Assessing the Small Arms Movement: The trials and tribulations of a transnational network

Abstract

For nearly ten years, nongovernmental actors have raised concerns about the increased accessibility of small arms and light weapons around the world. By the late 1990s, hundreds of these nongovernmental actors began to coalesce together in an effort to enhance awareness, conduct research and affect policy relevant to small arms issues. How did this NGO coalition emerge? How does it operate? How effective has it been? Where is it headed? To answer these questions we seek to assess the structure and activities of the SAM based on existing understandings of transnational social movements. We focus specifically on the emergence, structure and effectiveness of the SAM—a movement that has, according to many of its participants, founders and observers, struggled over its years of operation to achieve its objectives. Moreover, we offer a comparative analysis of the successful International Campaign to Ban Landmines in an effort to demonstrate similarities and differences in the two transnational organizations. Our findings lead to a number of recommendations we believe the SAM should heed to become more effective.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Carl Albert Center, the College of Arts and Sciences, and the School of International and Area Studies at the University of Oklahoma for their financial support of this project. We also thank Cassady Craft, Stephen Hill, Aaron Karp, Ed Laurance, Lisa Misol, Reneé deNevers, Ken Rutherford, Rachel Stohl and Jeremy Youde for their comments on earlier drafts.

Notes

1. One of the first known nongovernmental commentaries on the issue of small arms was published in 1996. See Edward J. Laurance, The New Field of Microdisarmament: Addressing the Proliferation and Buildup of Small Arms and Light Weapons (Bonn: Bonn International Center for Conversion, September 1996).

2. To us, the small arms movement (SAM) refers to the collective of nongovernmental actors involved in highlighting the importance of targeting specific action on small arms issues. This movement includes a host of policy, advocacy and research NGOs, individual experts, analysts, and academics. At the center of the movement is the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), which consists of over 500 loosely connected NGOs and individuals involved in small arms research and/or advocacy. Although comprised of a large number of organizations, IANSA is only a part of the small arms movement and does not speak for all of its members with any authority. What binds these actors together and moves them to act is their concern about small arms as a problem for human, national, and international security.

3. For example, see Ann Florini (ed.), The Third Force: The Rise of Transnational Civil Society (Tokyo and Washington, DC: Japan Center for International Change and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1999); Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998); Sanjeev Khagram, James V. Riker and Kathryn Sikkink (eds.), Restructuring World Politics: Transnational Social Movements, Networks and Norms (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2002); Ann Marie Clark, Diplomacy of Conscience: Amnesty International and Changing Human Rights Norms (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001); Michael Edwards and David Hulme (eds.), Beyond the Magic Bullet: NGO Performance and Accountability in the Post-Cold War World (West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press, 1996); Craig Warkentin, Reshaping World Politics: NGOs, the Internet, and Global Civil Society (Lanham, MD: Roman and Littlefield Publishers, 2001); and Mari Fitzduff and Cheyanne Church, NGOs at the Table: Strategies for Influencing Policies in Areas of Conflict (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2004).

4. For exceptions, see Fitzduff and Church, NGOs at the Table; and Richard Price, Reversing the Gun Sights: Transnational Civil Society Targets Land Mines', International Organization, Vol.52, No.3 (Summer 1998), pp.613–644.

5. For example see Keck and Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders.

6. See John Clark, ‘Introduction: Civil Society and Transnational Action’, in John Clark (ed.), Globalizing Civic Engagement: Civil Society and Transnational Action (London: Earthscan, 2003), pp.1–28; and W. Lance Bennett, ‘Social Movements Beyond Borders: Understanding Two Eras of Transnational Activism’, in Donatella della Porta and Sidney Tarrow (eds.), Transnational Protest and Global Activism (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005), pp.203–226. Jackie Smith and Joe Bandy also emphasize ‘the diversity of organizational structures’ and their impact on the work of transnational coalitions. See Jackie Smith and Joe Bandy, ‘Introduction: Cooperation and Conflict in Transnational Protest’, in Joe Bandy and Jackie Smith (eds.), Coalitions Across Borders: Transnational Protest and the Neoliberal Order (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005), p.9.

