1/3 Transformative forces - Global citizenship

"¡El pueblo unido, jamás será vencido!"

Nueva cancion chilena - Sergio Ortega y Quilapayún.

June 1973.

Intrinsically as we have observed during UNGASS preparations, it could be argued that state governments are unlikely to favor deep-seated change, which is what makes the transformational potential of civil society so important to our analysis and systemic transformation of the current IDCR. As such, when citizens decide to take on issues of such a massive scale, as the global drug prohibition framework or even global warming; it often is easy to feel discouraged. However, as pointed out by Johann Jari and Naomi Klein (2015) “we need to remind ourself that we are so much more powerful than we know.” Additionally, it is equally important to realize that “social movements are the only things that ever truly changed anything.” (Ibid.)

By social movements - which are an important referent in most expression of critical interdisciplinary theory - we will choose here to understand and use the definition of Alberto Melucci (1996, p. 115) which described them as “hidden networks of groups, meeting points, and circuit of solidarity” in increasingly complex societies, “which differ profoundly from the image of political organized actors…. these links become explicit only during the transient periods of collective mobilization over issues which bring the latent networks to the surface and then allow it to submerge again in the fabric of the daily life.” Social movements and civil society organizations are often better able to provide and protect public common goods because of their relatively small size, institutional flexibility, knowledge and local experiences. It is important to realize that civil society movements and organizations are not a substitute for states or international organizations in order to guarantee human security. For this to be, we would have to have considered the states as the protector of equity and social justice in the first place, which is arguably not the case.

Consequently, one of the strongest component of critical human security remains a healthy and vibrant civil society. Not only support, but active and informed engagement. As noted by Fen Osler Hampson (2004a), “A growing consciousness has arisen where citizens no longer depend upon organisations to filter the news by bringing pictures and stories of the realities of drug related policies on the ground.” In this regard, the cosmopolitan school of thoughts, as well as the critical viewpoint, argue that new forms of transnational civil society solidarities have been strongly empowered by new forms of communication and information technologies. Transgressing, somehow meaningless national boundaries, has become the norm. And social learning through critical citizen education has played a decisive role in creating these new norms (Hewson & Sinclair, 1999). The latter “are the building blocks of new forms of social and political discourse and, ultimately, political behaviour and institutions.” (Hampson, 2004a; see also: Rosenau, 1999)

We would argue here that, in regard to drug control policy reform - but also true for other forms of transformative actions - it is not enough to think from the space and comfort of social science analysis. Academics cannot rest on sclerotic foundations. As pointed out by Arthuro Escobar (2010), we must “incorporate other forms of knowledge, such as those of the activist-intellectuals that inhabit the worlds of many of today’s social movements.” Put differently, where, with whom, and for what purpose we decide to think and act matter, and these parameters themselves become part of the elements of our investigation. The time where we could take refuge in the idea of a potential objectivity and the elevation of one spirit looking down over the actions of others, is gone. Our process must be “simultaneously theoretical and political.” (Escobar, 2010) One of the key component of civil society, as-well as academic analysis, is to reform and re-adapt the narrative and discourse around drugs and drug policy. Many dimensions can be put forward, such as for example the “need to reinforce understanding of the basic cost-benefit analysis associated with continued support for the current drug policy regime.” (TNI & IDPC, 2012) Linking the counterproductive impacts of the current policies with the need to better use scarce public resources can theoretically only appeal to anyone in charge, desirous of better managing citizen funds.

All high level activities - including preparatory CND Sessions - need to be targeted by civil society “either through influencing domestic policy makers or continuing to work on changing the wider public discourse on drug policy via the media.” (TNI & IDPC, 2012) But this cannot be the sum of civil society involvement. Another key component is to engage a wider NGO audience whose work have been widely influenced by the current regime but have not partake in the reform processes before. In the lights of the upcoming Special Session, the 2015 COP 21 Paris Summit has given us extraordinary examples of transformative actions. Not within the comfortably numb fora of the official delegations, but in the streets, among hundreds of thousands activists. Gathered there, not only because they knew change must take place, but because they and their community need it. Being at the forefront of climate change is something rather different than simply knowing that the temperature is rising. But what is probably even more impressive is the fundamentally non-violent character of their actions, whereas the argumentation for violence could be, in regard to the urgency of the situation, somehow much more easy to advocate.

