N&C - Nature & Cultures, the American University of Paris geographic magazine for global explorers No. 8
Ce site Web utilise des technologies de marketing et de suivi. Si vous ne les acceptez pas, tous les témoins seront désactivés, sauf ceux qui sont nécessaires au fonctionnement du site Web. Veuillez noter que certains produits pourraient ne pas fonctionner aussi bien sans les cookies de suivi. Refuser les cookies |
Texts, photographs, links and any other content appearing on Nature & Cultures should not be construed as endorsement by The American University of Paris of organizations, entities, views or any other feature. Individuals are solely responsible for the content they view or post.
|
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) serve as dynamic entities in international and domestic politics, embodying the potential for both humanitarian, environmental, social, and economic progress or as instruments of soft power advancing agendas that may have little to do with the great causes which they claim to serve. How can we it be On one hand, NGOs often act as invaluable assets by providing essential humanitarian aid, fostering development, and advocating for human rights. Their grassroots connections and ability to mobilize resources contribute to positive social change. Conversely, some critics argue that NGOs can become liabilities when they overstep their mandates, potentially undermining national sovereignty or serving as conduits for foreign influence. Striking a balance between acknowledging the positive contributions and addressing potential drawbacks is crucial for a nuanced understanding of NGOs' role in global and local political landscapes. Author Laura Root, a retired U.S. Navy intelligence officer, holds degrees in political science and international relations from the University of Washington, the American Graduate School in Paris and the American University of Paris. She is currently completing her requirements for a Ph. D. at the University of Southern Florida in Sustainability Studies exploring her passion for environmental conservation and social justice. As a target manager at Air Force Wounded Warrior Program (AFW2), she supports the recovery and rehabilitation of wounded, ill, and injured veterans.
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) have played an increasingly complex role in international affairs in the last century. Today, NGOs are involved in almost every field of activity in the international arena: from mobilizing local communities to interacting with International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and national governments themselves. Despite their omnipresence, NGOs operate mainly outside the political mainstream in areas other international actors often have difficulty reaching. Activists in remote regions conjure graphic images of the potency of NGOs. They contribute both many beneficial and negative aspects to the international realm. In this cost-benefit analysis of NGOs, assets are contributions to the international systems and liabilities are the drawbacks or costs. There are no standardized regulations on NGOs, but they can be effectively analyzed via four major avenues: a historical approach, examination of underlying international norms and treaties, structural-functional approach, and decision- making analysis[1].
Managing societies and geographies through NGOs: a legitimate form of governance?
NGOs influence and efficiency as international actors are based on assets such as 1) accessing and mobilizing public opinion, 2) responding quickly and effectively, 3) spreading information and resources, and 4) compensating or reinforcing the inefficiencies/ assets of dominant political theories and strategies.
NGOs provide many benefits because their versatility allows them to permeate local, national, and international levels of analysis. They currently operate in a broad range of international issues such as human rights, the environment, women’s issues, refugees, war relief, medical resources, economic development, and political awareness. They link local communities directly to the international arena because they often operate from a grassroots level. Grassroots mobilization is a vital part of the political process as it allows individuals to take a bottom up approach to impacting larger national and international organizations [1]. NGOs critically challenge governmental and corporate organizations, whose actions and interest are often ambiguous. They balance larger organizations such as the government and corporations through creating a world civil society and direct voice of the people vital to the democratic model.
NGOs provide many benefits because their versatility allows them to permeate local, national, and international levels of analysis. They currently operate in a broad range of international issues such as human rights, the environment, women’s issues, refugees, war relief, medical resources, economic development, and political awareness. They link local communities directly to the international arena because they often operate from a grassroots level. Grassroots mobilization is a vital part of the political process as it allows individuals to take a bottom up approach to impacting larger national and international organizations [1]. NGOs critically challenge governmental and corporate organizations, whose actions and interest are often ambiguous. They balance larger organizations such as the government and corporations through creating a world civil society and direct voice of the people vital to the democratic model.
The Rainbow Warrior (Greenpeace’s nautical assault vehicle) was best known for actively protesting the French government’s nuclear testing in the South Pacific. It was the vehicle of the environmentalist movement as it traveled world-wide representing various environmental issues in dramatic media presentations. In 1985, two French saboteurs bombed and sank it. The world watched as the French government then admitted responsibility for the attack. Thus, even after its destruction, Greenpeace’s Rainbow Warrior vibrantly continued to display how NGOs can effectively impact the daily operations of major international players. It demonstrated how NGOs serve as a community voice of local citizens, bringing their concerns to a larger international scale and forcing other actors to respond. With mobility through various levels of analysis, NGOs fill gaps that other international actors often neglect. Rainbow Warrior also illustrated NGOs ability to use the media to propel various causes into the world spotlight and use the attention to resolve issues.
