International Public Institutions and International Non-governmental Organizations - Literature review Example

Heading: Comparative Analysis of an International Public Institution’s & an International NGO Your name: Course name: Professors’ name: Date Introduction The focus of the paper is to conduct a comparative analysis of an international public organizations and international Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) involvement with human and economic development in transforming the global economy. The paper intends to explore on the issue of human and economic development with regard to two transnational aspects including society and economy. Here, the paper seeks to employ two international organizations, one from the international public organizations’ category, and the other one from the international NGO in order to bring out the issue and its aspects. The choice of these organizations largely depends on the relationship they have in addressing the issues of human and economic development in the world. These organizations are the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and International Committee for Red Cross (ICRC). The two organizations conduct similar activities to end human suffering, and provide relief in emergency circumstance, to improve global economy. Comparative analysis To start with, Forsythe (2002) says that the establishment of the UNHCR’s office took place on January 1, 1951. This happened with an aim of making it United Nations General Assembly’s subsidiary organ. In the office, the General Assembly elects the High Commissioner on the Secretary General’s nomination. In accordance to the conditions of the Statute, The High Commissioner serves under the General Assembly’s authority, and abides by the policy instructions of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). Besides, the High Commissioner should present her premeditated agenda of activities for the next year to the Executive committee (EXCOM), which consists of a Government Missions’ major representatives to the UN in Geneva, for direction, prior to presenting to ECOSOC (Wolfson & Wright 1995). Forsythe (2002) further says that UNHCR has two fundamental functions in relation to the founding Statute, which include provision of international protection to all refugees, and seeking for long-term solutions to the refugees’ problems. In the implementation of the first role, activities include promotion of adoption of global standards in refugee treatment in national procedures and law, and the supervision of their execution. In terms of the second role, activities include reincorporation of refugees into their mother countries, a third country, or where this is unfeasible, and voluntary refugee repatriation. The organization also undertakes other economic and human development activities including counseling, emergency relief, legal assistance, and education. This involves an active position in monitoring human rights. In both functions, UNHCR’s responsibility is to help the Governments in meeting obligations under different global instruments about human rights and refugees. Since 1951, Wolfson and Wright (1995) demonstrate that there has been a considerable expansion of the organization’s functions towards economic and human development. South and Central America’s democratization, decolonization of Africa, and Soviet Union dissolution among other events rekindled the organization’s impetus to help human beings. UNHCR provides emergency relief and protection among other forms of help to people in their countries. Nevertheless, this function has no contemplation in the Statute. Moreover, the organization provides protection and other forms of support to returnees and Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), and other conflict victims. Moreover, UNHCR works with NGOs to perform cooperative operations in all areas of voluntary repatriation, assistance, refugee children and women special needs, fund-raising, and technical sectors like food aid, shelter, health, and education. On the other hand, ICRC (1998) and Wolfson and Wright (1995) say that ICRC establishment took place in 1863. Since then, the organization acts as an impartial mediator in fortified conflicts. Its main endeavor lies in ensuring that conflict victims get suitable assistance and protection, both in Geneva Conventions (1949) and Additional Protocols (1977) domains, as well as in the advancement of the ICRC’s general mandate. Kellenberger (2005) and Ratner (2009) point out that ICRC intends to provide assistance and protection activities to benefit civilian populations and the war prisoners. These actions include visiting war prisoners to ascertain their conformity to the set standards, supervision of prisoner exchanges and releases provision of emergency relief to war victims among civilian populations; arrangement of family reunions and contacts; tracing of displaced individuals; and promotion and development of global humanitarian law. ICRC extends its mandate to areas that global humanitarian law does not cover, such as, internal tensions and disturbances (Wolfson & Wright 1995; Studer 2001). Connection between ICRC and UNHCR Young (2001) says that refugee protection is not a restriction to UNHCR alone. Numerous organizations