In this regard, it could be argued here that the sole existence of the state, its sovereignty and its actions within the international spheres through the U.N. system constitute in itself an act of violence for the ones being oppressed by the current system. If the Weberian credo enacts that violence is sometimes legitimated - and therefore sometimes presumably necessary - we must reverse this view and understand in a radical and emancipatory perspective that if violence enacted by the oppressed is always legitimated - since their status directly come from a form of violence -, it should never be necessary. Indeed the choice to use violence, or not, is always a strategic consideration. As such and as noted by Wolfgang Dietrich (2014, p. 158), “transrational actors have access to a wide-range of new methods, possibilities, and perspectives, each of which has a transformative power in specific contexts.”

It is perhaps equally important to realize that UNGASS 2016 will not solely take place within the offices allocated in New York and Vienna for the, nonetheless important, segmented presentations and speech that the agreed key speakers will give. It will equally take place in the streets and online. Grassroots groups from all over the world would need to throw in their weight behind the 2016 U.N. sponsored event for the landmark conference. Similar to the COP 21, protests could involve mass civil disobedience social justice actions, themed around “red lines” which negotiators need to see and understand that it is not an option anymore to cross. Campaigners need to shelve earlier plans in order to prevent delegations to leave the summit until they reach significant agreements that match activist ambitions. Specifically, on the last day of the Special Session - April 21, 2016-, a final massive demonstration need to take place, converging towards the summit physical gatherings. The idea should not be to physically block delegations, but to clearly state that if these red lines are crossed, - which represent the minimal necessities to reform the current IDCR -, no potential for change, nor hope, can be laid upon the shoulders of the U.N. institutional way.

In this regard, we will intend to analyze here the place of civil society in the current UNGASS process, outside of the offered institutional space and its potential for transformative actions with the ongoing creation of a global citizenship dynamic. Then in another article we will observe the need for trans-local solidarity.

Global citizenship

As noted by Inge Fryklund (2012), in legal terms, “drugs are malum prohibitum (wrong because prohibited by law) rather than malum in se (inherently wrong, such as theft or murder).” As such, one could sensibly challenge the very need to proscribe certain substances, especially since others - as we will see in further articles - are perfectly legal and morally accepted. But in order to do this, citizens, like you and us, would need to have an ounce of institutional democratic power, which if you live in a non-democratic state you know for sure you do not possess, but it is equally likely if you live in a so-called democratic state, where representativity and “free” elections are supposed to give you some kind of power, that in reality, you do not possess much more say on the way society is being governed. De facto, nearly all citizens live in countries where drug control policies (and other political areas), are far from being representative of citizens views, or even appear being representative. So, aside from not being in our hands, where is the political power? In regard to drug control policy, who decides for us and why have they chosen to make certain substances illegal? Have they chosen the most affordable and effective solutions? What problems were they trying to solve? Are the collateral damages worth the benefices? Have they even chosen to or have they only taken as given certain notions and pre-existing policies?

But then how can people learn and act one might ask? The concept of world citizenship, or cosmopolitanism can be a useful political tool in order to resolve this conundrum. This concept is literally a “declaration of freedom from the confines of the local polis.” (Sanders, 2010) As first theorized by Immanuel Kant (1795), the Cosmopolitan Law represents the “ethic of hospitality to strangers”, which lays out “a framework of reciprocal rights and obligations that pertain to all individuals irrespective of nationality, ethnicity, social status or religious beliefs - rights to which each is entitled and which each is pledged to respect, as citizens of the world.” But the problem with this Kantian principle is that very rarely has this been put in practice. Only in periods of extreme crisis and system breakdown have they somehow made their way into institutionalized political practice, “although usually compromised by the counter-pressure of entrenched interest and power.” (Sanders, 2010)