7. <www.icbl.org/tools/faq/campaign/role> (accessed 22 June 2005).

8. A few network studies have highlighted the rational, instrumental and material strategies employed by NGO actors. See, for example, Alexander Cooley and James Ron, ‘The NGO Scramble: Organizational Insecurity and the Political Economy of Transnational Action’, International Security, Vol.27, No.1 (Summer 2002), pp.5–39; Susan K. Sell and Aseem Prakash, ‘Using Ideas Strategically: The Contest Between Business and NGO Networks in Intellectual Property Rights’, International Studies Quarterly, Vol.48 (2004), pp.143–175; and Thomas J. Ward, Development, Social Justice, and NGOs: The Political Economy of NGOs (St. Paul, MN: Paragon House, 2000).

9. For exceptions, see Tadashi Yamamoto, Emerging Civil Society in the Asia Pacific Community (Singapore and Japan: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies and Japan Center for International Exchange, 1995); Donatella della Porta, ‘Multiple Belongings, Tolerant Identities and the Construction of “Another Politics”: Between the European Social Forum and the Local Social Fora’, in della Porta and Tarrow (eds.), Transnational Protest and Global Activism, pp.175–202; and Ken Rutherford, ‘The Hague and Ottawa Conventions: A Model for Future Weapons Prohibition Regimes’, The Nonproliferation Review, Vol.6, No.3 (Spring/Summer 1999), pp.36–50.

10. Michael Edwards and David Hume, Beyond the Magic Bullet: NGO Accountability in the Post-Cold War World (West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press, 1996).

11. A United Nations 16-member Panel of Governmental Experts on Small Arms identifies small arms and light weapons as the following: assault rifles, pistols, sub-machine guns, light machine guns, mortars, portable anti-aircraft guns, grenade launchers, anti-tank missile and rocket systems, hand grenades and anti-personnel land mines. In other words, small and light arms are those weapon systems that can be carried and operated by a single individual or a small group of people working as a team. See the Report of the Panel of Governmental Experts on Small Arms, UN General Assembly document A/52/298, 27 August 1992, available at <www.un.org/sc/committees/sanctions/a52298.pdf>.

12. See details at <www.iansa.org/about.htm>.

13. Authors' interviews with movement participants, March 2003 and March 2005.

14. Early studies of NGO actors in world politics include: Kjell Skjelsbaek, ‘The Growth of International Nongovernmental Organization in the Twentieth Century’, International Organization, Vol.25, No.3 (Summer 1971), pp.420–442; Samuel P. Huntington, ‘Transnational Organizations in World Politics’, World Politics, Vol.25 (1973), pp.333–368; Anne Thompson Feraru, ‘Transnational Political Interests and the Global Environment’, International Organization, Vol.28, No.1 (Winter 1974), pp.31–60; and Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Transnational Relations and World Politics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972). More contemporary studies include (in addition to those mentioned above) Elisabeth J. Friedman, Sovereignty, Democracy, and Global Civil Society: State-Society Relations at UN World Conferences (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1995); Peter Willets, Conscience of the World: The Influence of Non-Governmental Organizations in the U.N. System (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1996); Jackie Smith, Transnational Social Movements and Global Politics: Solidarity Beyond the State (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1997); Alison Van Rooy, The Global Legitimacy Game: Civil Society, Globalization, and Protest (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004); Claude E. Welch, NGOs and Human Rights: Promise and Performance (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000); and Paul K. Wapner, Environmental Activism and World Civic Politics (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1996).