Because NGOs often operate in local communities in troubled geographic areas, they gain a direct perspective on various issues that larger organizations seek to resolve. They also mobilize factors of globalization and technology to form a “global civil society”[2]. NGOs are adept at using communications and technology to promote education, awareness, and political participation. In many cases, they also link the developing world to developed nations with adept media usage. Environmental NGOs such as the Rainforest Action Network (RAN) and Greenpeace feature websites that allow the public to easily access their local and national governmental representatives transmitted via formatted electronic mail about particular issues.
Liberalism also wields its influence throughout certain NGOs, particularly those involving economic development. NGOs may become important leaders in the creation of the market-state (vs. the nation-state) in the international community. Market states do not indicate a complete dissolution of nation-state but refer to a system of national government predominately intertwined with economic affairs, a combination of the nation-state and its corporations[3]. Liberalism promotes that when the world shifts towards this new order, economic interests will take priority and lower instances of costly international conflicts. Interdependence will theoretically encourage cooperation because states will protect their economic interests. War and military conflict will jeopardize economic stability and become too costly.
Liberalism also wields its influence throughout certain NGOs, particularly those involving economic development. NGOs may become important leaders in the creation of the market-state (vs. the nation-state) in the international community. Market states do not indicate a complete dissolution of nation-state but refer to a system of national government predominately intertwined with economic affairs, a combination of the nation-state and its corporations[3]. Liberalism promotes that when the world shifts towards this new order, economic interests will take priority and lower instances of costly international conflicts. Interdependence will theoretically encourage cooperation because states will protect their economic interests. War and military conflict will jeopardize economic stability and become too costly.
Can NGOs pose a threat to democracy and peace?
A major criticism of NGOs is that they can undermine the sovereignty of the nation-state. NGOs often mobilize local citizens in action against the national government. NGOs also replace the national government in various situations regarding decision-making and political authority[4]. They link local levels directly to the international realm, bypassing the nation-state entirely. National diplomacy is often compromised because NGOs and individuals command interactions with other nations. Furthermore, NGOs can bypass the national level completely and overshadow local/ national level organizations. With little restrictions on NGOs, they can also represent terrorist networks, anarchists, and other organizations poised against the authority of the nation-state. Thus, human populations and local communities can often fall victim to the ulterior motives of NGOs. NGOs themselves show little respect for national borders as they operate in numerous countries without supervision from other international authorities. Ironically undermining the nation-state contradicts the needs of NGOs. They spring from the system of nation-states, and cannot exist outside that political structure[5]. They could not have risen without the nation-state because they rely on legal and military authority that the national governments of the world system provide. NGOs require courts, armies, and civil order to further their own missions. NGOs in human rights are poignant examples because they cannot exist without the legal jurisdiction of international courts, governments, and IGO’s that uphold Human Rights laws[6].
Because they often exist outside the mainstream world political order, the origins of many NGOs are often unclear. It is difficult to determine whom they represent, what ideological stance formulated their missions, what their interests are, where their loyalties lie, and who placed their leaders in positions of authority. There are no limits to who can create an NGO. They exist with little regulations provided that they can finance themselves and abide by international law[7]. For example in Kenya, the Neema Children’s Center collected funds and then quickly disappear without providing relief to the estimated one million orphans left in the aftermath of the AIDS epidemic. It was just one of several hundred NGOs charged with fraudulent financial documentation in Kenya[8]. In desperate situations, corrupt NGOs contribute more suffering to the local people and society that look to them for assistance. Furthermore homeschooling NGOs in the US often enable a far-right, populist leaning stance where parents can neglect and abuse children or even normalize a dangerous fascist based approach to standardized education. (See CNN's report on the subject)
A major criticism of NGOs is that they can undermine the sovereignty of the nation-state. NGOs often mobilize local citizens in action against the national government. NGOs also replace the national government in various situations regarding decision-making and political authority[4]. They link local levels directly to the international realm, bypassing the nation-state entirely. National diplomacy is often compromised because NGOs and individuals command interactions with other nations. Furthermore, NGOs can bypass the national level completely and overshadow local/ national level organizations. With little restrictions on NGOs, they can also represent terrorist networks, anarchists, and other organizations poised against the authority of the nation-state. Thus, human populations and local communities can often fall victim to the ulterior motives of NGOs. NGOs themselves show little respect for national borders as they operate in numerous countries without supervision from other international authorities. Ironically undermining the nation-state contradicts the needs of NGOs. They spring from the system of nation-states, and cannot exist outside that political structure[5]. They could not have risen without the nation-state because they rely on legal and military authority that the national governments of the world system provide. NGOs require courts, armies, and civil order to further their own missions. NGOs in human rights are poignant examples because they cannot exist without the legal jurisdiction of international courts, governments, and IGO’s that uphold Human Rights laws[6].