Six conceptual components constitute the ‘cosmopolitan moment of world risk society’: “enforced enlightenment, communication across all divides and boundaries, the political power of catharsis, enforced cosmopolitanism, risks as a wake-up call in the face of the failure of governments and the possibility of alternative forms of governance in a globalised world.” (Beck, 2009) Growing away from the idea of states multilateralism, the idea of cosmopolitanism democracy - global citizenship - could open up the way for more than an ethical stance, rusted away by clustered interests, but to a transformational and practical reality which could respond to the transnational challenges that citizens and governments of the world are currently facing. Inclusive of non-state actors, multi-layered in form, diffused and opened to new forms of deliberations this new stage of global relations is slowly paradigmatically building. This new form of critical cosmopolitanism is not only concerned with how globalization is internalized, but questions the very basis of this humanity evolution form. As noted by Jerry Sanders (2010), “What begins in social practice in the form of translation and bridging between different cognitive worlds becomes a normative project also for the building of global community.” Dialectically interplayed between local affiliation and global solidarity, this “rooted cosmopolitanism” (Appiah, 2005) can offer a tangible - although far from being invincible - alternative to both hegemonic universalism and outdated nationalism. As a guided framework for new forms of thinking and actions, this cosmopolitanism can help us navigate a world increasingly defined by complex layers of interdependence and multiplying ways to interpret modernity.

For Ulrich Beck (2009), we face “a new global domestic politics, which is already in part effective beyond the national-international divide” and which “has become a meta-power game whose outcome is completely open.” Constantly renegotiating boundaries, this cosmopolitan moment is not made of an aggregation of single players, but of diluted alliances, which empower its actors as they discover new sources of legitimation and options for actions. In parallel, these movements allow the disempowerment of pre-existing powers such as states and global capital “because the consequences of investment decisions give rise to global risks, destabilise markets and awaken the power of the sleeping consumer giant.” (Beck, 2009) This could lead the path for a post-national order, what Beck calls a “cosmopolitan form of statehood.” (Ibid.) As defined by Torbjørn Knutsen (1999, p. 297) the Cosmopolitan Peace "augurs the evolution of a transnational civic culture which engenders mutual trust and legitimacy. It is an attribute of a regional concrete, civilizationally specific and historically constructed order secured by a complex, interactive web rather than a simple bi-variate, unidirectional relationship.” Social movements are crucial in order to bring on this cosmopolitan paradigm.

For Charles Tilly (1995), social movements are “organisations, groups of people and individuals, who act together to bring about transformation in society” and which are “cosmopolitan, autonomous and modular” (Ibid.) by nature. But wether we choose to call global politics “global social movement” (Cohen & Rai, 2000); 'international NGOs' (INGOs); “transnational advocacy networks” (Keck & Sikkink, 1998); “civil society organizations”; “global public policy networks” (Reinicke & Deng, 2000); “transnational solidarity movements” (Devin, 2004); or “global civil society” (Kaldor, 2003); we describe similar global processes through which, not only citizens influence, debate and negotiate an ever changing set of social contracts with the centers of authority, but also often choose not to take as a given these very authorities. As signified by Mary Kaldor (2003), “terms like “global politics” or global civil society signify the domestication of the international.” By global politics we mean here “the interaction between the institutions of global governance (international institutions and states) and global civil society - the groups, networks and movements which comprise the mechanisms through which individuals negotiate and renegotiate social contracts or political bargains at a global level.” (Kaldor, 2013) A place where emotions, sentiments and individual reason can have a small place alongside states and bloc interests.

As noted by George Lakey (2015), “To succeed, movements must overcome the tension between rationality and emotion.” Indeed, often within these kind of movements, two irresistible forces can come in conflict. The rational part, which intend to strategize, use efficiently resources while staying nimble. We must accept that these organizations - and this should not be underestimated, nor undervalued - are the very product of emotion; experiencing solidarity, empathically connected with those living different lives or who have not joined yet, while tapping righteously into a sense of anger that carry the principle of social justice. Upper social classes, academic instructions and public institutions train us to privilege rationality over emotions. If the goal is to transform, one cannot go without the other. Finding the right balance in between the two remains one of the core challenge of contemporary social justice movements.