15. We adopt the term transnational social movement network (TSMN) in order to encompass the entirety of the actors – policy, advocacy, and research organizations and individuals – involved in a particular transnational problem or issue. We rely on literature focusing on NGOs, transnational advocacy networks, and social movements to construct our understanding of a TSMN. See Ann Florini (ed.), The Third Force: The Rise of Transnational Civil Society (Tokyo and Washington, DC: Japan Center for International Change and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1999); Keck and Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders; Sanjeev Khagram, James V. Riker, and Kathryn Sikkink (eds.), Restructuring World Politics: Transnational Social Movements, Networks and Norms (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2002); della Porta and Tarrow (eds.), Transnational Protest and Global Activism; Bennett, ‘Social Movements Beyond Borders’; Jeff Goodwin and James M. Jasper, The Social Movements Reader: Cases and Concepts (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2003); and Donatella della Porta and Mario Diani, Social Movements: An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell, 1999).

16. The focus on these NGO networks increased following the publication of Keck and Sikkink's Activists Beyond Borders in 1998.

17. See Peter Haas, Saving the Mediterranean: The Politics of International Environmental Cooperation (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990); Peter M. Haas, ‘Do Regimes Matter? Epistemic Communities and Mediterranean Pollution Control’, International Organization, Vol.43, No.3 (Summer 1998), pp.377–403; Emanuel Adler, ‘The Emergence of Cooperation: National Epistemic Communities and the International Evolution of the Idea of Nuclear Arms Control’, International Organization, Vol.46, No.1 (Winter 1992), pp.101–145; James K. Sebenius, ‘Challenging Conventional Explanations of International Cooperation: Negotiation Analysis and the Case of Epistemic Communities’, International Organization, Vol.46, No.1 (Winter 1992), pp.323–365; and Dave Toke, ‘Epistemic Communities and Environmental Groups’, Politics, Vol.19, No.2 (1999), pp.97–102.

18. See Keck and Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders; Thomas Risse-Kappen (ed.), Bringing Transnational Relations Back In: Non-State Actors, Domestic Structures, and International Institutions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995); Michael Edwards and John Gaventa (eds.), Global Citizen Action (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2001); Robert Rohrschneider and Russell J. Dalton, ‘A Global Network? Transnational Cooperation Among Environmental Groups’, Journal of Politics, Vol.64, No.2 (May 2002), pp.5–39; and Michele M. Betsill and Harriet Bulkeley, ‘Transnational Networks and Global Environmental Governance: The Cities for Climate Protection Program’, International Studies Quarterly, Vol.48 (2004), pp.471–493.

19. See Clark (ed.), Globalizing Civic Engagement; and della Porta and Tarrow (eds.), Transnational Protest and Global Activism.

20. For more on global civil society, see Ronnie D. Lipschutz, Global Civil Society and Global Environmental Governance: The Politics of Nature from Place to Planet (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1996); Ronnie D. Lipschutz, ‘Reconstructing World Politics: The Emergence of Global Civil Society’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol.21, No.3 (1992), pp.389–420; Paul Wapner, ‘Governance in Global Civil Society’, in Oran R. Young (ed.), Global Governance: Drawing Insights from the Environmental Experience (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997); Jan Aart Scholte, ‘Civil Society and Democracy in Global Governance’, Global Governance, Vol.8 (2002), pp.281–304; John Keane, Global Civil Society? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003); and Ann Marie Clark, Elisabeth J. Friedman and Kathryn Hochstetler, ‘The Sovereign Limits of Global Civil Society: A Comparison of NGO Participation in Global UN Conferences on the Environment, Women, and Human Rights’, World Politics, Vol.51, No.1 (October 1998), pp.1–35.

21. We do not include in this analysis of TSMN those movement networks that use violence to achieve their goals – groups such as terrorist networks or other violent organizations.

22. Keck and Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders, p.12.

23. Keck and Sikkink define activists the same as Oliver and Marwell do: ‘people who care enough about some issue that they are prepared to incur significant costs and act to achieve their goals.’ See Pamela E. Oliver and Gerald Marwell, ‘Mobilizing Technologies for Collective Action’, in Aldon D. Morris and Carol McClurg Mueller (eds.), Frontiers in Social Movement Theory (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992), p.252; and Keck and Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders, p.14. Other scholars see these activists as no different than most political entrepreneurs who capitalize on opportunities to move forward their personal agendas. See, for example, Cooley and Ron, ‘The NGO Scramble’.

