World International Studies Committee - Conference on International Studies
Ljubljana, July 23 - 26, 2008
NGO's roles in humanitarian interventions and peace-keeping operations
[Draft]
Daniela Irrera
University of Catania
dirrera@unict.it
1. INTRODUCTION
Social scientists and policy-makers are increasingly concerned with the civil society
capability to influence global politics. This capability depends to a large extent on nongovernmental-organizations (NGOs), national and international associations, and lobbies, which
represent civil society interests. By all means, these organizations can significantly contribute to
democratizing the global system1. However, in order to represent demands that cut across the
borders of states, NGOs need suitable assemblies within the most important decision-making
centers, the intergovernmental organizations. This leads us to take into consideration the more
general and controversial issue of the NGOs engagement in political participation, representation,
and democratization of the decision-making processes of the international organizations.
United Nations have reached the highest level of institutionalization of the dialogue with
civil society – mainly with NGOs – by delegating to ECOSOC the task to establishing a special
procedure of recording, accreditation and provision of NGOs consultative status. Thanks to the UN
General Assembly decision, accredited NGOs have been allowed to take part in UN conferences
and, consequently, have gradually introduced dialogue practices with the other bodies, included the
Security Council. These practices constitute a reliable model which has been claimed for ruling the
relationships with civil society, even in other contexts, regional and local ones. This paper aims to
analyze the increasing engagement of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), within and in
relation to international agencies, in responding to composite humanitarian emergencies. Firstly, it
will describe the NGOs as actors, their organizational structure, aims and mandates and their
1
However, as Carothers reminds to us (2000), “if one limits civil society to those actors who pursue highminded aims, the concept becomes a theological notion, not a political or sociological one”. Actually, also civil society
organizations like terrorist groups and criminal clans can influence global politics by violent and illegal methods for
subversive goals.
institutionalized and informal procedures within the UN system; secondly, their different roles
played in peace-building activities will be explored and specified, namely the NGOs as epistemic
communities, as peace-keeper, and as peace-builder; thirdly, some remarks on the potentialities in
reducing violence and managing humanitarian emergencies within the international system will be
formulated.
2. The Non-Governmental-Organizations (NGOs)
According to the ‘NGO paradigm’, civil society was born for representing and structuring
social relations as well as for providing social goods and services. These organizations: (a)
contribute to intellectual debates on global social policy and the Welfare State; (b) monitor and
occasionally assist the implementation of global (or regional) social policies, and (c) help create,
facilitate and manage networks for the delivery of social goods, services and policy formulation
(Stone, 2001).
Within the civil society organizations, NGOs emerge for the influence and potentialities they
have conquered. These organizations are not linked to any government or political power, are
different from economic actors (and multinational corporations) and active in the areas of human
development. The resources they use for accomplishing their tasks are moral (inspiration to
universal values, adherence to the principles of international law), technical (skills and specific
information), logistics (capillarity, constancy of the operation, coordination capacity), materials
(collecting non-governmental funds). In other words, the effectiveness as well as the incisiveness of
actions - in the different contexts in which they operate - are linked to at least four dominant
dimensions: moral authority (the importance of the cause); competence (capacity to collect, in a
short time, objective and scientifically reliable information); mobilization capacity (which is
important to quantify the number of its members); representativeness (identification of members
with the organization itself)(Caffarena, 2001).
Galtung refers to
the “power” exerted by NGOs which can be analyzed in a double
dimension, a negative and a positive one. The negative power is not economic, not military and
non-violent: characteristics that do not qualify the areas of activity, but the methodology they use.
While the positive one is primarily cultural (capacity of involving public opinion), political
(autonomy in the management of its activities); of values (contacts with national and international
centers of power, adherence to the principles of international law); of ideas (the initiative in
developing original and captivating projects and campaigns)(Galtung, 1987).
Thanks to this potential, the NGOs are distinguished among the various organizations of
civil society. It is true that, due to the resources they can mobilize, they also constitute a threat that
the state often tends to stop, by ignoring them or even impeding their activities. For the same
reasons, however, they are also an effective catalyst for democracy and, above all, an extraordinary
source of information that other international actors, primarily intergovernmental organizations,
cannot leave underused.
Nerfin describes the role played by NGOs into the international system, through a specific
image. He says that the Prince represents the political power and the maintenance of public order,
the merchant the ability to produce goods and services within the market; the citizens the power of
the people. NGOs can be considered as the tool used by the people to convey their own needs in
front of the prince and the merchant. Their functions is to “serve undeserved or neglected
populations, to expand the freedom of or to empower people, to engage in advocacy for social
change, and to provide services” (Gordenker L. – Weiss T., 1995: 359).
2.1 NGOs within the UN system: The consultative status
The recognition of the importance of NGOs is not a phenomenon chronologically relegated
to the end of the second world war and to the birth of the UN. Even before 1945, the organizations
of civil society began to play a role - albeit limited - in the international political system.
