Non-governmental organizations and their influence on international society.

• Author: Clark, Ann Marie
• Position: Transcending National Boundaries

International non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have proliferated in the latter half of the 20th century. Many of these transnational actors are new to world politics, a province that historically has been dominated by states. In some issue areas, NGOs have acquired significant authority in the eyes of transnational actors. A prime example is the human rights group, Amnesty International, which began in 1961 with letter-writing efforts to free individuals imprisoned for the nonviolent expression of opinion. Since then, and especially within the past two decades, Amnesty International has developed the capacity to research, report and analyze global patterns of human rights violations, empowering it to be a source of record in U.N. sessions and national halls of power. Moreover, Amnesty International is only one of a network of international and national NGOs active in human rights. Others include the International Commission of Jurists, the International Committee of the Red Cross and Human Rights Watch, all of which attempt to influence governments by applying general human rights principles to particular situations. Similarly, a growing network of environmental NGOs works to hold governments accountable to international environmental standards. Other NGOs, such as OXFAM, establish economic development projects and administer economic and humanitarian aid with funding from the pockets of private contributors. What these NGO activities have in common is, while they often challenge governments and sometimes complement government-provided services, they nearly always act in counterpoint with governmental actors.

NGO operations historically have been dependent upon interstate organizations for the provision of channels of action. However, partly due to the limitations on participation and expression inherent when international arenas are controlled fundamentally by states, these NGOs have also devised new channels of action that allow them more freedom. International NGOs not only cross formal national boundaries - they also have created a direct and independent form of non-governmental diplomacy through networks of their own.(2)

The economic, informational and intellectual resources of NGOs have garnered them enough expertise and influence to assume authority in matters that, traditionally, have been solely within the purview of state administration and responsibility. Further, many NGOs claim a certain legitimacy for their causes by virtue of popular representation. Whether or not the influence and independent authority claimed by NGOs by virtue of their expertise and mandate of popular sovereignty amount to an erosion of formal state sovereignty is both a theoretical and empirical question. While I will not discuss the conceptual history of sovereignty here, for purposes of this essay it is important to recognize, as has been noted recently, that state practices only murkily reflect formal, diplomatic definitions of sovereignty, and sovereignty is often highly conditional and socially determined in practice.(3) Similarly, the relative influence of NGOs is not a static phenomenon, and their impact on state policies has changed and is changing with time.

To return to human rights, NGOs have been involved at crucial junctures in strengthening the expectation that states be held accountable for human rights practices in the 20th century, as international and regional human rights norms have been elaborated in response to problematic country cases, and states have been encouraged to create new intergovernmental reporting and monitoring procedures at the formal level.(4) These changes have arisen not so much from enthusiastic state participation as from international popular and diplomatic pressure exerted on governments. Human rights NGOs, such as Amnesty International, have become skilled at mounting such pressure by feeding information into pertinent public and governmental channels for discussion, on the one hand, and distributing and promoting new human rights instruments, on the other.(5) Further, it is often through such activity by NGOs that newly created norms become formalized and develop meaningful impact. This process changes the scope of state sovereignty as it, "reconstitutes the relationship between the state, its citizens and international actors."(6)

In this article I consider two cases: the international role of NGOs concerned with upholding states' obligations to protect the human rights of their citizens, and the work of international environmental NGOs. Both issue areas have seen a groundswell of grassroots interest carried to the international level, as well as related growth in interest at the U.N. and regional governmental levels, arguably in important enough ways to justify the classification of NGOs as new international actors that represent nonstate interests. In pressing for environmental issues when states lack the necessary resources or commitment for pursuing a comprehensive vision of environmental conservation, environmental NGOs are motivated by some of the same humanitarian principles as are human rights NGOs. Additionally, both types of NGOs foster the creation and maintenance of an international public consensus on principles of human rights and the environment that tends to impel responsive states to adhere to new legal and behavioral norms of practice related to these issues. To date, however, the degree to which the two have emphasized participation in formal governmental arenas, as well as the creation of independent networks outside governmental channels, has differed. While human rights NGOs place a strong emphasis on respect for legal norms of human rights and thus look to intergovernmental channels for effective action, environmental NGOs have introduced an added dimension of modern NGO activity by being even less dependent on state channels of action.

How and why do such NGOs have an effect on states? NGOs in the issue areas under consideration represent a focused, but potentially broadly appealing, set of ideas, information and values. The commitment of NGOs to particular principles such as human rights or the environment enables them to mobilize a highly motivated international public membership. Their members provide the financial and volunteer resources needed to gather extensive information and expertise. Commitment to a very focused set of concerns, in contrast to the obligations of states to respond to a greater range of demands, allows NGOs to gain leverage on selected policy issues. This can be advantageous internationally, where human rights and environmental NGOs challenge state sovereignty through the very attributes that make them different from states: narrow issue focus, intense and principled commitment and relatively high levels of information, expertise and, sometimes, resources to commit to issues.

The Power of Principle: Human Rights,

The Environment, and the Stakes for States

Certain public goods such as communications, trade and environmental protection traditionally have been regulated by states at the domestic level. International exchange of goods and information also demands that states cooperate to establish mutually recognized regulatory standards in matters such as trade, monetary standards, communication and technology.(7) As the legal, economic and ethical implications of such regulatory regimes cross borders, the issues themselves become internationalized, often coming into conflict with the goals of particular states. A growing literature on international governance documents the growth of international regimes that organize state practices in particular issue areas. Regimes are conceived of as tools for states' pursuit of self-interest, created and maintained in response to international demand for rules governing mutually beneficial international transactions.(8) The concept of regimes, therefore, is fundamentally state-centric, although it can be inferred that non-governmental organizations also would cluster around international regime-based institutions, to exert influence on particular issues.

Although the regimes concept has been applied to human rights, the authoritative moral element in their enforcement is overlooked by the more state-centered theories of international governance.(9) Human rights norms impose a duty on states to respect human dignity, both internationally and through the treatment of their citizens. Compared with the well-established sovereignty principle, codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the U.N. in 1948, this duty to protect human dignity is a relatively new principle of international law.(10) Human rights obligations potentially limit state policy choices in a categorical way, so that in practice, international demands that human rights obligations be fulfilled conflict with the older international principle of non-interference in domestic affairs. Thus, the moral component of human rights concerns, the idea that human rights should be a part of state practice under all circumstances, is at odds with a conventional interest-based explanation of regimes.

In the environmental field, the principles advocated by NGOs include humanitarian and conservationist concerns for the well-being of humans and the rest of nature. As...