The World Bank defines a non-governmental organization (NGO) as "private organizations that pursue activities to relieve suffering, promote

the interests of the poor, protect the environment, provide basic social services, or undertake community development".[1] An international nongovernmental organization (INGO) has the same mission as a non-governmental organization (NGO), but it is international in scope and has outposts around the world to deal with specific issues in many countries. Both terms, NGO and INGO, should be differentiated from intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), which describes groups such as the United Nations or the International Labour Organization. An INGO may be founded by private philanthropy, such as the Carnegie, Rockefeller, Gates and Ford Foundations, or as an adjunct to existing international organizations, such as the Catholic or Lutheran churches. A surge in the founding of development INGOs occurred during World War II, some of which would later become the large development INGOs like Oxfam, Catholic Relief Services, CARE International, and Lutheran World Relief. International Non-governmental Organizations can further be defined by their primary purpose.[2] Some INGOs are operational, meaning that their primary purpose is to foster the community based organizations within each country via different projects and operations. Some INGOs are advocacy-based, meaning that their primary purpose is to influence the policy-making of different countries governments regarding certain issues or promote the awareness of a certain issue. Many of the large INGOs have components of both operational projects and advocacy initiatives working together within individual countries.

Criteria
To be associated with the United Nations Department of Public Information, an INGO (and NGOs in general) must follow these certain criteria[3]:

The NGO must support and respect the principles of the Charter of the United Nations; Must be of recognized national or international standing; Should operate solely on a not-for-profit basis and have tax-exempt status; Must have the commitment and the means to conduct effective information programmes with its constituents and to a broader audience about UN activities by publishing newsletters, bulletins and pamphlets; organizing conferences, seminars and round tables; or enlisting the attention of the media; Should preferably have a satisfactory record of collaboration with UN Information Centres/Services or other parts of the UN System prior to association. Please note that in cases where the NGO has no record of collaboration but the DPI Committee on NGOs approves its applications, it will have a provisional association status of two years until which it can establish a partnership with the relevant UNICs/UNISs or UN system organization; The NGO should provide an audited annual financial statement, indicated in US currency, and conducted by a qualified, independent accountant;

The NGO should have statutes/bylaws providing for a transparent process of taking decisions, elections of officers and members of the Board of Directors. Should have an established record of continuity of work for a minimum of three years and should show promise of sustained activity in the future.

INGOs and Development

The main focus for INGOs is to provide relief and developmental aid to developing countries. In relation to states, the purpose of INGOs is to provide services that the state is unable or unwilling to provide for their people. These organizations projects in health, like HIV/AIDS awareness and prevention, clean water, and malaria prevention, and in education, like schools for girls and providing books to developing countries, help to provide the social services that the countrys government is unable or unwilling to provide at the time. International Non-governmental Organizations are also some of the first responders to natural disasters, like hurricanes and floods, or crises that need emergency relief. NGOs in general account for over 15% of total overseas development aid, which is linked to the growth and development process.[4] It has been estimated that aid (partly contributed to by INGOs) over the past thirty years has increased the annual growth rate of the bottom billion by one percent.[5] While one percent in thirty years does not sound like a lot of progress, credit should be given to the fact that progress has been consistently increasing throughout the years instead of remaining stagnant or falling backwards[original research?]. Many international projects and advocacy initiatives promoted by INGOs encourage sustainable development via a human rights approach and capabilities enhancing approach. INGOS that promote human rights advocacy issues in part try to set up an international judicial standard that respects the rights of every human being and promotes the empowerment of disadvantaged communities. Other organizations, like the International Justice Mission, are working in effective and legitimate judicial systems, which enhances a countrys legitimacy and development. Still others, such as those promoting micro-financing and education, directly impact of capabilities of citizens and communities by developing skills and human capital while encouraging citizen empowerment and community involvement. INGOs, along with domestic and international governmental initiatives, are a critical part of global development.

CARE International
CARE International is a large humanitarian INGO that is committed to fighting poverty. They take a special interest in empowering poor women because women have the power to help whole families and entire communities escape poverty.[8] The mission[9] and explicit goals of CARE are to facilitate lasting change by:

Strengthening capacity for self-help Providing economic opportunity Delivering relief in emergencies

Influencing policy decisions at all levels Addressing discrimination in all its forms

One of CAREs projects is responding to natural disasters. For example, CARE has been an integral part of the relief effort in the outbreak of cholera in Haiti that was spread from Nepalese MINUSTAH soldiers during their stay in the country. Some of CAREs relief tactics [10] in Haiti are:

distributing high-energy biscuits, water purification tablets, oral rehydration salts, and hygiene kits, instructing Haitians on how best avoid and prevent cholera, and providing clean water and safe latrine facilities to people living in camps for survivors of Haiti's January 12 earthquake.

Amnesty International
Amnesty International is an INGO that is dedicated to the promotion and protection of internationally regarded human rights as declared in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Their goals[11] are to:

Stop violence against women Defend the rights and dignity of those trapped in poverty Abolish the death penalty Oppose torture and combat terror with justice Free prisoners of conscience Protect the rights of refugees and migrants Regulate the global arms trade

This organization uses more of an advocacy approach to promote change and human rights within the government. They mobilize public pressure through mass demonstrations, vigils and direct lobbying as well as online and offline campaigning in order to promote their ongoing campaigns, which reflect their goals.[12]

Oxfam International
Oxfam International is an INGO which works with local partner organizations and people living under poverty trying to exercise their human rights. The areas Oxfam focues on include development, emergencies, campaigning, advocacy and policy research. The details to each area are:

long-term programs to eradicate poverty and injustice deliver immediate life-saving assistance to people affected by natural disasters or conflict raise public awareness of the causes of poverty encourage ordinary people to take action for a fairer world press decision-makers to change policies and practices that reinforce poverty and injustice

speak with authority as a result of research and analysis

Examples of INGOs
Multiple Interdisciplinary Projects

CARE Oxfam International World Vision International CAFOD

Health

Doctors Without Borders HealthRight International International Committee of the Red Cross charity: water

Children

Compassion International Plan International Save the Children Alliance SOS Children's Villages Reggio Children - Loris Malaguzzi Centre Foundation

Education

ActionAid The Library Project

Human Rights

Amnesty International International Federation for Human Rights Friends of Peoples Close to Nature Survival International

Environmental

International POPs Elimination Network International Union for Conservation of Nature Greenpeace WWF

non-governmental organization (NGO) is a legally constituted organization created by natural or legal people that operates independently from any form of government. The term originated from the United Nations (UN), and normally refers to organizations that are not a part of a government and are not conventional for-profit businesses. In the cases in which NGOs are funded totally or partially by governments, the NGO maintains its non-governmental status by excluding government representatives from membership in the organization. The term is usually applied only to organizations that pursue wider social aims that have political aspects, but are not openly political organizations such as political parties. The number of NGOs operating in the United States is estimated at 1.5 million.[1] Russia has 277,000 NGOs.[2] India is estimated to have had around 3.3 million NGOs in 2009, just over one NGO per 400 Indians, and many times the number of primary schools and primary health centres in India.[3][4]

Contents

1 Definition 2 Types o 2.1 Development, Environment and Human Rights NGOs o 2.2 Track II Diplomacy 3 Activities o 3.1 Operational o 3.2 Campaigning o 3.3 Both o 3.4 Public relations o 3.5 Project management 4 Corporate structure o 4.1 Staffing o 4.2 Funding o 4.3 Overhead costs o 4.4 Monitoring and control 5 History 6 Legal status 7 Critiques o 7.1 Challenges to legitimacy 8 See also 9 References 10 Further reading 11 External links

Definition
NGOs are difficult to define and classify, and the term 'NGO' is not used consistently. As a result, there are many different classifications in use. The most common use a framework that includes orientation and level of operation. An NGO's orientation refers to the type of activities it

takes on. These activities might include human rights, environmental, or development work. An NGO's level of operation indicates the scale at which an organization works, such as local, international or national. "Confronting the Classification Problem: Toward a Taxonomy of NGOs" One of the earliest mentions of the acronym "NGO" was in 1945, when the UN was created. The UN, which is an inter-governmental organization, made it possible for certain approved specialized international non-state agencies - or non-governmental organisations - to be awarded observer status at its assemblies and some of its meetings. Later the term became used more widely. Today, according to the UN, any kind of private organization that is independent from government control can be termed an "NGO", provided it is not-profit, non-criminal and not simply an opposition political party. Professor Peter Willetts, from the University of London, argues the definition of NGOs can be interpreted differently by various organizations and depending on a situations context. He defines an NGO as "an independent voluntary association of people acting together on a continuous basis for some common purpose other than achieving government office, making money or illegal activities."[5] In this view, two main types of NGOs are recognized according to the activities they pursue: operational NGOs that deliver services and campaigning NGOs. Although Willetts proposes the operational and campaigning NGOs as a tool to differentiate the main activities of these organizations, he also explains that a single NGO may often be engaged in both activities. Many NGOs also see them as mutually reinforcing. Professor Akira Iriye defines NGO as "a voluntary nonstate, nonprofit, nonreligious, and nonmilitary association."[6]

TypesSome find it helpful to classify NGOs by orientation and/

Professional association Empowering orientation;

NGO type by level of co-operation

Community-based organization City-wide organization National NGO International NGO

Apart from "NGO", there are many alternative or overlapping terms in use, including: third sector organization (TSO), non-profit organization (NPO), voluntary organization (VO), civil society organization (CSO), grassroots organization (GO), social movement organization (SMO), private voluntary organization (PVO), self-help organization (SHO) and non-state actors (NSAs). Non-governmental organizations are a heterogeneous group. As a result, a long (and sometimes confusing or comical) list of additional acronyms has developed, including:

BINGO, short for 'business-friendly international NGO' or 'big international NGO' TANGO, 'technical assistance NGO' TSO, 'third sector organization' GONGO, 'government-operated NGOs' (set up by governments to look like NGOs in order to qualify for outside aid or promote the interests of government) DONGO: Donor Organized NGO INGO stands for international NGO; Oxfam, INSPAD,[7] Institute of Peace and Development "A European Think Tank For Peace Initiatives"; QUANGOs are quasi-autonomous non-governmental organizations, such as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (The ISO is actually not purely an NGO, since its membership is by nation, and each nation is represented by what the ISO Council determines to be the 'most broadly representative' standardization body of a nation. That body might itself be a nongovernmental organization; for example, the United States is represented in ISO by the American National Standards Institute, which is independent of the federal government. However, other countries can be represented by national governmental agencies; this is the trend in Europe.) National NGO: A non-governmental organization that exists only in one country. This term is rare due to the globalization of non-governmental organizations, which causes an NGO to exist in more than one country.[5] CSO, short for civil society organization ENGO: short for environmental NGO, such as Greenpeace and WWF NNGO, short for 'Northern nongovernmental organization' SNGO, short for 'Southern nongovernmental organization' SCO, also known as 'social change organizations' TNGO, transnational NGO; The term emerged during the 1970s due to the increase of environmental and economic issues in the global community. TNGO includes nongovernmental organizations that are not confined to only one country, but exist in two or more countries. GSO: Grassroots Support Organization MANGO: short for market advocacy NGO NGDO: non-governmental development organization

USAID refers to NGOs as private voluntary organizations. However, many scholars have argued that this definition is highly problematic as many NGOs are in fact state and corporate funded and managed projects with professional staff.[citation needed] NGOs exist for a variety of reasons, usually to further the political or social goals of their members or funders. Examples include improving the state of the natural environment, encouraging the observance of human rights, improving the welfare of the disadvantaged, or representing a corporate agenda. However, there are a huge number of such organizations and their goals cover a broad range of political and philosophical positions. This can also easily be applied to private schools and athletic organizations.

Development, Environment and Human Rights NGOs

NGOs are organizations that work in many different fields, but the term is generally associated with those seeking social transformation and improvements in quality of life. Development NGOs is the most highly visible sector, and includes both international and local organizations, as well as those working in humanitarian emergency sector. Many are associated with international aid and voluntary donation, but there are also NGOs that choose not to take funds from donors and try to generate funding in other ways, such as selling handicrafts or charging for services. Environmental NGOs are another sub-sector, and sometimes overlap with development NGOs. An example is Greenpeace. (see: List of Environmental NGOs). Just like other NGOs networks, transnational environmental networks might acquire a variety of benefits in sharing information with other organizations, campaigning towards an issue, and exchanging contact information. Since Transnational environmental NGOs advocate for different issues like public goods, such as pollution in the air, deforestation of areas and water issues, it is more difficult for them to give their campaigns a human face than NGOs campaigning directly for human rights issues.Some of the earliest forms of transnational environmental NGOs started to appear after the Second World War with the creation of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). After the UN was formed in 1945, more environmental NGO started to emerge in order to address more specific environmental issues. In 1946, the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) was created with the purpose of advocating and representing scientific issues and collaboration among environmental NGOs. In 1969, the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) was funded to increase and improve collaboration among environmentalists. This collaboration was later reinforced and stimulated with the creation of UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere Program in 1971. In 1972, the UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, tried to address the issues on Swedens plead for international intervention on trans-boundary pollution from other European industrialized nations. Transnational environmental NGOs have taken on diverse issues around the globe, but one of the best-known cases involving the work of environmental NGOs can be traced back to Brazil during the 1980s. The United States got involved with deforestation concerns due to the allegations of environmentalists dictating deforestation to be a global concern, and after 1977 the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act added an Environmental and Natural Resources section. Human rights NGOs may also overlap with those in development, but are another distinct category. Amnesty International is perhaps one of the best-known. During the early 1980s the Brazilian government created the Polonoreste developing program, which the World Bank agreed to finance. The Polonoreste program aimed to urbanized areas of the Amazon, which were already occupied by local indigenous groups. Rapid deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon called the attention and intervention of UNESCO, who utilized its Program on Man and the Biosphere to advocate against the Polonoreste program, on the grounds of violating the rights of the indigenous groups living in the Amazon. In the case of deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon, the environment NGOs were able to put pressure on the World Bank to cancel the loans for the Polonoreste program. Due to the leverage that the U.S. has over the bank, in 1985 the World Bank suspended the financial aid to the Polonoreste Program. The work of

environmental NGOs in the Brazilian case was successful because there was a point of leverage that made the targeted actor vulnerable to international pressure.[8] Even though NGOs might have common goals relating to development or environment issues, interests and perspectives are diverse. A distinction can be made between the interests and goals among those NGOs located in industrialized countriesoften referred to as the states of the Northand NGOs from nations located in developing countriesreferred to as states of the South. There is sometimes tension between them. Southern states blame the developed nations for over-consumption and pollution resulting from industrialization, and for sustaining inequalities in the international economic system There is also a distinction among groups that take on particular and specific socio-economic issues. The Womens Environment and Development Organization was created in 1990 with the purpose to advocate for gender inclusion in work related to the Earth Summit. Other groups might focus on issues that include racial minorities and individuals from lower income backgrounds.[9]

Track II Diplomacy
Main article: Track II diplomacy Track II dialogue, or Track II diplomacy, is a transnational coordination that involves nonofficial members of the government including epistemic communities as well as former policymakers or analysts. Track II diplomacy aims to get policymakers and policy analysts to come to a common solution through discussions by unofficial figures of the government. Unlike the Track I diplomacy where government officials, diplomats and elected leaders gather to talk about certain issues, Track II diplomacy consists of experts, scientists, professors and other figures that are not involved in government affairs. The members of Track II diplomacy usually have more freedom to exchange ideas and come up with compromise on their own.