During the negotiations that gave birth to the League of Nations, many organizations tried to
exert the necessary pressure on delegations participating to the Conference, in order to obtain more
provisions in the Covenant. The result was the article, 24, which put all organizations, constituted
before the establishment of the Covenant, under the direct supervision of the League. The League
decided to give them the right to appeal, if necessary, and many organizations settled in Geneva to
implement this practice, defined method or technique. The practice was not used very often; it was
sufficient, however, to push many organizations to continue their own work (Charnovitz, 1997).
The following peace conference and the new organization – which replaced the League of Nations –
seemed to promise more.
As the former UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, stated, “the relations between the United
Nations and the civil society organizations are old as the Charter itself” (Mascia, 2004). As the
main international organization entrusted with the task of promoting peace and international
security, as well as economic development and stability in the system, the UN constitutes a
privileged observatory for civil society organizations to test their capacity to impact on decisionmaking processes.
The formal mechanism for accreditation was a precise choice, wanted by the American
administration led by President Roosevelt during the conference in San Francisco in 1945. During
that event, civil society was invited to attend and had the possibility of articulating their own ideas
about the Charter. More than 1200 representatives of organizations of various nationalities were
present. The solution identified in the Charter was a sort of compromise which left sufficient
possibilities but, at the same time, was very rigid in defining actors and procedures.
The article 71 delegated to the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) the duty of
providing a “sustainable arrangements for consultation with NGOs”. The participation of civil
society was provided only on an advisory basis and limited to those organizations that were in
possession of certain requirements. With two resolutions, respectively 288B/1950 and 1968/1296,
ECOSOC began to implement the provisions of the Statute, by providing a mechanism for
accreditation and recognition of organizations. Once registered, they would have benefited from the
right to be consulted. The high number of organizations which, immediately decided to apply for
consultative status at the UN led, however, the ECOSOC to work on an immense amount of
demands and pressures and pushed it to acquire the tools necessary to maintain a disciplined tie
with the organizations.
It was created a multifaceted structure which still constitutes the filter between the UN and
NGOs. A section of the Council has the task of collecting and verifying requests for accreditation,
the Department of Public Information (DPI) is responsible for maintaining the link with all the
NGOs - not only those accredited – while the Non-Governmental Liaison Service, based in Geneva,
is independent of the previously mentioned bodies and involves and promotes cooperation with
those organizations active in the field of economic development, trade and the environment.
In order to coordinate and verify the work done by the organizations, a special executive
body was created in 1948, the CONGO (Conference of Non Governmental Organization in
Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council). The accredited NGOs were divided into
three distinct categories:
-
General: competent in those areas which are generically related to the issues under the
competence of ECOSOC (e.g. the World Federation of United Nations Associations);
-
Special: competent and active in very specific areas (e. go. Amnesty International, Caritas
Internationalis);
-
Roster: all the remaining organizations; they can be occasionally consulted.
The inclusion in a specific category serves not only to know in advance the scope of a single
organization, but corresponds also to a different degree of participation.
2.2 The dialogue with the UN institutions
The consultative status represented a first step to give the organizations the possibility to
open a series of informal practices and behaviors that, in the following years, has enabled NGOs to
strengthen its presence within the UN system, as well as to gradually build a dialogue with other
important bodies. The status gives them the opportunity to be part of some special working groups
and to promote a series of parallel activities, including written and oral statements to the ECOSOC,
hearings, and seminars.
Given their limited powers, however, the participation of NGOs has developed through an
informal process that was described as "learning to learn”. It is a political process that, through
mutual exchange, but also through the practice, seeks to induce policy-makers to change or adjust
their projects. It seems a very slow methodology, but destined to produce effective results in the
long term. In other words, since its establishment, the consultative status had been important for
NGOs only for entering the UN system. More informal tools are, nevertheless, required.
The first important step was to seek for supporters within the UN system. During the first
years of the Cold War, NGOs have preferred to follow a bottom-up approach, starting from the
bottom and searching for partners acting at the same level.
The creation of alliances among NGOs has become, over time, a permanent practice. The
alliances are created for working on specific or general issues, as well as for pursuing permanent or
temporary objectives (Gordenker L. – Weiss T., 1995). The main function of networks is to
harmonize the common needs and resources - without losing the direct relationship with the
members - in order to submit stronger position to the competent bodies. During the Cold War, these
alliances were used mainly to denounce abuses or to claim the attention on the most undervalued
issues. The most proper contexts were the General Conferences promoted by UN, mainly by its
specialized agencies.
The resolution 1996/31 provides some specific rules for the participation of accredited
NGOs to conferences dealing with issues related to the human promotion (Hartwick, 2003). The
admission to a conference grants to NGOs many privileges, including the possibility to participate
in preparatory meetings and to submit requests and written documents.
Often, NGOs have set up a parallel forum, held at the same time and same place during the
conference, which can produce results diametrically opposed to the official ones. During the forum,
in fact, the organizations can produce two types of documents, a declaration and an operational
program. They are usually discussed during the conference and subsequently approved by the
General Assembly. The task of follow-up is under responsibility of the ECOSOC and it is within
this body which NGOs – on their own or in networks - have the opportunity to intervene and
monitor. Following the bottom-up approach, NGOs have continued over the years to enlarge their
areas of participation and, above all, to increase their interlocutors. All these changes required a
gradual approach to other UN bodies, especially those dealing with high politics.