Consequently, while intending to analyze such movements, it remains crucial to “recognise diversity, openness, and the plurality of agency and subjectivity.” (Slater, 2004) It could be argued here that only through rebellion and collective, direct actions can we transcend cynicism. These types of movement can be considered as “political”, in contrast to “politics”. A relationship, a living movement, what Jorge Arditi called a kind of “magma of conflicting wills” and which remains ubiquitous, volatile and mobile, but also intrinsically subverting. Only those have the power to truly transform the “institutional moorings of politics.” (Slater, 2004) Because they challenge existing modes of institutional practices, these social movements generate a re-thinking of geopolitics, notably by being overlapping and highly connected.

The “affinity group”, an organizational approach described in The laboratory of insurrectionary imagination, remains at the core of this effective direct action argumentation. An affinity group “is a cluster of between 5 and 15 people who decide to work together – staying together during the action, looking out for each other, and building trust and emotional support to enable and empower its participants. Remaining autonomous, not relying on a top down command structure, but making their own decisions about what to do (and not to do), affinity groups are way more fluid and responsive than a larger mass of people.” By sowing fertile seeds allowing other people to participate, they also have the reactivity and elasticity necessary to attach themselves to other groups, creating de facto a network of like minded autonomized individuals. Non-hierarchical and decentralized by nature, the origin of the affinity group can be traced back to the nineteenth century Spanish anarchist groups which gathered in cafe to discuss politics and plan of actions together. The form was reenacted decades later during the Spanish Civil War and by the Anti-Vietnam War protests as-well as by the American post-dadaist art activist collective Black Mask. Some of the most successful civil disobedience mass acts of the twentieth century, from the anti-nuclear blockades of the 1970’s to the WTO shut down in Seattle used the concept at the heart of their actions.

The British manifesto Reclaim the streets! (1996), probably describes best the path to envision if we wish to truly engage in transformative actions: “Direct action actually enables people to develop a new sense of self-confidence and an awareness of their individual and collective power. Direct action is founded on the idea that people can develop the ability for self-rule only through practice, and proposes that all persons directly decide the important issues facing them. Direct action is not just a tactic; it is individuals asserting their ability to control their own lives and to participate in social life without the need for mediation or control by bureaucrats or professional politicians. Direct action encompasses a whole range of activities, from organizing co[-]ops to engaging in resistance to authority. Direct action places moral commitment above positive law. Direct action is not a last resort when other methods have failed, but the preferred way of doing things.” In regard to this definition, several initiatives are being undertaken by civil society organizations all around the world to potentially influence the upcoming Special Session on illicit drugs.

As noted by Johann Jari & Naomi Klein (2015), “there is heroism in resistance to this war all over the world.” And many different initiatives are currently being undertaken towards influencing the course of UNGASS 2016. Reform-oriented countries are getting a significant boost from civil society. A drug policy reform movement has taken root across the region, including non-governmental organizations (NGOs), treatment providers, student groups (primarily organized around cannabis regulation) and drug user groups. Many of the NGOs work together within the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC), a coalition funded by Soros' Open Society Foundation, of more than a hundred organizations and networks worldwide advocating for more effective and humane drug policies. In March 2016, massive marches took place in numerous Latin American countries in support of creating legal, regulated cannabis markets. Regional dynamics around drug policy issues have undergone a profound shift. Many of these movements asks that countries be granted the flexibility to experiment with policies appropriate to their reality.

On September 20th, 2015, the 920 Coalition emerged from the current momentum building for drug control policy reform. This network of civil society organizations launched an annual event which “seeks to educate people about the historical, medicinal and therapeutic uses of psilocybin mushrooms.” (Davies, 2015) Additionally, the 2015 Stop the Drug War letter (1), signed by over 100 organizations from all over the world (2), including, Human Rights Watch, NORML, American Civil Liberties Union, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, the International Drug Policy Consortium and several others from the Global South, boils down to a fairly simple demand: “human rights principles, which lie at the core of the United Nations charter, should take priority over provisions of the drug conventions.” (3) There probably cannot be simpler demand, and yet, this request has been unanswered for more than fifty years. The letter is part of a wider campaign coalition (4) which notably calls for “the UN to appoint a "Committee of Experts" to study the topic of drug treaty reform” which, as we have seen in precedent articles, remain completely out of the question for U.N member states.

