Search results

"Why are some international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) more politically salient than others, and why are some NGOs better able to influence the norms of human rights? Internal Affairs shows how the organizational structures of human rights NGOs and their campaigns determine their influence on policy. Drawing on data from seven major international organizations--the International Committee of the Red Cross, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Médecins sans Frontières, Oxfam International, Anti-Slavery International, and the International League of Human Rights--Wendy H. Wong demonstrates that NGOs that choose to centralize agenda-setting and decentralize the implementation of that agenda are more successful in gaining traction in international politics. Challenging the conventional wisdom that the most successful NGOs are those that find the "right" cause or have the most resources, Wong shows that how NGOs make and implement decisions is critical to their effectiveness in influencing international norms about human rights. Building on the insights of network theory and organizational sociology, Wong traces how power works within NGOs and affects their external authority. The internal coherence of an organization, as reflected in its public statements and actions, goes a long way to assure its influence over the often tumultuous elements of the international human rights landscape."--Publisher's website

This article is partly based on observation of the High Court deliberations on the Koowarta case in 1982 and partly on reflection on its significance in defining the relationship between the Australian legal system and international law. It also contrasts the broad approach of the majority to the external affairs power with its analysis of the races power. The article suggests that the intense legal debates about the proper spheres of international, national and state law contained in the judgments are reflected in political debates today.

This article is partly based on observation of the High Court deliberations on the Koowarta case in 1982 and partly on reflection on its significance in defining the relationship between the Australian legal system and international law. It also contrasts the broad approach of the majority to the external affairs power with its analysis of the races power. The article suggests that the intense legal debates about the proper spheres of international, national and state law contained in the judgments are reflected in political debates today.

IF POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC ORGANIZATION BEYOND THE NATION-state is to prevail in the future, as it well might, what is to be the nature of relations between and among supranational units or regional blocs? Will such relations buttress or endanger world peace? To such broad questions there are no answers. But to a derivative set of more specific questions, which probe the same kinds of concerns, we can attempt answers. We can ask, and hope to discover, for example, how newly integrated units behave in their external relations, and we can also ask why they behave as they do. From this we can postulate a world of super-units successively entering the international system, and then perhaps say something about the impacts that such entrances are likely to make. While an exercise of this nature could be carried out simply for the sake of expanding theoretical knowledge, it could also be put to very practical and immediate use in lending perspective on the external relations of the European Communities and the impacts of the EEC on world affairs. This last, and most practical concern, is the object of this paper.