Notes on The 'Third' United Nations (Weiss, Carayannis, Jolly)

Overview

  • Article: The "Third" United Nations (The Third UN) by Thomas G. Weiss, Tatiana Carayannis, and Richard Jolly. Published in Global Governance, Jan.–Mar. 2009, Vol. 15, No. 1, pages 123–142.
  • Core claim: Besides the traditional two UNs (the intergovernmental world of states and the international civil service/secretariat), there exists a meaningful third layer—composed of actors closely associated with the UN but not formally part of it. This is the outside-insider UN, including NGOs, academics, consultants, independent commissions, and other engaged individuals.
  • Purpose: To argue for the analytical inclusion of the third UN to better explain how ideas, policies, and practices evolve within multilateralism and to illuminate how nonstate actors influence UN thinking and action.
  • Key terms: third UN; NGOs; intellectual history; networks; external experts; knowledge networks.

The Concept of the Third UN

  • Definition: The third UN comprises NGOs, academics, consultants, experts, independent commissions, and other individuals who routinely engage with the first UN (member states) and the second UN (the UN Secretariat) to influence thinking, policies, priorities, and actions.
  • Distinguishing feature: Independence from governments and from UN secretariats; outsiders who complement insiders across the threefold UN structure.
  • Core roles: advocacy, research, policy analysis, and idea mongering to push for new information, policies, and mobilization around UN deliberations and operations.
  • Theoretical value: Provides a sharper depiction of interplays around the UN beyond Claude’s classic twofold distinction (state intergovernmental arena and the secretariat).
  • Variability: Membership and influence are issue- and time-dependent; outsiders can be in or out depending on context.

The First UN, The Second UN, and the Third UN

  • First UN: States as primary actors shaping policy; five recognized roles (as per Barnett & Finnemore): agent of great powers, mechanism for interstate cooperation, governor of international society, constructor of the social world, legitimation forum.
  • Second UN: International civil service; ~55,000 in the UN proper + ~20,000 in specialized agencies; plus ~100,000 temporary staff in peace operations; ~15,000 at IMF/World Bank. Article 101 of the UN Charter calls for a core of officials to tackle international problems. Dag Hammarskjöld as a key proponent.
  • Tensions/criticisms: Autonomy and integrity ideals persist, but issues of corruption (Oil-for-Food), exploitation by peacekeepers, and governance concerns (Staff Council no-confidence vote, 2006) cast shadows.
  • Spectrum of influence: The three layers interact in complex ways; the third UN often serves as a source of ideas or a policy-testing ground that can be controversial for governments and secretariats alike.

New Multilateralism, Public Policy Networks, and the Third UN

  • Context: The notion aligns with debates about “multiple multilateralism” and various reformist concepts (e.g., poly- or plurilateralism).
  • Historical interaction with nonstate actors: ILO’s tripartite structure since 1919; NGO advocacy in the 1940s–1950s (human rights in the Charter, UDHR); UNICEF’s civil society linkages; UNESCO and UNIFEM with national committees.
  • Global governance shift: Globalization and tech advances have expanded NGO reach, capacity, and voice in UN processes; data and argumentation increasingly flow from outside the Secretariat into intergovernmental deliberations.
  • Terminology note: The term third UN sharpens the picture beyond simple state/market/civil-society binaries.
  • Limits of inclusion: Third UN excludes the profit-driven sector in its defined form here, because businesses tend to emphasize financial bottom lines and interact with the UN more as NGOs or through other channels; mass media are not included as actors that directly alter policy, though investigative journalism can influence ideas.

Defining the Third UN: Components and Boundaries

  • Core components (three main groups):
    • Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)
    • Academics and expert consultants / think tanks
    • Independent commissions and eminent-person panels
  • Membership characteristics: Outsiders who are not on regular government payroll or UN salaries but who collaborate with the UN to shape thinking and action.
  • Boundary conditions:
    • Inclusion depends on issue and period.
    • Individuals may move among the three UNs via a revolving door (career mobility between governments, UN, NGOs, universities).
    • Corporate actors and mass media are generally excluded from the third UN by design, though journalists can be influential individuals.
  • Subgroups are not monolithic; influence varies by issue and time.

Eight Roles of the Three UNs (collectively)

  • Eight roles performed in concert across the three UN spheres:
    1) Providing a forum for debate
    2) Generating ideas and policies
    3) Legitimating ideas and policies
    4) Advocating for ideas and policies
    5) Implementing or testing ideas and policies in the field
    6) Generating resources to pursue ideas and policies
    7) Monitoring progress in the march of ideas and policy implementation
    8) Occasionally burying ideas and policies
  • The distribution and dominance of these roles shift with the novelty of policies and political will; synergy among the UNs can occur, though conflicts and friction are common.