Activities
There are also numerous classifications of NGOs. The typology the World Bank uses divides them into Operational and Advocacy:[10] NGOs vary in their methods. Some act primarily as lobbyists, while others primarily conduct programs and activities. For instance, an NGO such as Oxfam, concerned with poverty alleviation, might provide needy people with the equipment and skills to find food and clean drinking water, whereas an NGO like the FFDA helps through investigation and documentation of human rights[11] violations and provides legal assistance to victims of human rights abuses. Others, such as Afghanistan Information Management Services, provide specialized technical products and services to support development activities implemented on the ground by other organizations. NGOs were intended to fill a gap in government services, but in countries like India, NGOs are gaining a powerful stronghold in decision making. In the interest of sustainability, most donors

require that NGOs demonstrate a relationship with governments. State Governments themselves are vulnerable because they lack strategic planning and vision. They are therefore sometimes tightly bound by a nexus of NGOs, political bodies, commercial organizations and major donors/funders, making decisions that have short term outputs but no long term affect. NGOs in India are under regulated, political, and recipients of large government and international donor funds. NGOs often take up responsibilities outside their skill ambit. Governments have no access to the number of projects or amount of funding received by these NGOs. There is a pressing need to regulate this group while not curtailing their unique role as a supplement to government services.

Operational
Operational NGOs seek to "achieve small scale change directly through projects."[5] They mobilize financial resources, materials and volunteers to create localized programs in the field. They hold large scale fundraising events, apply to governments and organizations for grants and contracts in order to raise money for projects. They often operate in a hierarchical structure; with a main headquarters staffed by professionals who plan projects, create budgets, keep accounts, report, and communicate with operational fieldworkers who work directly on projects[5] Operational NGOs deal with a wide range of issues, but are most often associated with the delivery of services and welfare, emergency relief and environmental issues. Operational NGOs can be further categorized, one frequently used categorization is the division into relief-oriented versus development-oriented organizations; they can also be classified according to whether they stress service delivery or participation; or whether they are religious or secular; and whether they are more public or private-oriented. Operational NGOs can be community-based, national or international. The defining activity of operational NGOs is implementing projects.[5]

Campaigning
Campaigning NGOs seek to "achieve large scale change promoted indirectly through influence of the political system."[5] Campaigning NGOs need an efficient and effective group of professional members who are able to keep supporters informed, and motivated. They must plan and host demonstrations and events that will keep their cause in the media. They must maintain a large informed network of supporters who can be mobilized for events to garner media attention and influence policy changes. The defining activity of campaigning NGOs is holding demonstrations.[5] Campaigning NGOs often deal with issues relating to human rights, women's rights, children's rights. The primary purpose of an Advocacy NGO is to defend or promote a specific cause. As opposed to operational project management, these organizations typically try to raise awareness, acceptance and knowledge by lobbying, press work and activist event.

Both
It is not uncommon for NGOs to make use of both activities. Many times, operational NGOs will use campaigning techniques if they continually face the same issues in the field that could be remedied through policy changes. At the same time, Campaigning NGOs, like human rights organizations often have programs that assist the individual victims they are trying to help through their advocacy work.[5]

Public relations
Non-governmental organizations need healthy relationships with the public to meet their goals. Foundations and charities use sophisticated public relations campaigns to raise funds and employ standard lobbying techniques with governments. Interest groups may be of political importance because of their ability to influence social and political outcomes. A code of ethics was established in 2002 by The World Association of Non Governmental NGOs.

Project management
There is an increasing awareness that management techniques are crucial to project success in non-governmental organizations.[12] Generally, non-governmental organizations that are private have either a community or environmental focus. They address varieties of issues such as religion, emergency aid, or humanitarian affairs. They mobilize public support and voluntary contributions for aid; they often have strong links with community groups in developing countries, and they often work in areas where government-to-government aid is not possible. NGOs are accepted as a part of the international relations landscape, and while they influence national and multilateral policy-making, increasingly they are more directly involved in local action.

Corporate structure
Staffing
Some NGOs are highly professionalized and rely mainly on paid staff. Others are based around voluntary labour and are less formalized. Not all people working for non-governmental organizations are volunteers. Many NGOs are associated with the use of international staff working in 'developing' countries, but there are many NGOs in both North and South who rely on local employees or volunteers. There is some dispute as to whether expatriates should be sent to developing countries. Frequently this type of personnel is employed to satisfy a donor who wants to see the supported project managed by someone from an industrialized country. However, the expertise these employees or volunteers may be counterbalanced by a number of factors: the cost of foreigners is typically higher, they have no grassroot connections in the country they are sent to, and local expertise is often undervalued.[10] The NGO sector is an important employer in terms of numbers.[citation needed] For example, by the end of 1995, CONCERN worldwide, an international Northern NGO working against poverty, employed 174 expatriates and just over 5,000 national staff working in ten developing countries in Africa and Asia, and in Haiti.

Funding

Whether the NGOs are small or large, various NGOs need budgets to operate. The amount of budget that they need would differ from NGOs to NGOs. Unlike small NGOs, large NGOs may have annual budgets in the hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. For instance, the budget of the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) was over US$540 million in 1999.[13] Funding such large budgets demands significant fundraising efforts on the part of most NGOs. Major sources of NGO funding are membership dues, the sale of goods and services, grants from international institutions or national governments, and private donations. Several EU-grants provide funds accessible to NGOs. Even though the term "non-governmental organization" implies independence from governments, many NGOs depend heavily on governments for their funding.[14] A quarter of the US$162 million income in 1998 of the famine-relief organization Oxfam was donated by the British government and the EU. The Christian relief and development organization World Vision United States collected US$55 million worth of goods in 1998 from the American government. Nobel Prize winner Mdecins Sans Frontires (MSF) (known in the USA as Doctors Without Borders) gets 46% of its income from government sources.[15] Government funding of NGOs is controversial, since, according to David Rieff, writing in The New Republic, "the whole point of humanitarian intervention was precisely that NGOs and civil society had both a right and an obligation to respond with acts of aid and solidarity to people in need or being subjected to repression or want by the forces that controlled them, whatever the governments concerned might think about the matter."[16] Some NGOs, such as Greenpeace do not accept funding from governments or intergovernmental organizations.[17][18]

Overhead costs
Overhead is the amount of money that is spent on running an NGO rather than on projects.[19] This includes office expenses,[19] salaries, banking and bookkeeping costs. What percentage of overall budget is spent on overhead is often used to judge an NGO with less than 10% being viewed as good.[19] The World Association of Non-Governmental Organizations states that ideally more than 80% should be spent on programs (less than 20% on overhead).[20] The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria has specific guidelines on how high overhead can be to receive funding based on how the money is to be spent with overhead often needing to be less than 5-7%.[21] While the World Bank typically allows 10%.[22] A high percentage of overhead to total expenditures can make it more difficult to generate funds.[23] High overhead costs may also generate criticism with some claiming the certain NGOs with high overhead are being run simply to benefit the people working for them.[24] While overhead costs can be a legitimate concern, a sole focus on them can be counterproductive.[25] Research published by the Urban Institute and the Center for Social Innovation at Stanford University have shown how rating agencies create incentives for nonprofits to lower and hide overhead costs, which may actually reduce organizational effectiveness by starving organizations of the infrastructure they need to effectively deliver services. A more meaningful rating system would provide, in addition to financial data, a qualitative evaluation of an organizations transparency and governance: (1) an assessment of program effectiveness; (2) and an evaluation of feedback mechanisms designed for donors and

beneficiaries; and (3) such a rating system would also allow rated organizations to respond to an evaluation done by a rating agency.[26] More generally, the popular discourse of nonprofit evaluation should move away from financial notions of organizational effectiveness and toward more substantive understandings of programmatic impact.

Monitoring and control

In a March 2000 report on United Nations Reform priorities, former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan wrote in favor of international humanitarian intervention, arguing that the international community has a "right to protect"[27] citizens of the world against ethnic cleansing, genocide, and crimes against humanity. On the heels of the report, the Canadian government launched the Responsibility to Protect R2P[28] project, outlining the issue of humanitarian intervention. While the R2P doctrine has wide applications, among the more controversial has been the Canadian government's use of R2P to justify its intervention and support of the coup in Haiti.[29] Years after R2P, the World Federalist Movement, an organization which supports "the creation of democratic global structures accountable to the citizens of the world and call for the division of international authority among separate agencies", has launched Responsibility to Protect Engaging Civil Society (R2PCS). A collaboration between the WFM and the Canadian government, this project aims to bring NGOs into lockstep with the principles outlined under the original R2P project. The governments of the countries an NGO works or is registered in may require reporting or other monitoring and oversight. Funders generally require reporting and assessment, such information is not necessarily publicly available. There may also be associations and watchdog organizations that research and publish details on the actions of NGOs working in particular geographic or program areas.[citation needed] In recent years, many large corporations have increased their corporate social responsibility departments in an attempt to preempt NGO campaigns against certain corporate practices. As the logic goes, if corporations work with NGOs, NGOs will not work against corporations. Greater collaboration between corporations and NGOs creates inherent risks of co-optation for the weaker partner, typically the nonprofit involved.[30] In December 2007, The United States Department of Defense Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) S. Ward Casscells established an International Health Division under Force Health Protection & Readiness.[31] Part of International Health's mission is to communicate with NGOs in areas of mutual interest. Department of Defense Directive 3000.05,[32] in 2005, requires DoD to regard stability-enhancing activities as a mission of importance equal to combat. In compliance with international law, DoD has necessarily built a capacity to improve essential services in areas of conflict such as Iraq, where the customary lead agencies (State Department and USAID) find it difficult to operate. Unlike the "co-option" strategy described for corporations, the OASD(HA) recognizes the neutrality of health as an essential service. International Health cultivates collaborative relationships with NGOs, albeit at arms-length, recognizing their traditional independence, expertise and honest broker status. While the goals of DoD and NGOs may seem incongruent, the DoD's emphasis on stability and security to reduce and prevent conflict suggests, on careful analysis, important mutual interests.

History
International non-governmental organizations have a history dating back to at least 1839.[33] It has been estimated that by 1914, there were 1083 NGOs.[34] International NGOs were important in the anti-slavery movement and the movement for women's suffrage, and reached a peak at the time of the World Disarmament Conference.[35] However, the phrase "non-governmental organization" only came into popular use with the establishment of the United Nations Organization in 1945 with provisions in Article 71 of Chapter 10 of the United Nations Charter[36] for a consultative role for organizations which are neither governments nor member statessee Consultative Status. The definition of "international NGO" (INGO) is first given in resolution 288 (X) of ECOSOC on February 27, 1950: it is defined as "any international organization that is not founded by an international treaty". The vital role of NGOs and other "major groups" in sustainable development was recognized in Chapter 27[37] of Agenda 21, leading to intense arrangements for a consultative relationship between the United Nations and non-governmental organizations.[38] It has been observed that the number of INGO founded or dissolved matches the general "state of the world", rising in periods of growth and declining in periods of crisis.[39] Rapid development of the non-governmental sector occurred in western countries as a result of the processes of restructuring of the welfare state. Further globalization of that process occurred after the fall of the communist system and was an important part of the Washington consensus.[14] Globalization during the 20th century gave rise to the importance of NGOs. Many problems could not be solved within a nation. International treaties and international organizations such as the World Trade Organization were centred mainly on the interests of capitalist enterprises. In an attempt to counterbalance this trend, NGOs have developed to emphasize humanitarian issues, developmental aid and sustainable development. A prominent example of this is the World Social Forum, which is a rival convention to the World Economic Forum held annually in January in Davos, Switzerland. The fifth World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil, in January 2005 was attended by representatives from more than 1,000 NGOs.[40] In terms of environmental issues and sustainable development, the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 was the first to show the power of international NGOs, when about 2,400 representatives of NGOs came to play a central role in deliberations. Some have argued that in forums like these, NGOs take the place of what should belong to popular movements of the poor. Whatever the case, NGO transnational networking is now extensive.[41]

Legal status
The legal form of NGOs is diverse and depends upon homegrown variations in each country's laws and practices. However, four main family groups of NGOs can be found worldwide:[42]

Unincorporated and voluntary association Trusts, charities and foundations Companies not just for profit Entities formed or registered under special NGO or nonprofit laws

The Council of Europe in Strasbourg drafted the European Convention on the Recognition of the Legal Personality of International Non-Governmental Organizations in 1986, which sets a common legal basis for the existence and work of NGOs in Europe. Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to freedom of association, which is also a fundamental norm for NGOs.