In November 1993, a representative of the NGO Planning Committee took the floor for the
first time, during a meeting of the Second Committee of the General Assembly during the
preparatory works of the International Conference on Population and Development, held in Egypt
one year later. Subsequently, the participation to the General Assembly Commissions became a
common and extremely useful.
The dialogue with the Security Council, however, was possible only after 1989 and is, too,
almost result of a unexpected event. In March 1992, during the war in the former Yugoslavia, the
Ambassador of Venezuela, Diego Arria, who was a member of the Council in that period, had a
formal interview with a Bosnian priest on the conditions of populations and brought some of these
comments in the Council. It was the beginning of an informal mechanism of consultation with
NGOs on the issues of peace and international security, named "Arria Formula".
In 1995, the Working Group of NGOs on the Security Council was created for meeting
delegations of the Council, the Permanent Representatives and the President. There is no
predetermined schedule and there is no obligation for the members of the Council to consult with
NGOs, but the quality of contribution has contributed to strengthen the practice and to extend it
even at celebrations and social events.
All this shows that the traditional areas of expertise of organizations have enlarged and
deepened, including security, peacekeeping, and humanitarian intervention
3. Roles for NGOs in peace-building activities
Understanding the increasing involvement of NGOs in peace-building activities requires the
analysis of the transformation of two main aspects of global security, the general characteristics of
civil conflicts and of the humanitarian intervention. The years after the end of the Cold War has
witnessed the rising of new types of conflict, dealing with the changing nature of relations among
States. Weak states (from an institutional and economic point of view) appear more vulnerable to
internal frictions and, in some cases, they collapsed. Therefore, the characteristics of the state itself
(institutional weakness, lack of rule of law, economic underdevelopment) structure the basis of
these ”new” wars (Holsti, 1999). These different characteristics led to a great variety of new types
of conflict; however, some common characteristics clearly distinguish them from traditional wars.
The most important one - frequently mentioned by scholars for explaining contemporary conflicts is the shift from interstate to intrastate war. This does not imply that the effects of the conflict are
limited to state borders. The inevitable impact on and possible spread to neighboring countries are
an additional concern which contributes to enlarge the conflict to a regional level. An additional
and important common characteristic is the presence of non-state actors, which are able to develop
direct effects on the conflict. As Kaldor suggests, the new wars deal with a wider range of political
and social groups. These actors cannot be easily identified, as they may carry several identities
and/or change identity or alliance (Kaldor, 1999). In any case, they could have an effect on the
conflict and could determine the future political development. In many cases, in fact, states have no
role, they are not the aggressors and wars can be fought for defending religious identity or for
gaining political and economic power (Monteleone, Rossi, 2008). Finally, the clear distinction
between civilians and combatants is dramatically fading and, in many cases, civilians are
deliberately chosen like targets, by increasing the number of casualties. All this highlights how the
management of civil conflicts can no longer refer only to the military dimension.
The collaboration between civil and military actors seems to be more and more important
and is required by international community in order to formulate an adequate response. In other
words, the changing nature of conflicts entails a parallel transformation of tools for conflict
management and, above all, for humanitarian intervention.
Even in this area, some significant changes are occurring. Several factors have stimulated
the growth of the number of peace missions, and have contributed to modify the global culture of
humanitarian intervention. The increased number of violent conflicts since the 1970s, the
worsening of economic and social conflict in many transition countries (especially during the
1980s) and the devolution of violence control and management to the United Nations and other
regional organizations, at the end of the Cold War, can be considered as the main political factors
which caused the rising of humanitarian intervention.
The UN Charter did not include provisions for peace-keeping operations; interposition
missions for controlling truces and cease-fires, and interrupting aggression and violence among
states had been, however promoted by the Security Council during the last twenty years. Moreover,
many peace missions have been deployed to countries affected by either civil conflicts or by
institutional weakness and/or failure. From 1947 to 1988, only 2 out of the total number of 15 peace
operations were dispatched to a single country in order to stop domestic conflicts, namely Congo in
1960, and New Guinea in 1962-63 (Attinà, 2008). The frequent employment of peacekeeping
missions has contributed not only to make these the main tool for the management of peace and
international security, but also to change significantly its purposes and methods, in order to make
them more effective. As shown in Tab. 1, the UN has promoted several peace missions since its
creation until today.
