International Relations: Structures of International Governance - Term Paper Example

 International Relations - Structures of International Governance Critically assess the relationship between intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations. Illustrate your argument with an empirical example Introduction Non-state actors have come to exert an increased influence on the decision-making and management activities of the leading international financial institutions and other major sectors of different countries. There are three main broad categories of non-state actors, non-governmental organizations, standard setting institutions, and credit rating agencies; each of them play a vital and distinct role in the development of any country (Haque, 2000). Global governance seek the change in the politics and administrative terms, however, the paradigm is deeply embedded in the traditional intergovernmental framework. They see the global governance as a form of supranational organization in which governments “sacrifice their authority to a higher supranational authority” (Sandler, 1997). Using this approach, global governance is viewed primarily in terms of a trade-off between national sovereignty and supranational authority which is obviously too simple. In addition to this, people started adopting the fact that the governments cannot be the sole agency to governance due to their incomplete capabilities and outright partiality on some issues (Vayrynen, 2003). Thus the importance of NGOs was recognized by the Commission on Global Governance, but their dual nature was also not ignored. It was noted that the growing range of actors involved will challenge the governance by making it more complex, and the diversity may complicate the process as well. However, it was also kept in mind that this will greatly increase the capacity of NGOs and put them more in power as compared to the previous years (The governance system the Commission on Global Governance, 1995). Non-Governmental Organization Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs): They are the legally constituted independent, non profit, private organizations with humanitarian goals, which may be transnational, local, or national and have unstructured or formal management. A broader definition includes non profit entities or private organizations that are not affiliated with national or local government participation or representation, and receive fundings such as foundations, academic institutions, firms, and cooperative development organizations. The nongovernmental organizations are essential to humanitarian relief in bringing years of experience in public health and preventive medicine programming to a crisis zone (Lawry, 2009). The global community of NGOs encompasses a wide range of organizations which is categorized into four basic types: the first one is “Humanitarian Aid”; it deals with both emergency response and development. The second is “Advocacy Groups”; they include Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, and Physician for Human Rights. Next is “Faith-based Groups”: they are humanitarian aid groups originally founded a faith principle but do not use religion as a part of the aid given. The last is “Missionary Aid Groups”: these groups seek to spread the words. They use humanitarian aid to access to those people who need conversion, more or less conditional aid (Lawry, 2009). Mostly NGOs work is these five areas. They work for international relief and development. Secondly they work effortlessly to promote democracy, electoral support good governance and human rights as well. Other than this, they handle resolution, management, and conflict mitigation. They also support civil society and give community-based service. In addition to all this, NGOs also work for education, medical and state service replacement (Lawry, 2009). The other kind of NGOs that work within the globe are: Interagency Partnerships: These are those kinds of NGOs that work with multiple federal government’s agencies and public and private organizations. Private Voluntary Organizations (PVO): This is another category of NGOs but they are not widely accepted across the globe by the government as well as by other organizations. Inter-Governmental Organizations Intergovernmental organizations have become increasingly prominent, both in facilitating conflict between as well as within the states. They serve a number of basic functions that enhance the possibility of cooperation. After the World War I, when the first intergovernmental organization was developed, it proved to be very weak. This was because the important states did not join it so their ability to function was limited (Brahm, 2005). However, after the World War II when the UN was established, all the states found it essential to join hands with it. Intergovernmental organizations are constructed by states to facilitate cooperation. The basic utility of IGOs is to provide states a forum which can used to negotiate conflicts. However the IGOs are useful to states in a number of additional ways. Firstly, they can provide a forum for discussions; this makes it less costly for states to discuss issues with one