The role of modern NGOs is diverse. They can play a crucial role in contributing to the political involvement of governments and intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) in the field of human rights. They also participate in drawing the attention of world public opinion to human rights issues and influence the setting of the public agenda in this respect. Furthermore, they help governments and IGOs to identify and prioritize key human rights issues. NGOs are actively involved in the drafting process of human rights conventions and treaties (e.g., Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Convention on the Rights of the Child, Convention Against Torture) and thus promote the development of human rights norms. NGOs help to protect human rights against government violations through different methods such as diplomatic initiatives, fact-finding missions, reports, public statements and mobilization of public opinion. These methods have proven successful, since most of the NGOs are more independent from political forces than States or IGOs and consequently are more able to identify and criticize human rights violations.
Today the human rights movement is comprised of two types of NGOs: “ ideal” or “exclusive” NGOs and NGOs that participate considerably in human rights
struggle. “ The “ ideal” human rights NGO is a voluntary organization which is dependent of both government and all groups which seek direct political power, and that does not itself seek such power.” These NGOs can also impute governments engaged in human rights violations using international norms or national legislation. The second category of NGOs is comprised of churches; trade unions; women’s organizations, professional and ethnically based associations; groups concerned with children, refugees and so on.
Further, I will outline some of the some of the prominent “ ideal” INGOs.
Amnesty International established in 1961 with 1.8 million members in more that 160 countries. Some of its major campaigns are: to liberate all prisoners of conscience (people detained for their beliefs or because of their ethnic origin, sex, color, language etc): to ensure fair and prompt trials for political prisoners: abolish death penalty, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of prisoners.
HRW is the largest US-based INGO. It was established in Helsinki in 1978. Today, it also includes divisions covering Africa, the Americas, Asia, and the Middle East, as well as thematic divisions on Arms, Children’s Rights and Women’s rights. The organization in engaged in regular investigations of human rights abuses in seventy countries around the world. It defends the freedom of thought and expression. The primary objective of the organization is to hold governments responsible if they transgress the rights of their people.
The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, set up in 1978, focuses on building the legal institutions that will guarantee human rights in the long term. The International Committee of the Red Cross, in 1863, directs and coordinates the international relief activities in situation of conflict. It protects the lives and dignity of victims of war and internal violence. Medecins sans Frontieres, 1971, focuses on emergency medical relief but in recent years human rights issues have assumed greater prominence.
Although the majority of NGO are funded through foundations, companies and private donators, some of them also accept money from governments (ICPRC is funded by the Swiss government).
So what are the major problems that these organizations have to overcome in their struggle against human rights violations? Although difficulties are myriad, I will discuss the most important ones. Perhaps the definition international norms and compliance with them is the most complicated issue. When we say that NGOs use international norms or national legislature to hold accountable governments that violate human rights, what norms we refer to? Are there universally adopted norms and laws to punish violators? Or where and how those violators should be penalized?
At the first glance the United Nations agreements on Human Rights-Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention Against Torture and Genocide and so on- seem to be a solution for the universal norm setting. Although adopted by many states, these agreements are not welcome in countries that are known to be gross violators of human rights. Perpetrators of Human Rights violations are often the countries that are bound by treaties to respect them or even that are at the origin of those regulations. Iraq, Rwanda and Yugoslavia had all ratified the Convention on the Prevention and Punishement of the Crime of Genocide, before being themselves the stages of such genocide.
On the other hand, these agreements are not approved by all the countries of the world. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the 58 Member States of the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. The members that participated in drafting and adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights largely belonged to western countries. This means that the Declarations, mostly influenced by western cultural values, disregards Asian and African standards. In order for a declaration or a norm to be universal, it should be drafted and adopted universally. The universal adoption of a norm will also facilitate the enforcement of that norm.
The question of enforcement is another problem. Undoubtedly, the role of NGOs in identifying the violations of human rights and drawing the international attention in that direction is huge, but when it comes to punishment- with no judicial power-NGOs have little to do. In addition, it is sometimes difficult to determine whether the violators should be punished according to their national legislature or according to international laws. Taking an action on a particular county or issue is another problem. Are interventions always helpful, or might they hurt the victims? Economic sanctions or embargoes against human rights violators sometimes can cause more damage than the violators themselves.
