Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
They are the only voice a lot of times for those who are taken for granted so yes.
I'm pretty sure they have an impact. It's not always certain to be a good one.
NGOs are as varied as the governments that they aren't part of. What bothers me are the NGOs that accept government funding. It almost seems like they are being hypocritical. Otherwise I'm a big fan.
What about the United Nations? Such is one example of an NGO that relies on government funding and can be very effective. As an organization that generally seeks to find ways to nonviolently solve global conflicts, I would argue that the UN positively impacts human rights. The only way for the UN to be effective (or even exist) is through government funding.
I believe that it an IGO not an NGO
http://www.imo.org/About/mainframe.asp?topic_id=1…
The UN is an IGO, like the WTO and the EU. Participation of governments directly in the activities of the whole group is required, which is a definition absent from an NGO, the actual subject of concern herein.
NGO's we're dealing with things like private think tanks, ACLU, trade unions, NRA, religious groups, charities. Many of these groups may operate deliberately to attempt to influence government behaviors (positively or negatively for the rights of others), which is a chief reason why taking government funds for their operation might be considered a problem.
As long as government keeps its corrupted nose out of them they will do the most good.
OK. I mean, this really just becomes a definitional debate then. I would argue that the category of "IGO" is merely one category of "NGO." Though organizations like the UN do work with the support of governments, their rulings do *not* carry the same force of law that the regulations of a sovereign nation do. As a result, the organization is a non-governmental organization, particularly because it works between governments.
OK. I mean, this really just becomes a definitional debate then. I would argue that the category of "IGO" is merely one category of "NGO." Though organizations like the UN do work with the support of governments, their rulings do *not* carry the same force of law that the regulations of a sovereign nation do. As a result, the organization is a non-governmental organization, particularly because it works between governments.
IGO's do not exist without ratified treaties and the direct support or cooperation of interested governments. They produce agreements which then must be ratified or supported by the interested parties governments. The reason those agreements are not as strong is that the enforcement of international law is not as strong. If the US or other strong state actors do not want to enforce a law they don't and nobody can make them. This is similar to what happens when a criminal gang supersedes the authority of police powers in a nation-state. Whether or not these agreements have little real world or binding power has very little to do with the structure of the agencies through which state actors can negotiate for agreements.
By the very definition of NON-Governmental, they violate the very first word. If it's a definitional debate you want, you lose. What you are implying would be like saying that ID is a scientific theory, essentially you are blatantly twisting around the definition to mean something that it in fact does not. The fact that they must particularly work through and between governments means it is not a non-governmental organisation. It is an organisation of governments. Go find a basic IR textbook and you will not find IGOs being lumped in with NGOs. They have very different actors and often very different missions. There are INGOs, like the Red Cross and multinational corporations, but this is still entirely different agency from an IGO.
Another way to look at what you are trying to claim here is to try to state that somehow Medicare is a privately funded health care system administered by non-governmental agents.
Sun Tzu is right united nations is an inter-governmental organization
NGO's are effective just because there is so many of them approximately 40 000 international and millions others that work within their own country. Each one is giving aid like education and health.
IGO's don't work because it is up to the country that created the agreements to uphold them, there is no way for an IGO to uphold their laws.
I believe that governments are giving funds to NGO's so that the governments are actually helping other countries instead of waiting for other countries to do their share. But who knows, politics are confusing.