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

Explaining Regime Change 169
al. 1995, pp. 52–53); this illustrates that ENGOs can influence regime
development by producing ideas and systems of thought that become
accepted as parts of the intellectual foundation of environmental regimes.
Again, it might become apparent that this form of ENGO influence varies
in a systematic fashion from one environmental issue area to another and
among ENGOs.
The four hypotheses about the roles of ENGOs do not presume that
ENGOs are powerful and influential in global environmental politics
while states are powerless and without influence, or the reverse; instead
they shed light on subtler but nonetheless important relationships among
ENGOs, states, and epistemic communities. It should be expected that
the ENGOs that perform all four roles are the most influential ones.
Moreover, an ENGO’s capacity to influence regime development depends
on its organizational resources (staff, finances, expertise, etc.) and on its
strategy. 26 The four hypotheses differ significantly from those of prominent
approaches to regime analysis, and to some extent also from recent
studies on ENGOs and international environmental politics.
Conclusions
I have shown that the case of the global radwaste disposal ban contradicts
claims made about regime change in power-based, interest-based, and
knowledge-based regime analyses. I have, in addition, shown that the
empirical findings do not confirm propositions suggested by prominent
recent studies of ENGOs and international environmental politics. To gain
a better grasp of the sources of ENGOs’ influence on international environmental
regimes, I have suggested four hypotheses as to how ENGOs
influence regime development by mobilizing international public opinion,
building transnational environmental coalitions, monitoring compliance,
and advocating a precautionary approach to environmental protection.
The case of radwaste disposal raises some fundamental questions about
the roles of ENGOs and, more generally, whether some environmental issue
areas and regimes are particularly susceptible to the involvement of
ENGOs. The four hypotheses about ENGOs’ roles in regime development
are supported by this case and by other cases. The significance of ENGOs’
monitoring of government policies and regimes is noted in some of the analytical
literature on ENGOs, but it is not fully acknowledged that ENGOs