Volume 11, No 2.

The role of ICT in strengthening United Nations–civil society relations

Evika Karamagioli

The participation of civil society in global governance has expanded dramatically during the past decade. Due to their high commitment and expertise, civil society representatives have been instrumental in directing international attention to the importance of sustainable development, poverty eradication and the protection of human rights. Some of the most important milestones in global policy would not have been possible without the active involvement and support of civil society.¹

According to the UN, civil society is described as the associational activity of citizens (outside their families, friends and workplaces) that is entered into voluntarily to advance their interests, ideas, ideals and ideologies. It does not include associational activities of people for profit-making purposes (the private sector) or for governing (the state or public sector). Components of civil society relevant to the UN include:

* Mass organisations – formally constituted organisations which are mostly (but not always) membership based and which represent the interests of particular population groups. The most important of these within the UN system are organisations representing women, children and youth, peasants, the unemployed, indigenous people, the elderly, and disabled people.

* Trades-related organisations – membership organisations representing people through the profession or means of employment they pursue. The most important of these within the UN system are: trade unions and their international umbrella federations; professional associations representing employees in the health, education, legal and other professional fields; the scientific and technological community; farmers’ associations/unions; and producer cooperatives (though some are akin to business partnerships and fit better into the private sector).

* Faith-based organisations – mostly membership-based religious organisations either dedicated to worship or to the advancement of a creed or something ancillary to such a cause. The most important of these within the UN system are international umbrellas of faith and inter-faith organisations, and development organisations linked to particular faiths.

* Academe – communities of scholars, researchers, intellectuals and other academics. Many of these (particularly think tanks and specialised centres within universities) are interested in particular UN activities, some simply study these activities, while others have an ideological or advocacy bent and seek to influence such issues, particularly the think tanks, which may receive funding from commercial or other interested parties.

* Public benefit NGOs – organisations formed to provide a benefit to the general public or the world at large either through the provision of specific services or through advocacy. Most are membership organisations that recruit those who share the common interest, and are mostly considered philanthropic or public service organisations because their programs reach well beyond their members. Examples include: organisations involved in environmental, developmental, volunteering, human rights or reproductive rights issues; consumer groups and cooperatives; disarmament organisations; anti-corruption watchdog organisations; and international networks of like-minded NGOs. The mainstream international development NGOs comprise the one category among these that conspicuously is not generally membership based.

* Social movements and campaign networks – mass and loose associations of people who share common experiences or ‘framings’ and who elect to work together to redress identified wrongs. Examples include the landless peasant movements, the anti-globalisation movement, the Tobin-Tax movement and the feminist movement. There is overlap in this category with mass organisations and public benefit NGOs.²

Such organisations have always been key partners of the UN at the national level in both development work and the delivery of humanitarian assistance, and are making increasingly important contributions to global policy debates and intergovernmental deliberation in areas ranging from the environment to gender mainstreaming.

In the October 2004 UN General Assembly’s joint debate on UN reform and revitalisation of the Assembly’s work, there was general agreement among nearly 40 speakers and national representatives that enhancing the participation of NGOs would ensure better spread and implementation of UN initiatives on the ground. It would also help with development efforts, humanitarian assistance and peace and security.³

The proliferation of transborder economic, social and political interdependencies has significantly diminished the autonomy of the nation-state and made international cooperation a prerequisite for effective policy making in many areas,⁴ thereby vastly expanding the role of non-state actors.

Civil society organisations have also gained significant weight in the political process for historical (CEE 80s) and functional (growing appreciation as partner for implementing policies, information providers and generators of social cohesion and trust) reasons and the normative role they play.

The role of NGOs has been described in the original UN Charter. Article 71 states that the Economic and Social Council ‘may make suitable arrangements for consultation with non-governmental organisations which are concerned with matters within its competence’. NGOs can table their views on social and economic matters but lack a voice in the UN’s powerful political organs (the General Assembly and the Security Council).⁵

Thousands of civil society organisations (CSOs) today participate in the major UN conferences and in many other UN activities, such as the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), the Economic Commission for Europe, the Commission on Human Rights, the General Assembly, the Security Council, summits and special sessions, the Office for the Coordination for Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), UNAIDS and other emerging coalitions, the International Criminal Court, and ECOSOC’s Permanent Forum for Indigenous Issues.

Civil society interaction with the UN and influence on global governance is diverse, ranging from advocacy and public protest to consultation and partnership with different agencies and programs.⁶

Modes of CSO influence in the UN can be defined on three axes:⁷

* Operational engagement and partnership

* Influencing policies and policy dialogue

* Influencing processes of governance in international institutions.

