Negotiating the Opening of International Organizations to Non-State Actors: The Case of the World Health Organization
In: International NegotiationSearch for other papers by Auriane Guilbaud in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
Based on empirical fieldwork, this article analyzes the negotiation of a Framework of Engagement with Non-State Actors (FENSA) at the World Health Organization (WHO) between 2011 and 2016. The study examines the long and difficult negotiation process, which shifts from a mere adaptation of guidelines by the WHO Secretariat to an intergovernmental negotiation led by a core group of Member States. This negotiation process cannot simply be explained by traditional dialogues among delegations and hierarchical relationships within international organizations. Other factors played important roles in the process as well – the high political stakes of the issue, non-traditional coalition games, heterogeneity among the actors, and the WHO Secretariat’s role as a negotiating party – all advocating for the development of a triangular, multi-voice negotiation model within international organizations.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Beigbeder, Yves (2017). The World Health Organization, Achievements and Failures. London: Routledge.
-
Belém-Lopes, Dawisson (2016). “Polyarchies, Competitive Oligarchies or Inclusive Hegemonies? A Comparison of 23 Global Intergovernmental Organizations Based on Robert Dahl’s Political Theory.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 20, 4: 1233–1258.
-
Biermann, Franck and Bernd Siebenhüner, editors (2009). Managers of Global Change: The Influence of International Environmental Bureaucracies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
-
Bonditti, Philippe, Auriane Guilbaud, Médéric Martin-Mazé, and Florent Pouponneau (2019). “Approches Sociologiques des Relations Internationales,” in Alex MacLeod and Philippe Bonditti, editors, Relations Internationales. Théories et Concepts, 4e édition. Outremont, Québec : Athéna éditions.
-
Chorev, Nitsan (2012). The World Health Organization between North and South. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
-
Cohen, Deborah and Philip Carter (2010). “WHO and the Pandemic Flu ‘Conspiracies.’” British Medical Journal 340: 1274–1279.
-
Da Silva Fedatto, Maria (2020). Conflict of Interests or Transparency at the World Health Organization? PhD Thesis. University of Sao Paulo and King’s College London.
-
Delreux, Tom and Johan Adriaensen, editors (2017). The Principal Agent Model and the European Union. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
-
Elsig, Manfred (2010). “Principal–agent Theory and the World Trade Organization: Complex Agency and ‘Missing Delegation.’” European Journal of International Relations 20, 10: 1–23.
-
Ermand, Eva and Anders Uhlin, editors (2010). Legitimacy Beyond the State? Re-examining the Democratic Credentials of Transnational Actors. Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan.
-
Felkner, Konstantin (2016). WHO’s Draft Framework of Engagement with Non-State Actors (FENSA). Master Thesis. University of Copenhagen.
-
Guilbaud, Auriane (2015). Business Partners. Firmes Privées et Gouvernance Mondiale de la Santé. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.
-
Guilbaud, Auriane (2017). “Transferts et Continuités de la Politisation à l’Organisation Mondiale de la Santé: Le Cas des Substituts du Lait Maternel.” Critique Internationale 76: 101–119.
-
Guilbaud, Auriane (2023). “Le Travail des Frontières Sociales au Sein des Organisations Internationales: Taxonomie et Résistances.” Swiss Review of Sociology 49, 1: 103–121.
-
Hanrieder, Tine and Adam Kamradt-Scott, editors (2017). “Reform of the World Health Organization.” Global Health Governance 11, 1.
-
Hawkins, Darren G., David A. Lake, Daniel L. Nielson, and Michael J. Thierney, editors (2006). Delegation and Agency in International Organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Heldt, Eugénia (2017). “Regaining Control of Errant Agents? Agency Slack at the European Commission and the World Health Organization.” Cooperation and Conflict 52, 4: 469–484.
-
Irwin, Rachel and Richard Smith (2019). “Rituals of Global Health: Negotiating the World Health Assembly.” Global Public Health 14, 2: 161–174.
-
Jönsson, Christer and Jonas Tallberg, editors (2010). Transnational Actors in Global Governance: Patterns, Explanations, and Implications. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
-
Kickbusch, Ilona, Wolfgang Hein, and Gaudenz Silberschmidt (2010). “Addressing Global Health Governance Challenges through a New Mechanism: The Proposal for a Committee C of the World Health Assembly.” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38, 3: 550–563.
-
Kickbusch, Ilona, et al. (2017). “Germany’s Expanding Role in Global Health.” The Lancet 390, 10097: 898–912.
-
Kimber, Leah R. (2023). “Civil Society at the United Nations through the Lens of Organizational Sociology: Exclusion and Temporariness.” Swiss Review of Sociology 49, 1: 9–20.
