The Rise Of A Transnational Private Actor In Maritime Safety:Toward A Practice-based Theory Of Non-state Actors In Global Governance?

Between 2000 and 2005,over 2,600 serious maritime casualties were recorded by the United Nations.Maritime safety is a key issue-area of international shipping,since over 90% of international trade is transported by sea.Maritime shipping is related to states' capacity to influence international trade,to access natural resources,and to develop domestic employment and production.Consequently,shipping is considered a source of power in International Relations(IR).International shipping relates to problems such as those of maritime safety which are not confined to sovereign boundaries.The main culprit identified enjoys a strong influence in global maritime governance: the classification societies.Such a situation raises theoretical challenges for the positivist theories of IR.Post-positivist theoriesare required in order to describe the growing influence of these private actors.Although a diversity of constructivist and critical theories may be applied,Bourdieu's theory of practice appears to be increasingly relevant to describe the influence of such actors.The following research issue can be asked to address both the practical problem of the large number of casualties and the theoretical problems of the rise of non-state actors in global governance: “What is the contribution of the practice theory to the understanding of the rising influence of classification societies in maritime safety?”The second chapter explores the contribution of the theory of practice compared to the main theories of IR.The underlying assumptions of realist and liberalist theories is that the state is the main actor in maritime safety and that the international order is anarchical.In contrast,the practice theory claims that this order is a hierarchy,therefore it should rather be considered as a highly structured social arena,as any other social structure such as economic markets.Constructivist and critical social theories highlight the importance of non-state actors,without assuming any exclusivity for the state actors.From a relational viewpoint,while constructivist scholars partially share the positivist commitment to Humean causal assumptions,the practice theory is committed to interpretivism.As a result,this theory provides a wider understanding of social dynamics and power struggles.Beyond these different theoretical improvements,one of the justifications for the use of Bourdieu's sociology is the use of practice as raw material for research rather than representationalknowledge.Practice theory provides a means to bypass the representational bias of both positivist and constructivist research.Finally,the theory of practice is not committed to rational choice or to constructivist constraints.The consequence is that the practice theory appears more relevant for the study of non-state actors in IR.The third chapter introduces a methodology allowing the description of the influence of state and non-state actors.In the practice theory,such a methodology is expected to be both critical and historical.The social inquiry followed four parallel steps which have been described in detail: the access to practical knowledge,and the reconstruction of the logic of actors via the analysis of field,habitus and capitals.The research method was a longitudinal qualitative critical multi-case study.Three main data collection methods were interviews,focus groups and textual analysis.The data collection was conducted over three years,from 2014 to 2017,in France,the United Kingdom,China and Singapore.Twenty one interviews were conducted,along with three years of observations,archives,press releases,and corporate documents analysis.The empirical investigation included the study of eight types of actors and groups of actors: states,the International Maritime Organization(IMO),international ports,shipyards,shipbrokers,classification societies,logistic companies,and shipowners.The empirical field study's findings are presented in the fourth,fifth and sixth chapters,each providing an analysis of the three concepts of the theory of practice,respectively the field of power,capitals,and habitus.The fourth chapter delimits the field of maritime safety,identify the main actors and reveals their relative position in the field.Four types of actors have been identified: states,IMO,shipowners,and classification societies.No evidence was found to support the assumption that maritime safety is primarily under the influence of states.States need to ensure that their decisions are in line with the requirements of their national industry so that the industrial actors will support the government's decisions.Classification societies and states have common interests.Traditional maritime states developed their own national classification societies,which now operate internationally.By supporting them,on the one hand,traditional maritime states can ensure that their safety standards will be applied in developing states.On the other hand,by delegating their statutory duties to classification societies,states can comply with their commitments toward international conventions without having to develop their own workforce in maritime safety.The IMO's prime interest is to justify its monopolistic position as thesole forum for policy-making.The field study indicates that there are conflicts of interest between developed and developing countries,which result in consensus on unclear and impracticable regulatory texts.The IMO needs classification societies to be able to turn those texts into regulations which are workable for actors throughout the industrial chain.Impracticable texts stay on the table and may affect the perceived ability of the IMO to govern policy-making in the issue-area.Meanwhile,this position allows the classification societies to ensure the continuity and development of the classification system.Indeed,some of these regulations imply the production of certificates,activity which,in practice,is done by classification societies.The fifth chapter is dedicated to an analysis of the capitals.Four types of capital have been identified: symbolic,economic,social,and informational.The study reveals an unequal repartition of resources among actors.The states enjoy a solid symbolic capital in the field,as they are sovereign in their territory and have the power to develop their own legal framework to rule their domestic constituency.This sovereignty can be used to reinforce international conventions and apply high safety standards,but it can also be used to attract foreign shipowners by applying lax standards and attractive taxes advantages.Consequently,sovereignty does represent a risk for maritime safety.The economic capital of the classification societies is mostly constituted by the key role their certificates play in the many operational aspects of a commercial ship,from its construction,to the various technical and statutory surveys.Since the certificates are compulsory,the classification societies seem institutionalized throughout the industrial chain.Their high symbolic capital confers on the classification societies a high status among the actors.This status also confers on them quasi-immunity.Indeed,although they