The presence of civil society in the UN has always been characterised by a paradox: the willingness of member states and the UN to allow participation on the one hand, and their desire to keep it firmly under control on the other.

Civil society actors feel they are not taken sufficiently seriously by governments and the UN secretariat; they feel that the diversity they represent is undervalued and that their input to decision-making is marginal. This creates dislocations and dissonance, provoking tension between civil society and UN member states.

Civil society representatives expect the UN to empower and support civil society organisations, given its mandate as described in the UN Charter. They demand that they be considered not only as stakeholders in governance but also as a driving force behind greater international cooperation through the active mobilisation of public support for international agreements.⁸

Civil society’s formal access to the UN (accreditation) is seen as a politicised, lengthy and bureaucratic process, while access to UN buildings and meetings is more restrictive than it was a few years ago. Therefore civil society representatives demand that the UN be more proactive with its information dissemination and outreach, to welcome newer types of civil society actors, such as social movements, into its work, to ensure balance in access between civil society and the private sector (the latter is perceived to have privileged access) as well as to coordinate and streamline accreditation procedures and clarify the rules of engagement across the multiplicity of bodies and organs.⁹

As part of his reform agenda for enabling the UN to respond to the new demands of the 21st century, the Secretary-General of the UN, Kofi Annan, has noted the growing interaction between the UN and civil society and has foreshadowed measures to strengthen this relationship. For the Secretary-General, engaging with civil society is a necessity not an option, in order to identify global priorities (transparency, accountability, etc) and to mobilise all resources available in achieving the UN’s multiple goals.

In 2003 the Secretary-General appointed Mr Fernando Enrique Cardoso, former President of Brazil, to chair the Panel of Eminent Persons on United Nations–Civil Society Relations (consisting of 12 eminent persons drawn from both the governmental and the non-governmental sectors), with charge of exploring the potential of UN relations with civil society.¹⁰ The Panel’s main task was to review existing guidelines, decisions and practices that affect civil society organisations’ access to and participation in UN processes.

The Panel’s key observation was that, although the relationship between the UN and NGOs is as old as the Charter itself, the system for facilitating interaction between the UN and civil society needs to be strengthened. The UN must become more outward-looking, expanding its global reach and influence, and needs to do more to connect the global with the local so that people felt that their agenda is the UN’s agenda.

In its report the Panel proposed a radically new approach to the UN’s relationship with NGOs, giving priority to participation in the context of ‘multi-stakeholder dialogues’ rather than in terms of NGO input to multilateral decisions. The Panel sees a mode of future international cooperation that goes beyond the traditional multilateralism of nation states, arguing that global problems have reached dimensions that go beyond the competences and capacities of national governments. Government and international organisations are no longer able to address alone those global policy issues. Therefore the business sector and civil society must actively engage in global governance.¹¹

The Panel also makes two important appeals: firstly the UN must become even more outward looking, expanding its global reach and influence, and secondly the UN needs to do more to connect the global with the local so that people feel that their agenda is the UN’s agenda.

In a letter transmitting the report to the General Assembly, the Secretary-General welcomed the Panel’s valuable contribution to the UN reform process, and asked member states to give it careful consideration in expanding and deepening a relationship with NGOs that will further strengthen both the UN and intergovernmental debates on issues of global importance.¹²

It is obvious that promoting civil society participation within UN processes means actively soliciting the ideas, opinions and resources of civil society. The traditional intergovernmental process – with governments negotiating a global agreement that UN agencies and member states then implement – is being supplemented by ‘global policy networks’ that bring together constituencies such as local governments, civil society and business, along with central governments, in joint initiatives for policy analysis and action. These changes impel the UN to reach out beyond its core membership of central governments, although remaining essentially a multilateral intergovernmental body in terms of decision-making.

Procedurally, networks can be involved through an array of UN-sponsored fora: interactive high-level roundtables to survey issues; global conferences to define norms and targets and initiate action; multi-stakeholder partnerships to actualise norms and targets; multi-stakeholder hearings to monitor compliance and revise strategies; and global public policy committees to engage specialist parliamentarians.

The report also argues for a realignment of the relationship between the global and the local in the UN’s work. From an approach that is largely top-down — global agreements transmitted to governments for national implementation — the Panel seeks more of a two-way street. The UN, governments and a range of civil society actors would collaborate on strategies for translating global agreements into programs relevant to the national context, while pushing the lessons learned from national processes upward to inform the setting of the global agenda.

