Pattison, 2021). There may be potential
transformations in the form of, formation of additional intermediate links; between the state and
non-state actors with regard to global governance systems. This could consist of the creation of
forums which involve the cooperation governments, NGOs, businesses, and other relevant actors
to deliberate on the standards and policies for the international system (Koenig-Archibugi,2018).
Such forums might help achieve better; discussion and cooperation and also guarantee that as
many perceptions as possible; are taken into account when defining the global rules. We should
also expect that new legal concepts appear that would attempt to do justice to the principle of
state sovereignty combined with today’s international political agenda where non–state actors
play so critical a role. Thus, there can be attempts to elaborate the refined concept of the
principle of non-intervention given the fact that many emerging and current processes are
transnational in nature (Deitelhoff, 2019). The principle of subsidiarity may become activated as
a way of deciding on what level of governance various matters should be addressed and as such,
the principle may foster complexity and flexibility in the international legal space. Attributed to
this approach, there is a likelihood of a more fixed allocation of responsibilities that is capable of
proffering solutions that are in touch with the global setting as well as the local environment.
Still, striking this balance is likely to continue being a contentious topic raising questions about
the appropriate functions of the various actors within GGN and controversy surrounding the
most effective ways of securing accountability and legitimacy in the rapidly growing and
transforming international environment (Hoffmann & Zurn, 2021). To solve such conditions it is
18
necessary to implement new strategies and form the cooperation with non-state actors to create
the frame-works, which would take into consideration their input, at the same time to follow the
principles of sovereignty of the states. That is why this shift underlines; the need for the pluralist
approach to the international law, where all participants in the regulation of the international
relations are recognized and their voice heard. The creation of multi-stakeholders forums could
hence be viewed as a subtle first step toward this process of making international rule making
more inclusive and cooperative. In addition, legal liberalism rightly asserts that legal values can
grow, reach the level of legal doctrines, and recognize the principle of subsidiarity to better adapt
to both global and local contexts in the future. The main issue to address is not how to avoid
defeat of state sovereignty but how to bite it, that is, need to protect sovereignty but also
recognize the power ‘of the others’. That balance shall be crucial in; sustaining the international
legal order’s legitimacy and also efficacy to confront modern global issues.
IV. Emerging Technologies and New Actors
This means that the concerns of international relations and the existence of new actors; are
potentially going to complicate the system of international legal regulation and create new
challenges, due to the fast development of technology. For instance, artificial intelligence
systems can become the new powerful actors that possess the abilities of analyzing huge amounts
of information and make decisions that will affect the field of international law and policy
(Finnemore & Hollis, 2020). This could require the creation of, a new sub-genre of law that deals
with the legal regime of AI decision-making; in foreign affairs and jurisdiction and to answer to
the problems of responsibility. Solutions and Services through block-chain and crypto-currencies
may be the avenues of new types of transnational economic transactions that erode the state
sovereignty over money supply and financial regulation (Búrca & Scott, 2020). Thus, as big tech
companies are becoming more involved in governance of global issues including data protection
and digital rights, there may be a need for the new approaches to regulating corporate power
internationally (Voegtlin & Scherer, 2020). Furthermore, such technologies may enable new
forms of bottom-up mobilizations and distributed structures as well as strengthen the people’s
participation in the governance of the whole world but at the same time, brings up the issues of
when the power is distributed what voice everyone has and who is to be held accountable for the
decisions made. The actors and challenges will require the bars of International legal system to
change with time and this might lead to emergence of other branches of international law dealing
with the governance of technology. It will probably take the combined effort of legal scholars, IT
professionals, and numerous other interested parties to keep international law current and
efficient in this dynamic setting.
19
REFERENCE
Albin-Lackey, C. (2018). Multinational corporations and human rights abuses: A victim's guide.
_Human Rights Watch_.
Alvarez, J. E. (2019). The impact of international organizations on international law. _European
Journal of International Law, 30_(4), 1337-1366.
Bartels, L., & Paddeu, F. I. (2020). Effective participation of non-state actors in international
organizations. _International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 69_(3), 641-669.
Bonnitcha, J., & Brewin, S. (2019). Public-private partnerships and human rights: The case of
health services. _Health and Human Rights Journal, 21_(1), 109-121.
Búrca, G. D., & Scott, J. (2020). Transnational governance: The role of private standards in
shaping global trade. _Journal of International Economic Law, 23_(2), 255-280.
Clark, A. M. (2021). NGOs and the legitimacy of international criminal law. _Human Rights
Quarterly, 43_(2), 297-329.
Clapham, A. (2018). The role of armed non-state actors in the development of international
humanitarian law. _International Review of the Red Cross, 100_(907-909), 31-52.
Davies, S. E., & True, J. (2021). The role of non-state actors in global health governance.
_International Affairs, 97_(1), 151-170.
Deitelhoff, N. (2019). The paradox of state sovereignty and non-state actors. _Global
Governance, 25_(4), 557-575.