Tab. 1 - UN Peace Missions
Acronyme
Organisation
Countries
Starting date
Personnel
1947, October
1947, November
1948, May
End (2008,
January stays
for Active as of
January 1st,
2008)
1954, August
1950, June
2008, January
UNSCOB
UNTCOK
UNTSO
UN
UN
UN
UNCIP
UNMOGIP
Korean War
UNEF I
UNOGIL
ONUC
UNSF
UNYOM
UNFICYP
DOMREP
UNIPOM
UNEF II
UNDOF
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UNIFIL
UNGOMAP
UNIIMOG
UNAVEM I
UNTAG
ONUCA
1st gulf war
UNIKOM
MINURSO
UNAVEM II
ONUSAL
UNAMIC
UNPROFOR
UNOSOM I
UNTAC
ONUMOZ
UNOSOM II
UNOMUR
UNOMIG
UNOMIL
UNMIH
UNAMIR
UNASOG
UNMOT
UNAVEM III
UNPREDEP
UNPOS
UNCRO
UNMIBH
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
Greece
Korea
Israel, Egypt, Syria,
Lebanon, Jordan
India, Pakistan
India, Pakistan
Korea
Egypt, Israel
Lebanon
Congo
West New Guinea
Yemen
Cyprus
Dominican Republic
India, Pakistan
Egypt, Israel
Golan Heights, Syria,
Israel
Lebanon
Afghanistan
Iran, Iraq
Angola
Namibia, Angola
Central America
Iraq, Kuwait
Iraq, Kuwait
Western Sahara
Angola
El Salvador
Cambodia
Former Yugoslavia
Somalia
Cambodia
Monzambique
Somalia
Uganda, Rwanda
Georgia
Liberia
Haiti
Rwanda
Chad, Lybia
Tajikistan
Angola
FYROM
Somalia
Croatia
Bosnia and
Herzegovina
1948, July
1949, January
1950, June
1956, November
1958, June
1960, July
1962, October
1963, July
1964, March
1965, May
1965, September
1973, October
1974, June
1949, January
2008, January
1953, July
1967, June
1958, December
1964, June
1963, April
1964, September
2008, January
1966, October
1966, March
1979, July
2008, January
missing
113
missing
5977
591
19828
1576
189
918
2
96
3987
1048
1978, March
1988, May
1988, August
1989, January
1989, April
1989, November
1991, January
1991, April
1991, April
1991, June
1991, July
1991, October
1992, February
1992, April
1992, October
1992, December
1993, March
1993, June
1993, August
1993, September
1993, September
1993, October
1994, May
1994, December
1995, February
1995, March
1995, April
1995, May
1995, December
2008, January
1990, March
1991, February
1991, June
1990, March
1992, January
1991, March
2003, October
2008, January
1995, February
1995, April
1992, March
1995,December
1993, March
1993,September
1994, December
1995, March
1994, September
2008, January
1997,September
1996, June
1996, March
1994, June
2000, May
1997, June
1999, February
2008, January
1996, January
2002,December
11026
50
400
70
7500
260
660000
300
206
476
351
116
38599
3550
15547
6625
28
81
135
303
567
2548
9
40
4220
1110
17
7071
2057
35
missing
375
UNTAES
UNMOP
UNSMIH
MINUGUA
UNOL
MONUA
UNTMIH
MIPONUH
UNPSG
MINURCA
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UNOMSIL
UNPOB
UNOGBIS
UNMIK
UNAMET
UNAMSIL
UNTAET
UNSCO
MONUC
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
BONUCA
UN
UNTOP
UNMEE
UNOWA
ISAF
UNAMA
UNMISET
UNAMI
UNMIL
UNOMB
UNOCI
MINUSTAH
ONUB
UNMIS
UNOTIL
UNIOSIL
UNMIT
BINUB
UNMIN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
Croatia
Prevlaka
Haiti
Guatemala
Liberia
Angola
Haiti
Haiti
Croatia
Central African
Republic
Sierra Lione
Papua New Guinea
Guinea Bissau
Kosovo
East Timor
Sierra Lione
East Timor
Middle East
Democratic Republic
of Congo
Central African
Republic
Tajikistan
Ethiopia and Eritrea
West Africa Countries
Afghanistan
Afghanistan
East Timor
Iraq
Liberia
Papua New Guinea
Côte d'Ivoire
Haiti
Burundi
Sudan
Timor Lest
Sierra Lione
Timor Lest
Burundi
Nepal
1996, January
1996, January
1996, July
1997, January
1997, February
1997, June
1997, August
1997, December
1998, January
1998, April
1998, January
2002,December
1997, July
1997, May
2003, July
1999, February
1997,November
2000, March
1998, October
2000, February
5700
28
900
155
missing
3568
300
300
114
1374
1998, July
1998, August
1999, March
1999, June
1999, June
1999, October
1999, October
1999, October
1999, November
1999, October
2003,December
2008, January
2008, January
1999, October
2005,December
2002, May
2008, January
2008, January
70
missing
14
1920
953
17500
10790
29
18473
2000, February
2008, January
39
2000, June
2000, July
2001, November
2002, January
2002, March
2002, May
2003, August
2003, September
2004, January
2004, April
2004, June
2004, June
2005, March
2005, May
2006, January
2006, August
2007, January
2007, January
2008, January
2008, January
2008, January
2003, August
2008, January
2005, May
2008, January
2008, January
2005, June
2008, January
2008, January
2006,December
2008, January
2006, August
2008, January
2008, January
2008, January
2008, January
9
2285
7
missing
209
5000
938
15638
missing
9036
8360
1745
10023
missing
71
981
314
257
Source: ADISM dataset, research project on Italy and Multilateralism, Department of Political Studies,
University of Catania. See http://www.fscpo.unict.it/adism/adism.htm
Therefore, three types of multilateral missions developed, during the years: peacekeeping,
i.e. interposition missions mandated to watch over truce and crease-fire; peace building, i.e.