The UN should be more active in tackling the ‘democracy deficits’ to which global governance is prone, the report says: in 21st century democracy, public opinion, reverberating globally via digital communications, is emerging as a powerful force in shaping policies and priorities. Better incorporation of civil society and strengthening the role of parliamentarians in international deliberations would address a primary inconsistency in today’s political world – that the substance of politics is increasingly international, while the process of politics (how decisions are formulated) remains primarily national. The Panel also states that international organisations should be more accountable and transparent, and supports the idea of a central office to oversee the various forms of interaction of civil society organisations with the UN.

Strengthening the UN engagement with civil society is a win-win proposition for all parties concerned, as:

* member states can draw on the manifold resources of NGOs in determining policy options as well as implementing them

* The UN will gain state and popular support as the legitimate intergovernmental body to address global challenges, and

* Civil society, notably NGOs, will benefit by seeing their aspirations met more effectively through collective action at local, national and global levels.¹³

Civil society involvement in global governance cannot be legislated into existence or imposed. The UN has a crucial role to play in making sure that its own structures and mechanisms are open to participation and serve as role models for the rest of the international community:¹⁴

The legitimacy of civil society organisations derives from what to do and not from whom they represent or from any kind of external mandate. The power of civil society is its capacity to argue, to propose, to experiment, to denounce but not the power to decide. Such legitimacy is, by definition a work in progress. It is gained in the arena of public debate and must be continually renewed and revitalised.¹⁵

Dialogue and deliberation are the only two accepted dynamic processes that can produce generally accepted rules and norms. The UN, the only forum entitled to produce rules of universal acceptance, uses a variety of communication technologies to get its message across to the world, from print to radio, television and the internet.

New information technologies can become vital tools for participatory democracy which can transform and enhance the relationship between the UN and civil society, as they enable social actors to participate in decision-making processes and offer a unique opportunity to deepen and broaden democratic dialogue among all social actors at local, national and global levels.¹⁶ Such new technologies include online consultation, online posting of proceedings, and automated notification of feedback deadlines.

Information and communication are the foundation for transparency, debate and decision-making. They can contribute to a culture and practice of cooperation, the basis for a renewal of democracy. They offer potential benefits to the world’s communities.

A democratic system has a whole range of key components, including an active civil society, a body of protected rights and freedoms (including freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and a free press), the rule of law, free and fair elections and a culture of democracy. And, as the Director General of UNESCO, Koichiro Matsuura, has stated:

The Internet can facilitate the ability of citizens to gather information about campaign issues, to mobilise community networks, to create diverse coalitions around the policy problems and to lobby elected representatives. It has also the potential to foster dialogue and consultation between citizens and government, between citizens and political parties and between groups of citizens, by which government and social representatives seek to understand people’s needs and in which citizens seek to contribute actively with their knowledge.¹⁷

Further, according to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

ICTs have the potential to make government more accessible, to make decision making processes more open and to reduce the distance between authorities and individuals as well as to provide the means for people with similar claims to group together and organise. This helps promote the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs – the basis of a democratic Information Society.¹⁸

ICTs have the potential to catalyse the release of the enormous financial, technical, human and moral resources required.

They can provide assistance in three-level participation, which, according to OECD principles, is defined as: information consultation and active participation, including the means to be informed; the mechanisms to take part in the decision-making process; and the ability to contribute and influence the policy agenda.¹⁹

Harnessing strategically the power of information and communication technologies can serve as an accelerator and enabler to the realisation of the UN’s goals and commitments.²⁰

The UN itself will need to enhance its capacity to create, share and disseminate knowledge and be able to function efficiently and effectively in the emerging knowledge-based world economy.

Access to information is necessary for the citizen to know about policies that affect them, to understand the options available and to be able to gather the necessary information to make an informed opinion.

Public participation is necessary for citizens to be able to make their voice known to relevant authorities on a particular policy.

Together they form the two-way interaction of democratic accountability. The emphasis is placed on more effective use of information technology (including internet and web) to respond to the challenges of the interface between intergovernmental and civil society bodies in the light of the attitudinal, quantitative and qualitative challenges above. It is significant that references to the use of internet and web technology in the discussion relating to participative democracy tend to reflect the traditional technophobia of intergovernmental institutions rather than the creative enthusiasm of civil society bodies that have been much empowered by it.

