The Politics of Advocacy: Setting and Vetting the Global Agenda

The Politics of Advocacy: Setting and Vetting the Global Agenda
Campaign to Stop Killer Robots rally in London, April 23, 2013 (Photo by Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license).

In April 2013, outside the steps of Parliament in London, a group of nongovernmental organizations launched a new campaign to ban the use of fully autonomous weapons. Political entrepreneurs calling themselves the International Committee for Robot Arms Control had been raising concern over this issue since 2004, but their calls for a killer robot ban had been virtually ignored by the advocacy community. Things changed dramatically in 2012 when the well-known NGO Human Rights Watch published a report calling for such a ban. Within a month, nine well-known human security organizations had joined the steering committee for a new campaign. In April 2013, 30 NGOs showed up to a London conference on the topic prior to the launch of what was widely hailed as the “next landmine ban campaign.” By mid-May, 29 organizations had officially joined a growing list of signatories. Since then, “killer robots” have been creating the biggest “human security” buzz since cluster munitions, with a U.N. conference this year leading to ongoing discussions among governments.

What happened between 2004 and 2012? Why did well-known organizations like Human Rights Watch pay so little attention to autonomous weapons for so long, despite lobbying from norm entrepreneurs, and why did this change? Why did other human security organizations avoid the issue for so long but join the campaign so readily once Human Rights Watch took the lead? And why did humanitarian campaigners set their sights on banning a category of weapons that doesn’t yet exist and about which the public is barely aware, rather than banning, for example, depleted uranium munitions, said to harm the health of thousands in conflict zones, or pilotless drones, an issue with widespread resonance in the public eye?

In my new book “‘Lost’ Causes: Agenda Vetting in Global Issue Networks and the Shaping of Human Security,” I trace the origins of this campaign as part of an answer to a bigger question: Why do some issues and not others attract global policy attention? The Campaign to Stop Killer Robots is but one of many cases discussed in the book, but it illustrates two truths about global advocacy work and raises two equally important questions.

Keep reading for free!

Get instant access to the rest of this article by submitting your email address below. You'll also get access to three articles of your choice each month and our free newsletter:

Or, Subscribe now to get full access.

Already a subscriber? Log in here .

What you’ll get with an All-Access subscription to World Politics Review:

A WPR subscription is like no other resource — it’s like having a personal curator and expert analyst of global affairs news. Subscribe now, and you’ll get:

  • Immediate and instant access to the full searchable library of tens of thousands of articles.
  • Daily articles with original analysis, written by leading topic experts, delivered to you every weekday.
  • Regular in-depth articles with deep dives into important issues and countries.
  • The Daily Review email, with our take on the day’s most important news, the latest WPR analysis, what’s on our radar, and more.
  • The Weekly Review email, with quick summaries of the week’s most important coverage, and what’s to come.
  • Completely ad-free reading.

And all of this is available to you when you subscribe today.