International organisations: communicating their usefulness
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14422/cir.12.y2018.003Keywords:
international organisations, communication, social media, constructivism, UN, European UnionAbstract
In a moment where credibility and citizen support towards international organisations are suffering, it is necessary that these organisations make efforts in communicating the importance they have in the lives of the citizens as well as the achievements their actions represent in both the national and international levels. Some examples of the citizen disaffection are the rise or even the victory of parties and candidacies that challenge the benefits and the importance or organisations like the UN or the European Union. Trump, the brexit or the fact that Marine Le Pen made it to the second round of the French presidential elections, make it clear that there is a hostile environment for multilateralism.
Communication must represent a key element for achieving the objective of showing the benefits and usefulness of international organisations. Therefore, we will analyse the current communication strategies of the UN and the EU in order to highlight the positive and improvable aspects of such strategies.
The objective of this study is to focus on the constructivist approach of international organisations, where the management of intangible assets is key in order to change norms at the service of the common good. For that, it is vital to use soft power, which has communication as a key tool. Today, there are mechanisms that enable the direct interaction with the citizens, so a good investment in this sense can generate very positive results that return credibility to international institutions.
Downloads
References
Asean Studies Center. (12 de mayo de 2017). ‘Brexit’, the European Union, and the ‘Communication Deficit’: A Lesson for ASEAN [Web log post]. Recuperado el 3 de octubre de 2017 de http://asc.fisipol.ugm.ac.id/brexit-european-union-communicationdeficit-lesson-asean/
Berridge, G. (2010). Diplomacy: theory and practice. Nueva York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Canel, M. J. (2010). Comunicación de las instituciones públicas. Madrid: Technos.
Castells, M. (2008). The New Public Sphere: Global Civil Society, Communication Networks, and Global Governance. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 78-93.
Comisión Europea. (2006). White Paper on a European Communication Policy. Recuperado de http://europa.eu/documents/comm/white_papers/pdf/com2006_35_en.pdf
Congreso de Estados Unidos. (2016). United States Contributions to International Organizations. Washington, D. C.: Departamento de Estado de EE. UU.
Departamento de Información Pública de Naciones Unidas. (2008). Centros de Información de Naciones Unidas. ¿Qué hacemos? Recuperado el 12 de agosto de 2017 de https://unic.un.org/aroundworld/unics/es/whatWeDo/index.asp
Dobbin, F., Simmons, B., & Garrett, G. (2007). The Global Diffusion of Public Policies: Social Construction, Coercion, Competition, or Learning? Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 449-472.
Elster, J. (1989). Nuts and Bolts for the social sciences. Nueva York: Cambridge University Press.
Escalona, N. (2015). Comunicación de instituciones públicas. Barcelona: UOC.
Fehl, C. (2004). Explaining the International Criminal Court: A ‘Practice Test’ for Rationalist and Constructivist Approaches. European Journal of International Relations, 10(3), 357-394.
FMI. (abril de 2016). International Monetary Fund Factsheet. El FMI y las organizaciones de la sociedad civil. Recuperado el 12 de agosto de 2017 de http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/spa/pdf/civs.pdf
Gallego, J. (26 de mayo de 2014). La participación total en la UE sube por primera vez y llega al 43,09%. El Mundo.
Gallup News. (5 de feberero de 2017). Gallup News. United Nations. Recuperado el 7 de septiembre de 2017 de http://news.gallup.com/poll/116347/united-nations.aspx
Martin, C., & Jagla, L. (2013). Integrating Diplomacy and Social Media. Washington, D. C.: The Aspen Institute.
Martin, L. (septiembre de 1992). Interests, power, and multilateralism. International Organization, 765-792.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (1994). The False Promise of International Institutions. International Security, 19(3), 5-49.
Miyashita, A. (2007). Where do norms come from? Foundations of Japan’s postwar pacifism. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 7, 99-120.
Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft power: the means to success in world politics. Nueva York: Public Affairs.
Reinhard, K. (2009). American Business and its Role in Public Diplomacy. En N. Y. Snow (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy (pp. 195-200). Nueva York: Taylor & Francis.
Reinstein, L. (2014). Non-State Actors: 21st Century Activism for Influencing Public Policy. Journal of Diplomacy, 57-60.
Ruvalcaba García, A. (2007). How television failed to integrate Europe. Ginebra: Institut européen de l’Université de Genève.
Taylor, P. M. (2009). Public Diplomacy and Strategic Communications. En N. Y. Snow (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy (pp. 12-23). Nueva York: Taylor & Francis.
Vilajosana, J. M. (abril-junio de 1999). La justificación de la abstención. Revista de Estudios Políticos (Nueva Época), (104), 165-180.
Waisbord, S. (2007). ¿Dónde está la Comunicación en las metas del milenio de la ONU? Estudios venezolanos de comunicación, (137), 10-14.
Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics. International Organization, 391-425.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
The authors of articles published in Comillas Journal of International Relations retain the intellectual property rights over their works and grant the journal their distribution and public communication rights, consenting to their publication under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivates 4.0 Unported. Authors are encouraged to publish their work on the Internet (for example, on institutional or personal pages, repositories, etc.) respecting the conditions of this license and quoting appropriately the original source.