another. Secondly, they usually serve as information providers. They help to enhance the transparency and minimize the misperceptions between the states. Other than this, the IGOs help to facilitate issues linkages, which may facilitate cooperation. In addition to all this, these IGOs help states to take a long term perspective by making them less concerned about the immediate payoffs. Lastly, the multilateral nature of IGOs lends an air of impartiality that enhances their effectiveness (Brahm, 2005). Relationship between Non-Governmental Organizations and Inter-Governmental Organizations A nongovernmental organization is a legally constituted entity created by private people or organizations with no participation in (or representation of) any government. When an NGO is either funded totally or partially by a government (or governments), it maintains its nongovernmental status only as long as it excludes government representatives from membership (Lawry, 2009). Nongovernmental organizations are found to actively co-ordinate with resources and activities internally and externally i.e. between NGOs and between NGOs and the government. Internal Coordination: This type of co-ordination is not always formal; however it is the most common way in which the civilian sectors organize in humanitarian emergencies. At times of emergencies when there are more than 100 organizations responding in a region, the rationale for putting together the coordination to manage project location, shared resources, information flow, and combined efforts is immediate and clear. For instance, in Iraq and Afghanistan, extensive coordination between the NGO communities has been seen so that they could manage information for safety, as well as advocacy bodies to local and regional governments or international donors (Lawry, 2009). External Coordination: such coordination is a relationship between NGOs, governments, militaries and donor agencies. It has produced a substantial amount of experience for all parties involved in communicating, coordinating and generally interfacing with one another. In case of Afghanistan and Iraq, militaries and NGOs interfaced in military run operations centres. These meetings served as a place to exchange information, mostly related to security concerns, and discuss criticism, strategies, and even logistical and services capacities (Lawry, 2009). NGOs are not just pressure groups that lobby governments and IGOs but they are attempting to shape public affairs by working within and across societies themselves. NGOs do not only focus on the causal processes and conditions of success but they also highlight the role of NGOs and social movements as the expression of direct citizen action. While the NGOs are taken as actor perspective, usually it was often taken for granted that NGOs were ‘forces of goods’; now a bulk of normative literature argues that civil society and NGOs, should be involved in the politics. The core assumption is that increased participation of non-state actors will contribute to the democratic legitimacy and public accountability of international governance (Stefffek, 2007). Despite the fact that NGOs are working shoulder to shoulder with IGOs, many government leaders express hostile attitudes to NGOs. The factors that explain irrationality between these two institutions is that the increased impact of NGOs has caused resentment among those whom they criticize. Secondly, NGOs claim to be the voice of people; they attain greater legitimacy than governments, which deeply offends the government officials. Lastly, the violence and revolutionary attitudes that are associated with some of the participants in a series of anti-globalization demonstrations diminished the status of the other NGOs. Virtually all the government leaders, either in domestic or global politics, include those who have expressed hostility towards them, work with the NGOs and expect the most active NGOs to be allies, in support of their current political goals (Willetts, 2006). Other than this contribution, according to a report, approximately 90 percent of aid coordinated by the United Nations is solely provided by NGOs, 95 percent of which is provided by only 35 to 40 major European and American organizations. Worldwide NGOs are present in thousands that vary widely in their professionalism, performance, sense of responsibility, and attention to standards in accordance with the Humanitarian Code of Conduct (Lawry, 2009). Example Due to the advocacy by NGOs, the institutional framework for the consideration of human rights is developing rapidly. Here an Asian example would be considered where NGOs have formed networks including semi-official NGOs such as ASEAN-ISIS and government and legislative officials so that they can work towards institutionalizing ASEAN activities regarding human rights. In East Timor, a series of meetings was held by six NGOs led by the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development in the support of self-determination for East Timor. Due to the government harassment the initial two meetings, held in Manila and Kuala Lumpur, had been unsuccessful. However, the third meeting in Bangkok provided success to