provide protection to persons affect by conflict. One of these organizations involves ICRC, whose specialty is on the protection of conflict victims in any parts of the globe. Since IDPs are often conflict victims, ICRC and UNHCR constituencies can sometimes overlap. Nevertheless, each of these organizations has its working techniques, from their respective mandates’ requirements. Young (2001) further holds that both organizations address issues regarding human results of conflict. ICRC and UNHCR have many things in common because most of their functions and activities can overlap. Even though UNHCR conventional mandate aims at providing assistance and protection efforts to refugees in countries of refuge, UNHCR emergency activities in fortified conflict circumstances motivated the organization to extend its operations to war-affected and besieged populations, and IDPs, who were traditionally ICRC beneficiaries. Some examples of these beneficiaries include Somalia, Northern Iraq, Rwanda, and former Yugoslavia. Nevertheless, UNHCR or the UN is not the only agencies to offer assistance and protection to the war victims in the world (Young 2001). Wolfson and Wright (1995) point out that these organizations conduct their humanitarian activities based on the three principles including impartiality, humanity, and neutrality. To begin with, Wolfson and Wright (1995) assert that they base their activities on humanity, which means that they intend to relieve human suffering as soon as possible. They do this with full respect and protection of groups and individuals’ human rights and inherent dignity. Secondly, the organizations base their actions on the principle of impartiality, which advocates for the provision of the human assistance without any discrimination (Studer 2001). It also states that relief should handles the suffering groups and individuals’ needs regardless of their political, national, ideologies, racial, religious, sexual, and ethnic affiliations. Besides, it insists for relief activities and needs assessment should be on the neediest cases. The third humanitarian principle that the organizations consider entails neutrality. Here, provision of humanitarian assistance should have no bias in terms of military, political, ideological, religious, or ethnic disagreement. The principle also requires humanitarian organizations to avoid any alliance with a conflict partisan (Forsythe 2002). ICRC and UNHCR are similar in the way they carry out their humanitarian activities. For instance, the organizations parallel each other in their involved persons’ lists, as well as in their protective efforts they intend to give these persons. Their similarity is also evident on the way each one seeks to create a normative outline to direct field or practical protection. What is more, these organizations have the same voluntary financial donors, which involve rich liberal democracies, separately or via mechanisms like the European Union (Forsythe 2002). Therefore, through their operations, the two organizations work towards economic and human development among their beneficiaries. Differences Despite their common goal of facilitating economic and human development, Forsythe (2002) holds that UNHCR and ICRC have certain differences. Firstly, ICRC has a lot of interest in the fighter that is hors de combat either taking in a form of a wounded or sick war prisoner, fighter, security detainee, or irregular fighter. On the other hand, UNHCR does not intend to offer protection to fighters of different sorts. Instead, its great interest lies on lasting solutions to the problems of the persecuted people who have a short-term refuge in some country. Secondly, Forsythe (2002) maintains that ICRC does not handle resettlement or repatriation of conservative refugees. This is because it is a private Swiss organization, presently with a transnational staff, but maintaining a policy-formulating Assembly consisting of Swiss individuals. The organization is which is greatly autonomous other Red Cross agencies. On contrast, UNHCR is one of the UN agencies that are answerable to states via the General Assembly. Problems facing the organizations To begin with, UNHCR faces various challenges in the course of implementing its programs towards economic and human development. For instance, Wolfson and Wright (1995) illustrate that the increasing number of IDPs and refugees is posing a great problem of ineffectiveness due to short budget. This implies that the organization cannot offer askance to ever-increasing number of refugees and IDPs in various war-torn and asylum countries. Second, sanctions negatively affect the organization’s operations in some ways. Sanctions are helpful in preventing aggression and executing the accepted standards of international conduct. Nevertheless, sanctions may affect people in dire need of humanitarian assistance like women, IDPs, children, elderly, and refugees. Besides, sanctions may lead to instability; hence, population movements. Despite the exclusion of the UNHCR, Sanctions Committee can delay suitable humanitarian assistance delivery. The third challenge facing the UNHCR is concerns the use of force, which can bar its effective operations. Application of force against one group can negatively influence the felt neutrality an