International law: Friend or foe of NGOs? (First in a series)

International Law Vs. NGOs

Constricts. Life is full of them. Some are traditional norms and taboos, subtle principles and values that guide or rule a person or group of people. Others take the form of law and policy.

Under the heading of law, there is perhaps no more complex a beast than international law, “the body of law that governs the legal relations between or among states or nations.” It is a vast enterprise of who can do what, when and how. But it doesn’t simply govern the actions of states and political actors; it also applies to groups that function on the global level. International Non-Governmental Organizations (iNGOs) are subject to international law, which raises the question: are iNGOs helped or hindered by international law? And, better still, why should we care?

This series of articles explores the relationship between international law and iNGOs, and what that relationship means to the world.

Since there are a plethora of these groups, it is useful to examine the questions in context of several of the most recognized iNGOs. Oxfam, Amnesty International and Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders) have all undoubtedly contributed vast amounts of resources and aid to international affairs, and each has the distinction of being listed by several notable sources as being in the top echelon of iNGOs. Each organization also represents and fills a different niche within the international aid community.

Photo Courtesy of OXFAM International

• Oxfam: Oxfam’s primary mission is its dedication to eradicating poverty and injustice. It does this through a multi-facetted approach, which includes campaigning for change and providing relief in national emergencies

Photo Courtesy of Amnesty Student

• Amnesty International: Amnesty International focuses its international campaigns on abuses of human rights. It is devoted to equal rights for all human beings, as stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It uses the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to aid in enforcing its standpoint.

Photo Courtesy of Philippe LeRoyer

• Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF): MSF provides medical care to people in crisis situations, travelling around the world to give relief to those who suffer. It is committed to speaking out on the tragedy that it may bear witness to, as well. A focal point for MSF is the treatment of HIV/AIDS and malaria.

Each of these organizations claims to be independently funded, free of the politics and biases of government association. But, are these non-state actors really as impartial as they claim? It would seem not, as all of the iNGOs listed engage in political activism of their own.

They are as subject to international law as governments and states are, while at the same time, they may use international law to attempt to force governments and states to comply with their own goals, according to Kal Raustiala in his article “States, NGOs, and International Environmental Institutions”. They do this in part by helping to monitor and enforce commitments made by governments under international law.

An example of this is Oxfam’s “Grow” campaign, which successfully lobbied the World Bank to honour its promise to act to help stop land grabs in poor countries, where successful multinational corporations would come in, purchase agricultural land and evict the destitute families who eked out a living on it.

Recently, Amnesty International has seen its own campaign find fruition under international law. For some time, the iNGO has been lobbying for a global Arms Trade Treaty and its efforts have paid off with the signing of the UN global Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), even though leading world superpowers (members of the U.S. Senate included) were opposing them.

MSF has not been dormant when it comes to creating political change. It has been vocal in the issue of whether pharmaceutical patents interfere with access to essential medicines in developing countries, going so far as to create an international online Patent Opposition Database to challenge patents.

But what of the reverse? Do iNGOs actions hinder the states in equal measure? Does international law place restrictions on iNGOs? Or is this a one-sided game where iNGOs reap all the benefits? These are a few of the questions for part two in this series.