24. Keck and Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders, pp.14–16.

25. Ibid., pp.17–24.

26. Keck and Sikkink refer to ‘stages of impact’ because they believe that the first two types of influence networks exhibit open up the process for effecting change via the last three types of influence. See ibid., p.26.

27. Ibid.

28. Ibid., p.27.

29. Ibid. On the importance of gaining the support of domestic groups within the target state, see Thomas Risse-Kappen, ‘Ideas Do Not Float Freely: Transnational Coalitions, Domestic Structures, and the End of the Cold War’, International Organization, Vol.48, No.2 (Spring 1994), pp.185–214, and Anne-Marie Clark, ‘Non-Governmental Organizations and Their Influence on International Society’, Journal of International Affairs, Vol.48, No.2 (1995), pp.507–525.

30. Keck and Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders, p.29. For more on international communities of states and the impact of social interaction among nations, see Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999); Martha Finnemore, National Interests in International Society (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996); and Peter J. Katzenstein (ed.), The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996).

31. See Bennett, ‘Social Movements Beyond Borders’; Donatella della Porta, ‘Multiple Belongings, Tolerant Identities, and the Construction of “Another Politics”’; and Clark, ‘Introduction: Civil Society and Transnational Action’.

32. Bennett, ‘Social Movements Beyond Borders’, pp.203–205.

33. Jody Williams attributes ICBL's success to the Internet and e-mail. Also see Thomas L. Friedman, Longitudes and Attitudes: Exploring the World After September 11 (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2002).

34. John Clark and Nuno Themudo, ‘The Age of Protest: Internet-Based “Dot Causes” and the “Anti-Globalization” Movement’, in Clark (ed.), Globalizing Civic Engagement, pp.109–126.

35. Della Porta, ‘Multiple Belongings, Tolerant Identities, and the Construction of “Another Politics”’.

36. Ibid., p.187.

37. Della Porta and Diani, Social Movements: An Introduction, p.155.

38. See Bennett, ‘Social Movements Beyond Borders’, p.208.

39. Ibid., p.209.

40. Clark, ‘Introduction: Civil Society and Transnational Action’, p.19; and Clark and Themudo, ‘The Age of Protest’, p.114.

41. Clark and Themudo, ‘The Age of Protest’, p.124.

42. Della Porta and Diani, Social Movements: An Introduction, p.161.

43. See Edward Laurance, The Field of Microdisarmament: Addressing the Proliferation and Buildup of Small Arms and Light Weapons (Bonn: Bonn International Center for Conversion, September 1996).

44. See Keith Krause, ‘Multilateral Diplomacy, Norm Building and UN Conferences: The Case of Small Arms and Light Weapons’, Global Governance, Vol.8, No.2 (April–June 2002), pp.247–263.

45. Ibid.

46. See IANSA's Founding Document (May 1999) at <www.iansa.org/about/m1.htm>. Also see <www.iansa.org/about.htmfor> more on IANSA's purpose and objectives.

47. Ibid.

48. See specifics about each goal and objective in IANSA's Founding Document at <www.iansa.org/about/m1.htm>.

49. See IANSA's Founding Document, pp.8–9.

50. Ibid., p.9.

51. Ibid.

52. See IANSA website at <www.iansa.org/mission/newspub/launch/hap.htm>.

53. Jeffrey Boutwell and Michael T. Klare, ‘A Scourge of Small Arms’, Scientific American (June 2000), p.52. Also see personal interviews with IANSA founders and members, Washington, DC, November 1999 and June 2000.

54. IANSA Founding Document, p.9.

55. Personal interviews with IANSA members, Washington, DC, November 1999 and June 2000. For more on the importance of government involvement on the issue and the positions of various states around the world, see Margherita Serafini, ‘Small Arms: The Emerging Coalition of States for the UN Conference in 2001’, Program on Security and Development at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, found at <www.iansa.org/documents/research/2000/2001db_paper.htm>.