Critiques
Stuart Becker provides the following summary of the primary critiques of NGOs: Theres a debate that, NGOs take the place of what should belong to popular movements of the poor. Others argue that NGOs are often imperialist in nature, that they sometimes operate in a racist manner in Third World countries and that they fulfill a similar function to that of the clergy during the colonial era. Philosopher Peter Hallward argues that they are an aristocratic form of politics."[43] Issa G. Shivji is one of Africa's leading experts on law and development issues as an author and academic. His critique on NGOs is found in two essays: "Silences in NGO discourse: The role and future of NGOs in Africa" and "Reflections on NGOs in Tanzania: What we are, what we are not and what we ought to be". Shivji argues that despite the good intentions of NGO leaders and activists, he is critical of the "objective effects of actions, regardless of their intentions".[44] Shivji argues also that the sudden rise of NGOs are part of a neoliberal paradigm rather than pure altruistic motivations. He is critical of the current manifestations of NGOs wanting to change the world without understanding it, and that the imperial relationship continues today with the rise of NGOs. James Pfeiffer, in his case study of NGO involvement in Mozambique, speaks to the negative effects that NGO's have had on areas of health within the country. He argues that over the last decade, NGO's in Mozambique have "fragmented the local health system, undermined local control of health programs, and contributed to growing local social inequality" [45] He notes further that NGO's can be uncoordinated, creating parallel projects among different organizations, that pull health service workers away from their routine duties in order to serve the interests of the NGO's. This ultimately undermines local primary health care efforts, and takes away the governments ability to maintain agency over their own health sector. [46] J. Pfeiffer suggested a new model of collaboration between the NGO and the DPS (the Mozambique Provincial Health Directorate). He mentioned the NGO should be 'formally held to standard and adherence within the host country', for example reduce 'showcase' projects and parallel programs that proves to be unsustainable. [47]

Jessica Mathews once wrote in Foreign Affairs in 1997: "For all their strengths, NGOs are special interests. The best of them ... often suffer from tunnel vision, judging every public act by how it affects their particular interest".[48] Since NGOs do have to worry about policy trade-offs, the overall impact of their cause might bring more harm to society.[49]

Vijay Prashad argues that from the 1970s "The World Bank, under Robert McNamara, championed the NGO as an alternative to the state, leaving intact global and regional relations of power and production."[50] Others argue that NGOs are often imperialist[51] in nature, that they sometimes operate in a racialized manner in third world countries, and that they fulfill a similar function to that of the clergy during the high colonial era. The philosopher Peter Hallward argues that they are an aristocratic form of politics.[52] Popular movements in the global South such as, for instance, the Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign in South Africa have sometimes refused to work with NGOs arguing that this will compromise their autonomy.[53][54] Another criticism of NGOs is that they are being designed and used as extensions of the normal foreign-policy instruments of certain Western countries and groups of countries.[55] Russian President Vladimir Putin made this accusation at the 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy in 2007, concluding that these NGOs "are formally independent but they are purposefully financed and therefore under control."[56] Also, Michael Bond wrote "Most large NGOs, such as Oxfam, the Red Cross, Cafod and Action Aid, are striving to make their aid provision more sustainable. But some, mostly in the US, are still exporting the ideologies of their backers." [57] Indeed, whether the NGOs are adiding for evangelical purposes or their ideological intentions, various NGOs are examined and accused of their nature. There has also been the overwhelming disaster of NGOs using white lies or misinformed advise to enact their campaigns. In other words, NGOs have been quite ignorant about critical issues because, as chief scientist at Greenpeace Doug Parr claims, these organizations have lost their efforts in being trully scientific and are now more self-interested. Rather than operating through science so as to be rationally and effectively practical, NGOs are now abusing the utilization of science in order to gain their own advantages. In the beginning, as Parr indicated, there was "'a tendency among our critics to say that science is the only decision-making tool . . . but political and commerical interests are using science as a cover for getting their way.'"[58] At the same time, NGOs have shown themselves not to be very cooperative with other groups, as the previous policy-maker for the German branch of Friends of the Earth Jens Katjek acknowledged. "If NGOs want the best for the environment, he says, they have to learn to compromise."[59]

Challenges to legitimacy
The issue of the legitimacy of NGOs raises a series of important questions. This is one of the most important assets possessed by an NGO, it is gained through a perception that they are an independent voice.[60][61] Their representation also emerges as an important question. Who bestows responsibilities to NGOs or INGOs and how do they gain the representation of citizens and civil society is still not scrutinized thoroughly. For instance, in the article, it is stated, "To put the point starkly: are the citizens of countries of the South and their needs represented in global civil society, or are citizens as well as their needs constructed by practices of representation? And when we realize that INGOs hardly ever come face to face with the people whose interests and problems they represent, or that they are not accountable to the people they represent, matters become even more troublesome." [62]

Moreover, the legitimacy and the accountability of NGOs on the point of their true nature are also emerging as important issues. Various perceptions and images on NGOs are provided, and usually implemented in an image as 'non-state actors' or 'influential representatives of civil society that advocate the citizen.' Accountability may be able to provide this and also be able to assist activities by providing focus and direction[63] As non-state actors with considerable influence over the governance in many areas, concerns have been expressed over the extent to which they represent the views of the public and the extent to which they allow the public to hold them to account.[64] The origin of funding can have serious implications for the legitimacy of NGOs. In recent decades NGOs have increased their numbers and range of activities to a level where they have become increasingly dependent on a limited number of donors.[64] Consequently competition has increased for funding, as have the expectations of the donors themselves.[65] This runs the risk of donors adding conditions which can threaten the independence of NGOs, an over-dependence on official aid has the potential to dilute the willingness of NGOs to speak out on issues which are unpopular with governments.[61] In these situations NGOs are being held accountable by their donors, which can erode rather than enhance their legitimacy, a difficult challenge to overcome. Some commentators have also argued that the changes in where NGOs receive their funding has ultimately altered their functions.[61] NGOs have also been challenged on the grounds that they do not necessarily represent the needs of the developing world, through diminishing the so-called Southern Voice. Some postulate that the North-South division exists in the arena of NGOs.[66] They question the equality of the relationships between Northern and Southern parts of the same NGOs as well as the relationships between Southern and Northern NGOs working in partnerships. This suggests a division of labour may develop, with the North taking the lead in advocacy and resource mobilisation whilst the South engages in service delivery in the developing world.[66] The potential implications of this may mean that the needs of the developing world are not addressed appropriately as Northern NGOs do not properly consult or participate in partnerships. The real danger in this situation is that western views may take the front seat and assign unrepresentative priorities.[67] The flood of NGOs has also been accused of damaging the public sector in multiple developing countries.The mismanagement of NGOs has resulted in the break down of public health care systems. Instead of promoting equity and alleviating poverty, NGOs have been under scrutiny for contributing to socioeconomic inequality and disempowering the services in the public sector of third world countries.[68] The scale and variety of activities in which NGOs participate has grown rapidly since the 1980s, witnessing particular expansion in the 1990s.[69] This has presented NGOs with need to balance the pressures of centralisation and decentralisation. By centralising NGOs, particularly those that operate at an international level, they can assign a common theme or set of goals. Conversely it is also advantageous to decentralise as this increases the chances of an NGO behaving flexibly and effectively to localised issues.[70]

An intergovernmental organization, sometimes rendered as an international governmental organization and both abbreviated as IGO, is an organization composed primarily of sovereign states (referred to as member states), or of other intergovernmental organizations. Intergovernmental organizations are often called international organizations, although that term may also include international nongovernmental organization such as international non-profit organizations or multinational corporations. Intergovernmental organizations are an important aspect of public international law. IGOs are established by treaty that acts as a charter creating the group. Treaties are formed when lawful representatives (governments) of several states go through a ratification process, providing the IGO with an international legal personality. Intergovernmental organizations in a legal sense should be distinguished from simple groupings or coalitions of states, such as the G8 or the Quartet. Such groups or associations have not been founded by a constituent document and exist only as task groups. Intergovernmental organizations must also be distinguished from treaties. Many treaties (such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, or the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade before the establishment of the World Trade Organization) do not establish an organization and instead rely purely on the parties for their administration becoming legally recognized as an ad hoc commission. Other treaties have established an administrative apparatus which was not deemed to have been granted international legal personality.

Contents

1 Types and purposes 2 Examples 3 History 4 Expansion and growth 5 Participation and involvement 6 Strengths and weaknesses 7 See also 8 Further readings and external references 9 External links 10 References

Types and purposes

Intergovernmental organizations differ in function, membership and membership criteria. They have various goals and scopes, often outlined in the treaty or charter. Some IGOs developed to fulfill a need for a neutral forum for debate or negotiation to resolve disputes. Others developed to carry out mutual interests with unified aims to preserve peace through conflict resolution and better international relations, promote international cooperation on matters such as environmental protection, to promote human rights, to promote social development (education, health care), to render humanitarian aid, and to economic development. Some are more general

in scope (the United Nations) while others may have subject-specific missions (such as Interpol or the International Organization for Standardization and other standards organizations). Common types include:

Worldwide or global organizations - generally open to nations worldwide as long as certain criteria are met. This category includes the United Nations (UN) and its specialized agencies, the Universal Postal Union, Interpol, the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Customs Organization (WCO), and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Regional organizations - open to members from a particular region or continent of the world. This category includes the Council of Europe (CoE), European Union (EU), NATO, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, African Union (AU), Organization of American States (OAS), Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Arab League, and Union of South American Nations. Cultural, linguistic, ethnic, religious, or historical organizations - open to members based on some cultural, linguistic, ethnic, religious, or historical link. Examples include the Commonwealth of Nations, La Francophonie, Community of Portuguese Language Countries, Latin Union, or Organisation of Islamic Cooperation Economic organizations - based on economic organization. Some are dedicated to free trade, the reduction of trade barriers (the World Trade Organization) and International Monetary Fund. Others are focused on international development. International cartels, such as the Organization of Petroleum-Exporting Countries (OPEC), also exist. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development was founded as an economics-focused organization. An example of a recently formed economic IGO is the Bank of the South. Educational organizations - centered around tertiary level study. Academy of European Law offers training in European law to lawyers, judges, barristers, solicitors, in-house counsel and academics. EUCLID (university) chartered as a university and umbrella organization dedicated to sustainable development in signatory countries and United Nations University efforts to resolve the pressing global problems that are the concern of the United Nations, its Peoples and Member States.

Some organizations, such as NATO, have collective security or mutual defense provisions. The Union of International Associations publishes an annual directory of organizations and provides ancillary information on most international organizations, both intergovernmental and non-governmental.

Examples
The United Nations Mission: 1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment

or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace; 2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace; 3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and 4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.[1] Membership:[2] 193 Member States. Membership is "...open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations." World Bank Mission Statement:

"To fight poverty with passion and professionalism for lasting results. To help people help themselves and their environment by providing resources, sharing knowledge, building capacity and forging partnerships in the public and private sectors."[3]

Membership: 186 Members made up of government-owned organizations.[4] North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Mission:

"The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.

They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area. They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty."[5] Membership: "NATO is an Alliance that consists of 28 independent member countries."[6]

History
While treaties, alliances, and multilateral conferences had existed for centuries, IGOs only began to be established in the 19th century. Among the first were the Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine, initiated in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars, and the future International Telegraph Union, which was founded by the signing of the International Telegraph Convention by 20 countries in May 1865. Of notable significance was the emergence of the

League of Nations following World War One, designed as an institution to foster collective security in order to sustain peace.

Expansion and growth

There currently are more than 250 IGOs worldwide, and this number continues to rise. This increase may be attributed to globalization, which increases and encourages the cooperation among and within states. Globalization has also provided easier means for IGO growth, as a result of increased international relations. This is seen economically, politically, militarily, as well as on the domestic level. Economically, IGOs gain material and non-material resources for economic prosperity. IGOs also provide more political stability within the state and among differing states. Military alliances are also formed by establishing common standards in order to ensure security of the members to ward off outside threats. Lastly, the formation has encouraged autocratic states to develop into democracies in order to form an effective and internal government.[7]

Participation and involvement

There are several different reasons a state may choose membership in an intergovernmental organization. But there are also reasons membership may be rejected. These reasons are explored in the sections below. Reasons for participation: 1. Economic rewards: In the case of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), many different countries receive economic benefits from membership in the free trade agreement. For example, Mexican companies are given better access to U.S. markets due to their membership. 2. Political influence: Smaller countries, such as Portugal and the Netherlands, who do not carry much political clout on the international stage, are given a substantial increase in influence through membership in IGOs, such as the European Union. Also for countries with more influence such as France and Germany they are beneficial as the nation increases influence in the smaller countries' internal affairs and expanding other nations dependence on themselves, so to preserve allegiance 3. Security: Membership in an IGO such as NATO gives security benefits to member countries. This provides an arena where political differences can be resolved. 4. Improve democracy and the likelihood of democratic survival: It has been noted that member countries experience a greater degree of democracy and those democracies survive longer. Reasons for rejecting membership: 1. Loss of sovereignty: Membership often comes with a loss of state sovereignty as treaties are signed which require cooperation on the part of all member states.

2. Insufficient benefits: Often membership does not bring about substantial enough benefits to warrant membership in the organization.

Strengths and weaknesses

These are some of the strengths and weaknesses of IGOs: Strengths: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. They hold state authority. Their institutions are permanent. They provide a forum for discussion. They are issue specific. They provide information. They allow multilateral cooperation.