Because they often exist outside the mainstream world political order, the origins of many NGOs are often unclear. It is difficult to determine whom they represent, what ideological stance formulated their missions, what their interests are, where their loyalties lie, and who placed their leaders in positions of authority. There are no limits to who can create an NGO. They exist with little regulations provided that they can finance themselves and abide by international law[7]. For example in Kenya, the Neema Children’s Center collected funds and then quickly disappear without providing relief to the estimated one million orphans left in the aftermath of the AIDS epidemic. It was just one of several hundred NGOs charged with fraudulent financial documentation in Kenya[8]. In desperate situations, corrupt NGOs contribute more suffering to the local people and society that look to them for assistance. Furthermore homeschooling NGOs in the US often enable a far-right, populist leaning stance where parents can neglect and abuse children or even normalize a dangerous fascist based approach to standardized education. (See CNN's report on the subject)
In the 1980s, pressure was put on the Indigenous Aleut people of the Pribiloff Islands in hte Bering Sea to leave their homeland they settled two centuries earlier. It was suspected that the US government was trying to turn the islands into a strategic base. The Natives of the islands accused environmentalist groups of being used to put an end to their traditional way of life using animal rights arguments. Paul Watson, founder of the radical "Sea Shepperd" NGO had this to say: "Basically, they want to live in a white man's world they should live in a white man's world and move off the islands and leave those islands to the seals. Is this racism?
See the entire documentary illustrating the politics of NGOS and the dilemma between environmentalism and Indigenous rights Watson's interview segments are at 1:05 and 20:48 of the documentary by the University of Alaska at Fairbanks. |
|
Many NGOs reflect interests of industrialized nations that fund them, thus projects can reflect interests not necessarily beneficial to the respective location of operation[9]. Various international actors can form NGOs to serve their own interests abroad despite altruistic outward appearances. International NGOs undermine the decision-making process for local and national level coalitions. For example, NGOs based in the United States successfully blocked a Word Bank funded hydropower project in Nepal, despite the local and national support for the project (expected to generate significant economic benefits)[10]. This also suggests that the number of powerful NGO’s is unevenly distributed among industrialized and developing nation. Foreign NGO’s often do not represent the true interests of poor countries, making them even more susceptible to the negative aspects of NGO’s.
Just as NGOs uphold political theories and ideologies, they are ensnared in them as well. NGOs spring from religious communities, communists, fascists, and greedy corporations as they do from pluralistic and tolerant concerned citizens. Whatever their bias may be, they can taint issues in the public eye, often bringing priority to certain causes over others.
Due to reliance on donors, their motives can remain clandestine. Just as NGOs can challenge or reinforce various political theories and ideologies, theories can manipulate NGOs. The ideologies and interests of various international actors can encourage them to create NGOs to mask their activities. Organized crime, terrorists, and other undesirables of the international realm can formulate NGOs as easily as other interest groups and concerned citizens.
Because of their reliance on fundraising, NGOs can become inconsistent with their own mission and other organizations of similar purpose. Their doctrines and priorities become influenced by financial interests rather than the need to enforce justice, peace or democracy. Researching the origins of NGOs is vital to further evaluate their accuracy regarding their publications because of potential loyalties and bias to their benefactors. For example, RAN launched a large campaign to expose Citigroup as the “most destructive bank in the world” for its support of international projects that financed logging, mining, and other environmentally destructive acts[11]. Despite a similar mission statement, the Board of Directors of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), which consists of many corporate actors, actively praised Citigroup as a major benefactor of wildlife and environmental causes due their large donations to WWF. Another example is what appears to be the Sierra Club’s or other American NGOs new strategy for defending nature by reducing the population. The doctrine calls for a reduction of pollution and depletion of natural resources through policies limiting social benefits for families with many children and limiting immigration.
