The Benefits of Greater Direct NGO Participation in International Law Formulation - Assignment Example

This postulation continues that many issues such as energy and climate do not only affect people locally, but are yet to be tackled at the federal level of governance also. This has left states with no recourse to leading the way towards inventing innovative policies. In this case, it is the federal government that will catch up with the progress that these states have made. California’s tailpipe emission serves as an apt exemplification of this battle for primacy. Unlike other states, California has an autonomous air regulatory agency, the 1967 California Air Resource Board (CARB).

Recently, the federal government updated its CAFÉ standards as a way of harmonizing its environmental operations with CARB. States are using CARB as an example that validates the feasibility of supremacy of states (Baker, 2010). Another political reason being advanced is that states are autonomous and as such; when it comes to serious matters, states should act decisively in areas that house their interests. This is especially the case after it has been established that the federal government has failed to act in favor of a state’s interests. . One of the benefits is that when a country such as the US acts by proxies like NGOs, the laws being vouched for can be easily accepted.

This is in total contrast to direct participation by powerful countries such as the US. The veracity behind this development above is seen in the fact that America’s direct participation in formulation, interpretation and enforcement of international law is always perceived as being geared towards sociopolitical and economic hegemony. The case is not any different in the event that the US attempts to achieve these ends through the United Nations (UN) since America is known to contribute over 75% of the UN budget, and thereby having an inordinate sway therein.

The same case will apply to international organizations such as the Breton Wood Institutions; World Bank and the IMF. The international community sees these two institutions as America’s conduit for extending its political and economic hegemony. Conversely, by using NGOs to marshal support for the formulation, interpretation and enforcement of certain laws, the US will realize greater efficiency. This is because, NGOs are better placed to demand accountability from state and non-state actors, since NGOs: liaise with the government; fund the government; and create employment opportunities.

Because of this close acquaintance with the locals, NGOs can also participate not only in the formulation, interpretation and enforcement of a given law, but also in the domestication of the same. This scenario is aptly exemplified in America’s noble quest to have other countries pass terrorism laws, or the Antiterrorism Bill. According to Gordenker and Weiss (1995), the only tradeoffs that will emanate from involvement through the NGOs