Weaknesses: 1. Membership is limited. Prohibits the membership of private citizens. This makes IGOs undemocratic. In addition, not all IGOs allow universal membership. 2. IGOs often overlap resulting in a complex network. 3. States have to give up part of their sovereignty, which weakens the state's ability to assert its authority. 4. Inequality among state members creates biases and can lead powerful states to misuse these organizations. They can be deemed unfair as countries with a higher percentage voting power have the right to veto any decision that is not in their favor, leaving the smaller countries powerless. The United Nations (abbreviated UN in English, and ONU in French and Spanish), is an international organization whose stated aims are facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and achievement of world peace. The UN was founded in 1945 after World War II to replace the League of Nations, to stop wars between countries, and to provide a platform for dialogue. It contains multiple subsidiary organizations to carry out its missions. The UN currently has a total of 193 member states. From its offices around the world, the UN and its specialized agencies decide on substantive and administrative issues in regular meetings held throughout the year. The organization has six principal organs: the General Assembly (the main deliberative assembly); the Security Council (for deciding certain resolutions for peace and security); the Economic and Social Council (for assisting in promoting international economic and social cooperation and development); the Secretariat (for providing studies, information, and facilities needed by the UN); the International Court of Justice (the primary judicial organ); and the United Nations Trusteeship Council (which is currently inactive). Other prominent UN System agencies include the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Food Programme

(WFP) and United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). The UN's most prominent position is Secretary-General which has been held by Ban Ki-moon of South Korea since 2007. The United Nations Headquarters resides in international territory in New York City, with further main offices at Geneva, Nairobi, and Vienna. The organization is financed from assessed and voluntary contributions from its member states, and has six official languages: Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish.[3] The International Labour Organization (ILO) is a United Nations agency dealing with labour issues, particularly international labour standards and decent work for all.[2] Almost all (185 out of 193) UN members are part of the ILO. In 1969, the organization received the Nobel Peace Prize for improving peace among classes, pursuing justice for workers, and providing technical assistance to developing nations.[1] The ILO registers complaints against entities that are violating international rules; however, it does not impose sanctions on governments.[3] In jurisprudence, a natural person is a real human being, as opposed to a legal person, which may be a private (i.e., business entity) or public (i.e., government) organization. In many cases, fundamental human rights are implicitly granted only to natural persons. For example, the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states a person cannot be denied the right to vote based on gender, or Section Fifteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees equality rights, apply to natural persons only. Another example of the distinction between natural and legal persons is that a natural person can hold public office, but a corporation cannot. A corporation can, however, file a lawsuit or own property as a legal person.

Crime
Usually a natural person perpetrates a crime, but legal persons may also commit crimes. In the U.S., animals that are not persons under U.S. law, cannot commit crimes.[1] The United Nations (abbreviated UN in English, and ONU in French and Spanish), is an international organization whose stated aims are facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and achievement of world peace. The UN was founded in 1945 after World War II to replace the League of Nations, to stop wars between countries, and to provide a platform for dialogue. It contains multiple subsidiary organizations to carry out its missions. The UN currently has a total of 193 member states. From its offices around the world, the UN and its specialized agencies decide on substantive and administrative issues in regular meetings held throughout the year. The organization has six principal organs: the General Assembly (the main deliberative assembly); the Security Council (for deciding certain resolutions for peace and security); the Economic and Social Council (for assisting in promoting international economic

and social cooperation and development); the Secretariat (for providing studies, information, and facilities needed by the UN); the International Court of Justice (the primary judicial organ); and the United Nations Trusteeship Council (which is currently inactive). Other prominent UN System agencies include the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Food Programme (WFP) and United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). The UN's most prominent position is Secretary-General which has been held by Ban Ki-moon of South Korea since 2007. The United Nations Headquarters resides in international territory in New York City, with further main offices at Geneva, Nairobi, and Vienna. The organization is financed from assessed and voluntary contributions from its member states, and has six official languages: Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish.[3] Non-state actors (NSA) are entities that participate or act in international relations; They are organizations with sufficient power to influence and cause a change even though they do not belong to any established institution of a state.[1] The admission of non-state actors into international relations theory rebukes the assumptions of realism and other black box theories of international relations, which argue that interactions between states are the main relationships of interest in studying international events.

Contents

1 Types 2 Effects on the Westphalian State Model 3 Cotonou Agreement 4 Roles 5 See also 6 References 7 Further reading 8 External links

Types

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs)typically considered a part of civil society. Multinational corporationsfor-profit organizations that operate in multiple sovereign states. The International Media Violent non-state actorsArmed groups, including groups such as Al-Qaeda or Criminal organizations, for example drug cartels. Religious GroupsQuakers and other religious sects are quite active in their international advocacy efforts.[2] They have in part founded other non-state actors such as Amnesty International, Greenpeace, and OXFAM. Transnational diaspora communitiesEthnic or national communities that to influence their original and current territories. Cell-based, independent intelligence agents.

Effects on the Westphalian State Model

The proliferation of non-state actors in the postCold War era has been one of the factors leading to the Cobweb Paradigm in international politics.[3] Under this paradigm, the traditional Westphalian nation-state experiences an erosion of power and sovereignty, and non-state actors are part of the cause. Facilitated by globalization, NSAs challenge nation-state borders and sovereignty claims. MNCs are not always sympathetic to national interests, but instead are loyal to the corporation's interests. NSAs challenge the nation-state's sovereignty over internal matters through advocacy for societal issues, e.g. human rights and the environment.[2] Armed non-state actors operate without state control and are involved in internal and transborder conflicts. The activity of such groups in armed conflicts adds layers of complexity to traditional conflict management and resolution. These conflicts are often fought not only between non-state actors and states, but also between multiple NSA groups. Interventions in such conflicts is particularly challenging given the fact that international law and norms governing the use of force for intervention or peacekeeping purposes was primarily written in the context of the nation-state.[4]

Cotonou Agreement
The term Non State Actors is widely used in development cooperation, particularly under the Cotonou Agreement[5] between the European Union (EU) and African, Caribbean and Pacific ACP countries. The agreement uses the term to refer to a wide range of nongovernmental development actors whose participation in ACP-EU development cooperation is now formally recognized. According to Article 6, non-state actors include:

Civil society in all its diversity, according to national characteristics; Economic and social partners, including trade union organisations and; The private sector.

In practice, it means that participation is open to all kind of actors, such as community-based organisations, women's groups, human rights associations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), religious organizations, farmers' cooperatives, trade unions, universities and research institutes, the media and the private sector. Also included in this definition are informal groups such as grassroots organizations, informal private sector associations, etc. The private sector, however, is considered only insofar as it is involved in non-profit activities (e.g. private sector associations, chambers of commerce, etc.)

Roles
Non-state actors can aid in opinion building in international affairs, such as the Human Rights Council. Formal international organizations may also rely on non-state actors, particularly NGOs in the form of implementing partners in the national context. An example is the contribution of COHRE (Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions), to the protection of land and property (HLP) rights in Kosovo by conceptualizing the Housing and Property Directorate (now Kosovo

Property Agency) within the framework of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo.[6] Another example that shows the importance of non-state actors in peace-building is the contribution of ICBL (International Campaign to Ban Landmines) to the international prohibition on the use of landmines. ICBL is a global network of NGOs that has operated in over 90 countries since 1992. Its primary goal is to make a world free of anti-personnel landmines. Their passionate advertising appealing for global cooperation drew Diana, Princess of Wales to become an ardent advocate. Together, they brought the issue to the United Nations General Assembly. ICBLs efforts led the international community to urge states to ratify the Ottawa Treaty (Mine Ban Treaty) in 1997, and its contribution was recognized and praised as it was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in the same year.[7] A sovereign state is a political organization with a centralized government that has supreme independent authority over a geographic area.[1] It has a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states.[2] It is also normally understood to be a state which is neither dependent on nor subject to any other power or state.[3] The existence or disappearance of a state is a question of fact.[4] While according to the declaratory theory of state recognition a sovereign state can exist without being recognised by other sovereign states, unrecognised states will often find it hard to exercise full treaty-making powers and engage in diplomatic relations with other sovereign states. The word "country" is often colloquially used to refer to sovereign states, although it means, originally, only a geographic region, and subsequently its meaning became extended to the sovereign polity which controls the geographic region.

Contents

1 Westphalian sovereignty 2 Recognition o 2.1 Constitutive theory o 2.2 Declarative theory o 2.3 State practice o 2.4 De facto and de jure states 3 See also 4 References 5 Further reading 6 External links

Westphalian sovereignty
Main article: Westphalian sovereignty

Westphalian sovereignty is the concept of nation-state sovereignty based on territoriality and the absence of a role for external agents in domestic structures. It is an international system of states, multinational corporations, and organizations that began with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Sovereignty is a term that is frequently misused.[5] Up until the 19th century, the radicalised concept of a "standard of civilisation" was routinely deployed to determine that certain peoples in the world were "uncivilised", and lacking organised societies. That position was reflected and constituted in the notion that their "sovereignty" was either completely lacking, or at least of an inferior character when compared to that of "civilised" people."[6] Lassa Oppenheim said "There exists perhaps no conception the meaning of which is more controversial than that of sovereignty. It is an indisputable fact that this conception, from the moment when it was introduced into political science until the present day, has never had a meaning which was universally agreed upon."[7] In the opinion of H. V. Evatt of the High Court of Australia "sovereignty is neither a question of fact, nor a question of law, but a question that does not arise at all." [8] Sovereignty has taken on a different meaning with the development of the principle of selfdetermination and the prohibition against the threat or use of force as jus cogens norms of modern international law. The United Nations Charter, the Declaration on Rights and Duties of States, and the charters of regional international organisations express the view that all states are juridically equal and enjoy the same rights and duties based upon the mere fact of their existence as persons under international law.[9][10] The right of nations to determine their own political status and exercise permanent sovereignty within the limits of their territorial jurisdictions is widely recognised.[11][12][13] In political science, sovereignty is usually defined as the most essential attribute of the state in the form of its complete self-sufficiency in the frames of a certain territory, that is its supremacy in the domestic policy and independence in the foreign one.[14] In casual usage, the terms "country", "nation", and "state" are often used as if they were synonymous; but in a more strict usage they can be distinguished:[citation needed]

Nation denotes a people who are believed to or deemed to share common customs, religion, language, origins, ancestry or history. However, the adjectives national and international are frequently used to refer to matters pertaining to what are strictly sovereign states, as in national capital, international law. State refers to the set of governing and supportive institutions that have sovereignty over a definite territory and population. Sovereign states are legal persons.

Recognition
State recognition signifies the decision of a sovereign state to treat another entity as also being a sovereign state.[15] Recognition can be either express or implied and is usually retroactive in its effects. It doesn't necessarily signify a desire to establish or maintain diplomatic relations.

There is no definition that is binding on all the members of the community of nations on the criteria for statehood. In actual practice, the criteria are mainly political, not legal.[16] L.C. Green cited the recognition of the unborn Polish and Czech states in World War I and explained that "since recognition of statehood is a matter of discretion, it is open to any existing State to accept as a state any entity it wishes, regardless of the existence of territory or of an established government."[17] In international law, however, there are several theories of when a state should be recognized as sovereign.[18]

Constitutive theory
The constitutive theory of statehood defines a state as a person of international law if, and only if, it is recognized as sovereign by other states. This theory of recognition was developed in the 19th century. Under it, a state was sovereign if another sovereign state recognized it as such. Because of this, new states could not immediately become part of the international community or be bound by international law, and recognized nations did not have to respect international law in their dealings with them.[19] In 1815 at the Congress of Vienna the Final Act recognised only 39 sovereign states in the European diplomatic system, and as a result it was firmly established that in future new states would have to be recognized by other states, and that meant in practice recognition by one or more of the great powers.[20] One of the major criticisms of this law is the confusion caused when some states recognize a new entity, but other states do not. Hersch Lauterpacht, one of the theory's main proponents, suggested that it is a state's duty to grant recognition as a possible solution. However, a state may use any criteria when judging if they should give recognition and they have no obligation to use such criteria. Many states may only recognize another state if it is to their advantage.[19] In 1912, L. F. L. Oppenheim had the following to say on constitutive theory: ...International Law does not say that a State is not in existence as long as it is not recognised, but it takes no notice of it before its recognition. Through recognition only and exclusively a State becomes an International Person and a subject of International Law.[21]

Declarative theory
By contrast, the "declarative" theory defines a state as a person in international law if it meets the following criteria: 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states. According to declarative theory, an entity's statehood is independent of its recognition by other states. The declarative model was most famously expressed in the 1933 Montevideo Convention. Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention declares that statehood is independent of recognition by other states. In contrast, recognition is considered a requirement for statehood by the constitutive theory of statehood.

A similar opinion about "the conditions on which an entity constitutes a state" is expressed by the European Economic Community Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee, which found that a state was defined by having a territory, a population, and a political authority.

State practice
State practice relating the recognition states typically falls somewhere between the declaratory and constitutive approaches.[22] International law does not require a state to recognise other states.
[23]

Recognition is often withheld when a new state is seen as illegitimate or has come about in breach of international law. Almost universal non-recognition by the international community of Rhodesia and Northern Cyprus are good examples of this. In the former case, recognition was widely withheld when the white minority seized power and attempted to form a state along the lines of Apartheid South Africa, a move that the United Nations Security Council described as the creation of an "illegal racist minority rgime".[24] In the latter case, recognition was widely withheld from a state created in Northern Cyprus on land illegally invaded by Turkey in 1974.[25]

De facto and de jure states

Most sovereign states are states de jure and de facto (i.e. they exist both in law and in reality). However, sometimes states exist only as de jure states in that an organisation is recognised as having sovereignty over and being the legitimate government of a territory over which they have no actual control. Many continental European states maintained governments-in-exile during the Second World War which continued to enjoy diplomatic relations with the Allies, notwithstanding that their countries were under Nazi occupation. The State of Palestine, which is recognized by multiple states doesn't have control over any of its claimed territory in Palestine[26] [40] and possess only extraterritorial areas (i.e. embassies and consulates). Other states may have sovereignty over a territory but lack international recognition; these are considered by the international community to be only de facto states (they are considered de jure states only according to their own Law and by states that recognize them). Somaliland is commonly considered to be such a state.[41][42][43][44] For a list of entities that wish to be universally recognized as sovereign states, but do not have complete worldwide diplomatic recognition, see the list of states with limited recognition.