-
Miller, Gary J. (2005). “The Political Evolution of Principal-Agent Models.” Annual Review of Political Science 8: 203–225.
-
Nay, Olivier (2021). “L’ouverture des Organisations Internationales. Trois Interprétations Sociologiques,” in Delphine Lagrange, Marieke Louis and Olivier Nay, editors, Le Tournant Social de L’international. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.
-
Nielson, Daniel L. and M. J. Tierney (2003). “Delegation to International Organizations: Agency Theory and World Bank Environmental Reform.” International Organization 57, 2: 241–276.
-
Orsini, Amandine and Daniel Compagnon (2013). “Les Acteurs Non-étatiques dans les Négociations Multilatérales,” in Franck Petiteville and Delphine Placidi-Frot, editors, Négociations Internationales. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.
-
Orsini, Amandine (2016). “The Negotiation Burden of Institutional Interactions: Non-state Organizations and the International Negotiations on Forests.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 29, 4: 1421–1440.
-
Petiteville, Franck and Delphine Placidi-Frot, editors (2013). Négociations Internationales. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.
-
Pollack, Mark A. (2003). The Engines of European Integration: Delegation, Agency, and Agenda Setting in the EU. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Reinalda, Bob and Verbeek Bertjan, editors (1998). Autonomous Policy Making by International Organizations. London: Routledge.
-
Reinalda, Bob (2020). International Secretariats: Two Centuries of International Civil Servants and Secretariats. London: Routledge.
-
Seitz, Karoline (2016). FENSA – A Fence against Undue Corporate Influence? The New Framework of Engagement with Non-State Actors at the World Health Organization. Global Policy Forum Europe e.V., At: https://www.brot-fuer-die-welt.de/fileadmin/mediapool/2_Downloads/Fachinformationen/Sonstiges/Briefing_0916_FENSA.pdf.
-
Strobl, Stephanie (2022). “Rethinking Institutional Independence: The WHO as a Challenged Institution.” Global Governance 28: 125–144.
-
Tallberg, Jonas, Thomas Sommerer, Theresa Squatrilo, and Christer Jönsson (2013). The Opening Up of International Organizations: Transnational Access in Global Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Tieku, Thomas Kwasi, Jarle Trondal and Stefan Gänzle (2022). “The Behavioural Logics of International Public Servants: The Case of African Union Commission Staff.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs, DOI: 10.1080/09557571.2022.2126746.
-
UN Joint Inspection Unit and Petru Dumitriu (2017). The United Nations System: Private Sector Partnerships Arrangements in the Context of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Geneva: JUI/REP/2017/8.
-
Van de Pas, Remco and L. G. Van Schaik (2014). “Democratizing the World Health Organization.” Public Health 128: 195–201.
-
Whall, Helena and Allison Pytlak (2014). “The Role of Civil Society in the International Negotiations on the Arms Trade Treaty.” Global Policy 5, 4: 453–468.
-
WHO Secretariat. (2004). Policy for Relations with Nongovernmental Organizations. Note by the Director-General. Doc. A57/32 (April 1).
-
WHO Secretariat (2015). Implication of Implementing the Framework of Engagement with Non-State Actors. Non-paper [disponible en ligne]. (October 14).
-
WHO Secretariat. (2016). FENSA – Report of the Director General – External Audit Report. A/FENSA/OEIGM/4. (March 30).
-
WHO, World Health Assembly 69 (2016). Framework of Engagement with Non-State Actors. WHA69.10. (May 28).
-
WHO Secretariat. (2020). Engagement with Non-State Actors. Report on the Implementation of the Framework of Engagement with Non-State Actors. EB148/39. (December 23).
-
Youde, Jeremy (2018). Global Health Governance in International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 338 | 259 | 9 |
| Full Text Views | 342 | 16 | 3 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 555 | 120 | 19 |
Negotiating the Opening of International Organizations to Non-State Actors: The Case of the World Health Organization
In: International NegotiationSearch for other papers by Auriane Guilbaud in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
Based on empirical fieldwork, this article analyzes the negotiation of a Framework of Engagement with Non-State Actors (FENSA) at the World Health Organization (WHO) between 2011 and 2016. The study examines the long and difficult negotiation process, which shifts from a mere adaptation of guidelines by the WHO Secretariat to an intergovernmental negotiation led by a core group of Member States. This negotiation process cannot simply be explained by traditional dialogues among delegations and hierarchical relationships within international organizations. Other factors played important roles in the process as well – the high political stakes of the issue, non-traditional coalition games, heterogeneity among the actors, and the WHO Secretariat’s role as a negotiating party – all advocating for the development of a triangular, multi-voice negotiation model within international organizations.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 338 | 259 | 9 |
| Full Text Views | 342 | 16 | 3 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 555 | 120 | 19 |