Just as NGOs uphold political theories and ideologies, they are ensnared in them as well. NGOs spring from religious communities, communists, fascists, and greedy corporations as they do from pluralistic and tolerant concerned citizens. Whatever their bias may be, they can taint issues in the public eye, often bringing priority to certain causes over others.
Due to reliance on donors, their motives can remain clandestine. Just as NGOs can challenge or reinforce various political theories and ideologies, theories can manipulate NGOs. The ideologies and interests of various international actors can encourage them to create NGOs to mask their activities. Organized crime, terrorists, and other undesirables of the international realm can formulate NGOs as easily as other interest groups and concerned citizens.
Because of their reliance on fundraising, NGOs can become inconsistent with their own mission and other organizations of similar purpose. Their doctrines and priorities become influenced by financial interests rather than the need to enforce justice, peace or democracy. Researching the origins of NGOs is vital to further evaluate their accuracy regarding their publications because of potential loyalties and bias to their benefactors. For example, RAN launched a large campaign to expose Citigroup as the “most destructive bank in the world” for its support of international projects that financed logging, mining, and other environmentally destructive acts[11]. Despite a similar mission statement, the Board of Directors of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), which consists of many corporate actors, actively praised Citigroup as a major benefactor of wildlife and environmental causes due their large donations to WWF. Another example is what appears to be the Sierra Club’s or other American NGOs new strategy for defending nature by reducing the population. The doctrine calls for a reduction of pollution and depletion of natural resources through policies limiting social benefits for families with many children and limiting immigration.
NGO or commercial enterprise? The Pasteur Institute once raised money for serum production from private and public sources, walking the line between a commercial pharmaceutical venture and a philanthropic enterprise.
It becomes obvious that the agenda of NGOs seeking to "save the planet" can be very different from selfless environmentalism when one realizes who would benefit from policies of population reduction if adopted universally: wealthy White families who would pay less taxes for foreign aid or welfare for immigrants. The illusion of protection from Latin American, Asian or African immigrants threatening to change the social-ethnic geography of rich countries with a majority of Whites and thus challenge the distribution of social power locally and globally often expresses itself in arguments calling for population reduction... in priority in the Global South. (Note from the editor: Realizing this, the UN, has radically changed its perspective on population issues - see N&C's article on the subject). Internal actors and benefactors can easily distort the purpose of NGOs, making them not nearly as altruistic and unbiased as they may seem. And with intense media campaigns, NGOs can defame other actors without truly representing the entire issue, making them vicious, uncompromising, and largely unchecked.
|
Why we still need NGOs
However, too much pessimism about NGOs could be counter-productive and even illogical. First of all, the politics involving NGOs are no different than the politics of political parties, campus politics in universities, wars of religion, Hollywood scandals, talented dancers back stabbing each other to become prima ballerina, taxpayers paying colossal sums to build stadiums and not being able to afford the entrance tickets for games, news outlets fabricating fake news, and the list goes on. Closing down all universities will certainly resolve the problem of campus politics. Closing down all movie theaters, opera houses and stadiums will immediately resolve all problems of corruption in the arts and sports. It will also make any country adopting such measures look like Afghanistan under the Taliban. Banning political parties to eradicate corrupt politicians (granted most of them are indeed corrupt or in pursuit of purely personal ambitions) is the argument of every dictator. Churchill once said "democracy is the worst system of all... every other system is even worse". So just as the plurality of political parties means the risk of coexisting with some nasty politicians with nastier agendas if we want to live in a democracy, we have to take the risk of the plurality of NGOs. Some may do some good.
Many do maintain separation between their donors’ interests and their missions- RAN received over $100,000 from the Ford Foundation in 2003, then launched a campaign against Ford Motor Company, accusing it of encouraging an oil dependent America. A comparison between its donors and its campaigns may help to analyze an NGO further.