operations mandated to stop domestic violence and accomplish other civil assignments like
protecting minorities, transferring refugees; and peace enforcement, i.e. missions mandated to stop
violence, interpose between warring parties, disband irregular military forces, and reconstruct civil
life conditions (Attinà, 2008). The theoretical distinction does not always correspond to a practical
one, because military and civil personnel have often to carry simultaneously military, political,
civil, administrative and police tasks. At the same time, the complexity of local conditions requires,
in many cases, a more structured intervention. In other words, besides those actors who are
provided by the mandate, the presence of local actors or non-state actors is rapidly increasing. The
roles they are able to play during and after the deployment of peace missions are parallel and
diversified. As Clarks suggests: “The economic, informational and intellectual resources of NGOs
have garnered them enough expertise and influence to assume authority in matters that,
traditionally, have been solely within the purview of state administration and responsibility ...
[Furthermore], the relative influence of NGOs is not a static phenomenon.... Their impact on state
policies has changed and is changing with time”. (Clark,1995: 507-508). A specific approach to
conflict management and humanitarian intervention has been developed by NGOs. I argue that it is
possible to identify at least three main roles: the NGOs as epistemic communities (they provide
information, common practices, and actions); the NGOs as peace-keeper (their action is parallel to
many UN peace missions); the NGOs as peace-builder (they provide logistic and practical
assistance, often together with local actors).
3.2 NGOs as epistemic communities
The first role deals with a broader reflection on the concept of security, on its evolution and
the need to develop new tools for security challenges. Traditional concept of security is associated
with the state, the images of the enemy, and with the military mobilization of the potential for
violence.
The technological improvements, rising of non-state actors, political innovations introduced
during and after the Cold War contributed to change this perception. Buzan started analyzing
security by stressing the existence of three levels of analysis (individual, state and international
system) as well as of a series of dimensions (political, economic, social) which are parallel to the
military ones (Buzan, 1991). Later, he continued his analyses within the Copenhagen School. The
concept of comprehensive security became more diversified and enriched; a wide range of sectors
(they identified security through its military, environmental, economic and political spheres)
implies different actors involved as well as different actions. In weak states, security doesn’t deal
with the state but mainly with the antagonist groups and individuals (as Kaldor has also pointed
out). At the same time, a diversified concept of security requires a proper set of actions; the
Copenhagen School stressed on securitization, arguing that an issue is securitized when it is
considered as an actual threat and emergency measures are adopted to answer it (or prevent it). The
following theoretical debate continued to take this concept into account and by adding new aspects
and elements. Knight affirms that terms like comprehensive security, common security or human
security “are being utilized to embrace the range of issues that are being placed on a revised
security agenda of an emerging global polity”(Knight, 2001: 14). Given this definition, the original
duty the UN stressed implies “a common international interest in maintaining peace among the
globe” (Knight, 2001: 14). However, the concept of comprehensive security means not only
protecting people from armed violence; it “must change from an exclusive stress on national
security to a much greater focus on people’s security from security through armaments to security
through human development, from territorial security to food, employment and environmental
security”.
Since the early 1990s, NGOs have increasingly operated in areas where state power is weak
or challenged. This means that they have tried to interact with the new conflict management by
developing their own security management language, processes and best practices. This wide range
of tools can be diffused among a variety of NGOs and institutionalized in each one. These processes
include information collection and discussion (analysis of threats, risks and vulnerabilities
compared to mission goals and organization), as well as management and organization of a
enormous amount of practical and logistic aspects (Avant, 2007). They seem to be non-partisan,
fast, unbureacratic and risk-taking. They are well informed and connected (McDermott, 1998:21).
In so doing, they act like epistemic communities, able to provide their own contribution to
humanitarian intervention through their common concept of security and their shared approach to
civil conflicts.
One can argue that NGOs may be considered as independent agencies in the sense that they
are not part of the military agencies; nevertheless, they have always tried to act in parallel and
together with structured external interventions, mainly UN peace missions2.
If peace-keeping was initially conceived like "a way to help countries torn by conflict create
conditions for sustainable peace”, it is true that, during the years it has changed in its aims,
methods, and, above all, actors. The operations of multifunctional peacekeeping missions are
assumed in presence of failed states, where the government’s functions are stopped and the
institutional structures are destroyed, the police and judiciary system are unable to guarantee the
respect of the laws. The increasing of the tasks of these missions and in particular the affirmation of
the humanitarian and political assistance led to a massive increase in the number of civilian UN
According to the UN Department of Peace-keeping, “UN peacekeepers—soldiers and military officers, police and
civilian personnel from many countries—monitor and observe peace processes that emerge in post-conflict situations
and assist conflicting parties to implement the peace agreement they have signed. Such assistance comes in many forms,
including promoting human security, confidence-building measures, power-sharing arrangements, electoral support,
strengthening the rule of law, and economic and social development”.
