| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
194042
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In the first decades of the twentieth century, a vast network of transnational organizations operated as spaces of collaboration and informal diplomacy that brought together private and public actors across the Canadian-American border in the common pursuit of the protection, propagation, and protection of fisheries in their contiguous waters. At their meetings, the members of this constellation of groups strategized, shared the latest scientific research, and passed resolutions promoting their preferred solutions to the problems plaguing the Canadian-American fisheries. While the process of environmental conservation was anything but expedient – legislation and treaties could be blocked by political and economic concerns, and the ambiguity of shared natural resources complicated the process from its inception – the cumulative efforts of these organizations at the local, state, and provincial level paid dividends at the international level. By the end of the 1920s, the United States and Canada had engaged in a number of bilateral treaties which relied heavily on prominent members of these organizations and the knowledge accumulated over decades of meetings and networking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
092885
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Transnational rule-making organizations have proliferated in the area of sustainability politics. In this article, we explore why these organizations share a set of core features that appear overly costly at first sight. We argue that norms that evolved out of the social interaction among transnational rule-making organizations account for this phenomenon. Thus, in the early 1990s, an organizational field of transnational rule-making has gradually developed in the field of environmental politics. Responding to a broader social discourse about global governance that stressed a need for innovative forms of cooperation among different societal sectors, this organizational field gained in legitimacy and strength. A set of commonly accepted core norms, the increasing density of interaction among the field's members, and the success and legitimacy ascribed to the field's key players by the outside world helped to solidify the organizational field until it eventually developed a 'life of its own'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|