are often engaged in trial,classification societies seldom lose in court against representatives of shipowners,crew members,or states.The informational capital of the classification societies seems to be a powerful source of influence on both member states and on the IMO,which partly depends on such information for policy-making.Therefore,informational capital seems to be key to the dominant position of classification societies in the field.Chapter six provides an analysis of the structure reproduction,which is called habitus in Bourdieu's sociology.The classification societies also have a strong influence on states in their position as experts in the national delegation at the IMO.The IMO is the forum where a substantial number of business opportunities,such as certifications,are distributed to certain agents of the field.The institutionalization of the classification societies is not only occurring at state and intergovernmental level,as the classification certificates are integrated into the industrial actors' business processes.Meanwhile,classification societies put in place mechanisms that allow them to leverage their informational capital,notably via the central position of the International Association of Classification Societies(IACS)as an information hub,and via numerous publications.They ensured a perceived institutionalization of the association with the IMO through the regular organization of high level meetings.During these meetings,discourses are produced which confer on the IACS and its members the legitimacy required at the IMO.The IACS positions itself as a collaborative partner of the IMO.Indeed,it designsits official mission and values using the same vocabulary as that of the IMO.The classification societies use various lobbying options to add their issues to the IMO's meetings' official agenda.In conclusion,a more diverse conception of power,including diverse types of power related to the specific capital that allows a given actor access to the field,may be promising.The symbolic capital of states does not seem to allow them to be competently involved in policy making at the supranational level.A growing lack of informational and social capital decreases the ability of states to comply with their duties without the help of the private sector.International organizations do not have the power to force member states to enforce regulations,and require the information and social capital of the classification societies both to generate regulations that fit the empirical reality and needs of the shipping industry to implement these regulations.Indeed,the empirical study indicates that agreements among the active members states are first the product of a political consensus.Such consensus often results in vague texts which are not applicable to the industry,and may not be implemented in practice.The classification societies are in charge of suggesting change in the texts so that it fits their requirements.These suggestions are in majority accepted by the member states during the first round of negotiation.Whereas the pre-eminence of the private actors in international politics may suggest a “decline of the state,” it should rather be interpreted as a mutation of theirsymbolic capital.It appears that the theory of practice allows social scientists to grasp the dynamics of the classification societies and their ecosystem.In this perspective,thepreponderant agents in issue-areas of maritime safety are able to gather the appropriate capitals and identify possible strategic moves.This change of scope can highlight elements that other theories cannot describe,namely how social agents' practices reveal the way political orders are constituted,perpetuated andexploited.The classification societies derive their policy-making authority from the intertwining of the classification system throughout the industrial chain,and from their symbolic capital at the national and supranational level.The industrial chain together with the IMO provides the institutional setting within which authority and legitimacy is granted.Another contribution of this study is to show how,despite the differences between these theories,the theory of practice can provide an integrated framework that includes all the actors previously mentioned,both state and non-state.Beyond these methodological and theoretical contributions to the study of non-state actors in global governance,the empirical study reveals how interwoven the interests of the actors in the field of maritime safetyare.Moreover,it exposes the practices through which the actors contribute to the reproduction of the social order,and in this case to the high influence of classification societies.The theory of practice seems to be an adequate framework to understand the subject of global governance as it includes the growing complexity of the environment and the diversity which surrounds policy makers.The concept of field may be able to provide an interesting way to understand global governance,the political struggles and conflict of interest that occur in given issue-area of world politics.Indeed,global governance conceptualized as a field allows a finely tuned analysis of power struggles over various types of capital.This perspective on global governance that of the Commission of Global Governance mentioned in the introduction are thus radically in opposition.Globalization changes the political scene and increases the pace at which political actors are socially included or excluded.If the rising role of non-state actors in the “privatization” of governance is increasingly drawing the attention of political scientists,then the past research in this area arguably failed to identify the power dynamics underlying this phenomenon.The classification societies are arguably one of the most developed cases of a private governance system encompassing both the industry and a powerful presence at the supranational institutional level.Their emergence has been used as a starting point to uncover the social dynamics of the field.This research study may provide the industry and the states with additional sociological insight about the development of transnational actors in global governance and the political dynamics they generate.Mainstream IR theories,be they on the positivist or constructivist side,arguably lead researchers to overlook the actual everyday practices of both industrial and policymaking practitioners.The case study suggests that the social practices are relevant in the actual operation and regulation of international shipping.Bourdieu'stheory of practice provides key analytical elements to understand the power shifts and perpetuations in global governance.This research suggests that a deep understanding of the supranational success of the classification societies implies an analysis rooted in the practices of non-state actors throughout the industrial chain.A reductionist focus on the sole activities of the states and international organizations would not allow for incisive insights into the rise of nonstate actors in world politics.The practices of the classification societies and their role in global governance,as private actors and public service providers,show how,despite being contested,they have reached a preeminent position in maritime safety.