2
personnel and non military activities and to the launch of a new type of complex or multifunctional
operations with both military and civilian tasks3. The participation of civil personnel in the
operations is increasing in the course of the last years, together with the involvement of several
NGOs, which are able to support military and civilian tasks. In other words, they are able to help
UN personnel in accomplishing their tasks.
It is possible to affirm that NGOs have contributed to the development of new humanitarians
figures, by playing increasingly important roles in international humanitarian missions. As new
humanitarians, they are deployed in all the most distressed regions of the world, they profess an
apolitical impartiality and neutrality, and are openly radical, political and campaigning (Holliday,
2003). They have started during the Cold War, when UN agencies’ operations were limited due to
political considerations and to the rules of conduct. NGOs tended to prioritize human rights and
because of the possibility of being more flexible and less partial, they became fundamental for
reaching suffering populations. The formation of Amnesty International (AI) in 1961, of Médecins
Sans Frontières (MSF) in 1971 and the organization that subsequently became Human Rights
Watch (HRW) in 1978 can be considered as the key steps in the development of new
humanitarianism. A broad array of interventionist activity started and continued to act. Today, AI
and HRW are the two leading human rights NGOs. Even though many other NGOs are engaged in
this field, AI is the most successful in humanitarian civil pressure. Their increasing importance is
becoming evident and, to some extent, recognized by UN bodies. As the UN Department for peacekeeping stated “responsibility for the provision of humanitarian assistance rests primarily with the
relevant civilian United Nations specialized agencies, funds and programmes, as well as the range
of independent, international and local NGOs which are usually active alongside a United Nations
peacekeeping Operation (UN DPKO, 2008). Many NGOs are able to control programmatic
resources that, in many cases, rival or challenge those of many governments and UN agencies. Even
the UN Peacebuilding Commission “recognizes the important contribution of civil society,
3
According to the DPK, the principles UN peace missions should follow are the following:

Humanity: to prevent and alleviate human suffering wherever it may be found.

Impartiality: to make no discrimination as to nationality, race, religious beliefs, class or political opinions. To
relieve the suffering of individuals, being guided solely by their needs, and to give priority to the most urgent
cases of distress.

Neutrality: not to take sides in hostilities or engage at any time in controversies of a political, racial, religious
or ideological nature.

Independence: not to act as instruments of government foreign policy. To always maintain autonomy to be able
at all times to act in accordance with the principles.
including non-governmental organizations and the private sector, to all stages of peacebuilding
efforts, given that one of the main purposes of the Commission is to bring together all relevant
actors, in particular national stakeholders. (UNPBC, 2007). The NGOS have developed a good
relation with the Peacebuilding Commission and have the right to be consulted in every matter they
can provide some useful resources. It can appear as another aspect of the criticized consultative
status. Nevertheless, as already seen with the other UN bodies, even in this case, there is a wide
range of informal mechanisms and procedures the NGOs have developed during the years that
allow them to continue with their roles and activities.
The NGOs act as peace-keepers because their action is parallel to the UN peace-keeping
missions. They manage facilities (site selection and access procedures for offices, residences,
warehouses), personnel (hiring and firing, holding people accountable, how to mix community
acceptance with professional norms), transportation (vehicles, drivers, checkpoints, tracking),
communications (day-to-day, extreme emergency), incident reporting (what gets reported and to
whom). NGOs are able to follow the procedures for maintaining and updating as well as to monitor
the whole security planning process. The ability to interact with local peoples is, however, an
additional and important element and deals with the third role NGOs play.
NGOs’ response to the humanitarian crises has started during the Cold War and they played
a leading role as basic goods and assistance provider. The help they supplied to countries in conflict
and to emergencies throughout the 1980s was impressive. The tendency increased after the fall of
the Berlin wall. In 1989, European-based NGOs delivered about 180,000 tonnes of food aid to
Africa, and 450,000 ones in 1991. In 1994 NGOs accounted for over 10 per cent of total public
development aid, amounting to some $8 billion.
According to Weiss, about one-quarter of U.S. development aid is being channeled through
NGOs as of the mid-1990s, and this is expected to increase to one-half by the end of the 1990s. It is
estimated that some 400 to 500 international NGOs are currently involved in humanitarian activities
worldwide, and that NGOs collectively spend an estimated $9-10 billion annually, reaching some
250 million people in absolute poverty (Abiew, 1998). The reasons for NGOs success in emergency
relief work lie, first of all, in their flexibility, speed of reaction, and operational. Moreover, the
political independence of the NGOs is an additional comparative advantage in increasingly complex
civil conf1icts. Nevertheless, the most important ingredient for their successful performance seems
to be the consent they obtain among local population. The relations NGOs are able to establish with
local actors (individuals and associations) are, in many cases, much stronger than those created by
military contingents. This high level of confidence reveals as extremely useful for the development
of the civilian tasks. In other words, the practical assistance NGOs provide makes them more
committed in the process of humanitarian intervention; this facilitates the building of relations
based on mutual confidence, and increases the likelihood that the local population will embrace the
reconstruction process.