With the development of internet and related technologies, many of the above options can be expanded, either in a loose manner or in a highly regulated one. Such developments:

* can benefit rapidly from internet technology already in place

* allow for continuing exploration of more cost-effective and participative modes of communication

* can build on considerable experience with such possibilities within civil society networks (many owe their recent international success in a constrained resource environment to competent and innovative use of internet technology)

* allow very specific and practical meaning to be given, through electronic protocols, to the range of forms of communication (surveys, consultation, information, media, etc), project elaboration and project implementation.

Civil society is not only diverse and complex, it is also deeply divided on its political options and tactical approaches to several issues. Civic and community groups may also be advocates for causes that are deeply controversial and incompatible with universally accepted norms and principles.²¹ Furthermore, global civil society is uneven and unequal. It offers the possibility of voicing protest but also the possibility of muting other voices, and it cannot substitute for formal procedures that legitimate global institutions.

Although ICTs are recognised as powerful tools for enhancing citizens’ engagement in public policy-making, some lessons need to be learnt:

* ICTs influence global decision-making through expertise, analysis and advocacy but they are not the political decision-makers. Civil society participation must be complementary but not a substitute.²²

* Although the internet and new ICTs have greatly facilitated the creation of a global community of stakeholders who can participate in relevant discussions and networks, national boundaries appear to be weak. However they are essential not only for the implementation of global agreements and policies but also for setting local governance mechanisms for participation in global discussion.²³

* Technology is an enabler not the solution. Integration with traditional offline tools for access to information, consultation and public participation is needed to make the most of ICTs.

* The online provision of information is an essential precondition for engagement, but quantity does not mean quality.

* The barriers to greater online citizen engagement in policy-making are cultural, organisational and constitutional, not technological.

For an inclusive, participatory and peaceful information and communication society, national and international regulations for information and communication societies are necessary. Openness, transparency, accountability and the rule of law should be the guiding principles for the democratic governance of societies at all levels, from the local to the national and international.

It is essential that the development of information and communication societies be grounded in core principles that reflect a full awareness of the challenge to be met and the responsibility of different stakeholders. This includes a full recognition of the need to address gender concerns and to make a fundamental commitment to gender equality, non-discrimination and women’s empowerment, and to recognise these as non-negotiable and essential prerequisites to an equitable and people-centred development within information and communication societies.

Such a commitment means consciously redressing the effects of the intersection of unequal power relations in the social, economic and political spheres, which manifest in differential access, choice, opportunity, participation, status and control over resources between women and men and communities in terms of class, ethnicity, age, religion, race geographical location and development status.²⁴

Evika Karamagioli is currently grants and research coordinator for access2democracy, an NGO established in Athens and New York with the aim of promoting the principles and practice of participatory e-democracy in the global arena. She holds a bachelor in European law and a DEA in international security and defence from the University of Grenoble, France. For the past three years she has been working in the NGO sector designing and implementing institutional building and research projects funded from international and national development agencies (EuropeAid, UNDP, WorldBank, Hellenic Aid). She has also participated as a legal expert in the elaboration of a series of studies offering consultancy services in the field of public administration modernisation. From 2002 to 2004 she collaborated with the Athens Bar Association as project manager of research programs in the field of EU acquis implementation and coordinator of international conferences and scientific meetings. Her main areas of research interests include e-democracy, globalisation, NGOs, and civil society and its relationship to international law.

Notes

1. ‘World federation of United Nations Association WFUNA response to the Cardoso Report on Civil Society Relations with the UN’, www.un-ngls.org/UNreform.htm.

2. ‘The diversity of actors within the UN System’, www.un.org/reform/pdfs/categories.htm.

3. ‘General Assembly considers proposals to enhance UN–Civil Society Relations, Wider Reform of Organization’ Day One GA/10268’ Global Policy Forum Oct 4, 2004

4. R.O. Keohane & J.S. Nye (1977) Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition, Boston: Little Brown.

5. Resolution E/1996/31, adopted in July 1996 to replace Resolution 1296 of May 1968, governs the current arrangements for consultation with non-governmental organisations. Although it introduced some changes and foreshadowed more to come, the general framework of NGO status continues in a similar form. At the top are three levels of consultation with the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). This status allows some direct participation in the intergovernmental process. Below ECOSOC status there is ‘association’ with the Department of Public Information (DPI), which does not allow participation but does permit access to the UN. And finally there is accreditation to conferences and other one-off events, which can permit considerable participation and lobbying in informal sessions, but of course does not allow a continuing relationship with the UN.

