NGOs Actor in International Regimes: The Role of Human Rights NGOs in the OSCE Process in comparison with the United Nations:A Re-examination of Actors in International relations
スポンサーリンク
概要
- 論文の詳細を見る
In pursuing the effectiveness of implementation of human rights norms in international relations, it becomes increasingly important to research and perceive human rights NGOs activities. In this dimension, international regimes theory could deal with non-state actor, such as human rights NGOs. For example, Professor Virginia Haufler explaines that nongovernmental organizations can participate in regimes and play an important role to set standards of regimes. This article attempts to analyze the status of NGOs within regime theory, and the relation between the activities of NGOs and the development process of human rights regimes.In the light of the case study of the United Nations (UN) human rights regime, which has norms of various documents including Universal Declaration of Human Rights and has decision-making procedures including Commission on Human Rights, it is evident that in the process of regime formation we can find the prospects of making NGOs play important partners of state actors. But in the process of fixation process of regime, human rights committee excluded NGOs from reports and discussions of concrete situation of human rights violations. From the end of 1960's, NGOs' role to promote the effectiveness of regime norms is evaluated within the new decision-making procedures of UN human rights regimes. And, in my research, the UN human rights regime restricted domestic NGOs from joining the ECOSOC organs in accordance with the elimination of capabilities and speciality of NGOs, such as ex-category I, category II, and Roster. These classification of NGOs seems that states-actors influence human rights regime of UN bodies to restrict the influence of NGOs activities in the international dimensions of human rights.The CSCE (the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, now the OSCE) process had no evident rule to include human rights NGOs, so called Helsinki Group, within the CSCE human rights regimes, which left lots of such NGOs in the Eastern Europe and Soviet Union depressed. In the fixation process of the CSCE human rights regimes in the 1980's, NGOs had more and more networks to cooperate with each other. In the post-Cold War era, the CSCE found human rights NGOs more active in solving the conflicts violating human rights. The CSCE admitted human rights NGOs to their conferences, while making rules and procedures to include NGOs within the regime so that important information on human rights violations, especially ethnic conflicts, which are collected by NGOs should be readily available to them.In both cases I offer three suggestions. Firstly, when human rights regime varies from the fixation process to development process, regimes evaluate activities of NGOs. Secondly it goes institutionalization of regimes to let NGOs take part in regime-procedures in order to manage information of human rights violations and in the process of standard-setting. Thirdly the activities of human rights NGOs to investigate human rights issues, that is, to promote effectiveness of regime, become larger, in spite of the differences of formation process between UN and the CSCE.
- 一般財団法人 日本国際政治学会の論文
一般財団法人 日本国際政治学会 | 論文
- ペルシャ湾保護国とイギリス帝国 : 脱植民地化の再検討
- The Revolutionary Diplomacy in the Era of Chinese Nationalist Revolution:East Asia and Japan during a Period of Transition : Historiclal Study
- The Conditionality in the Development Assistance : A Study on the Operational Activities by IMF, the World Bank, and UNDP:The United Nations in a Changing World
- The Sudeten Problem and World Politics between two World Wars:Studies on Diplomatic History of Contemporary Europe
- Hitlers Leadership in Foreign Policy: Chiefly on the Recent Trend of Study in West Germany:The Eve of the Second World War : International Relations in Summer, 1939