However, too much pessimism about NGOs could be counter-productive and even illogical. First of all, the politics involving NGOs are no different than the politics of political parties, campus politics in universities, wars of religion, Hollywood scandals, talented dancers back stabbing each other to become prima ballerina, taxpayers paying colossal sums to build stadiums and not being able to afford the entrance tickets for games, news outlets fabricating fake news, and the list goes on. Closing down all universities will certainly resolve the problem of campus politics. Closing down all movie theaters, opera houses and stadiums will immediately resolve all problems of corruption in the arts and sports. It will also make any country adopting such measures look like Afghanistan under the Taliban. Banning political parties to eradicate corrupt politicians (granted most of them are indeed corrupt or in pursuit of purely personal ambitions) is the argument of every dictator. Churchill once said "democracy is the worst system of all... every other system is even worse". So just as the plurality of political parties means the risk of coexisting with some nasty politicians with nastier agendas if we want to live in a democracy, we have to take the risk of the plurality of NGOs. Some may do some good.
Many do maintain separation between their donors’ interests and their missions- RAN received over $100,000 from the Ford Foundation in 2003, then launched a campaign against Ford Motor Company, accusing it of encouraging an oil dependent America. A comparison between its donors and its campaigns may help to analyze an NGO further.
THE FAMOUS PRIMATOLOGIST JANE GOODALL (left), after another of her frequent visits to the American University of Paris offers a gift (a poster of a gorilla) to an unsuspecting Linda Marz (left) a professor whose contributions to AUP's awareness of environmental affairs, such as creating a local chapter of Dr. Goodall's NGO Roots & Shoots, has been exceptional. Listening to Jane Goodall's quiet and modest discussions, AUP students were lead to understand that, contrary to some organizations working in Africa either with a brutal old-fashioned colonialist approach (see Paul Watson's interview in the U. of Alaska documentary shown above) or a "White savior's" mentality to save animals, an efficient NGO focuses above all on the needs of the local populations and delegates as much as possible of its projects to these locals
|
Through communications campaigns NGOs do not only attack international actors. They often assist them. Governments and IGOs rely on NGOs for information that they are unable to access. Despite the establishment of the World Health Organization (WHO), the international community relies heavily on NGOs to provide information about how to contain disease outbreaks because NGOs can respond more quickly to urgent situations. During an epidemic in Sudan in 1992-3, Doctors Without Borders immediately responded in local villages and hospitals in midst of civil war (and a public health collapse). Then it transmitted information about the virus to the WHO then national governments so they too could respond effectively[12]. IGOs and nation-states often lack the speed and resources to respond to local level crisis, whereas NGOs can provide relief and resources in places larger organizations cannot reach[13]. NGOs also use their local networks and nongovernmental resources to respond to local issues and then mobilize the international community[14].
NGOs compensate theoretical standpoints that national governments adopt. Most nation-states act in Neo-realist perspectives, which warrant the pursuit of national interests predominately concerned with power and stability in an anarchic political realm. Because nation-states have limited resources, they cannot respond to every situation in the international arena, thus they must strategically protect their interests. Nation-states ignore many issues in remote regions because they do not directly translate to national interests. Thus, they are considered diversions to other aspects of national strategy. For example, the U.S. is not particularly eager to intervene in affairs of West Africa regarding refugees, environmental destruction, and war because unless they have direct national interests, intervention is a costly distraction to more vital interests. NGOs can often effectively mobilize to aid these situation that neo-realists otherwise fail to include in their framework because they are not directly important to the survival of the nation-state [15].
NGOs can also other resources in locations that the nation-states cannot afford to intervene[16].
NGOs compensate theoretical standpoints that national governments adopt. Most nation-states act in Neo-realist perspectives, which warrant the pursuit of national interests predominately concerned with power and stability in an anarchic political realm. Because nation-states have limited resources, they cannot respond to every situation in the international arena, thus they must strategically protect their interests. Nation-states ignore many issues in remote regions because they do not directly translate to national interests. Thus, they are considered diversions to other aspects of national strategy. For example, the U.S. is not particularly eager to intervene in affairs of West Africa regarding refugees, environmental destruction, and war because unless they have direct national interests, intervention is a costly distraction to more vital interests. NGOs can often effectively mobilize to aid these situation that neo-realists otherwise fail to include in their framework because they are not directly important to the survival of the nation-state [15].
NGOs can also other resources in locations that the nation-states cannot afford to intervene[16].
