Suchergebnisse

How and why NGOs are increasingly taking independent and direct action in global law enforcement, from human rights to the environment Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have generally served as advocates and service providers, leaving enforcement issues to states. Now, NGOs are increasingly acting as private police, prosecutors, and intelligence agencies in enforcing international law. NGOs today can be found investigating and gathering evidence; suing and prosecuting governments, companies, and individuals; and even catching lawbreakers red-handed. Examining this trend, Vigilantes beyond Borders considers why some transnational groups but not others have opted to become enforcers of international law regarding such issues as human rights, the environment, and corruption.Three factors explain the rise of vigilante enforcement: demand, supply, and competition. Governments commit to more international laws, but do a poor job of policing them, leaving a gap and creating demand. Legal and technological changes make it easier for non-state actors to supply enforcement, as in the instances of NGOs that have standing to use domestic and international courts, or smaller NGOs that employ satellite imagery, big data analysis, and forensic computing. As the growing number of NGOs vie for limited funding and media attention, smaller, more marginal, groups often adopt radical strategies like enforcement.Looking at the workings of major organizations, including Amnesty International, Greenpeace, and Transparency International, as well as smaller players, such as Global Witness, the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, and Bellingcat, Vigilantes beyond Borders explores the consequences of a novel, provocative approach to global governance

AbstractThe concept of organizational accountability is central to good governance both domestically and internationally. However, assessing accountability in densely institutionalized global governance spaces requires new conceptual and analytical tools. Rather than concentrating on the accountability of states, intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), non‐governmental organizations (NGOs), and transnational corporations as distinct sets of global actors to whom different accountability criteria and mechanisms may apply, we want to focus on how growing overlap and interplay among diverse global policy actors affects organizational accountability. And rather than focusing exclusively on accountability in terms of retrospective sanctioning based on fixed standards or legal obligations, we suggest that, in a densely institutionalized world, accountability also needs to be thought of as a prospective process. We therefore suggest a stronger focus on pluralistic, participatory, and deliberative forms of accountability that emphasize standard‐setting and responsiveness through collective deliberation, learning, and competition.