NGOs in the Third UN

  • Growth trend: Dramatic rise in NGO presence within UN corridors over six decades.
  • Examples and scale:
    • 1992 Rio Earth Summit: ~17,000 NGO participants
    • 1995 Beijing Fourth World Conference on Women: ~32,000 participants (including 5,000 from China)
    • 1990 World Summit for Children (UNICEF, NYC): engaged globally through candlelight vigils with over a million participants
  • Historical context: NGO growth tied to the post–Cold War expansion of civil society, communications tech, and funding availability; Salamon’s notion of an “associational revolution.”
  • Scope of NGO footprint:
    • ~2,870 NGOs with ECOSOC consultative status in headquarters; many more without such status participate.
    • NGOs also function as field actors through outsourcing and sub-contracting by the second UN.
  • Challenges and caveats:
    • Not all NGO actions are benign; some groups link to repressive regimes (GONGO dynamics) or pursue agendas misaligned with humanitarian aims.
    • The private sector is not included within the third UN by design; corporate social responsibility schemes exist but are treated differently from NGOs within this framework.
  • Accountability and governance: Emergence of accountability charters (e.g., INGO Charter) and calls for credible NGO governance to ensure independence and integrity.

Academics, Consultants, and Think Tanks

  • Knowledge networks and epistemic communities: External experts contribute through research networks that frame debates, justify policy options, and mobilize coalitions.
  • Notable factors:
    • Foundations and policy donors (e.g., Carnegie Endowment, UN Foundation) support external research linked to UN issues.
    • Think tanks and research centers (e.g., Stanley Foundation, International Peace Institute, UN University networks) provide data, analysis, and synthesis for UN deliberations.
  • Knowledge networks and epistemic communities influence policy especially under uncertainty when expertise is in high demand.
  • Historical mechanism: Early UN use of external expertise included three panels in the late 1940s and early 1950s that produced reports on full employment, development measures, and economic stability; these included global economists from multiple regions.
  • Notable examples:
    • The Committee for Development Planning (CDP; now Policy) chaired by Jan Tinbergen, with economists serving in a personal capacity (unpaid) to inform UN policy.
    • Nobel laureates and prominent economists who contributed to development and disarmament discussions through third UN channels.
  • Relation to UNRISD and UNU: These think tanks/units often operate with greater autonomy but remain under second UN umbrella due to funding constraints; they serve as back-door channels for external expertise.

Independent Commissions (Eminent Persons)

  • Definition and purpose: Eminent-person commissions convened by the UN to address broad development, security, humanitarian, and governance issues. They provide leadership, legitimacy, and normative punch beyond daily intergovernmental processes.
  • Notable historical examples:
    • Pearson Commission (1969) on development and security
    • Brundtland Commission (1987) on environment and sustainable development
    • Other commissions on development (Gareth Evans and Sahnoun on humanitarian intervention and sovereignty), human security (Ogata and Sen), and civil society (Cardoso)
  • Functionality: Commissioners speak in personal capacities; their reports are prepared by research teams often located outside the UN but sometimes in residence with the second UN; findings are presented to the Secretary-General to leverage multinational composition and diverse perspectives.
  • Impact: Commissions can push ideas beyond conventional political feasibility and help place controversial recommendations on the agenda, especially when intergovernmental consensus is difficult to achieve.
  • Interaction with other UNs: They can be bankrolled by and presented to the first or the second UN, yet their influence can shape third-UN discourse and policy directions.

Interactions Among the Three UNs

  • Core insight: The three UNs operate in overlapping spaces, with varying degrees of formal authority and informal influence.
  • Figure 1 concept (described verbally): Three circles representing the First UN (governments/states), the Second UN (secretariat/staff), and the Third UN (NGOs, academics, commissions). Intersections represent spaces where ideas and actions are generated, debated, and disseminated. The fourth space (D) represents a networked space where outsiders and insiders converge to influence UN thinking and policy.
  • Key interaction spaces:
    • A: International and national civil servants interactions (state–secretariat interactions)
    • B: State–civil society interactions (government–NGO/academic engagement often outside formal channels)
    • C: Secretariat–civil society interactions (secretariat engagement with NGOs, experts, commissions in program design and implementation)
    • D: The networked space where individuals and private organizations interact with the First and Second UN to influence thinking and actions
  • Dynamics and examples:
    • Ideas can originate in the Second UN (e.g., human development) and move to the First UN to be mainstreamed, sometimes accompanied by third-UN advocacy and data gathering that challenge established norms.
    • The Ottawa Process (1997) on anti-personnel landmines is a case of like-minded governments, UN officials, analysts, and NGOs collaborating to adopt a treaty.
    • The Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court illustrates similar cross-actor coalition-building that crosses traditional intergovernmental boundaries.
    • Human development, introduced via UNDP and refined by external scholars (Mahbub ul Haq, Amartya Sen), shows how third-UN ideas can shape core UN programs while bearing political risk for governments who resist global ranking and data publication.
  • Key takeaway: Much policy entrepreneurship in the UN involves coalitions spanning all three UNs, with third-UN actors often taking the lead on ideas that manage to gain intergovernmental traction despite political risk.

