Lost Causes: Agenda Vetting in Global Issue Networks and the Shaping of Human Security
Abstract
Why do some issues and threats—diseases, weapons, human rights abuses, vulnerable populations—get more global policy attention than others? How do global activist networks decide the particular causes for which they advocate among the many problems in need of solutions? According to this book, the answer lies in the politics of global issue networks themselves. Building on surveys, focus groups, and analyses of issue network websites, the book concludes that network access has a direct relation to influence over how issues are ranked. Advocacy elites in nongovernmental and transnational organizations judge candidate issues not just on their merit but on how the issues connect to specific organizations, individuals, and even other issues. The book describes three case studies of emerging campaigns to show these dynamics at work: banning infant male circumcision; compensating the wartime killing and maiming of civilians; and prohibiting the deployment of fully autonomous weapons (so-called killer robots). The fate of each of these campaigns was determined not just by the persistence and hard work of entrepreneurs but by advocacy elites' perception of the issues' network ties.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Northern NGOs remain as the primary gatekeepers determining what issues become the focus of civil society campaigns.
“Nevertheless, northern NGOs remain as the primary gatekeepers determining what issues (e.g. landmines as opposed to thermobaric weapons) become the focus of civil society campaigns (Carpenter 2014).”
From Race, Sovereignty, and Free Trade: Arms Trade Regulation and Humanitarian Arms Control in the Age of Empire (2018) · cites this paper as Carpenter 2014
Many contemporary HAC campaigns have been equally focused on controlling violence in the peripheries, and key groups such as the ICRC have actively sought to distance themselves from peace activists and antimilitarism so as to make HAC agendas more palatable to policy-makers.
“There are notable echoes here with many contemporary HAC campaigns which have been equally focussed on controlling violence in the peripheries and in which key groups such as the ICRC have actively sought to distance themselves from peace activists and antimilitarism so as to make HAC agendas more palatable to policy-makers (Carpenter 2014, 105 and 117).”
From Race, Sovereignty, and Free Trade: Arms Trade Regulation and Humanitarian Arms Control in the Age of Empire (2018) · cites this paper as Carpenter 2014, 105 and 117
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Toward Trustworthy AI Development: Mechanisms for Supporting Verifiable Claims
Brundage, M., Avin, S., Wang, J., Belfield, H., Krueger, G., Hadfield, G., Khlaaf, H., Yang, J., Toner, H., Fong, R., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2004.07213 · Cited by 306 · see citing works
Cooper, N. (2018) · Journal of Global Security Studies · doi:10.1093/jogss/ogy013 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
- Authors
- Carpenter, C.
- Corresponding author
- Carpenter, Charli
- ORCID
- Carpenter, Charli
- Venue
- Cornell University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Cornell University Press
- Published
- 2014-05-16
- OpenAlex
- W4253446406
- Cited by
- 127
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 12.84
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cornell University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Relations and Foreign Policy
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Historical and Contemporary Political Dynamics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policy Transfer and Learning
- Keywords
- issue salience, transnational advocacy networks, network access, non-governmental organizations
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review