A multinational corporation (MNC) or multinational enterprise (MNE)[1] is a corporation that is registered in more than one country or that has operations in more than one country. It is a large corporation which both produces and sells goods or services in various countries. [2] It can also be referred to as an international corporation. They play an important role in globalization. The first multinational company was the British East India Company, founded in 1600. [3][4] The second multinational corporation was the Dutch East India Company, founded March 20, 1602. [5]

A violent non-state actor (VNSA) is an organization that uses illegal violence (i.e. force not officially approved of by the state) to reach its goals. The term has been used in several papers published by the United States military.[1][2][3][4]

Contents

1 Description 2 Different types 3 Humanitarian engagement 4 See also 5 Notes 6 References 7 Further reading 8 External links

Description
Thomas, Kiser and Casebeer (2005) assert that "VNSA play a prominent, often destabilizing role in nearly every humanitarian and political crisis faced by the international community".[5] As a new species of actors in international relations, VNSAs represent a departure from the traditional Westphalian system of states in two ways: by providing an alternative to state governance and challenging the state's monopoly of violence. Phil Williams, in an overview article, states that "violent non-state actors (VNSAs) have become a pervasive challenge to nation-states" in the 21st century".[6] Williams argues that VNSAs develop out of poor state governance but also contribute to further undermining governance by the state. He explains that when weak states are "unable to create or maintain the loyalty and allegiance of their populations", "individuals and groups typically revert to or develop alternative patterns of affiliation". This causes the family, tribe, clan etc. to become "the main reference points for political action, often in opposition to the state".[6] According to Williams, Globalization has "challenged individual state capacity to manage economic affairs, it has also provided facilitators and force multipliers for VNSAs". Transnational flows of arms, for example, are no longer under the exclusive surveillance of states. With the onset of globalization, development of transnational social capital and alliances, and funding opportunities for VNSAs have all flourished. ".[6]

Different types
Williams identifies various types of VNSAs:[citation needed]

Warlords Militias

Paramilitary forces Insurgencies Terrorist organizations Criminal organizations and youth gangs

Criminal organizations and youth gangs are essentially illegal business organizations. ("Crime for them is simply a continuation of business by other means".) [6]

Humanitarian engagement
Researchers at the Overseas Development Institute propose that engagement with VNSAs which they call armed non-state actorsis essential to humanitarian efforts in conflicts, as it is often necessary for facilitating access to those affected and for providing humanitarian assistance.[7] However, humanitarian agencies too often fail to engage strategically with VNSAs. This tendency has strengthened since the end of the Cold War, partly due to the strong discouragement of humanitarian engagement with VNSAs included in counter-terrorist legislation and donor funding restrictions. In their opinion further study is necessary to identify ways in which humanitarian agencies can develop productive dialogue with VNSAs.[7]

AN INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL LAW

"The case against historical objectivity is like the case against international law, that it does not exist" (Sir Isaiah Berlin) International law exists, but it suffers from neglect. It has had a hard time settling debates over foundational concepts such as justice and reciprocity, and of course, there is the unfortunate and well-known fact that no consensus over the definition of terrorism has ever been reached. This doesn't mean the field is any less important. It just means there are many challenges ahead. Indeed, one would be hard pressed to discover a more challenging area of law, whether in theory or practice. The field is very important since almost everything a nation does, and almost everything other nations do, affects or is affected by international law. Like all law, it is all around us. It cannot be ignored. Pretending it doesn't exist does not make it go away. Regardless of one's opinion of it, it must be studied and learned about. The ALE (American Law Institute) defines international law as "law that deals with the conduct of states and of international organizations and with their relations inter se [among themselves], as well as some of their relations with persons, whether natural or juridical" (Buergenthal & Murphy 2002). More elegant definitions can be found, such as the common one where it can be described as "law that deals with the relationships between states, or between persons or entities in different states." Even simpler definitions can be found reducing it to "laws governing relations between nations." There's an unfortunate tendency for the simplest of definitions to focus only on nation-states, as if nation-state relationships were the only thing that mattered, but the fact is that any entity (even a corporation or a person) which possesses "international personality" is subject to international law. This is important because without including international organizations or personalities, there would be no basis for international

trade law, international humanitarian law, or international human rights law. If one's purpose was to argue that international law doesn't exist, they would be on fairly solid ground by arguing that no appropriate international governing body or central authority exists. It is quite easy to point out the limitations of the International Court of Justice and the United Nations in this regard. Besides the definitional conundrums over what constitutes something "international," there is the problem of specifying exactly what the "law" consists of. The most common answer is "a system of rules," but if it's a system, it's a very weak system with the same entities creating the law also being its enforcers. A better answer is to say that international law consists of norms, standards, treaties, agreements, customs, and some rules, but one would be hard pressed to call that anything more than a primitive system. Despite not being neat and tidy, international law represents an ethics or jurisprudence (of what ought to be and how to get there). In fact, John Austin, the famous legal philosopher (who happened to be Jeremy Bentham's student), once called international law a type of "positive morality" (Austin 1954). Positive morality in Austin's scheme includes laws of honor, sociological mores, conventions/customs, parts of constitutional law, and most of all, international law. It may be worth quoting Austin, as below: John Austin on International Law The existence of law is one thing; its merit or demerit is another. Whether it be or not be is one inquiry; whether it be or not be conformable to an assumed standard, is a different inquiry. A law, which actually exists [and can be described as such], is a law, though we happen to dislike it, and though it may vary by text, it is the means by which we regulate our approbation and disapprobation. It was Jeremy Bentham who first coined the word "international" in 1780 (Bentham 1970). He invented the word to give meaning to the Latin phrase jus (or ius) gentium (law of nations). Jus gentium refers to the law established among all people by natural reason, as compared to jus civile (the system of law peculiar to one state or people). It should be noted that much scholarship regarding the history and development of international law is a debate over its origins in natural law or positive law, and as tempting as it is to go into this, we'll forego the opportunity in lieu of more practical matters. Most definitely, a GLOSSARY OF TERMS is needed, and key Latin words one is likely to encounter include: 1. compromis --an agreement or stipulation where states jointly submit a dispute to the International Court of Justice for resolution 2. erga omnes -- the obligations of a state toward the international community as a whole, including the proscription against aggression, genocide, slavery, and racial discrimination 3. ex aequo et bono -- out of equity or fairness 4. ipso facto -- by the fact or act itself 5. jus ad bellum -- law governing resort to force 6. jus in bello -- law governing conduct of war, sometimes called humanitarian law or the law of war 7. jus cogens -- peremptory norms of international law from which no derogation by treaty is permitted, peremptory being a word meaning there can be no contradiction or denial about the truth of something 8. jure gestionis -- acts which are commercial by nature 9. jure imperii -- acts which are governmental or sovereign by nature, and under U.S. law,

foreign governments retain immunity for intrinsically governmental acts 10. jus sanguinis -- the right of "blood" meaning a person's citizenship is determined by the citizenship of the parents, or one of them 11. jus soli -- the law of the soil or place of one's birth as the basis of citizenship 12. lex ferenda -- norms in the process of ripening into law 13. lex lata -- law that is binding and well-established 14. lex mercantoria --merchant law or commercial law, including market customs that are binding 15. male captus, bene detentus -- the doctrine that a state may try persons brought to its courts by irregular means, even by abduction from another state, in violation of international law, in the absence of protest by the other state 16. mutatis mutandis -- when what must be changed has been changed; new procedures to fit new circumstances 17. opinio juris sive necessitatis -- the conviction that a behavior is required by law, as distinct from other motivations, such as habit or humanitarianism, with such conviction being the requirement before any norm can be considered part of customary law 18. pacta sunt servanda -- the principle that all agreements and treaties which are in force should be observed in good faith 19. rebus sic stantibus -- a rider to the pacta sunt servanda principle which allows a party to nullify a commitment if there have been significant changes in the underlying assumptions and conditions of an agreement or treaty, also known as the "change-in-circumstances" doctrine 20. terra nullius -- this land, or thing, which belongs to no one LEGAL-TECHNICAL PROCEDURES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW It is customary to distinguish between two branches of international law, public and private. Private international law has to do with the rights and duties of individuals as they are affected by overlapping jurisdictions. Public international law consists of the rules, principles, customs, and agreements that nation-states and other international entities accept (or consent to) having the force of law in their relations. Most scholarship is focused on public international law. There are four (4) sources of international law: (1) treaties; (2) customs; (3) reason; and (4) authority. Treaties and customs are the two strongest sources; reason is the weakest source (because of competing conceptions of justice and natural rights); and authority is a weak source because the world has never had a constitution, only those institutions known as the League of Nations (1920)=>Permanent Court of International Justice (1921)=>United Nations (1946)=>International Court of Justice (1946)-see below. Under international law, a treaty normally prevails over any national law which may conflict with it, hence there are fairly relaxed rules on accession and dissension to treaties. It would be a mistake, however, to characterize international law as relaxed. There are actually quite formal legal-technical procedures to establishing an international treaty or agreement, involving at least the following stages: (1) negotiation, the stage at which parties tacitly recognize some complementary interest and strategize to interact with one another (2) adoption, the form and content of a proposed agreement are settled (3) signature, or indication of a willingness to continue and refrain from things which defeat the purpose

(4) ratification, where the usual procedure is to allow a time-frame for parties to seek the necessary approval on the domestic level or enact the domestic legislation to give it effect, and the treaty or agreement is held by a third-party depository (5) acceptance or approval, which depending upon the constitutional law of each party requires executive action, legislative consent, or neither (6) confirmation, a verbal expression to be bound by the treaty or agreement (7) entry into force, where provisional conditions are met or a certain number of minimum parties have to express consent (8) accession, the act by which parties indicate full acceptance and/or other parties accept the opportunity to join in, depending upon provisions of the treaty or agreement. The International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court Located in The Hague, Netherlands, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) - pictured at right -- consists of 15 judges and was established by the UN in 1946 as its principal judicial organ. However, the ICJ doesn't make international law; the UN General Assembly does, according to Chapter IV Article 13 of the UN Charter. ICJ jurisdiction is twofold: settling international disputes and giving advisory opinions. It has been more successful with the latter because the lack of enforcement power is clearly a handicap. The US withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction in 1986, and only accepts the court's settling of disputes on a case-by-case basis. Only a small number of contentious cases (with binding rulings) have emerged from the court, and in fact, most cases brought before it have been relatively minor in significance. Advisory opinions are not binding, and even in contentious cases, jurisdiction is only by consent, with consent obtained by diplomats or compromissory clauses included in treaties. Despite the appearance of impotence, the Court's existence establishes a basis of legal reasoning that the UN Security Council uses, for example, in deciding to impose sanctions. The ICJ (above) should not be confused with the ICC (International Criminal Court below)

Also located in The Hague, Netherlands, the International Criminal Court (ICC) - pictured at right -- was established in 2002 to prosecute international crimes and only after that date. A country must sign the Rome Statute to be subject to its jurisdiction, and the US has a curious on-again, off-again relationship to it, unlike other countries which simply withdraw en masse whenever one of its leaders gets indicted. Genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity are the main subjects of the court. Cases must be referred to it by the UN Security Council, although the ICC can act somewhat independently, especially with investigations (if the case meets what is called a certain "gravity" threshold). Punishment is left to individual states, which often results in no punishment at all. The biggest complaint is the cost of its operation, which requires almost as much money as it takes to operate the UN. International justice mostly operates by majority rule and arrives at its decisions by consideration of international conventions, international custom, and the "general principles of law recognized by civilized nations." It may also refer to academic writing and previous judicial decisions to help interpret the law, although the Court is not formally bound by its previous decisions. If the parties agree, the Court may also decide ex aequo et bono, or "in justice and fairness," which involves a decision based on general principles of fairness rather than specific law. Numerous treaties (at least 244) explicitly mention the ICJ as the final arbitrar of disputes which cannot be settled by mediation. Jurisdiction is limited only to cases where both parties have bound themselves in advance to submit disputes arising under a specific treaty, but many nations submit their dispute to the court after a dispute has arisen either by special agreement to do so or by making a declaration under the "Optional Clause" of the Court's statute. Judgments are backed up by whatever U.N. Security Council recommendations are made. It is unfortunate, however, that the Court's powers have been limited by the unwillingness of the losing party to abide by the Court's ruling, and by the Security Council's unwillingness to enforce consequences. Ultimately, the only enforcement power that the ICJ has (as with international law as a whole) is stigmatization, whereby non-complying governments open themselves up to retaliatory measures by other governments. Schwebel (1994) provides balanced insights into the ICJ's strengths and limitations, as well as a review of forty-five judgments and eighteen advisory opinions during 1946-1984, concluding that most of the Court's judgments and opinions have been of high quality, although a few have been somewhat elliptical. Schwebel (1994) also analyzes the Optional Clause in some detail, which is the way most major nations (including the United States), after a dispute has arisen, bind themselves to the Court's compulsory jurisdiction. Declarations to abide by the Optional Clause are usually accompanied by "Reservations" which limit the extent of agreement. Most of these reservations allow for unilateral withdrawal at any time. For example, the UK's reservation

reads that it reserves: "the right at any time ... and with effect from the moment of ... notification, either to add to, amend, or withdraw ... in this declaration which has been made until such time as notice may be given to terminate it." The US reservation pioneered a self-judging tactic known as the Connally Reservation, which withholds from compulsory jurisdiction "disputes with regard to matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the USA as determined by the USA." The effect has been an erosion in the original intent of the Optional Clause, but the Court suffers from other problems too. A few times in its history (at least five times), a state has refused to produce a defendant to appear in court. In addition, there is the problem of conformity with judgment. In Nicaragua v. United States (1984), the ICJ found the United States guilty of illegally arming, training, equipping, financing, and supplying the Contras in breach of customary law not to intervene in the affairs of another state, but the United States withdrew its acceptance of the Court's judgment and never paid the reparations it was ordered to pay. In addition, the Court seems to have a general unwillingness to take on politically controversial matters because in 2004, the ICJ denied a claim by the former Yugoslavia against NATO for alleged illegal actions during the Kosovo War of 1999. Although the Court passed over on the claim via jurisdictional grounds that Yugoslavia was not a party to the ICJ statute at the time it made the application, it could (or should) have heard the case nevertheless to exercise its authority. With advisory opinions, the Court has been more influential, issuing important statements on threats to use nuclear weapons in 1996, and in 2005, on putting up physical barriers between nations such as the Israeli West Bank wall, fence, or "security barrier." Critics of the ICJ abound. See this Critique of the ICJ Advisory Opinion (doc) at the Case for Israel website which is also a good analysis on the inner workings of the ICJ. CONCEPTIONS OF JUSTICE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW Conceptions of justice are not just of theoretical interest. Many problem areas of international law have an essential justice dimension, including war, conflict, trade, environment, nonproliferation, and legal proceedings against individuals in international courts. Justice conceptions also play a practical role in the decision-making processes of political actors (Franck 1997; Albin 2001). Unfortunately, there is no precise agreement on the meaning of the term justice for any kind of international order or any system of international relations given the disagreements between IR schools of thought, particularly realism and liberalism. This section examines those disagreements and outlines some predominant and emerging conceptions of justice.

