For class.

In all but the last few decades, international relations theorists had been loath to consider the effects of domestic factors, or even any non-state actors on international affairs. One thinks of Stalin's quip when he asked to consider an appeal to Catholics and the Vatican: "The Pope! How many divisions has he got?"

The authors first discuss the idea of Transnational Agency Networks, arguing that they have become more potent due to recent technological advances in communications, and the activist legacies from the 1940s (Declaration of Human Rights) onward - although their history goes back earlier. Such organizations are bound by common norms and values (difficult to maintain at times on an international scale), and not necessary by market interests or power, as liberal or realist-IR theories would claim.

Although such TANs have little power in the traditional sense, they can work by holding guilty figures accountable, 'shaming' or condemning agencies which aim to retain international approval, and picking visible, simple, targets which serve as a catalyst for international action. The two causes which most work are those which cause physical harm to a certain group (poisoned food and genital mutilation are the main examples), and those which are a systemic denial of opportunity (voting).

Case studies include groups protesting totalitarianism and police actions in Argentina and Mexico, womens' rights groups, and environmentalists.

An interesting look at another factor one must consider when creating policy. ( )