56. See the UN Press Release about IANSA and its briefing to the Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA), Press Release DC/2646 (May 28, 1999), available at <www.un.org/News/Press/docs/1999/19990528.DC2646.html>. For more on UN activities regarding small arms, see Ambassador Jayantha Dhanapala, ‘The UN's Role in Combating Small Arms Proliferation’, in Stopping the Spread of Small Arms, pp.10–12.

57. IANSA Founding Document, p.10.

58. For specifics on the regional networks, see the IANSA Members page at <www.iansa.org/about/members.htm>.

59. Interview and correspondence with SAM network participant, March 2005 and July 2005.

60. For the text of the Programme of Action, see <www.disarmament.un.org;8080/cab/poa/html>. For IANSA's most recent evaluation of the implementation of the Programme of Action, see <www.iansa.org/documents/2004/iansa_2004_wrap_up_revised.doc>.

61. See details about the Control Arms campaign at <www.controlarms.org>. For the text of the Arms Trade Treaty, see <www.iansa.org/documents/2004/att_0504.pdf>.

62. For more information on the beginning of the ICBL and the campaign to ban landmines, see the ICBL website <www.icbl.org/problem/history>.

63. One of the four goals that ICBL endorses is ‘Demining and risk education to safeguard lives and livelihoods’. For more information on ICBL's goals, See the ICBL website <www.icbl.org/tools/faq/campaign/what_is_icbl>.

64. A more detailed explanation of ICBL's action plan for their informational, symbolic, leverage and accountability activities can be accessed at <www.icbl.org/campaign/actionplan?eZSESSIDicbl = 0c92726ddb20dd67e0203ef80e75205f>. Also see author interviews with ICBL staff member, May 2002 and July 2005.

65. In a current description of ICBL's role in the campaign to ban landmines, ICBL explained that significant activities included information sharing and symbolic activities such as, ‘Marking significant anniversaries through media work and public events’ and ‘Research and production of the Landmine Monitor Report which monitors implementation of and compliance with the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty’ as well as leverage activities such as, ‘Lobbying ahead of international fora for inclusion of the landmine issue e.g. Commonwealth, the Francophonie, the European Union’. These activities are described at the ICBL website <www.icbl.org/tools/faq/campaign/role>.

66. Jenny Lange records the action of celebrities and their influence on the landmine issue in ‘Celebrities and Landmines’, Journal of Mine Action, Vol.6, No.1 (April 2002), available at <www.maic.jmu.edu/Journal/6.1/notes/lange/lange.htm>.

67. See the Landmine Monitor at <www.icbl.org/lm>.

68. Numerous interviews with IANSA founders and SAM participants, 1999–present.

69. The Nobel committee described ICBL as, ‘a model for similar processes in the future, it could prove of decisive importance to the international effort for disarmament and peace’.

70. See Stephan Brem and Ken Rutherford, ‘Walking Together or Divided Agendas’, Security Dialogue, Vol.32, No.2 (June 2001), pp.169–186.

71. Interviews with SAM participants and government officials, June 2004, March 2005, and June 2005. For more on the human impact of small arms, see Cate Buchanan and Robert Muggah, No Relief: Surveying the Effects of Gun Violence on Humanitarian and Development Personnel (Geneva: Small Arms Survey, 2005), available at <www.smallarmssurvey.org/copublications/NoRelief.pdf>.

72. Keck and Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders, p.27.

73. Despite the positive lessons the small arms organizations and individuals learned from the success of the ICBL efforts, the small arms participants very purposefully structured their movement differently. Acknowledging the significant differences in issues and targets, the small arms people set out to create a different kind of network – one that was more inclusive and diverse. This may also be the result of tension that was briefly evident within the ICBL in the wake of the ban in 1997 and the Nobel Prize in 1998. In any case, there was a notable lack of communication between the ICBL and SAM people as the small arms participants sought their own path. See first author's interviews with ICBL and SAM participants, November 1999, May 2002, March 2005 and July 2005.