Realist conceptions typically put order before justice, and idealist conceptions typically put justice before order, reflecting the respective belief that the origins of international law are in positive law (the purpose being to establish order and stability in an anarchical society) or in natural law (the purpose being to promote values such as fairness and equity). The justice v. order debate is often a divisive one among scholars. Realist proponents of "international order" (as opposed to "international justice") frequently argue that some minimum order is necessary (e.g., a balance of power, regulatory and monitoring institutions, and/or the status quo) before justice can be realized. International order is then established after violence has settled and relative stability has been achieved. In other words, the realist position is to take the world as it

is right now (with room for minor adaptations and change), work on eliminating needless violence, and establish the preconditions for justice which flow from a greater sense of security (for the states themselves as well as the international system). Neorealists tend to take the position that some principles of justice (at least ethics and morality) are inherent in the rational, prudent use of power, especially when the practices of just war and humanitarian intervention are involved (Walzer 2000).

Liberals usually consider "international justice" from the approach that existing arrangements are inequitable to begin with, and that the status quo is unsatisfactory, and what needs to be done is some primary work on justice issues first -- issues like world poverty, hunger, disease, and ecological balance. This position is quite prevalent among Third World nations or developing states. Conceptions of social justice, natural rights, and/or basic human needs are often used to support this line of argument -- that with alleviation of suffering comes peace, with peace comes order, and with law comes better peace (the "peace through law" approach which characterized much 20th century thinking). Neoliberals (universalists and neo-idealists) tend to focus almost exclusively upon concerns for human emancipation, self-determination, harmony and well-being (cosmopolitanism), with the most fruitful concept being the universalist idea of "common humanity" or Common Heritage of Mankind often found in discussions of outer space or maritime law (Basler 1998). Burton's (1990) non-coercive, cooperative approach to world society is representative of the neoidealist position which opposes almost all kinds of conflict. Numerous other varieties of liberal justice conceptions can be found, almost all of which, in one way or another, embrace pluralism, a political sociology term for a system of power sharing among competing parties and interest groups. Distributive justice (to each according to their contribution) is a typical scholarly focus.
Societies distribute all sorts of things, not just wealth and power, but social goods like honor, education, work, free time, and even love (Walzer 2004). Much writing on distributive justice in the literature is drawn from the liberal, social contractarian, Rawlsian perspective in Justice as Fairness (Rawls 1971) and The Law of Peoples (Rawls 2001). In fact, it might be fair to say the Rawlsian perspective dominates most discussions of justice. To summarize a rather extensive line of reasoning, the Rawlsian conception basically holds that there is a fundamental difference between charity (to each according to their needs) and distributive justice (based on equal opportunity to contribute). Do-gooding alone does not produce egalitarian societies, and basic human rights are not the same as rights under a constitutional democracy. There is also a fundamental difference between political ethics and personal ethics. Political institutions operate on a different moral ground than what most individuals do. It is only feasible to design institutions (e.g., tax codes, wage laws, etc.) that have the effect of increasing peoples' sense of democratic participation so they stop constantly comparing themselves to others (in terms of how well-off they are) are start living freer and better lives. In The Law of Peoples, Rawls (2001) argues that the reason of this notion is the basis of most constitutional democracies, is viewed as legitimate across most religious and non-religious views, and sets forth the moral grounds for rendering assistance to non-liberal societies burdened by unfavorable political and economic conditions. The foremost critics (e.g. Nozick 1977) of the Rawlsian conception of distributive justice are those who advocate non-collectivist approaches (no seeking of the "greater good") and a minimal state or "nightwatchman state" that concentrates on protecting its citizens and isn't

drawn into excess regulation of everyday life which often intrudes on liberties (note: the "nightwatchman" conception is sometimes called Libertarian justice).

Economic justice is another common scholarly focus. How each person earns a living, enters into contracts, and exchanges goods and services is part of the material foundation for sustenance and well-being. Economic justice is also closely related to conceptions of social justice (the just organization of social institutions) and environmental justice (the ethical implications of sustainable economic growth). Efforts to develop ideal-types (Kapstein 2004) as well as typologies (Beitz 1999) have characterized attempts to elucidate conceptions of economic justice which can be modeled and tested by scientific methods. Typically, the focus is on the equity components of economic arrangements using social psychology's exchange theory as a guide to equity (as perceptions of fairness). The equity approach to economic justice (as also a form of distributive justice) has a long history going back to Aristotle. According to Kapstein (2004), such approaches tend to be classifiable as whether they are communitarian (concerned with globalization's greater openness and its effects, domestically and internationally), liberal internationalist (concerned with globalization effects on the legitimacy and stability of an international order as well as the effects on income distributions and poverty), or cosmopolitan (concerned with the effects of the prevailing economic structure on the well-being of persons). Linklater (1990) points out that the communitarian and cosmopolitan positions provide the most dialogue for the possibility of developing an agreed-upon justice theory, and that this dialogue centers upon the problem of dual loyalty (to one's state as citizens and to one's world as human beings). Linklater (1990) is spot on. Normative theory (about what is just) and ideas about "international morality" are exactly what is needed. Along these lines, the thinking is that there must exist some set of universal values that we can all agree on, regardless of whether they are enshrined in international law or not. If an international morality exists, then it is likely certain universal principles of justice can be derived from it. An advantage of this morality or virtue approach is that not only could agreed-upon, common denominator, transnational rights be derived, but there could also be a set of international obligations along the lines of altruism (or other values) which elicit the felt need for sacrifice, charity, and benevolence. Virtue approaches may hold some promise of improvement over the current "opinio juris" arrangement whereby a rule of customary law is said to exist if it has been accepted for some time by the world's major nations without consistent objection by other nations. The problem, however, is that most of the things referenced by virtue approaches are rather fuzzy rights, and the most practical problem in all of international law may be figuring out how to expand obligations and not just rights.
Other theoretical approaches also exist. Cosmopolitan justice (Moellendorf 2002) has been the topic of recent dialogue between international relations scholars. It is generally agreed that at least two versions have emerged: weak cosmopolitanism, the idea that all human beings are of equal worth; and strong cosmopolitanism, the idea that we all have equal responsibilities to everyone else. One would have to be a bigot or racist to disagree with the first, so debate usually boils down to ethics of the second, which holds that there is a necessity to help the needy in the name of cultivating our mutual interest in the global community. Most cosmopolitans are opposed to nationalism, and particularly the nationalistic sense of patriotism. Immanuel Kant, the famous German philosopher and author of Perpetual Peace (1795), argued that cosmopolitanism should be seen as a third sphere of public law -- in addition to constitutional law and international law -- where individuals have rights as "citizens of the earth" rather than as

citizens of particular states. Numerous interesting variants of cosmopolitanism exist, and they all tend to strive for reform of the UN by creating a "Second Assembly," an assembly of the people, as Segall (1991) puts in. David Held (1995) is perhaps the most well-known modern cosmopolitan, and some of his ideas are as follows: Seven Clusters of Cosmopolitan Democratic Law 1. Body (Health) - physical and emotional wellbeing; clean, nontoxic environment; control over fertility 2. Welfare (Social) - universal childcare; education; community services; development of talents and abilities 3. Culture (Cultural rights) - freedom of thought and faith; freedom of expression; toleration; pursuit of modes of discourse 4. Civic (Civic associations) - freedom of information; ability to form or join autonomous associations and group projects 5. Economy (economic rights) - guaranteed minimum income; avenues to productive resources; diverse forms of consumption; ability to pursue economic activity without immediate financial vulnerability 6. Security (pacific rights) - peaceful coexistence; lawful foreign policy; accountability of political leaders; non-coercive relations 7. Politics (legal and regulatory relations) - due process; equal treatment; participation in debate; adequate and equal opportunities

Restorative justice is an additional, emerging approach, and it is usually contrasted with retributive justice. Under restorative justice, justice is seen as a form of healing. It can also be
contrasted with many Christian approaches since it is not so much a rejection of the punishment orientation as it is an alternative to blame and shaming approaches. Basically, restorative justice seeks to repair the harm done by any offense, empower communities, and reintegrate offenders (and victims) back into the "fold" through reconciliation rituals. A key concept is forgiveness (which is seen as the antidote for vengeance and perpetual hatred). Amnesty, victim testimony, reparations, and rehabilitation are other key ideas. The notion is somewhat popular in criminal justice [See John Fuller's Peacemaking site], and in the international context, restorative justice is often manifested in the form of Truth and Reconciliation Commissions. "Truth" in this context usually means "forensic truth" or the digging up of evidence that certain atrocities were committed, by whom, against whom, when, and where, the purpose being that no one can deny it happened (as with Holocaust denial). Amnesty is sometimes used to trade justice for truth. Reconciliation is a process involving acknowledgment and contrition from the perpetrators and forgiveness from the victims. Reparations are a complex topic deserving of detailed explanation, as below: A Primer on Reparations Reparations are often popularly associated with the idea of financial compensation to individuals, but in practice, most reparations are given to groups for collective projects to remedy past ill-treatment (Howard-Hassmann 2008). Also, most reparations do not involve the exchange of money, but symbolic gestures such as apologies and guarantees of nonrepetition. The international law of economic rights provides stronger backing for

reparations to those currently suffering injuries rather than those who suffered injuries in the past and are long-dead. Demands for reparations are demands for social justice, not demands for redistribution of wealth. It is of concern that the two goals, social justice and redistributive justice, may be incompatible, or at least overlapping to some unnecessary extent. Some classic examples of well-done reparations policies were the Jewish demands for reparations after the Holocaust, and payments for the US internment of Japanese citizens during WWII. However, there are many groups in the world (in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and elsewhere) who have never received even an apology. Standing international law does NOT provide for retroactive reparations for slavery or colonialism (declared illegal in 1960). Standing international law DOES provide for reparations for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, and for such offenses, no statute of limitations exist although the crimes must have been outlawed before they were committed. Reparations law also provides for individual reparations if the case involves disappearance, torture, or extrajudicial execution, and in such cases, heirs to the victims are eligible to make claims although the line of descent is limited, often only to the great-grandchild stage (at least according to Nuremberg standards). The ICC, not the ICJ, is the appropriate forum for reparations. RECIPROCITY AS A CONCEPT AND LEGAL PRINCIPLE A key concept in international law is reciprocity. Basically, the principle of reciprocity is that any favors, benefits, or penalties granted, promised, or threatened by one state to the citizens of another should be returned in kind. Perhaps the most common legal usage of the concept is in the penalty or negative sense, where under international law, an accuser engaging in the same conduct as the accused shall be disqualified from asserting a legal violation. Reciprocity is a fundamental principle in tariff law, copyright law, immigration law, the law of the sea, and the law of criminal extradition. Keohane (1986) and others have argued that reciprocity should be considered a Golden Rule or "meta-rule" in international law because, in part, the foreign policy actions of states almost always correlate highly with the actions others take towards them, at least at one time or another. Similar ideas can be found which are couched as even more empirical. Game-theoretic models are prevalent since reciprocity tends to be remarkably wellsuited to Prisoner's Dilemma situations. Pareto-efficient states (a Pareto optimum refers to when it is no longer possible to make anyone better off without making at least one person worse off) with competitive electoral politics are the hope and dream of experts who elevate reciprocity to the status of essential cement for and between societies (Kolm 1996). There are many related mathematical concepts, such as Dupreel's theorem which holds that as rivalries mature, states are more and more likely to imitate each other's behavior. In addition, there's conflict spiral theory (North et al. 1964) which holds that a misperception of intentions and an escalation of confrontation are likely when there is reciprocal-like signalling of intent to achieve certain outcomes. It is not clear what one is to make of the literature on reciprocity as a concept in relation to international law. There are conflicting conceptualizations of the term (Byers 1999), and the reciprocity literature is difficult to synthesize. It might be said that among certain nations (e.g. the U.S. and Russia) or during certain periods of conflict (e.g., Cold Wars), it has been found that the level of conflict usually follows predictable reciprocal patterns, at least if one is not dealing with "crazy states" or rogue states (Litwak 2000). However, the more immediate

need is not for models of reciprocal conflict, but models of reciprocal cooperation. Theoretically at least, the greater the level of cooperation, the greater the payoff. Reciprocity is informal justice at best, but it points to the Hohfeldian problem of how fulfilling obligations or duties are sometimes more important than exercising or not exercising rights. Reciprocity is important because it refers to international perceptions of what is compensatory and fair, but it is difficult to determine when something is fair without a common, standardized measure of value. Most exchanges (concessions or escalations) between nations are only reciprocal in the sense that something is matched, but that does not mean that the magnitude of the match is equivalent. What's needed is some standardized measure of effort, like equity, or some standardized measure of respect and admiration, like desert (Pojman & McLeod 1999). The standard form of the equation ought to be something like "A should receive x from B because A put in so much effort and work on y" or "A deserves x from B by virtue of y." In the latter case, y should be something that A is responsible for, not simply because they need it. Justice as reciprocity is not charity. Some conceptualizations in cosmopolitanism or social justice might view basic human need in such terms, but need by itself does not usually trigger reciprocity. On the other hand, there are undeveloped theoretical notions of entitlement which might help sort out the relative undeservingness of inequalities. For international law to flourish, it will need more flexible concepts beyond what reciprocity can provide. As Florini (2005) has pointed out, simple concepts like transparency and accountability can help keep issues of justice and equity in the forefront of most discussions about global governance. As a legal principle, reciprocity is a powerful weapon at work in international law and international relations generally. Quite often, states do not pursue certain short-term courses of action (that would be in their best interests) out of concern for reciprocity in the long-run. This ability of reciprocity to modify the behavior of nation-states as well as individuals is remarkable, and can encompass various circumstances -- such as the enforcement of foreign judgments, asset protection, diplomat protection, private suits in US courts by foreigners, etc. Take, for example, the case of Boos v. Barry (1998), which dealt with the appropriateness of protest in front of a government building but not in front of a foreign embassy on US soil. This extension of privilege to a foreign embassy carries with it an expectation (whether realized or not) that American embassies on foreign soil will be reciprocally protected from protest. Or, take the older case of Hilton v. Guyot (1895) which dealt with the comity of nations, or the courtesy between nations that obligates their mutual recognition of each other's laws. In Hilton, the Supreme Court refused to give conclusive effect to a French judgment. In that case, suit was brought in federal court in New York on a judgment rendered against an American citizen by a French court of competent jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that a foreign judgment would not be given conclusive effect unless the courts of the rendering country would give the same effect to a comparable judgment of an American court. Reciprocity is also involved in the law of extradition. For example, Factor v. Laubenheimer (1933) set the precedent for using reciprocity as the legal principle of choice when conflicting interpretations of a treaty exist. TREATIES AND TREATY LAW A treaty is defined as "a written contract or agreement between two or more parties which is considered binding in international law (Evans & Newnham 1998). Other names for a treaty are