The IDPC has also organized the “global advocacy campaign that has grown from 41 participating cities in 2013 to 150” (5) (Drug Policy, 2015) in 2015 called Support. Don't Punish (6). The global advocacy campaign, which bring together activists from all over the world will also bring members of the network to New York to partake in different civil society organized demonstrations. Part of the Community Action on Harm Reduction (CAHR) project, the movement is focused principally on harm reduction interventions. But the network has managed to unite participants on other related thematics and has shown that drug policy reforms go far beyond traditional divides, notably in between Global North and South. Fathered on June 26, 2015, thousands of activists took the streets in a global day of action. One of the purpose of the campaign was to point out a dreadful omission of the UNODC WDR, which despite recognizing some of the harms caused by the current system, never acknowledged that the system in itself is a direct cause for those harms, and not a solution for them. The full list of events of the day is available here (7), and can only serve a first step in regard to the upcoming Special Session.

The date of June 26 has not been chosen by chance by the IDPC. It is the U.N. International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking which regularly offers the vision of obnoxious demonstrations of burning piles of illicit drugs sized by authorities all over the world. Created by the U.N. General Assembly Resolution 42/112 of December 7, 1987, the International Day has of stated mission to show the “expression of determination” of the international community “to strengthen action and cooperation to achieve the goal of an international society free of drug abuse.” (8) Aside from the already, countlessly demonstrated vacuity of the "world ‘drug-free’” goal, what remains striking with the way current drug related issues are handled is the core belief that “illicit drugs continue to pose a health danger to humanity”, while never questioning the very foundations of this idea. As noted by the Initiative, there is no “enemy”, nor “war” in regard to drugs and drug abuse; only a public health issue can be sustainably envisioned which should be addressed “through harm reduction initiatives and science-based education that removes stigma and provides accurate information on drugs.” (Drug Policy, 2015a)

Among the coalition gathering towards UNGASS 2016, united under the Stop the Harm (9) umbrella, faith leaders have kicked off the demonstrations on February 15, 2016, as hundreds of African American pastors will engage in the participatory education Samuel DeWitt Proctor Conference (10) in Houston, Texas. Stop The Harm gathers on its side more than 177 civil society organizations (11) which intend to partake in the struggle for global drug policy reform, and intends to present a united face for the movement.

March 28, 2016 was the start of the Caravan for Peace, Life, and Justice (12), composed of families which have lost family members to the drug wars violence in Latin American, as-well as indigenous communities, faith leaders, human rights activists, policy experts, health experts, students, farmers and concerned citizens. The convoy has started its journey in Honduras and has gone through El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, and Texas before flying to Washington DC, to arrive in New York on April 18, 2016 for a day of protest and reflexion.

The coalition of Students for Sensible Drug Policy (13), “dedicated to amplifying the voice of the global youth on matters of drug policy” (Hetzer & Rajagopalan, 2016), will bring to NY on April 18, hundreds of students from all over the world in order to voice their opposition to the current course of action. They will be hosting a series of art demonstration at Bryant park and Foley Square as-well as within the U.N. during the time of the Special Session.

Additionally, the Drug Policy Alliance (14), leading organization in the U.S. on drug policy reform will be hosting the week end before UNGASS a meeting at Colombia University with national and international like minded actors and active members of the growing international coalition dedicated to drug policy reform in order to discuss and debate of the after UNGASS.