impartiality of the UN mission and those of its organizations. Moreover, the organization’s General Assembly discussions and decisions at time undermine the institution’s credibility. In addition, he General Assembly committees face difficulty in the establishment and implementation of its priorities (Wolfson & Wright 1995). In other areas, the UNHCR faces a challenge of lack of clear global mandate, legal issues emerging from differences in global legal outline for the protection of IDP, security dilemmas related to peace potentials, and inefficient intervention problems concerning domestic dynamics, and thus, ineffective IDP and refugee protection (Wolfson & Wright 1995). On contrast, ICRC has its share of challenges in the process of implementing its programs. Presently, Yves Daccord, the then new director-general says that ICRC conducts its activities in conflicts that take many years, in unbelievably diverse circumstances. From Yemen to Afghanistan, Somali, Congo, Brazil, India to Georgia, ICRC staff should respond to extremely diverse humanitarian matters. At times, they have to satisfy the needs of individuals whose lives are at stake. For instance, those disappearing after arrest, or wounded ones in dire need of help. Besides, at times, ICRC staff needs to act in order to maintain the dignity of the conflict victims, such as, the prisoners and the IDPs (ICRC 2010). Secondly, ICRC (2010) demonstrates that the organization has to adjust its activities continually to be effective and consider the susceptibility, but also stamina and toughness of the affected. Moreover, the agency ought to react to emergencies swiftly as it did in Kyrgyzstan. It also has to conduct activities in the early recovery times, immediately after crisis, when individuals want an enhancement to resume their normal lives as it is doing in Pakistan. What is more, ICRS faces a challenge in entering a dialogue with the bodies that can affect the situation. This a dialogue that aims at securing the victims’ success, to make the organization better accepted, but also change some things they conduct against global humanitarian law, or with some human rights law (ICRC 2010). According to Young (2001), both organizations also face such challenges as post-conflict wars, politicization of humanitarian activities, basic violations of humanitarian standards, insecurity of humanitarian staff, and inadequate protection. Cultural and symbolic capital Some of the ways in which these organizations persuade the public about their activities is by facilitating access to social services like free education and healthcare. For instance, UNHCR and ICRC provide educational facilities and health insurance to refugees. Moreover, they help the refugees to develop economically through business projects, employment, and funds. The ICRC’s Director General, Yves Daccor asserts that the organization if brave and persistent, pragmatic, efficient, and generous. He adds that ICRC has dedicated staff that work towards providing aid to the needy people (ICRC 2010). Conflicts between the two organizations In spite their efforts to ensure economic and human development, ICRCR and UNHCR have conflicts in the interest of their ways of operating in places of armed conflict. For instance, Young (2001) argues that in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the two organizations became uneasy bedfellows in their first days of operation. This is because UNHCR stepped on the conventional ICRC turf in acting on a circumstance of open conflict with the IDPs and domestic war-torn populations. However, with the rapid increase of the humanitarian needs, UNHCR concluded that ICRC had inadequate potential to handle the crisis enormity alone, and the two agencies created a cooperative, complementary association. Effectiveness of the organizations Despite the conflicts and challenges that the two organizations face in the process of their operations, they have numerous achievements, especially regarding economic and human development. To begin with, Young (2001) shows that both UNHCR and ICRC offer humanitarian relief to save lives. For instance, in the former Yugoslavia, the organizations gave huge funding, hence, the ability to deliver large quantities of assistance in the area. This undoubtedly saved several lives and worked a lot to reduce human suffering. They offered food, medicine, and shelter among other forms of assistance. Secondly, Young (2001) says that the two organizations greatly helped in the reduction of more population displacement through the provision of medical and food assistance, which would otherwise make them leave in search of them. Many of the beneficiaries asserted that humanitarian help was crucial in protecting and reducing the seriousness of ethnic cleansing and atrocities. Thirdly, the agencies also helped in the mitigation of human rights abuse, and served as witnesses of these abuses. They did this by regularly denouncing these abuses, forcible displacement of people, and human rights violations. Besides, they did immense reporting of the violations to international communities through documentations, without out any bias. These impartial documentations were indispensable in the post-conflict hearings in the International Criminal Tribunal. Scandals Just like