The Practical and Ethical Implications

  • Sovereignty and responsibility: The emergence of ideas like R2P (Responsibility to Protect) showed that norms can challenge traditional sovereignty, a dynamic often championed by third-UN voices but resisted by some states.
  • Human security and humanitarian intervention: Norm evolution has often been driven by outside-insider actors who push for human rights protection and the redirection of resources toward vulnerable populations.
  • Accountability and governance: The involvement of NGOs and eminent commissions raises questions about accountability, transparency, and potential biases in policy recommendations.
  • Legitimacy and legitimacy risks: Third-UN actors can lend legitimacy to UN actions, but they can also introduce criticisms or agendas perceived as external impositions by governments.
  • The balance of influence: There is a need for better empirical indicators to assess how much influence different actors exert in specific settings, rather than relying on the adage that “every idea has many parents.”

Research Agenda: Mapping, Tracing, Weighing Influence

  • Three gaps identified for future research:
    • Mapping networks: Systematic data on the loose networks across the three UNs to move beyond monolithic generalizations; employ social network analysis (SNA) to understand structures and interdependencies.
    • Tracing trajectories of individuals: Track career movements of key figures to understand how cross-appointments, cross-sector experiences, and mobility influence UN policymaking; examine the so-called “cross-dressing” effect where individuals hold roles in multiple UN sectors and external organizations.
    • Weighing influence: Develop empirical indicators to attribute policy outcomes to specific actors or coalitions; improve understanding of the relative influence of the three UNs in different policy domains; explore whether third-UN influence is behind both successful and failed outcomes.
  • Methodological toolkit recommended:
    • Social network analysis to map nodes, ties, and interdependencies among states, secretariats, NGOs, academics, and commissions.
    • Ethnographic and career-tracking studies to document the trajectories and cross-sector experiences of influential actors.
    • Case-based analysis of policy outcomes to assess attribution to particular actor configurations.
  • Broader applicability: Consider extending the three-UN framework to other intergovernmental arenas (e.g., a potential third EU, third OECD) to explore whether similar dynamics exist beyond the UN.

Case Illustrations Highlighting Third UN Dynamics

  • Human development: An idea popularized by Mahbub ul Haq and Amartya Sen through UNDP and external scholars, which later became central to UNDP’s agenda; the third UN provided the analytic and political push that supported mainstream adoption and ranking pressures (with political contestation around the data).
  • Human security and R2P: Emerged from credible commissions and external advocacy that pressed the UN to address internal displacement, sovereignty concerns, and humanitarian intervention norms; later reflected in the 2005 World Summit outcomes.
  • Treaty activism and norm entrepreneurship: The Ottawa Process and the Rome Statute illustrate how a coalition of like-minded actors across all three UNs achieved major normative and legal breakthroughs in weapons prohibition and international justice.
  • Environmental governance and climate action: Third-UN actors, especially scientists and NGOs, helped frame environmental policy within the UN system, influencing debates and policy pathways around sustainable development.

Conclusion

  • The authors argue for recognizing the UN as a threefold reality: states (First UN), international civil servants (Second UN), and a robust third layer of outside-insiders (NGOs, academics, independent commissions) who shape, push, and sometimes redefine UN thinking and action.
  • The Third UN provides essential inputs for global governance that neither states nor the Secretariat can deliver alone; its influence is evident in agenda-setting, norm creation, policy analysis, and program implementation.
  • The call is for continued, improved engagement with the Third UN, and for more rigorous empirical work to map networks, trace trajectories, and weigh influence—so that the UN can better mobilize its full spectrum of capabilities in pursuit of global public goods.

Important References and Concepts (Brief Sketch)

  • Claude, Inis L. Jr.: The traditional twofold framework for the UN (state intergovernmental arena and international secretariat).
  • Global governance debates: The shift toward recognizing multiple multilateralisms and fluid networks beyond rigid state-centered models.
  • Epistemic communities and knowledge networks: External expert networks shaping policy in times of uncertainty.
  • Key historical anchors: OHaving references to the Council on Human Rights and the UDHR; the development of human development; the Millennium Project; and influential commissions (Pearson, Brundtland, Evans–Sahnoun, Ogata–Sen, Cardoso).
  • Notable data points:
    • NGO participation and consultative status: ~2,870 NGOs with consultative status at UN HQ; thousands more participate without status.
    • NGO event scale: Rio 1992 (~17,000 NGO participants); Beijing 1995 (~32,000 participants).
    • UN workforce: ~55,00055{,}000 in the UN proper, ~20,00020{,}000 in specialized agencies, plus significant counts in peace operations and other organizations.

Quick Recap of Key Terms

  • Third UN: Outside-insider networks (NGOs, academics, consultants, independent commissions) that influence the UN from outside formal structures.
  • Outside-insiders: Individuals who are independent of government payrolls and UN secretariats but interact closely with the UN.
  • Knowledge networks / epistemic communities: External expert networks that influence policy through data, analysis, and advocacy.
  • GONGO: Government-organized NGO; an example of how state control can shape NGO activity in some contexts.
  • R2P: Responsibility to Protect; a normative development that illustrates the dynamic between third-UN advocacy and intergovernmental decision-making.

Notes

  • The article emphasizes that three UNs are part of a dynamic system where ideas and practices circulate across spheres, often with third-UN actors fueling shifts in norms, policy, and implementation. It calls for more systematic empirical work to map networks, trace actor trajectories, and measure relative influence across settings to fully understand their collective impact on international governance.