Radioactive Waste Disposal at Sea: Public Ideas ... - IMO

164 Chapter 9
power-based theory of international relations. They theorize about the
“NGO phenomenon,” and they present much empirical evidence of the
worldwide growth and diversity of NGOs. They see NGOs as agents of
change who play a critical role in social learning and in connecting world
politics and biophysical changes.
Princen (1994, p. 32) assumes that regime-change processes would not
be led by states. According to Princen and Finger (1994), the technical
nature of the issue and the analytical processes needed to protect the environment
also reduce the role of diplomats in environmental diplomacy.
Princen predicts that the main players in regime development are epistemic
communities, individual leaders, and ENGOs, but does not identify more
precisely the roles these actors will perform. He assumes a convergence of
interests among epistemic communities, prominent individuals, and
ENGOs, and he would expect them to influence the global ocean dumping
regime to put more emphasis on the environment; states would be insignificant
bystanders. 18 With regard to the actions of Greenpeace International,
Princen (ibid., p. 33) claims that the organization “identifies a problem area,
enters for a direct action protest, gets the media coverage, and then disappears.”
Thus, in his opinion, it is not likely that Greenpeace International
would be involved in the global dumping regime for a longer period, or that
it would organize local constituencies. But the global radwaste disposal ban
shows that Greenpeace did exactly what Princen expects it not to do: the
organization was involved in the issue on a permanent basis, and it established
a transnational environmental coalition that included local, national,
and regional stakeholders and interest groups.
Toward a Theory of ENGOs’ Influences on Regimes
Chapter 8 showed that an ENGO acted as a catalyst for regime change
within the global dumping regime and forced the change from control to
prohibition. Greenpeace, a well-staffed, professional, global ENGO, mobilized
national and international public opinion, and it strengthened a transnational
coalition by mobilizing other ENGOs, stakeholders, special-interest
groups, and mass constituencies. Moreover, Greenpeace attacked scientific
and regulatory principles and norms of the regime, and it monitored compliance
by states. Four hypotheses about the roles of ENGOs in regime development
can be generalized on the basis of this case.