Human Rights NGOs perform a wide variety of functions like information gathering, advocacy, legal aid and humanitarian assistance, building solidarity and so on. What are the main obstacles that prevent NGOs from fulfilling their functions effectively?
Perhaps one of the most important functions is information processing. Information gathering is a prerequisite for effective action against human rights violators. “ The importance of information emerges in the part from the paradox that is central to human rights struggle: that the main protector of human rights- the authority one must in the end rely on to enforce human rights standards-is also the main violator.” UN Commission on Human Rights and other International NGOs rely on domestic NGOs for information gathering since they are ineffective in carrying out the fact-finding missions. Local NGOs offer different facts and testimonies from the official information source such as interviews with victims, witnesses, and so on. “Getting the facts straight and analyzing them carefully is an especially serious matter in the human rights field because lives, integrity and regime legitimacy are all at stake.” The next step is to disseminate this information: NGOs publish their findings in a dozen of books and reports, generating extensive coverage in local and international media.
NGOs can also face such problems as freedom of association, physical risks and legitimacy. States frequently use the national security argument (stated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), or antiterrorism laws to limit the right of association. Similarly, repressive states are using illegal and reprehensible methods like “ disappearances”, “ extralegal execution” or imprisonment without trial to get rid of the defenders of human rights.
NGOs are also encountered with the problem of legitimacy. To restore their image, human rights violators have created competing human rights bodies to distort accuracy and credibility of Information provided by the legitimate NGOs. This forced to standardize fact-finding procedures and to develop new methods for information gathering. It has also created mistrust in the information provided by the local Third World NGOs.
The complex relationship between domestic NGOs and International NGOs is another problem worth mentioning. Domestic NGOs feel that little attention is paid to their economic, social and political rights. The conventional democratic strategies have not generates any real changes. Domestic NGOs believe that the causes- and at the same time solutions -of many human rights violations lie in the radical restructuring of societies. Funding is another precarious issue. Not only it is difficult for an NGOs to be funded by a Western Foundation because governments use legislation or other regulations to make funding illegal, but also INGOs are reluctant to fund local NGOs that are tackling not very common problems. Sometimes for a local NGO to be funded by an INGO, it should comply with the mandates of the INGOs that sponsored the project. This often means to follow Western liberal tradition of problem solving, which is largely concerned with individualistic values, and to neglect the Asian values, which is more community-oriented.
Conclusion
Enforcing Human Rights is still a goal to be reached. Despite the existence of thousands of international and local non-governmental organizations that struggle to end the human rights violations around the world, this goal is far from being accomplished. The reason for the still going breaches of Human Rights mainly lays in the enforcement of these rights. “ Legislation on the books bears little relationship to legislation in fact, so even where laws are rewritten, little happens to change the lives of people: even where a case is won in court, little is done to enforce that verdict.”
Although NGOs have played a significant role in promotion and protection of internationally recognized human rights, their major drawback is that their activities are not coordinated by a central body. In addition, this organ should have legislative power to be able to punish the perpetrators. Could the United Nations be that central body to coordinate NGOs? In the past years, activities undertaken by the United Nations regarding human rights violations have not been proven effective. In addition, the United Nations has no judicial power.
The creation of a new and impartial organization, whose main goal will be the human right protection, can be a possible solution of this problem.
Henry Steiner and Philip Alston, International Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics, Morals (Oxford: Claderon Press, 1996), pp. 457- 470
R.P. Claude and B.H. Weston, eds. Human Rights in the World Community, 2nd ed. ( Philadelphia University of Pennsylvania Press,1999) p. 367
Henry Steiner and Philip Alston, International Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics, Morals (Oxford: Claderon Press, 1996), pp. 456-472
R.P. Claude and B.H. Weston, eds. Human Rights in the World Community, 2nd ed. ( Philadelphia University of Pennsylvania Press,1999) p. 372
Henry Steiner and Philip Alston, International Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics, Morals (Oxford: Claderon Press, 1996), pp. 471-472
Henry Steiner and Philip Alston, International Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics, Morals (Oxford: Claderon Press, 1996), pp. 471-472
http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/index.htm
R.P. Claude and B.H. Weston, eds. Human Rights in the World Community, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999) p.373
“ Minimal Rules of Procedure for International Human Rights Fact-Finding Missions” was adopted in Belgrade in 1980.
.P. Claude and B.H. Weston, eds. Human Rights in the World Community, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999) p.380