the NGOs (Thai Development Newsletter, 1998). In this meeting an NGO coalition of Peaceset and APCET III issued joint resolutions that called ASEAN governments to support peace process in East Timor. However, few of the restrictions were imposed by the Thai government on the participants (Thai Development Newsletter, 1998) but later, the new Indonesian government, under the pressure of regional and global NGOs, announced its willingness to consider autonomy for East Timor and permit a vote on self-determination. NGOs influence the governments, international organizations, and multinational corporations to pressurize the Indonesian government in order to change its policy. As a result, the withdrawal of the Indonesian army was seen. The independent leader of East Timor visited Southeast Asian nations for seeking support for observer status and possible membership in ASEAN in later times (Avil, 2000). By the help of the renowned NGOs a meeting was held in which ASEAN was suppose to make up for its silent complicity in Indonesian’s exploitation of resources and suppression of rights in East Timor, by providing supporting reconstruction efforts and humanitarian aid in East Timor (ASEAN Peoples' Summit held in Manila,1999). Regional networking has proved to be indispensable for NGOs. The main reason that the majority of Indonesian NGOs who were surveyed indicated the sought linkages with other NGOs in the region was to promote specific advocacy agenda. In this way the NGOs in one country will seek help on specific issues or act on their behalf (Aviel, 2000). The strength and visibility of the NGOs’ protest definitely placed human rights on the ASEAN agenda and provided confirmation that favours the fact that human rights is not just western import but also an Asian value (Aviel, 2000). Conclusion Though the governments continue to resist regional mechanisms, the forces of NGOs Activism and globalization are eroding their ability to do so. The regional and global level conferences done by the United Nations require regional responses, similar to the regional and global meetings of NGOs (Aviel, 2000). This agenda has been facilitated by the media and internet as it helps to mobilize public opinion, thus making it difficult for government to keep check or attain full control on the situation. Though some of the governments are able to retain success in this regard, their authority remains in some particular boundaries. This happens because they are not able to control public opinion or NGOs in their countries. Thus these two entities can mobilize to exert influence on them directly as well as indirectly (Aviel, 2000). Although the NGOs have helped to broaden the development agenda to include the environmental and social impact of the countries; also they have given more room to the public so that they can express their views about the institution. However, the increased insertion of the non-state actors has served to intensify the already disproportionate power and influence of the industrialized countries in the decision-making. On the other hand, in developing countries representation in global governance has become more pressing (Haque, 2000). References Aviel, J. F. 2000 'Placing human rights andenvironmental issues on Asean's agenda: The role of non-governmental organizations', Asian Journal of Political Science, 8:2, 17 – 34. Accessed on 9th December 2010, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02185370008434168. Avil N, 2000 "Making up for the Timidity of t he Past," Inter-Press Service, Accessed on 9th December 2010, from www.ips.org. "ASEAN Peoples' Summit held in Manila”,1999, Accessed on 9th December 2010, from www.oneworld.org. Brahm.E, 2005. Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs). Accessed on 9th December 2010, from http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/role_igo/ Haque.I, 2000. Non-state Actors and Global Governance. Accessed on 9th December 2010, from http://www.g24.org/haque.pdf Lawry.L, 2009. Guide to Nongovernmental Organizations for the Militray. Accessed on 9th December 2010, from http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/ngo-guide.pdf. Sandler, Todd, 1997, Global Challenges. An Approach to Environmental,Political, and Economic Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Steffek.J, 2007.Explaining Corporation between IGOs and NGOs-Push factors, Pull Factors, and The Policy Cycle. Accessed on 9th December 2010, from http://www.politikwissenschaft.tu-darmstadt.de/fileadmin/pg/Sektionstagung_IB/Explaining_cooperation_between_IGOs_and_NGOs.pdf Thai Development Newsletter,1998, 34 "Rights advocates held discussions on East Timor,"pp. 70-71. The Commission on Global Governance,1995. Our Global Neighborhood. The Report. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vayrynen.R, 2003. Political Power, Accountability, and Global Governance. Accessed on 9th December 2010, from http://www.essex.ac.uk/ECPR/events/jointsessions/paperarchive/edinburgh/ws11/Varyrynen.pdf Willetts.P, 2006. What is non-governmental Organization? Accessed on 9th December 2010, from http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/CS-NTWKS/NGO-ART.HTM#Part1 Read More