Reframing NGOs: The Identity of an International Relations Non-Starter

Abstract

In this article I aim to provide a better understanding of the concept `non-governmental organization' and its implications for the politics of international relations. As the prevailing confusion about the term stems largely from poor knowledge about the politics behind its introduction and function, the overarching question asks how NGOs have been socially constructed as actors on the margins of the international stage. To this end, a sound insight into the little-known conceptual history and background of the term `NGO' in what might be called a `Westphalian nomenclature' is given. I suggest that the still prevalent NGO terminology is an outcome of political games played by various actors, restricting and containing the signified organizations. The article provides a non-substantial, functional and politics-oriented definition of the term NGO, which differs significantly from previous attempts to attach meaning to it. It also suggests improved choices of terminology for general International Relations theorizing.

Dünya Siyasetinde Aktörler: Sivil Toplum Kuruluşlarının (STK) Yasal Kişiliği ve Sınıflandırması

“…Following this line of reasoning, one can assume that the category of NGOs does not include all organised groups that are independent of the government and that a common ground of all NGOs is the "desire to make the world a better place" (Aall et al, 2000, p. 89). Instead of using the term "NGO", some scholars prefer "civil association" (Götz, 2008), "international pressure group" (Meynaud, 1961;Willetts, 1982), or "private voluntary organisation" (White, 1993). In the United States, the term "non-profit organisation" is used nearly synonymously with "NGO".…”

Understanding non-governmental organizations in world politics: The promise and pitfalls of the early ‘science of internationalism’

“…Despite their extensive history (Davies, 2014), it remains common for introductory textbooks to claim that NGOs are ‘“new” forces in international politics’ (Ahmed and Potter, 2006: ix). As Götz (2008: 238) argues, it is not NGOs that are of recent origin, but the term that is used to describe them, which entered common discourse with the drafting of Article 71 of the United Nations Charter in 1945, and that displaced previous terms such as ‘free international associations’ or ‘private international organizations’. It is partly on account of this mid-20th-century change of terminology that writings on NGOs since this date have largely neglected the earlier literature on ‘private international organizations’.…”

Power in discursive practices: The case of the STOP EPAs campaign

“…Realists have disregarded the role of non-state actors by focusing on state behaviour explained by the attempt to maximize national interests and security. Those scholars who do focus on non-state actors often refer to one type, using the catch-all and ambiguous terms of ‘NGOs’ (Götz, 2008), or ‘civil society’ (Biekart and Fowler, 2009). They do not account for the diversity in organizational forms and tend to look only at ‘NGOs’ as a sector separated from the state and the market, failing to see their role in governmentality (Sending and Neumann, 2006).…”