6. 3rd volume of Civil Society Yearbook from LSE, Centre for the Study of Global Governance Source, www.lse.ac.uk/Depts/global/Yearbookoutline2003.htm.

7. ‘Modes of CSO influence in the UN’, www.un.org/reform/pdfs/modes.htm.

8. B. Cemmill & A. Bamidele-Iri (2002) ‘The role of NGOs and civil society in global environmental governance’, in D.C. Esty & M.H. Ivanova (eds) Global Environmental Governance: Options & Opportunities, Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy, www.yale.edu/environment/publications/geg/gemmill.pdf.

9. ‘UN System and Civil Society – An Inventory and Analysis of Practices’, Background Paper for the Secretary-General’s Panel of Eminent Persons on UN Relations with Civil Society, May 2003, www.un.org/reform/pdfs/hlp9.htm.

10. The other members of the Panel were Ambassador Bagher Asadi (Iran), Dr Manuel Castells (Spain), Ms Birgitta Dahl (Sweden), Ms Peggy Dulany (USA), Ambassador Andre Erdos (Hungary), Ms Asma Khader (Jordan), Mr Juan Mayr (Columbia), Ms Malini Mehra (India), Mr Kumi Naidoo (South Africa), Ms Mary Racelis (the Philippines), Mr Prakash Ratilal (Mozambique) and Ms Aminata Traore (Mali).

11. J. Martens & J. Paul (2004) ‘Comments on the Panel’s report’, Global Policy Forum, www.globalpolicy.org/reform/initiatives/panels/cardoso/08gpf.pdf.

12. ‘General Assembly Takes Up UN–Civil Society Relations’, Proceedings of the GA in response to the report of the Panel of Eminent Persons on UN–Civil Society Relations,
GA A/59/354, www.un-ngls.org/GAarticle.doc.

13. ‘Towards a consensus in shaping the future of United Nations–NGO relations: Clarification of some common concerns and apparent misunderstandings’, NGOs’ comments on the Panel’s proposition, www.un-ngls.org/joint-ngos-cardoso.pdf.

14. M. Edwards, ‘Civil Society and Global Governance’, www.unu.edu/millennium/edwards.pdf.

15. F.H. Cardoso (2003) ‘Civil Society and Global Governance’, Contextual paper, 13 June, www.un.org/reform/pdfs/cardosopaper13june.htm.

16. D. Zinnbauer (2001) ‘Internet, civil society and global governance: The neglected political dimension of the digital divide’, Development Studies Institute, London School of Economics, Information&Security, vol.7, pp.45-64.

17. K. Matsuura (2003) ‘Cyberspace, democracy and development,’ Opendemocracy.net, January, www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-8-85-915.jsp.

18. ‘Background Notice on the Information Society and Human Rights’, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, October 2003.

19. ‘Citizens as Partners: Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy making’, OECD (2001) www1.oecd.org/publications/e-book/4201131E.PDF.

20. R. Panganiban (2004) E-Democracy and the United Nations: Using Information Communications Technologies to increase access to information and participation within the UN System Center for United Nations Reform Education.

21. F.H. Cardoso (2003) ‘Civil Society and Global Governance’, Contextual paper, 13 June.

22. ‘Towards a consensus in shaping the future of United Nations–NGO relations: Clarification of some common concerns and apparent misunderstandings’, NGOs’ comments on the Panel’s proposition, www.un-ngls.org/joint-ngos-cardoso.pdf.

23. G. Sadowsky, R. Zambrano & P. Dandjiinou (2004) ‘Internet Governance: A Discussion’, Document prepared for the UN ICT Task Force, NU, USA March 15.

24. ‘Shaping Information Societies for Human Needs’, Civil Society Declaration to the World Summit on the Information Society, WSIS Civil Society Plenary Session, 8 December 2003, Geneva, www.wsis-cs.org.

REfERENCES

Concerning UN system/UN reform

Report of the Panel of Eminent Persons on United Nations-Civil Society Relations. Report of the UN Secretary-General on the Proposals of the High Level Panel on Civil Society – Bios of the Panel Eminent Persons.

Contextual paper prepared by the Panel’s Chairman Fernando Henrique Cardoso, ‘UN System and Civil Society – An Inventory and Analysis of Practices’, Background Paper for the Secretary-General’s Panel of Eminent Persons on United Nations Relations with Civil
Society.

Collection of Materials from the Multi-Stakeholder Workshop on Partnerships and UN–Civil Society Relationships, edited by Zehra Aydin – Summary.

