What are the strengths and weaknesses of these options in influencing norms, decision making or civil society activism? Here we are basically into guesswork/gut feeling, captured in the table below. Possible options for international instruments to drive change post-2015 Instrument
Influence on national norms
On decision making
Civil society take-up
Big global norms
Sometimes strong, but often disappear without trace
Long-term influence (e.g. shaping future leaders’ world views)
Strong, if resonate with national reality
Global goals and targets
Partial
Transmission via aid system, otherwise likely to be partial
Yes, when resonate with national reality Far stronger if accompanied by national goals, civil society commitment to these, and clear national accountability mechanisms
Regional goals and targets
More influence where regional identity is stronger (e.g. African Union)
Especially if governments have to ratify and legislate. Rivalry can also be effective
Can provide a valuable advocacy tool, especially where regional identity is strong
Global league tables
Weak
Effective if builds on regional rivalries
Can provide a valuable advocacy tool
Data transparency
Weak
Depends how data are picked up by national actors
Depends on civil society capacity to use data for advocacy purposes, alliances with academics, etc.
International law
Strong, but slow osmosis into national common sense (e.g. children have rights)
Especially if governments have to ratify and legislate, or report publicly on their performance (as with the UNCRC or CEDAW)
Depends on civil society capacity to use legal system (and responsiveness of legal system)
4How can a post-2015 agreement drive real change? The political economy of global commitments