*
* *
* *
NGOs are major international actors intertwined with both governments and IGOs. They add to a complex web of interests and outlets in the international system, while they relate to individuals and community issues. NGOs arose to compensate for the levels of analysis neglected by nation-states. They simultaneously undermine it even when they themselves rely on the legitimacy of the nation-state. NGOs often seek to promote altruistic causes, but themselves are subject to corruption and the interests of other actors in the international arena. They provide valuable assets and serious liabilities to the international community. Despite the contradictions, NGOs are poignant actors that can effectively and tangibly impact many levels of the international system- from local communities in the Amazon to the headquarters of World Health Organization.
Footnotes
Photo credits:
- Headline illustration: 19th Century engraving illustrating charity; AmeriCorps volunteers volunteers Greg Lucid, Komal Soin, Kelly Asplin, & Casey Schoemeberger providing needed services to victims by clearing debris and helping other vounteer agencies, in the aftermath of a hurricane in Louisiana AmeriCorps volunteers are an important hard working FEMA partner that provides needed service to victims by clearing debris and helping other vounteer agencies (Photo by Marvin Nauman - FEMA Photo Library)
- Sept. 19 show at Philadelphia's JFK Stadium: by Wasted Time R (CC BY 3.0)
- Rainbow warrior: by Ot (CC BY-SA 4.0)
- Fernando Pereira: watercolor by N&C staff based on photo by Dvid Robie (for New Zealand Herald)
- Habitat for Humanity photos: anonymous photographer (left: CC BY-NC-ND, right: CC BY-NC)
- Jane Goodall and Linda Marz at the American university of Paris: N&C staff
Bibliography
Bobbitt, Philip. The Shield of Achilles. New York: Anchor Books, 2002.
Christensen, Jon. 2004. “Asking the Do-Gooders to Prove They Do Good.” New York Times: 3 January.
Garrett, Laurie. The Coming Plague. New York; Penguin Books, 1994.
Jordan, Robert S. International Organizations; a Comparative Approach to the Management of Cooperation. London; Praeger, 2001.
Lacey, Mark, 2003. “Kenya Starts crack Down on Fake Charity Groups.” New York Times, 9, July.
Liptak, Adam. 2003. “Typical Greenpeace Protest Leads to an Unusual Prosecution.” New York Times: 11 October.
Price, Marie. “Ecopolitics and Environmental Nongovernmental Organizations in Latin America.” Geographical Review. American Geographic Society, 1994.
Upadhyay, Akhilesh, 2003. “NGOs Do the Watchdogs Need Watchdogs?” InterPress Service, 13 June.
Bobbitt, Philip. The Shield of Achilles. New York: Anchor Books, 2002.
Christensen, Jon. 2004. “Asking the Do-Gooders to Prove They Do Good.” New York Times: 3 January.
Garrett, Laurie. The Coming Plague. New York; Penguin Books, 1994.
Jordan, Robert S. International Organizations; a Comparative Approach to the Management of Cooperation. London; Praeger, 2001.
Lacey, Mark, 2003. “Kenya Starts crack Down on Fake Charity Groups.” New York Times, 9, July.
Liptak, Adam. 2003. “Typical Greenpeace Protest Leads to an Unusual Prosecution.” New York Times: 11 October.
Price, Marie. “Ecopolitics and Environmental Nongovernmental Organizations in Latin America.” Geographical Review. American Geographic Society, 1994.
Upadhyay, Akhilesh, 2003. “NGOs Do the Watchdogs Need Watchdogs?” InterPress Service, 13 June.
Electronic Resources:
Greenpeace 2004 http://www.greenpeace.org.au/rainbow-warrior/bomb/bomb-about.html
Rainforest Action Network 2004 http://www.ran.org
World Wildlife Fund 2004 https://www.worldwildlife.org/
N&C – Nature & Cultures’ resource page lists dozens of organizations involved in physical, human and cultural geography, environmental affairs, natural history, Indigenous rights, see “Important NGOs”.
Also, here is a list of Human Rights International NGOs (NGOs laboring for the environment, animals and development can be found on our Nature & Cultures electronic library)
Greenpeace 2004 http://www.greenpeace.org.au/rainbow-warrior/bomb/bomb-about.html
Rainforest Action Network 2004 http://www.ran.org
World Wildlife Fund 2004 https://www.worldwildlife.org/
N&C – Nature & Cultures’ resource page lists dozens of organizations involved in physical, human and cultural geography, environmental affairs, natural history, Indigenous rights, see “Important NGOs”.