NGOs act as peace-builder because they are able not only to provide help and basic goods to
local population, but also – and above all – because they can dialogue with local actors and they
have success in obtaining their confidence. And local participation is a necessary component to
reach a successful and lasting settlement.
crises.
4. Conclusions
The reflection on the approaches developed by non-state actors - and in particular NGOs to security is strictly linked to a broader analysis on the concept of security, on the transformations
occurred in the international system, as well as on the necessity to develop some different and more
efficient means to answer new global challenges and threats. The increasing participation to conflict
management and humanitarian intervention is only a part of the general and long battle of NGOs to
obtain more power within the international agencies. At the same time, this part is becoming more
and more essential. They have started during the Cold war to protect human rights and to provide
humanitarian assistance; they have continued in the 1990s, by supporting UN peace missions and
helping in the reconstruction process. They had been able to follow the changes the peace missions
have encountered in their aims and methods, and they have developed a specific approach which is,
in many ways, different from the one implemented by governments and international agencies. This
approach passes through three main roles NGOs are playing today and which can be easily
identified: they act – first of all – as epistemic communities; peace-keepers, and peace-builder. The
three roles are mutually interdependent. Moreover, NGOs needs international agencies’ structured
relief, while international agencies need NGOs’ resources and abilities.
Peacekeepers need to adopt a strategic approach to engage with civil society, as well as a
recognition of the capacity of civil society to serve as partners. The current level of mutual aid can
be considered as a considerable advance; it is, however, not sufficient. A more sophisticated
theoretical reflection and a faster and easier set of rules and procedures are required.
Bibliography
Abiew F. K. (1998), Assessing Humanitarian Intervention in the Post-Cold War Period: Sources of
Consensus, in “International Relations”, vol. XIV, no. 2, pp. 61-90.
Attinà F. (2008), The global governance of security, multilateralism, minilateralism, and Europe,
paper presented at International Conference on “European and Global Governance: Converging
political cultures?”, organized by the Institute of International Relations (IIR) and the Department
of International and European Studies of Panteion University, Athens, May 16-17.
Attinà F. (2003), Il sistema politico globale, Bari, Laterza.
Avant D. (2007), NGOs, Corporations and Security Transformation in Africa, in “International
Relations”, 21 (2), pp. 143-161.
Brett R (1993), Contribution of NGOs to the monitoring and protection of human rights in Europe:
an analysis of the role and access of NGOs to the inter-governmental organisations, in “Monitoring
human rights in Europe: comparing international procedures and mechanisms”, Dordrecht,
Netherlands; Boston, Mass., 1993, p. 121-144.
Boyd R.– Oakeshott M. (2004), On Civility, Civil Society and Civil Association in “Political
Studies”, 52, pp. 603–622.
Bullard N. (2005), Les Nations Unies et les mouvements sociaux, in AA. VV. ONU. Droits pour
tous ou loi du plus fort?, Genève, CETIM.
Buzan B. (1991), People, States and Fear, Essex, Pearson.
Caffarena A. (2001), Le organizzazioni internazionali, Bologna, il Mulino.
Carothers T. (2000), Civil society, in “Foreign policy”, 117, pp. 18-29.
Chandler D. (2004), Building global civil society 'from below'? in “Millennium: journal of
international studies”, 33, 2, pp. 313-339.
Charnovitz S. (1997), Two centuries of participation : NGOs and international governance, in
“Michigan journal of international law”, 18, 2, pp. 183-286.
Clark A. M. (1995), Non-governmental organizations and their influence on international society,
in “Journal of international affairs”, 48, 2, pp. 507-525.
Cohen S. (2005), États face aux "nouveaux acteurs" in " Politique internationale", 107, pp. 409424.
Dunér B. (1997), Fight for greater NGO participation in the UN in “Security dialogue”, 28, 3, pp.
301-315.
Etzioni A. (2004), Capabilities and limits of the global civil society in “Millennium: journal of
international studies”, 33, 2, pp. 341-353.
Fisher J. (2003), Local and global: international governance and civil society in “Journal of
international affairs”, 57, 1, pp. 19-39.
Fowler A. (1996), Demonstrating NGO performance: problems and possibilities in “Development
in practice”, 6, 1, pp. 58-65.
Gaer F. (1995), Reality check: human rights nongovernmental organizations confront governments
at the United Nations in “Third World Quarterly”, 16, 3, pp. 389-404.
Galtung J. (1987), A New Era for Nongovernmental Organizations in the UN?, in “Transnational
Associations”, 3, pp. 183-186.
Gellner E. (1991), Civil Society in Historical Context, in “International Social Science Journal”, 43,
129, pp. 495–510.