74. Bennett, ‘Social Movement Beyond Borders’.

75. For our first survey we distributed 222 questionnaires by email to random SAM participants and received 28 completed questionnaires in return. Responses were received from 16 countries across five continents. 16 of the 28 surveys were from countries in the northern hemisphere and 12 were from the south. Our second survey was distributed randomly by email to 248 recipients. We received 31 complete responses from 22 countries. 20 responses were from the north and 11 from the south. Between both our surveys, we received completed questionnaires from NGO actors from 32 different countries. Admittedly, however, our response rate of about 12 per cent for both surveys is low – and those who responded are, of course, self-selecting in that they chose to share their thoughts while many others did not. Nonetheless, we believe that because our results are representative of many different organizations from several different countries across five continents we can make some general inferences from the survey findings.

76. For specifics on the Control Arms campaign, see <www.controlarms.org>.

77. Interviews with IANSA founding members revealed that they were very conscious of including NGOs from the southern hemisphere after southern NGOs were reportedly rather disgruntled about being marginalized during the campaign to ban landmines. See one author's interviews with movement participants, November 1999 and June 2000.

78. Keck and Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders, pp.10–18; and Betsill and Bulkeley, ‘Transnational Networks and Global Environmental Governance’, p.490.

79. See, for example, John Clark, Democratizing Development: The Role of Voluntary Organizations (West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press, 1990), pp.203–204.

80. See, for example, Rupert Taylor, Creating a Better World: Interpreting Global Civil Society (Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press, 2004), p.9.

81. Authors' interviews with small arms movement participants, March 2005. Incidentally, the director of IANSA never made herself available for interviews with the authors. Repeated attempts to schedule meetings went unanswered or plans were canceled. Only one IANSA staff member responded to our email survey.

82. Rohrschneider and Dalton, ‘A Global Network? Transnational Cooperation Among Environmental Groups’, p. 513; and Keck and Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders, p.197. Also see Sarah Gardner, ‘Major Themes in the Study of Grassroots Environmentalism in Developing Countries’, Journal of Third World Studies, Vol.12, No.2 (1995), pp.200–245; Hein-Andon Van der Heijden, ‘Environmental Movements, Ecological Modernization, and Political Opportunity Structures’, Environmental Politics, Vol.8, No.1 (1999), pp.199–221; and Smith and Bandy, ‘Introduction: Cooperation and Conflict in Transnational Protest’, p.7.

83. One author's interviews with movement participants, November 1999 and June 2000.

84. For a complete list of IANSA members, see <www.iansa.org/about/members.htm>.

85. On the importance of collective identity within transnational social movements, see Scott A. Hunt and Robert D. Benford, ‘Collective Identity, Solidarity, and Commitment’, in David A. Snow, Sarah A. Soule, and Hanspeter Kriesi (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004), pp.433–457; Smith and Bandy, ‘Introduction: Cooperation and Conflict in Transnational Protest’, pp.10–11; and Pauline P. Cullen, ‘Conflict and Cooperation within the Platform of European Social NGOs’, in Bandy and Smith (eds.), Coalitions Across Borders, pp.84–85; and Joe Bandy and Jackie Smith, ‘Factors Affecting Conflict and Cooperation in Transnational Movement Networks’, in Bandy and Smith (eds.), Coalitions Across Borders, p.23.

86. Authors' interviews with small arms movement participants, March 2005.

87. Keck and Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders, p.14.

88. Price, ‘Reversing the Gun Sights’, p.621.

89. Authors' interviews with small arms movement participants, March 2005.

90. One author's interviews with small arms movement participants, November 1999 and June 2000.

91. Cooley and Ron, ‘The NGO Scramble’; and Sell and Prakash, ‘Using Ideas Strategically’.

92. For examples, see Fitzduff and Church, NGOs at the Table; della Porta and Diani, Social Movements: An Introduction; and Jackie Smith, ‘Transnational Processes and Movement’, in Snow et al. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, pp.311–329.

93. Authors' interviews with small arms movement participants, March 2005.