accord, agreement, arrangement, charter, compromise, declaration, general act, and protocol, but when the word "treaty" is specified, this usually refers to the most formal and highest instrument of agreement (Myers 1957), although informal treaties may be equally as important (Lipson 1991). The parties to a treaty can be states, heads of state, governments, or international organizations. They are generally not binding on sub-state actors, but they are intended to become the law of the land among nations who adopt them. The phrase "law of the land" comes from the Magna Carta and refers to all of a country's common law, statute law, and customs. It was enshrined in the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) of the U.S. Constitution, as follows, and has been the subject of scholarly debate and inquiry ever since: Does a Treaty Override the Constitution? Article VI, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957): No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. In short, as [the Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty, the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land and treaties may neither supplant nor amend it. The answer to the question of whether a treaty trumps the Constitution is not that easy. Surely, on principle, it does not, despite what Secretary of State John Foster Dulles said in 1952 when he told the American Bar Association that "Treaty law can override the Constitution and cut across the rights given the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights." However, in practice, despite what the Supreme Court has said, the "accord" of a ratified treaty must become part of federal statutory law. The integration of treaty law is NOT by incorporation, nor by amendment, but by revision in the policies and procedures regarding how a law is enforced. For example, if an international treaty were to ban guns or drugs, the nations affected would be expected to become stricter in cracking down on guns and drugs. There is a lot of built-in leeway with treaty enforcement, and the most well-known exception was provided by Thomas Jefferson himself when he said "just as there are circumstances which excuse the nonperformance of contracts between man and man, there are also between nation and nation when performance becomes impossible, non-performance is not immoral, and if performance becomes self-destructive to the party, the law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation to others" (Koch & Peden 1972: 317). Many times, a treaty is brokered, supported, or advocated by an international organization. This includes the United Nations as well as other entities. Let's take a moment to examine what an international organization is: What is an International Organization? An international organization is a group with an international membership, scope, or presence. There are two main types: INGOs (international nongovernmental

organizations) and IGOs (international governmental organizations). An INGO is typically a voluntary, humanitarian, or charitable organization, but they can also be a private foundation or business enterprise. As Iriye (2002: 208) puts it, "the line between business enterprises and nongovernmental organizations is becoming blurred" as some businesses do sponsor humanitarian or relief work. A IGO is typically made up of sovereign states, with notable examples being the UN, EU, or WTO. To cite Iriye (2002) again, most international organizations exist to meet one or more of the following objectives: 1. universal human rights -- the rights of women, children, the sick and disabled (e.g., Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch) 2. humanitarian relief -- for the hungry, and the sick (e.g., UNICEF, Doctors without Borders, Red Cross) 3. development -- for places without energy or sustainable agriculture (e.g., World Bank, Oxfam) 4. environmental safeguarding -- for places with defoliation, desertification, or endangered species (e.g., Friends of the Earth, World Wildlife Fund) 5. cultural exchange -- for multiculturalism or awareness of diversity (e.g, UNESCO, Fulbright Program) 6. peace and disarmament (e.g., Greenpeace, Federation of American Scientists, Council on Foreign Relations) There are two kinds of treaties (bilateral and multilateral), and sometimes it happens where a regime is created. The concept of regime is important, so let's take a moment to examine this. A "Regime" under International Law A regime is a norm-governed framework of rules, expectations, and prescriptions for action between signatories and relevant actors to a multilateral treaty (Krasner 1983). The framework is based upon mutual recognition of a common need for cooperation under the idea of reciprocity, this need for cooperation sometimes being called an "issue area" or interdependence (Keohane & Nye 1977). Because interdependence exists toward the goal of a positive sum outcome (synergistic effects, or the whole being greater than the sum of parts), membership in a regime cannot be specified in advance. Membership decisions are made as the regime is maintained, and as functional integration leads to further cooperation and coordination between a wider set of actors (called positive feedback loop creation in systems theory or regime analysis). In today's world, regimes tend to form around issue areas dealing with trade relations or the environment, in the former case by what are called multilateral "rounds" (e.g. GATT, or the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), and in the latter case by conventions and protocols (e.g., the Kyoto Protocol on global warming). A round is a set of agreements that seek to bind nations, like a treaty, to reduce certain tariffs under the most favored nation principle, but it is unlike a treaty in being more of a congressional-executive agreement giving the executive branch temporary authority from Congress if a majority of Congress approves. Conventions as well as protocols are treaties by another name, and a treaty is not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties unless registered with the U.N. and under US law has achieved advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate. The Kyoto Protocol is unique in that

the Senate voted against it in 1997, but VP Gore symbolically signed it in 1998, and the U.S. supports it in principle but rejects the exemption granted to China (the world's second largest emitter of carbon dioxide). Also, as far as copyrights are concerned, "patent regimes" exist (Drahos & Braithwaite 2003) in the form of the little-known Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which governs such things as bootleg videocassettes or unlicensed use of patented pharmaceutical processes, and is a tool used by large corporations and conglomerates to keep things like urgently-needed AIDS drugs from third-world nations. It is important to note that what is described here is mostly the "neutral" sense of the word regime as used by most political scientists. Some people use the term to describe repressive or undemocratic governments, but that is not the word's primary meaning. Treaties are almost always negotiated by diplomats (or plenipotentiaries, see below), and they usually require ratification by a Congress or Executive branch of government (the United States Constitution, Article II, Section II requires a two-thirds vote by the Senate). Most states usually ratify treaties by Executive action. For international lawyers, there are two Latin phrases associated with the law of treaties: pacta sunt servanda (treaties must be kept); and rebus sic stantibus (a fundamental change of circumstance requires breaking the treaty); both of which are part of jus cogens (a higher law or compelling law considered so fundamental that no nation out of good faith may attempt to ignore it or contract out of it with treaties; in other words, genocide or slave trade cannot be the basis of treaties). While jus cogens is an intriguing concept (ultimately derived from natural law and deserving of further research), there is the more important question of when a treaty or agreement is consistent with domestic law. A Primer on Diplomacy When the first tribe of cavemen realized that it might be better to listen to what the messenger from another tribe had to say before killing and eating him, diplomacy was born. The concepts of messenger, emissary, ambassador, envoy, herald, and to some extent, angel, are all concepts similar in meaning to diplomat. The idea that there is a time and place for persons who are "off-limits" or under a "white flag" from harm is the idea of diplomacy. The social taboo against killing well-meaning foreigners on state business is one of the world's oldest taboos, and much of diplomacy is ultimately derived from principles of social justice. The ancient Greeks called such visitors "heralds" and throughout the centuries, the profession of herald (like one's heraldry or coat of arms) ran in families. The Romans are generally credited with creating "archivists" (specialists in diplomatic precedents and procedures) and so-called "secret" diplomacy, but the Italian states during the fifteenth century created public positions known as "ambassadors". The word diplomat comes from the Greek word "diploun" meaning "to fold" which refers to the stamped metal plates early diplomats used to carry. These metal plates consisted of passes to come and go across international borders, and were called "diplomas" which eventually became associated with documents of academic achievement. As the years went on, the Vatican and England helped spread the practice of housing permanent missions (embassies or consulates) overseas. By 1815 at the Congress of Vienna, every nation officially approved and sanctioned a global diplomacy system. A standard definition of diplomacy is "the

application of intelligence and tact to the conduct of official relations between governments and independent actors" (Satow 1905). To become a diplomat requires earning a title, inheriting a title, or having one bestowed upon you by the sovereign of your country. In the United States, the standard procedure has traditionally been to work for awhile as a career foreign service officer and then rise in rank and stature. However, since the 1960s, there has been an increasing politicization of ambassador appointments, often with as much as 60% or more of the top ranks filled via a spoils system benefitting donors who contributed the most financially to the political campaign of a President. The following titles are what one is likely to encounter among diplomatic teams and consulate missions, but it should be noted that representatives to the United Nations are usually required to be at the level of plenipotentiary, and that in most instances, almost all envoys regard themselves as extraordinary. Ambassador - the highest ranking officer of a diplomatic mission who is sometimes addressed as Excellency Envoy extraordinary or Minister plenipotentiary -- someone in charge of a special project or has special responsibilities Envoy ordinary or Minister resident -- someone working on a regular project, or a regular employee at a mission Charge d'affaires -- an acting head of a mission when others leave, and who is left behind to express displeasure Attach -- military officers, lower-level foreign service personnel, or commercial businessmen performing special services Counselor -- secretaries or assistants who are regular employees that work at the mission

Honorary attach -- a volunteer or person of private means who is not a permanent member of a mission

Treaties may be classified as executory (also called non-self-executing) or self-executing. An executory treaty is one in which the terms of the stipulation imply a contract when either of the parties engage to perform a particular act. Such a treaty addresses itself to the political behavior of the affected governments, not the judicial branch, and in this respect, the legislature must execute the contract before it can become a rule for the court. On the other hand, a selfexecuting treaty is one that operates of itself without the aid of legislation. If the treaty provisions are self-executing, it is unnecessary to plead the treaty's existence. It is the equivalent of an act of Congress, and insofar as it affects individual rights, it is a part of the municipal law of a country. At least four factors are to be considered when determining whether a treaty is selfexecuting: (1) purposes of the treaty and the objectives of its creators; (2) the existence of domestic procedures and institutions appropriate for direct implementation; (3) the availability and feasibility of alternative enforcement methods; and (4) the immediate and long-range social consequences of self or non-self-execution. The topic of self-executing and/or non-selfexecuting doctrines plays an important role in the laws of war, whether "private rights" attach to certain provisions in treaties and agreements, and generally refer to the Senate's advise and consent role in whether a treaty or agreement is binding on domestic law.

What if a treaty or agreement is inconsistent with a domestic statute? What role does international law play in the formation of US foreign policy? What are the exact tasks of the political branches in making, terminating, and interpreting international law and treaties? Constitutional scholars will point to the Supremacy Clause (Article VI) for guidance (and thats a good place to start), but that clause alone is insufficient to address all issues arising from how treaties execute themselves within domestic law. Typically, courts today hold that a dualist form of the legal system exists, in which the international and domestic legal systems operate separately and discretely (Dycus et al. 2002). The caselaw is also instructive in this regard, as the following brief illustrates: Goldwater v. Carter (US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit, 1979, 617 F 2d 697, vacated and remanded, 444 US 996 (1979)) Although the Supreme Court did not directly address the issues set forth in Goldwater (the Court of Appeals judgment was vacated, and the case remanded to the District Court with directions to dismiss the complaint), based primarily on the fact that the issues raised were entirely political questions, Goldwater is still instructive as to the Presidents national security powers and international treaty powers in particular. Courts have also occasioned the opportunity to invoke the political question doctrine to dismiss challenges to the presidents military activities in El Salvador, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, and Yugoslavia. Remember, generally speaking, The conduct of foreign relations is committed by the Constitution to the Executive and Legislature the propriety of what may be done in the exercise of this political power is not subject to judicial inquiry or decision (Oetjen v. Central Leather Co. 1918). That is, a reading of the Article III, section 2, that allows for the courts to review every case or controversy relating to foreign affairs is too expansive a reading, and the Supreme Court frequently declares such matters as non-justiciable. FACTS IN THE CASE Various members of Congress sued in a District Court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the termination of a mutual defense treaty with the Republic of China without senatorial or congressional consent. President Carter announced that effective January 1, 1979, the US would recognize the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) and would withdrawal recognition of the Republic of China (ROC) (Taiwan) effectively terminating the US Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan that same date. The DC District, after taking an amended complaint to establish standing, found for the Plaintiffs. An appeal was taken; whereby the Appellate Court reversed, holding, in pertinent part, that the President did not exceed his authority in terminating a mutual defense treaty with Republic of China in accordance with treatys termination clause, and without obtaining two- thirds Senate consent or majority consent in both houses. ISSUES IN THE CASE (1) If the President needs the advice and consent of the Senate to enter into a treaty, does it then follow that he must seek the same consent to terminate a treaty? (2) Since the Supremacy Clause reads that all treaties should be the Supreme Law of the Land, does it then follow that treaties can only be unmade either by (a) the same process that made them, or (b) the same means by which a statute (or law) is made or terminated; that is, a subsequent federal statute? (3) Does the Constitution grant such foreign relations powers to Congress given a reading of Article I and II of the Constitution?

