The concept of transparency in International Relations: Towards a critical approach

Abstract

Transparency is an important concept in International Relations. The possibility of realizing transparency in practice operates as a central analytical axis defining distinct positions on core theoretical problems within the field, from the security dilemma to the function of international institutions and beyond. As a political practice, the pursuit of transparent governance is a dominant feature of global politics, promoted by a wide range of actors across a vast range of issue areas, from nuclear proliferation, to internet governance, to the politics of foreign aid. Yet, despite its importance, precisely what transparency means or how the concept is understood is frequently ill-defined by academics and policymakers alike. As a result, the epistemological and ontological underpinnings of approaches to transparency in International Relations often sit in tension with their wider theoretical commitments. This article will examine the three primary understandings of transparency used in International Relations in order to unpack these commitments. It finds that while transparency is often explicitly conceptualized as a property of information, particularly within rationalist scholarship, this understanding rests upon an unarticulated set of sociological assumptions. This analysis suggests that conceptualizing 'transparency as information' without a wider sociology of knowledge production is highly problematic, potentially obscuring our ability to recognize transparent practices in global governance. Understanding transparency as dialogue, as a social practice rooted in shared cognitive capacities and epistemic

Truth and consequences? Reconceptualizing the politics of exposure

“…And it is presumed, or at least hoped, that the rise of international laws, and concrete forms of sanction such as prosecutions in the International Criminal Court, will act as a deterrent to states (Sikkink, 2011). Given the common presumption that states have incentives to lie about actions that violate international agreements, it follows that current practices, from inspections of weapons sites to the reports on human rights violations compiled by groups such as Amnesty International, mandate transparency, and support organized practices of exposure, in order to sustain an international order based upon shared norms and values (McCarthy & Fluck, 2017). In both domestic and international spheres, expectations of transparency, and threats of exposure, have thus been framed and institutionalized as a means of accountability.…”

“…The study of secrecy has also been revitalized by the emergence of a critical interdisciplinary literature on secrecy and transparency (e.g. Balmer, 2012; Birchall, 2011a; Capozzola, 2010; Horn, 2011; Masco, 2010; McCarthy and Fluck, 2017; Paglen, 2010; Wellerstein, 2008). However, even with interest in secrecy on the rise, there has been little explicit attention paid to exposure, or the breaking of secrecy, which has generally been relegated to the role of a mere ‘switch’, whose internal workings and variations are of little consequence.…”

Transparency in global sustainability governance: to what effect?

“…First, the very notion of transparency still needs further conceptual and empirical unpacking (see also Fluck & McCarthy, 2019;McCarthy & Fluck, 2017). This includes discerning what constitutes transparency in the first instance, and how it differs from related notions, such as surveillance.…”

Contested EU trade governance: transparency conundrums in TTIP negotiations

“…Partial transparency means that the public is given partial access to information during the negotiation process and at the ratification stage. Access to information can take place in the form of press conferences, the disclosure of negotiating positions of both negotiating parties, and texts on websites, or by providing stakeholders and citizens with detailed information on the state of play (see also McCarthy and Fluck 2016;Coremans 2017). Opting for partial transparency can appear attractive to bargaining parties, giving them the power to decide the scope of the information released.…”