Advocacy networks are nonstate actors that interact with each other, with states, and with international organization. They are networks of activisits, distinguishable largely by the centrality of principled ideas or values in motivating their formulation. Advocacy networks are not new and have existed as far back as the 19th century campaign for the abolition of slavery. But their number, size, and professionalism, and the speed, density and complexity of international linkages among them have grown dramatically in the last three decades. (Keck & Sikkink, 10)

Activities of advocacy network run counter to the established theory of Westphalian sovereignty, where state authorities are considered to have supreme, independent authority over their territory. Much international network activity presumes the contrary - that it is both legitimate and necessary for states or nonstate actors to be concerned about the treatment of inhabitants of another state. (Keck & Sikkink, 36) Advocacy networks are therefore significant transnationally and domestically. By building links among actors in civil societies, states, and international organizations, they multiply the channels of access to the international system. They blur the boundaries between a state's relations with its own nationals and the recourse both citizens and states have to the international system, helping to transform the practice of national sovereignty. (Keck & Sikkink, 2)

At the core of the activities of advocacy networks is is information exchange. Traditionally, this information exchange was done through telephone calls, e-mail and fax communications, and the circulation of newsletters, pamphlets and bulletins, and by using these means, they have been able to provide information that would not otherwise be available, from sources that might not otherwise be heard, and they must make this information comprehensible and useful to activisits and publics who may be geographically and/or socially distant. (Keck & Sikkink, 18) Apart from these tools however, the internet has emerged as an invaluable resource in the activities employed by advocacy networks. In the rest of this paper, I explore the strategies employed by advocacy networks working on the claim of Kosovo refugees against the United Nations ("UN") on the lead poisoning claim.

A network of advocacy groups, including the Kosovo Roma Refugee Foundation, the Roma Information Foundation, and the Society for Threatened Peoples have filed claims against the UN. These claims allege that the UN Mission in Kosovo settled refugees from the Kosovo-Serbian conflict in land that the groups allege the UNMIK knows are lead contaminated toxic land. Actions were also filed by these groups with the Ombudsmans office and the local Kosovo Human Rights Advisory Board. The following strategies were used by the groups. Note that the strategies listed below are not an exhaustive listing of the activities done by the groups in relation to the case, but is merely a consideration of the internet strategies employed by the groups:

1. The groups created the website "Toxic Waste Poisons Children of Kosovo." The website contains a write-up of the cases, a dossier of evidence, a means to contact the groups for more information and information on how to support the campaign and to donate to the cause.

2. Featuring of the case in ReliefWeb, a self-described global hub for time-critical humanitarian information on complex emergencies and natural disasters.

3. Feature of the case in other websites including the European Roma Rights Center? , the New Kosova Report, Human Rights Watch, and write-ups on the work of one of the lawyers working on the case.

4. Features of the story of the Kosovo refugees in BBC and the Guardian.

5. E-mail writing campaigns to various persons in the UN.

At this point, it is useful to assess the strategies used by the groups in prosecuting their claims. To begin with, a few comments on the strategies can be made. First, it should be noted that the claims against UNMIK were filed as of 2006. The groups started their work on the case prior to this. Based on the information provided by the Society for Threatened Peoples and the Kosovo Medical Emergency Group, no action has been taken on the claims filed. Second, the news articles available on the internet about the claims of the Kosovo refugees against UNMIK are found in sources that are "friendly" to the cause of the Kosovo refugees, such as those of the European Roma Rights Center, the New Kosovo Report, and Human Rights Watch, as well as on profiles of the lawyers working on the case. Third, the claims against UNMIK has not received heavy mainstream media coverage. The articles found on mainstream press are few and far in between. There is no sustained coverage of the claims. Thus, from the relatively light coverage of the claims in mainstream media, the focus of heavy coverage of the claims on sources "friendly" to the Kosovo refugees and the groups working on their behalf, and the lack of action taken on the claims, it can be said that the groups have not been successful in using strategies available on the internet that have otherwise been used by other successful advocacy networks in pursuing their causes.

The first tool that the Kosovo groups have not been able to utilize fully is the information spreading power of the internet. Even as the groups have been successful in spreading information regarding their case through websites friendly to their cause, they have not been able to break into mainstream media. While mainstream media may not be gatekeepers of the truth in reporting, when their status is compared to websites friendly to the groups, they may be considered less biased to the cause, and a more credible source of information compared to friendly websites. A powerful tool that has not been used by the groups on the Kosovo case is the power of blogs. Just as mainstream media may suffer from conflict of interest when reporting on certain stories and are under commercial pressure to keep the attention of readers, bloggers do not have a similar constraint. Bloggers have the luxury of obsessing on issues, focusing and getting serious on topics. (Lessig, 43) If a particular blogger writes a particularly interesting story, more and more people link to that story. And as interest in the matter increases through the aggregation of interest through blogs, the story can be picked up and break into mainstream media. The failure of the Kosovo groups is that the information they release in the website is not a sustained reporting of facts that would establish their case. They report on individual cases that do not display whether or not their case is truly grave. The sustained reporting that is captured in a blog can create a case of sustained non-action, as they allege.

Another tool that the Kosovo groups have not been able to use is the ability to use the internet to create collaborative networks and coalitions. While the Kosovo groups are reporting on the case of the Kosovo refugees, one does not gain a sense that they are connected to the people on the ground. The news reports furnished by the Kosovo groups on their website link to websites of

Transnational advocacy networks seek influence in many of the same ways that other political groups or social movements do. Since they are not powerful in a traditional sense of the word, they must use the power of their information, ideas, and strategies to alter the information and value contexts within which states makes policies. The bulk of what networks do might be terms persuasion or socialization, but neither process is devoid of conflict. Persuasion and socialization often involve not just reasoning with opponents, but also bringing pressure, arm-twisting, encouraging sanctions, and shaming. (Keck & Sikkink, 16)