However, although it is fundamentally crucial, being in the streets is of course not the only way to act. Leading regional gathering and examples of personalities from multiple sectors, such as the Latin American Commission On Drugs (15) and the West Africa Commission on Drugs (16), are part of the multiple movements of personalities gathering to fight for drug policy reforms. Similarly, the Global Commission on Drug Policy (17), composed of former and active high-level officials, will be actively lobbying and advocating the current world leaders on alternative ways to deal with drugs on a global level. And although they are arguably naturally bound by institutional and cultural limitations, distinguished personalities from all over the world, do help spread the word at the highest level of decision making, notably in regard to intra-personal relationships.

Online activism, notably through the Talking Drug website, has allowed for individuals from all over the world to enact demand for action from their governments (18), highlighting the urgency of reform. Similarly, as incarceration of women have skyrocketed in the past decades, a coalition of more than “50 organizations representing every continent have joined in a Women's Declaration (19) calling on the UN to consider harms women and their families face under punitive drug laws, and demanding change that promotes women's human rights.” (Hetzer & Rajagopalan, 2016)

Composing the different parts of the Multi-Track Diplomacy wheel, these actions remain at the core of the current momentum. In light of all these different, multiple and heterogeneous actions, cooperation and trans-local solidarity remain the key which we will discuss in the next article.

---

(1) http://stopthedrugwar.org/global

(2) http://stopthedrugwar.org/files/coalition.pdf

(3) The letter follows by saying that “global drug control policies that heavily emphasize criminalization of drug use, possession, production and distribution are inconsistent with international human rights standards and have contributed to serious human rights violations,” http://stopthedrugwar.org/global

(4) “Our new coalition is pressing for a range of reforms to international drug policy, including the prioritizing of human rights, public health, economic development, access to medicines, security, and the revision of the UN drug control conventions to eliminate the conflict that has emerged between treaty language and legalization of marijuana or other drugs in UN member states.” (Stop the drug war, 2015)

(5) In 2015, actions took place in Australia, Brazil, Egypt, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Russia, Thailand, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and the USA – as well as in Argentina, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, France, The Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Ivory Coast, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Liberia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Moldova, Montenegro, Myanmar, Nepal, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Puerto Rico, Romania, Serbia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Uruguay, Uzbekistan and Zimbabwe (http://supportdontpunish.org/day-of-action-2015/)

(6) www.supportdontpunish.org/

(7) http://supportdontpunish.org/day-of-action-2015/

(8) http://www.un.org/en/events/drugabuseday/

(9) https://stoptheharm.org

(10) http://sdpconference.info

(11) https://stoptheharm.org/allies

(12) http://pazvidajusticia.org

(13) http://ssdp.org/

(14) www.drugpolicy.org/

(15) http://www.drogasedemocracia.org/Arquivos/declaracao_ingles_site.pdf

(16) http://www.wacommissionondrugs.org

(17) www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/

(18) www.supportdontpunish.org/

(19) bit.ly/UNGASSwomen1

• (Appiah, 2005) K. A. Appiah, The Ethics of Identity. Princeton, NJ., Princeton University Press, 2005.

• (Beck, 2009) U. Beck, World at Risk, Chapter 3, the “Cosmopolitan Moment” of World Risk Society or: Enforced Enlightenment”, Polity Press, Cambridge, 2009.

• (Cohen & Rai, 2000) R. Cohen & S. M. Rai, Global Social Movements, Athlone Press, London and new brunswick, NY, 2000.

• (Davies, 2015) J. Davies, “Using Psychedelics Shouldn't Be a Crime”, Drug Policy, September 15, 2015, http://www.drugpolicy.org/blog/using-psychedelics-shouldnt-be-crime, Accessed: 18/12/15.

• (Dietrich, 2014) W. Dietrich, Elicitive Conflict Transformation and the Transrational Shift in Peace Politics; London, 2014.

• (Drug Policy, 2015) L. Krasovitzky, "150 Cities Come Together to Demand an End to the Drug War", Drug Policy, June 26, 2015, http://www.drugpolicy.org/blog/150-cities-come-together-demand-end-drug-war, Accessed: 19/01/16.

• (Escobar, 2010) A. Escobar, Latin America at a Crossroads, Routledge, UK, January 12, 2010, http://www.sidint.net/sites/www.sidint.net/files/docs/EscobarPaper.pdf, Accessed: 18/12/15.