Gizelis T. – Kosek K. (2005), Why Humanitarian Interventions Succeed or Fail: The Role of Local
Participation, in “Cooperation and Conflict”, Vol. 40(4), pp. 363–383.
Gordenker L. – Weiss T. (1995), Non governmental organisations, the United Nations and global
governance in “Third World quarterly”, 16, 3, pp. 355-555.
Grady H. (2005), Opportunities for the UN and civil society to collaborate more effectively in
“Development in practice”, 15, 1, pp. 70-76.
Hartwick J. (2003), Non-governmental organizations at United Nations-sponsored world
conferences: a framework for participation reform in “Loyola of Los Angeles international and
comparative law review”, 26, 2, pp. 217-280.
Holliday I. (2003), Ethics of Intervention: Just War Theory and the Challenge of the 21st Century,
in “International Relations”, Vol 17(2), pp. 115–133.
Holsti K. (1996), The State, War, and the State of War, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Kaldor : (1999), New and Old Wars: Organised Violence in a Global Era, Cambridge, Politiy
Press.
Kyte R. (2000), Civil society/UN partnerships for the 21st century in “Transnational associations“,
51, 1, pp. 5-7.
Knight W. A. (2001), Adapting the United Nations to a postmodern era: lessons learned, New
York, Palgrave.
Leech B. (2006), Funding Faction or Buying Silence? Grants, Contracts, and Interest Group
Lobbying Behavior in “The Policy Studies Journal”, 34, 1, pp. 17-35.
Lijphart A. (2004) Constitutional Design for Divided Societies, in “Journal of Democracy”, 15, 2,
pp. 96-109.
Lijphart A. (1999), Patterns of Democracy, New Haven CT, Yale University Press.
Lipschutz R. D. (2005), Power, politics and global civil society, in “Millennium: journal of
international studies”, 33, 3, pp. 747-769.
Mawdsley E. – Townsend J. – Porter G. (2005), Trust, accountability, and face-to-face interaction
in North-South ngo relations in “Development in practice”, 15, 1, pp. 77-82.
Martens K. (2000), NGO participation at international conferences: assessing theoretical accounts
in “Transnational associations”, 52, 3, pp. 115-126.
McDermott A. (1998), UN and NGOs: humanitarian interventions in future conflicts in
“Contemporary security policy”, 19, 3, pp. 1-26.
Mezzasalma F. (2002), Participation des organisations de la société civile autres que les ONG et le
secteur privé aux activités de coopération technique: expérience et perspectives du système des
Nations Unies in “Transnational associations”, 54, 4, pp. 270-294.
Monteleone C. – Rossi R. (2008), Security and Global Management : A Global Perspective, in
geistlinger – Longo – Lordkipanidze – Nasibli (eds.), « Security Identity and the Southern
Caucasus », Wien, Verlag, pp. 49-80.
Otto D. (1996), Nongovernmental organizations in the United Nations system: the emerging role of
international civil society in “Human rights quarterly”, 18, 1, pp. 107-141.
Papisca A. (1995), Democrazia internazionale, via di pace. Per un nuovo ordine internazionale
democratico, Milano, FrancoAngeli.
Paul J. (1999), NGOs and the United Nations in “Transnational associations”, 51, 6, pp. 300-319.
Pietrzyk D. (2003), Democracy or Civil Society? in “Politics”, 23, 1, pp. 38–45.
Pratchett L. (2004), Local Autonomy, Local Democracy and the ‘New Localism’ in “Political
Studies”, 52, pp. 358–375.
Ritchie C. (2003), Collaboration among entities of the UN system and of civil society, notably
NGO's in “Transnational associations”, 55, 4, pp. 207-211.
Stone D. (2001), Think Tanks, Global Lesson-Drawing and Networking Social Policy Ideas, in
“Global Social Policy”, vol. 1(3), pp. 338-360.
Suy E. (2002), New players in international relations in “Transnational associations”, 54, 3, pp.
162-169.
UN Department of Peace-keeping Operations (2008), United Nations Peace-keeping Operations.
Principles and Guidelines.
UN General Assembly (2000), United Nations Millenium Declaration, A/RES/55/2, 18 september
2000.
UN General Assembly (2004), We the peoples: civil society, the United Nations and global
governance, Report of the Panel of Eminent Persons on United Nations–Civil Society Relations,
A/58/817, 11 June 2004.
UN General Assembly (2006), Resolution on Human Rights Council, A/RES/60/251, 3 april 2006.
UN General Assembly (2006), General Assembly elects 47 members of new Human Rights Council;
marks “new beginning” for human rights promotion, protection, Press release GA10549, 9 may
2006.
UN Economic and Social Council (1996), Consultative relationship between the United Nations
and non-governmental organisations, 1996/31, 25 July 2006.
UN Peace-building Commission (2007), Provisional guidelines for the participation of civil society in
meetings of the Peacebuilding Commission, submitted by the Chairperson on the basis of informal
consultations, PBC/1/OC/12.
UN Secretary-General (2000), UN Millenium Development Goals Report, UN Department of Public
Information.