20
Duffy, H. (2018). Strategic human rights litigation: Understanding and maximizing impact.
_Human Rights Law Review, 18_(4), 585-602.
Fauchald, O. K., & Stigen, J. (2019). Corporate responsibility before international institutions.
_The American Journal of International Law, 113_(1), 92-126.
Ferraro, T., & Cameron, L. (2020). The global compact for migration and non-state actors.
_Journal of Migration and Human Security, 8_(4), 1-20.
Finnemore, M., & Hollis, D. B. (2020). Beyond naming and shaming: Accusations and
international law in the age of social media. _European Journal of International Law,
31_(3), 803-830.
Fox, G. H. (2019). The future of state sovereignty in the age of globalization. _Michigan Journal
of International Law, 40_(3), 523-554.
Gibney, M. (2019). Amnesty International and the rise of human rights advocacy. _Journal of
Human Rights Practice, 11_(3), 452-469.
Green, J. F. (2020). Private standards in the climate change regime: The role of non-state actors.
_Review of International Political Economy, 27_(3), 483-505.
Hale, T., & Held, D. (2019). The impact of globalization on international law: Non-state actors
and global governance. _Global Policy, 10_(4), 512-521.
Hoffmann, M. J., & Zurn, M. (2021). The contested authority of non-state actors in world
politics. _International Studies Quarterly, 65_(2), 303-315.
21
Howse, R., & Langille, J. (2019). The role of NGOs in the development of international
environmental law. _Journal of Environmental Law, 31_(1), 1-24.
Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (2018). Transnational advocacy networks in international politics:
The role of NGOs in shaping international norms. _Global Networks, 18_(2), 276-
299.
Kingsbury, B. (2019). International law as global governance. _European Journal of
International Law, 30_(3), 625-652.
Klabbers, J. (2020). The changing landscape of international organizations and the role of non-
state actors. _International Organizations Law Review, 16_(1), 23-41.
Koenig-Archibugi, M. (2018). Transnational public-private partnerships and global governance:
The rise of non-state actors. _Review of International Studies, 44_(3), 469-490.
Koh, H. H. (2019). Transnational legal process and the struggle for human rights. _Yale Journal
of International Law, 44_(2), 123-156.
Koremenos, B. (2018). Institutional design and the evolution of international organizations.
_Journal of Conflict Resolution, 62_(7), 1515-1544.
Lebovic, J. H. (2019). International institutions and global governance: The evolving roles of
non-state actors. _International Studies Perspectives, 20_(4), 355-373.
Liese, A. (2020). Non-state actors in global health: Access and influence in global health
governance. _Global Health Governance, 14_(1), 67-88.
22
Mayer, B. (2019). The role of non-state actors in the Paris Agreement on climate change.
_Climate Policy, 19_(3), 383-399.
Mégret, F. (2018). International criminal justice: The role of non-state actors. _International
Journal of Transitional Justice, 12_(2), 257-278.
Morin, J. F., & Orsini, A. (2019). Essential concepts of global environmental governance.
_Routledge_.
Nye, J. S. (2020). The role of non-state actors in world politics. _Foreign Affairs, 99_(4), 29-39.
O’Brien, R., & Williams, M. (2018). Global political economy: Evolution and dynamics.
_Palgrave Macmillan_.
Pattison, J. (2021). The legitimacy of non-state actors in global governance. _Ethics &
International Affairs, 35_(2), 131-153.
Prakash, A. (2019). Green clubs and voluntary environmental programs: The case of non-state
actors in environmental governance. _Business & Society, 58_(3), 520-554.
Rodriguez-Garavito, C. A. (2020). Human rights futures: The role of non-state actors in shaping
international norms. _Human Rights Quarterly, 42_(4), 959-983.
Ruggie, J. G. (2018). Multinationals as global institution: Power, authority, and relative
autonomy. _Regulation & Governance, 12_(4), 317-333.
Sassen, S. (2019). Global networks, linked cities: The role of non-state actors in globalization.
_Routledge_.
23
Scholte, J. A. (2018). The role of civil society in global governance. _Global Governance,
24_(3), 275-293.
Shelton, D. (2020). International human rights law: The roles of non-state actors. _Journal of
Human Rights, 19_(3), 321-337.
Slaughter, A. M. (2019). Transgovernmental networks and global governance. _Global Policy,
10_(3), 287-297.
Tallberg, J., Sommerer, T., & Squatrito, T. (2020). The legitimacy of international organizations:
Non-state actors and global governance. _The Review of International Organizations,
15_(3), 403-430.
Van der Heijden, J. (2019). Voluntary programs for building sustainability: Non-state actors and
public-private partnerships. _Environmental Policy and Governance, 29_(1), 3-14.
Voegtlin, C., & Scherer, A. G. (2020). Responsible innovation and the role of multinational
corporations: Balancing global challenges and local responsibilities. _Journal of
Business Ethics, 161_(4), 771-784.