Strategic Partnership: Challenges and Best Practices in the Management and Governance of Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships Involving UN and Civil Society Actors – by Carmen Malena.

Report of the Secretary-General – ‘Views of Member States, members of the specialized agencies, observers, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations from all regions on the report of the Secretary-General on arrangements and practices for the interaction of non-governmental organizations in all activities of the United Nations system.’ A/54/329: Sept 8, 1999.

Following the release of the Panel’s report, NGOs prepared statements in response to the Panel’s recommendations. Several of these statements, available below, were delivered in writing to the Deputy Secretary-General from August to October 2004:

Amnesty International, Baha’I International Community, Quakers, Human Rights Watch, International Alliance for Women, International Service for Human Rights, and The Lutheran World Federation (Joint Statement), Conference of Non-Governmental Organizations (CONGO), Global Policy Forum (GPF), NGO Working Group on Women, Peace and Security, Third World Network (TWN), Women Environment Development Organization (WEDO), World Alliance for Citizen Participation (CIVICUS), World Federalist Movement (WFM), World Federation of United Nations Associations (WFUNA).

Declaration of principles UN Official declaration, December 2003.

Towards a consensus in shaping the future of United Nations – NGO Relations.

Comments on the Panel’s report from Jens Martens and Jamens Paul for Global Policy Forum.

Articles, books

Anderson, K. & Rieff, D. (2004) ‘Global civil society: A skeptical view’ in H. Anheier, M. Kaldor & M. Glasius (eds) Global Civil Society 2004/5, Sage: London.

Bartelson, J. (2000) ‘Three concepts of globalization’, International Sociology, vol.15, no.2, pp.180-196.

Bhagwati, J. (2004) In Defense of Globalization, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Boissonnade-Fotheringham, A. (2003) ‘Promoting Global Peace through the Web’, UN Chronicle Online.

Brack, A. & Noble, P. (2001) E-democracy around the World Survey for the Bertelsmann Foundation.

Cyberspace, Democracy and Development – Koïchiro Matsuura, Director-General of UNESCO Open Democracy net, January 2003.

Global Governance Initiative Report for the World Economic Forum (2004).

Haas, P.M. (1992) ‘Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination’, International Organization, 46:1, Winter.

Hirst, P. (2000) ‘Democracy and governance’, in J. Pierre (ed) Debating Governance, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Information and Communication Technology Strategy, UN report (2002).

Kaldor, M. (2003) Global Civil Society. An Answer to War, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Keane, J. (2003) Global Civil Society? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Keck, M. & Sikkink, K. (1998) Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics, Cornell University Press.

Lipschutz, R. (2004) ‘Global civil society, global governmentality, and the global environment’.

Monbiot, G. (2003) The Age of Consent, Flamingo.

Moore, M. (2003) A World Without Walls: Freedom, Development, Free-trade and Global Governance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Okot-Uma, R. (not dated) ‘Electronic Governance Re-inventing Good Governance’, www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/egov/Okot-Uma.pdf, London: Commonwealth Secretariat.

Panganiban, R. (2004) e-democracy and the United Nations: Using Information and communication technologies to increase access to information and participation within the UN Systems Center for United Nations Reform Education.

Risse-Kappen, T. (ed) (1995) Bringing Transnational Relations Back In: Non-State Actors, Domestic Structures and International Institutions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sassen, S. (2004) ‘Foreword’ in A. Drainville, Contesting Globalization: Space and Place in the World Economy, London: Routledge.

Seckinelgin, H. (2003) ‘HIV/AIDS, global civil society and people’s politics: An update’, in M. Kaldor, H. Anheier & M. Glasius (eds) Global Civil Society Yearbook 2003, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Shaw, M. (2000) Theory of the Global State: Globality as an Unfinished Revolution, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ullrich, H. (2002) ‘The WTO, civil society and the role of information in civil society’, in P. Hajnal (ed) Civil Society in the Information Age, Hampshire: Ashgate.

Wolf, M. (2004) Why Globalization Works, Yale University Press.

Workshops, seminars

Proceedings from the Princeton Colloqium on public and International Affairs: In the Services of all Nations? The role of NGO in global Governance and Society, April 2004.

Proceeding from the 39th Conference on the UN of the Next Decade Updating the UN to confront 21st Century threats, June 2004, Maine, USA.

Proceedings from the SGIR conference ‘Constructing World Orders’, The Hague, 9th-11th September 2004.

Proceedings from the Workshop ICT and Development, Agder University College, Kristiansand October 2004.