• (Fryklund, 2012) I. Fryklund, “On Drugs and Democracy”, Foreign Policy In Focus, August 6, 2012, http://fpif.org/on_drugs_and_democracy/, Accessed: 04/02/16.

• (Hampson, 2004a) F. E. Hampson, “Human Security, Globalisation, and Global Governance”, in J. N. Clarke & G. R. Edwards, Global Governance in the Twenty-first Century, Palgrave Macmillan, NY, 2004.

• (Hetzer & Rajagopalan, 2016) H. Hetzer & S. Rajagopalan, “War on Drugs Takes Center Stage at UN as Global Leaders and International Activists Assemble in NY”, The Huffington Post, February 17, 2016, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hannah-hetzer/war-on-drugs-takes-center_b_9251950.html, Accessed: 24/02/16.

• (Jari & Klein, 2015) J. Jari & N. Klein, "Does Capitalism drive drug addiction", DEMOCRACYNOW.ORG, March 11, 2015, http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2015/3/11/johann_hari_naomi_klein_does_capitalism, Accessed: 18/12/15.

• (Kaldor, 2003) M. Kaldor, “Social Movements, NGOs and Networks”, pp. 79-108, Blackwell Plublishing Ltd, London, 2003.

• (Kaldor, 2013) M. Kaldor, Global Civil Society: An Answer to War, Polity, 2013.

• (Kant, 1795) I. Kant, Perpetual Peace. Translated from the German by L. White Beck, New-York, Liberal Arts Press, 1957. Originally published in Konigsberg as Zum ewigen Friden, 1795.

• (Keck & Sikkink, 1998) M. Keck & K. Sikkink, Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, 1998.

• (Knutsen, 1999) T. L. Knutsen, The Rise and Fall of World Orders, Manchester, UK, Manchester University Press; 1999.

• (Lakey, 2015) G. Lakey, ”To succeed, movements must overcome the tension between rationality and emotion”, Waging non violence, July 29, 2015, http://wagingnonviolence.org/feature/to-succeed-movements-must-overcome-the-tension-between-rationality-and-emotion/, Accessed: 19/01/16.

• (Melucci, 1996) A. Melucci, Challenging codes, Collective Action in the Information Age, Cambridge Cultural Social Studies, Cambridge University Press, 1996.

• (Reinicke & Deng, 2000) W. H. Reinicke & F. Deng, Critical Choices: The United Nations, Networks and the Futur of Global Governance, International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, 2000.

• (Rosenau, 1999) J. N. Rosenau, Turbulence in World Politics: A Theory of Change and Continuity, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1990.

• (Sanders, 2010) J. W. Sanders,“Cosmopolitanism as a Peace Theory”, The Oxford International Encyclopedia of Peace, Oxford, pp. 497-501, 2010.

• (Slater, 2004) D. Slater, “Another World Is Possible: On Social Movements, the Zapatistas and the Dynamics of Globalization from Below”, In D. Slater, Geopolitics and the Post-Colonial: Rethinking North-South Relations, Blackwell, Chapter 8: pp. 197-222, 2004.

• (Stop the drug war, 2015) Stop The Drug War, “Reform Global Drug Policy”, 2015, http://stopthedrugwar.org/files/coalition.pdf, Accessed: 19/01/16.

• (Stop The Drug War, 2015a) psmith, “On the UN's Global Anti-Drug Day, Civil Society Fights Back”, Stop The Drug War, June 26, 2015, http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2015/jun/26/uns_global_antidrug_day_civil_so, Accessed: 22/01/16.

• (Tilly, 1995) C. Tilly, Popular Contention in Great Britain 1758-1834, Oxford university Press, Oxford, 1995.

• (TNI & IDPC, 2012) Transnational Institute & International Drug policy Consortium, Report TNI / IDPC Expert Seminar , “The Future of the UN drug conventions” Prague, January 25-26, 2012, http://www.undrugcontrol.info/images/stories/documents/Prague-Expert-seminar-report.pdf, Accessed: 11/12/15.