Also, here is a list of Human Rights International NGOs (NGOs laboring for the environment, animals and development can be found on our Nature & Cultures electronic library)
- Amazon Watch
- Amnesty International
- Anti-Slavery International
- Article 19
- Avocats Sans Frontières
- Breakthrough
- CARE
- Carter Center
- CCJO René Cassin
- Center for Economic and Social Rights
- Center for Human Rights & Humanitarian Law
- Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE)
- Civil Rights Defenders
- Coalition for the International Criminal Court
- Committee to Protect Journalists
- Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
- CryptoRights Foundation
- Cultural Survival
- Disabled Peoples' International
- Enough Project
- Equality Now
- Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor
- Every Human Has Rights
- Forum 18
- Free the Slaves
- Freedom from Torture
- Freedom House
- Friends of Peoples Close to Nature
- Front Line Defenders
- Fund for Global Human Rights
- Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
- Global Rights
- Gypsy International Recognition and Compensation Action
- Habitat International Coalition
- Helsinki Committee for Human Rights
- Helsinki Watch
- Hindu American Foundation
- Hirschfeld Eddy Foundation
- Humanists International
- Human Rights First
- Human Rights Foundation
- Human Rights Internet
- Human Rights Law Foundation
- Human Rights Watch
- Human Rights Without Frontiers International
- HURIDOCS
- IFEX
- Independent Permanent Human Rights Commission
- International Human Rights Administration (IHRA)
- International Human Rights Association (IHRA)
- Institute for War and Peace Reporting
- Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense
- International Alliance of Women
- International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists
- International Center for Transitional Justice
- International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development
- International Centre for Human Rights Research
- International Coalition against Enforced Disappearances
- International Commission of Jurists
- International Committee of the Red Cross (private, sovereign organisation)
- International Crisis Group
- International Disability Alliance
- International Federation for Human Rights
- International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
- International Foundation for Human Rights and Tolerance
- International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights (federation of 15 other human rights organizations not included in this list; now bankrupt due to fraud)
- International Human Rights Arts Movement
- International Institute of Human Rights
- International League for Human Rights
- International Movement ATD Fourth World
- International Partnership for Human Rights (IPHR)
- International Property Rights Index
- International Progress Organization
- International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement
- International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims
- International Rescue Committee
- International Service for Human Rights
- International Society for Human Rights
- International Tibet Network
- International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs
- Islamic Human Rights Commission
- JUSTICE
- MindFreedom International
- Minority Rights Group International
- National Labor Committee in Support of Human and Worker Rights
- Network for Education and Academic Rights
- No Peace Without Justice
- Norwegian Refugee Council
- Peace Brigades International
- People & Planet
- Physicians for Human Rights
- Point of Peace Foundation
- Protection International
- Refugees International
- Release International
- Reporters Without Borders
- Reprieve
- Redress Trust
- ResearchX
- Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights
- Scholars at Risk
- Scholar Rescue Fund
- Shia Rights Watch
- Society for Threatened Peoples
- Survival International
- Tahirih Justice Center
- The Advocacy Project
- The RINJ Foundation
- The Sentinel Project for Genocide Prevention
- Tostan
- Transparency International
- UN Watch
- UNITED for Intercultural Action
- Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization
- World Council of Churches
- World Organization Against Torture
- WITNESS
- Womankind Worldwide
- World Future Council
- World Organization Against Torture
- Youth for Human Rights International
- African Movement of Working Children and Youth (Africa)
- AIRE Centre (Europe)
- Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (Arab world)
- Arab Commission for Human Rights (Arab world)
- Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (Asia)
- Asian Human Rights Commission (Asia)
- Asian Centre for Human Rights (Asia)
- Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (Commonwealth nations)
- Council on Hemispheric Affairs (Americas)
- Ecumenical Center for Human Rights (Americas)
- EuroMed Rights (Euro-Mediterranean region)
- European Human Rights Society (Europe)
- European Roma Rights Centre (Europe)
- Federal Union of European Nationalities (Europe)
- Helsinki Citizens Assembly (Europe)
- Human Rights Trust of Southern Africa (Southern Africa)
- Incomindios Switzerland (Americas)
- International Association of Independent Journalists Inc. (Canada, England & elsewhere)
- Journalists for Human Rights (Africa)
- Kurdish Human Rights Project (Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Iran & elsewhere)
- Memorial (Ex-USSR)
- Regional Council on Human Rights in Asia (Southeast Asia)
- Unimondo (southeastern Europe)
- Washington Office on Latin America (Latin America)
- The Youth Cafe (Africa)