Corresponsabilidad Estado-sociedad civil internacional. Greenpeace España y el caso Prestige

Confines de relaciones internacionales y ciencia política 01/2008;

ABSTRACT State-international civil society co-responsibility. Greenpeace Spain and the oil tanker Prestige Nowadays it is possible to talk about state-civil society co-responsibility. Although the state is still the dominant actor of the international system, globalization has led it to a re-structuration process. International non-governmental organizations (INGOs) have begun to play a key role in the design of solutions to issues not entirely attended by the state. In this paper we argue that INGOs have addressed topics that affect the international commu¬nity—for instance, the environment—and have occasionally complemented the state’s functions. To demonstrate our thesis, we will analyze the Span¬ish authorities’ and Greenpeace’s reactions towards the environmental disaster caused by the oil tanker Prestige’s sinking off the coast of Galicia.Corresponsabilidad Estado-sociedad civil internacional. Greenpeace España y el caso Prestige*Hoy es posible hablar de una corresponsabilidad entre el Estado y la sociedad civil. Aunque el Estado sigue siendo el actor dominante del sistema internacional, el proceso de globalización lo ha llevado a una reestructuración tal, que actores como las organizaciones internacionales no guber¬namentales (OINGs) han comenzado a jugar un papel clave en la formulación de soluciones a problemáticas no atendidas en su totalidad por la figura estatal. De esta forma, mediante un análisis del desastre ambiental ocasionado por el hundimiento del buque petrolero Prestige en la costa de Galicia y la respuesta de las autoridades españolas y de Greenpeace ante dicha catástrofe, se intenta evidenciar cómo las OINGs se han preocupado por los temas que impactan a la comunidad internacional en este caso logrando complementar la función del Estado.

21 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The units of analysis of this comparative article are Amnesty International (AI) and the United Nations (UN). The purpose of comparison is to analyse the complementarity of IGOs and NGOs in the issue-area of human rights on the three dimensions of norm-generation, monitoring, and enforcement. The UN is a general-purpose IGO; AI is a single-purpose NGO. The international moral code is embodied in the UN Charter. Human rights is an outgrowth of Western liberalism; the United Nations is a meeting ground for all the world's civilizations. Human rights puts the welfare of individuals first; the UN puts the interests of member-states first. AI is of, by, and for individuals; the United Nations is of, by, and for governments. Arising from these differences, I argue that the United Nations as the world's preeminent IGO and Amnesty International as the world's most prominent human rights NGO play complementary roles. Specifically, the UN is more authoritative in a standard-setting and norm-generating role, but weak in monitoring and enforcement of state behaviour. Amnesty International, because of Western origins, narrowness of interest, and representational and accountability deficiencies, is not able to function as an authoritative expositor of universal human rights values. But its freedom from governments enables it to be an effective watchdog against human rights violations. The intergovernmental nature of the UN makes it an authoritative archive of formal reports from memberstates on human rights progress in their countries; the nongovernmental nature of Amnesty International gives greater objectivity to its reports on state practices in human rights. The article also challenges us to theorize NGOs: their roles, the implications for the state-based realist edifice of International Relations scholarship, and the inviolability of sovereign territory behind which human rights can be abused with impunity.
    Journal of Peace Research 05/1994; 31(2):143-160. DOI:10.1177/0022343394031002003 · 1.98 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Resulting from the Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project, this volume presents a comprehensive country-by-country analysis of the scope, size, composition, and financing of the civil society sector in 22 countries around the world.
    01/1999; Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies.


21 Reads
Available from