other organizations, UNHCR and ICRC have their share of scandals. First, according to Gillan (2002), UNHCR reportedly have scandals related to corruption and sexual abuse against conflict victims. Its personnel commit such offences in different parts of the globe during their normal operations. for instance, in Africa, Finda James, in Sierra Leone, found herself as a aid worker’s sex object in exchange of rations. Most of the perpetrators of such acts are local employees of the Effects of Global Financial Crisis and the emerging power on human & economic development Fukuda-Parr (2008) says that the emerging power and financial crisis has a number of effects on economic and human development. First, there is an increased unemployment rate resulting from reduced house income levels. As a result, households ought to satisfy all basic needs by other means, such as, denying children education, and sending the elderly or children out for employment. These coping strategies degrade society’s long-term development. Secondly, Fukuda-Parr (2008) asserts that financial crisis forces governments to contract its social spending, such as education, basic healthcare, and transports due to the plummeting of government revenues. Notably, macroeconomic policy changes that aim at budget balancing and economy stabilization causes unbalanced human lives. For instance, in Nicaragua in 1991, 400% devaluation caused a 360% price increase to the level where a median salary could not but a primary basket of consumption goods. Public institutions and NGOs work together to ensure economic and human development in spite of these problems (Fukuda-Parr 2008). Conclusion Humanitarian efforts by various international public institutions and international NGOs are beneficial in the effective human and economic development in the world. In this paper, focus was on two organizations, UNHCR and ICRC, and their operations in attempt to bring protection and relief assistance to people in crisis. The organizations have differences in their operations, but many similarities in the way they handle crises. Despite the early conflicts between the agencies, they developed cooperative relationship geared towards the end of human suffering in the world. Nevertheless, the two face challenges related to insecurity, inadequate finances, humanitarian laws violations, sanctions, and politics among others. They also face various scandals regarding sexual abuse and corruption. In spite of this, the organizations have many achievements including provision of assistance in form of food, shelter, and medicine. They are document witness reports essential in the execution of justice in the International Criminal Tribunal. Therefore, the organizations are effective in the human and economic development of people; hence, enhancement of the world economy. To enhance their effectiveness, the organizations should avoid the scandals, and initiate more projects and extend them different parts of the globe. References ICRC 2010, The ICRC has to Adapt to Incredibly Diverse Situations, ICRC Resource Center. Retrieved on June 1, 2012 from http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/interview/structure-interview-010710.htm Gillan, A 2002, Sex Abuse Scandals Tarnish Work of Aid Agencies in Africa, The Guardian. Retrieved on June 1, 2012, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2002/apr/20/voluntarysector Forsythe, DP 2002, Refugees and the Red Cross: An Underdeveloped Dimension of Protection, Working Paper 66. Pp. 1-19. http://www.ccis-ucsd.org/PUBLICATIONS/wrkg66.pdf Fukuda-Parr, S 2008, UN General Assembly: Interactive Panel on the Global Financial Crisis, The Human Impact of the Financial Crisis on Poor and Disempowered People and Countries. Pp. 1-7. http://www.un.org/ga/president/63/interactive/gfc/sakiko_p.pdf International Committee of the Red Cross, ICRC 1998, To Serve and To Protect, Human Rights and Humanitarian Law for Police and Security Forces. Pp. 1-459. http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/D308231847B7B08BC1256DBF00409023-ICRC-toserveandtoprotect-feb98.pdf Kellenberger, J 2005, Relations of the ICRC with the humanitarian system of the UN, 08-09-2005 Statement, ICRC Resource Center. Retrieved on June 1, 2012, from http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/6g7ahc.htm Ratner, SR 2009, ‘Law Promotion beyond Law Talk: The Red Cross, Persuasion, and the Laws of War’, European Journal of International Law, vol.22, no.2, pp. 459-506. Studer, M 2001, ‘The ICRC and civil-military relations in armed conflict’, IRRC, vol. 83, no 842, pp. 368-390. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/sede/dv/sede240410icrcarticlestuder_/sede240410icrcarticlestuder_en.pdf Young, K 2001, ‘UNHCR and ICRC in the former Yugoslavia: Bosnia-Herzegovina’, ICRC, vol. 83, no. 843, pp. 781-806. http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/781_806_young.pdf Wolfson, S & Wright, N 1995, A UNHCR Handbook for the Military on Humanitarian Operations. Pp. 1-36. http://www.unhcr.org/3d5122884.pdf Ratner, SR 2009, ‘Law Promotion beyond Law Talk: The Red Cross, Persuasion, and the Laws of War’, European Journal of International Law, vol.22, no.2, pp. 459-506. http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id/ipg/02862.pdf Read More