ANALYSIS OF THE CASE The majority decision in Goldwater answered the above questions in the negative, for the following reasons. First, if we are to assume from the language of the Constitution that treaties must be unmade in the same fashion that they were made, should the same inference be drawn to the Presidents power to appoint certain officers or Ambassadors? The Constitution states that officers appointed by the President must be met by Senate confirmation, but it has never been suggested that the President may not terminate the services of such officials without prior authorization. Second, the Supremacy Clause should not be read so broadly Article VI was written to ensure that federal law, the Constitution, and treaties prevailed over state law in any form, but these three types of Supreme Law are not necessarily the same in their other characteristics, any more than are the circumstances and terms of their creation the same. The Supremacy Clause is, therefore, more a status-prescribing provision, not a procedureprescribing provision. Furthermore, the Constitution does not expressly speak on the termination of treaties; and the mere fact that treaties share a common characteristic with other Supreme Laws does not support a conclusion that they can only be unmade by (a) the same process that made them, or (b) the same means that a statute (or law) is made or terminated. The fact that the Constitution, statutes, and treaties are all listed in the Supremacy Clause as being superior to any form of state law does not mean that the making and unmaking of treaties can be analogized to the making and unmaking of domestic statutes any more than it can be analogized to the making or unmaking of a constitutional amendment. Finally, the Court is generally wary of extending implied Congressional powers into areas where they have typically not resided; absent an unmistakably clear intention that Congress should have such powers therein particularly in regards to foreign relations. Drawing some authority from the Curtis-Wright decision, this Court also broadly acknowledged the President as the primary actor of the federal government in the field of international relations; stating that such a role is not limited to acting as a communicator for the US, but also embraces [a role as] an active policy [decision-maker] as to the conduct of the United States in regard to a treaty in response to numerous problems and circumstances as they arise. Moreover, the Court drew upon the Executive Powers found within the Constitution, Article II, highlighting that those powers are generalized in a manner that bespeaks no such limitation upon foreign affairs powers; of course, unlike the powers conferred upon Congress in Article I, which are specific, detailed, and limited. Effectively, the decision in Goldwater supports the Presidents authority alone to terminate a treaty containing a termination clause, and to some extent, irrespective of whether there's a termination clause because by dictum, the decision also suggests that the President can terminate a treaty because of changed conditions or breaches by the other party. While eight such unilateral acts of treaty termination have occurred since the Goldwater case, this fact alone does not establish a constitutional custom per se neither would such a custom survive the express opposition of Congress. The Goldwater decision is not without its critics since one could argue that the Curtis-Wright rationale is overstated, and that allowing such a broad stroke of executive power may be difficult to contain. Additional criticism draws upon a reading of the Constitution that the Senate should advise the President, but in fact, Congress does take some part in some negotiations for example, four of the eight member delegation that negotiated the UN Mutual Defense Treaty were members of Congress. Since Goldwater and with current events, the usual action is to break diplomatic relations rather than resort to the purely political issue of

recognition. It may be noteworthy that withdrawal of recognition came to the forefront in the War against Afghanistan. President Bush weighed his options, and decided that the Taliban forces were entitled to certain Geneva entitlements (not POW status, however), but he mightily considered whether to deny the Taliban government and her forces Geneva protections altogether (as he decided for Al Qaeda). The basis of that position, of course, is that the President could withdraw the USs recognition of Afghanistan as a High Contracting Party to the Geneva Conventions based upon the argument that Afghanistan was in effect a failed state. The President ultimately chose a different route; therefore, a revisit of Goldwater was not needed. Certain legal questions remain, however, regarding the impact of Goldwater, as follows: AT ISSUE Can the President unilaterally amend or effectively re-interpret a treaty, absent the consent of the Senate? In 1983, the Reagan administration decided to develop and test Star Wars requiring essentially a liberal re-interpretation of the ABM Treaty (Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems) with the Soviets; so that the ABM Treaty could permit SDI development and testing. This decision was met with resistance by the Senate, especially Senator Joe Biden, who introduced Senate Resolution 167, which stated, in part, that treaties are to be determined in light of how the Senate understands them, and in the manner in which represented to the Senate when the Senate gave its advice and consent. It can be said that a modification or amendment to a treaty creates a new treaty; requiring the advice and consent of the Senate. However, this all depends upon how you interpret the Constitution. If you take a Textualist approach, like Scalia, you rely upon the text of the treaty itself; bearing no (or as little as possible) relation to the legislative history of its ratification. The greatest defect of legislative history is its illegitimacy. We are governed by laws, not by the intentions of legislators. (Scalia). However, Bidens group relied upon extensive legislative history (hearings, committee reports, floor debates) to counter Reagans re-interpretation. Other scholars have suggested that treaty interpretation should fall within several different models or rules of interpretation. Its an important question, because are we to expect the President to anticipate every circumstance or problem, and return to the Senate each time for the proper consent? Additionally, doesnt the Constitution vest the execution of laws, and therefore some interpretative powers, to the Chief Executive? Two interpretative models specific to treaty interpretation can be identified: (1) Behavioral or Functional Model -- where many factors affect the presidents re-interpretive functions; such as, (a) what the Senate said when it put-forth its advice and consent; (b) what was said prior to consent; (c) attitudes of treaty partners; (d) support in record and in text of treaty; (e) how different the new interpretation is from the old; (f) assess the changed circumstances that affect the treaty; and (2) Topical Limits Model -- where determining which branch has authority over the specific topic at issue in a particular international agreement allows deference based upon that authority. You can hopefully see the difficulties here many international agreements cover topics that include both branches of government (i.e. arms control), and some even all three branches (humanitarian law); further, when the treaty is enacted, there may be further blurring of the topical line (in wartime or peacetime). Contemporary jurisprudence of treaty interpretation based on principles of good faith, ordinary meaning, and in light of object and purpose all seem to favor the Biden position and/or the Behavioral/Functional Model.

CUSTOMARY LAW The International Court of Justice (ICJ) holds that customary general practice should be accepted as law, and that such customary law has the character of jus cogens. Individuals can be held accountable as well as nation-states. It should be remembered that jus cogens refers to a higher law or compelling law considered so fundamental that no nation out of good faith may attempt to ignore it. In this section, it may be helpful to think of jus cogens as consisting of general norms, and to think of customary law (like treaties) as consisting of specific norms. Nonetheless, customary law itself has some wider meanings, and the more recent term, peremptory norm, has come into standard usage. The most frequently cited definition of customary law is by Rosenne (1994) that "it consists of rules of law derived from the consistent conduct of states acting out of the belief that the law required them to act that way." This definition contains three elements: (1) widespread repetition by states of similar international acts over time; (2) acts must occur out of sense of obligation (opinio juris); and (3) acts must be taken by a significant number of states and not be rejected by a significant number of states. Buergenthal & Murphy (2002) state that customary international law develops from the practice of states. To international lawyers, the practice of states means official governmental conduct reflected in a variety of acts, including official statements at international conferences, diplomatic exchanges, formal instructions to diplomatic agents, national court decisions, legislative measures or other actions taken by governments to deal with matters of international concern. Customary law consists of the implicit and informal understandings created by interactions between state-based actors in the history of acceptable conduct established over time in both war and peace. In the wider, anthropological sense, customary law is established by patterns of behavior that can be objectively verified within most social contexts. It gets its name from the practice, common ever since the Middle Ages, of codifying (or writing down) the customs or expressions of law used to settle civil disputes between communities. Such customs become law when they become the undisputed way by which entitlements and obligations are regulated. Customary law should not be confused with common law (which essentially deals with the ways someone is compensated for a harm), nor should it be confused with criminal law (which essentially deals with the ways someone is punished for a wrong). Customary law is frequently a precursor to treaty law (which consists of explicit understandings and formal agreements), but it is not necessary to sign a treaty for customary law to apply. In international law, some principles of customary law carry the same weight as peremptory norms (accepted by the international community as a whole, but not listed or catalogued anywhere). The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) defines a peremptory norm as "a norm accepted and recognized by the international community as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character." Examples include prohibitions against aggressive war, piracy, genocide, slavery, and torture. A matter of some importance is the effect of international customary law on the domestic law of a nation. Reciprocally, a country's domestic laws can also provide evidence of international custom. It may be helpful to think of customary law as falling somewhere behind treaties and jus cogens. Generally speaking, the existence of customs found within international laws are

deduced from the practice and behavior of states. A specific definition is illusive, but customary law should at a minimum contain evidence of some continued general practice leading to a belief that the practice has essentially become law. While some scholars disagree over the usefulness or value of such a concept, others contend that customary law should not be overlooked because it effectively mirrors the concerns of the global community. If you think of a treaty as a binding bilateral contract, it may be useful to think of customary law as a tacit agreement; that is, an implied agreement within the international community requiring states to act within certain norms or customs. Customary law can be thought of as having two basic elements: one, the material facts in the actual behavior of states; and two, the psychological or subjective belief that such behavior is law. Both elements are necessary, because to omit element two would make it difficult to distinguish between whats customary law per se from what are only general principles of morality or social usage. For example, certain nations, like the United States, may pursue a line of conduct purely for reciprocal benefits or for goodwill (e.g., foreign aid), but these acts alone, of course, would not become a continued practice within the understandings of customary law. Again, the importance of the second element is not without its critics, some arguing that courts should lead the way in determining what customs become binding upon the international community. In the hierarchy of international obligations, the concept of jus cogens is the summit, representing a certain superior value system within the international community. The rule of jus cogens, as stated by Article 53 of the Convention on the Law of Treaties, in part, says that treaties will be void if, at any time [a treaty] conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. These peremptory norms are thought to be underogable, by treaties or any other local or special custom within the international community. The concept is present in American jurisprudence, as in US v. Matta Ballesteros (71 F.3d 754, 9th Circuit (1995)), wherein it was noted Jus cogens norms which are nonderogable and peremptory enjoy the highest status within customary international law, are binding on all nations, and cannot be preempted by treaty. The concept of jus cogens mirrors, in some respects, the influence of natural law theory, but there are just as many, one could argue, that see contractarian principles in it. Others (like Tomuschat & Thouvenin 2006) argue the concept is hyper-inflated in claims that jus cogens or obligations erga omnes must be paramount considerations in every conceivable instances, even concerning indirect repercussions, for example, with regard to things like immunity limits, damages reparation, prisoner statuses, and whether the duty not to recognize as lawful a situation created by the illegal use of force or other serious breaches of a jus cogens obligation is an obligation without substance. Some basic prohibitions do, however, have consensus at the jus cogens level within the international community, such as prohibitions against torture, the illegal use of force, genocide, and slave trade. It should be noted, however, that no clear agreements are set on all controversial customs. Perhaps the more interesting question becomes by what mechanisms are certain practices consumed by the rules of jus cogens? Since such underogable rules carry significant implications for the international law community as a whole, a stringent test is appropriate. In light of Article 53 above, a two pronged test is suggested: (1) a proposed international rule (arising from lesser customs or treaties) must exist; and (2) universal acceptance of that rule should exist by an overwhelming majority of states, and such states must cross ideological and

political divides. This seems simple, but note that universal acceptance is required to ensure that a minority of states are not thrust into the demands of a powerful majority. What about state responsibilities in light of jus cogens? Consider the following (3) points of settled law on the matter:

no state shall recognize as lawful a serious breach of a peremptory norm certain reservations that offend a rule of jus cogens may be unlawful, and state conduct that violates a rule of jus cogens may not enjoy a claim of state immunity the relief which [the UN Charter] may give the Security Council in case of conflict between one if its decisions and an operative treaty obligation cannot as a matter of simple hierarchy of norms extend to a conflict between a Security Council resolution and jus cogens

However, the most important impact of customary law and jus cogens may be the effect they have on the domestic law of a nation, and for this, the following landmark case is instructive and also illustrates the view of the United States on international legal institutions: Committee of US Citizens Living in Nicaragua v. Reagan US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit, 1988 859 F.2d 929 FACTS IN THE CASE In 1986, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found that the United States had violated both treaty obligations and customary international law through its policy of providing financial support to the paramilitary activities of the Contras against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. The US pulled out of the international court proceeding (and effectively her jurisdiction) prior to its ruling; as President Reagan then requested that the US Congress appropriate funds to continue support for the Contras. Congress complied with his request, even after the ICJ decision. Subsequently, certain US citizens living in Nicaragua, and various other organizations who opposed this policy, brought suit in a DC Circuit Court seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against funding of the Contras in Nicaragua on grounds that such funding was contrary to US treaty obligations under the UN Charter, and further contradicted customary international law. The Circuit Court dismissed the complaint citing the political question doctrine, but an appeal was heard and decided upon by the US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit, in 1988. ISSUES IN THE CASE Issues in the case were extensive, but for the purposes here, we should only focus upon its implications with customary law and jus cogens. (1) Did Congresss decision to disregard the ICJ judgment violate customary international law? (2) If States submit to the jurisdiction of an international court are the rulings then send-forth binding as a matter of the rules of jus cogens? HOLDING Generally, the Court held (in regards to the above issues) that: (1) A statute inconsistent with customary international law effectively modifies or supersedes that international law to the extent of inconsistency; and (2) Judgments of the ICJ do not fall within the definition of jus cogens or peremptory norms of international law.

REASONING The famous statement that international law is part of our law should be qualified, as it was by Justice Gray, to give a better understanding of that principle. Where there is no treaty, and no controlling executive or legislative act resort must be had to the customs and usages of nations. Therefore, although few courts have had the occasion to decide specifically whether statutes supersede customary international law, the Nicaragua Court argued that the established rule of abrogating treaties via subsequent statutes gave the implicit authority that the same should be held in regards to international customary law that is, subsequently enacted statutes preempt existing principles of customary international law. Alternately, the Court entertained whether the rules of jus cogens operate domestically as if they were part of the US Constitution, and whether international court decisions were part of the peremptory norms of jus cogens. The Court eluded the former issue by effectively rejecting the view that ICJ decisions rose to the level of jus cogens. However, the Court did surmise that, if Congress [had] adopted a foreign policy that resulted in the enslavement of our citizens or of other individuals, that policy might well be subject to challenge in domestic court under international law. But, the Court first chose to answer the latter question, in part, by analyzing the means in which certain rules transform from customary to peremptory. Since decisions of an international court (and their jurisdictions) were dissimilar in nature to the few norms, arguably, within the rules of jus cogens, the Court was reluctant to accept them within that superior value system. Citing certain restatements of law in footnotes, the Court noted that the norms of jus cogens are: the principles of the United Nations Charter prohibiting the use of force and fundamental human rights law that prohibits genocide, slavery, murder, torture, prolonged arbitrary detention, and racial discrimination. Further, the Courts reluctance to establish a peremptory norm here can be seen in the same light as the doctrine of jus cogens being of such uncertain scope that a domestic court should not on its own authority refuse to give effect to an agreement on the ground that it violates a peremptory norm. Additionally, within the language of the Vienna Convention and its strict criteria for establishing peremptory norms, the Court reasoned that judgments by an international court simply did not qualify. In order for such a customary norm of international law to become a peremptory norm, there must be a further recognition by the international community as a whole [that this is] a norm from which no derogation is permitted. Finding that less than a third of UN members had consented to obligatory jurisdiction by the ICJ, and that, in fact, many nations imposed significant reservations on the scope of their consent, the Court understandably backed off the plaintiffs assertion that such jurisdiction, and its resulting decisions, were universally accepted within the international community.