How Human Rights Organizations Work

Human rights advocacy groups fall under two headings -- government and independent. Based on the way they're organized, both have strengths and weaknesses, but rely on one another to get things done.

The United States has several human rights organizations (HROs) operating within its borders -- some are independent, and others are affiliated with the government. Multinational government groups make good HROs because they can act as a legal authority. Any human rights group needs a powerful legal framework to try crimes against humanity and to regulate human rights law. By setting up treaties and courts, governments can pass laws, create treaties, hold trials, fund aid, and investigate human rights violations. They are the muscle of the human rights community.

That is, if everything doesn't devolve into squabbling. Even in the United States, where citizens' human rights are written into our governing document, government human rights organizations' have limited power. Governments the world over have their own agendas that can politicize where and when help is distributed. Say a country has the opportunity to send a peacekeeping force to a war-torn area rich in natural resources. Can a government-run HRO maintain neutrality? Can other countries trust it not to take advantage of its position? Government HROs are accountable to governments, which means they can run into difficulties if there's a conflict of interest.

Consider the United Nations (UN), of which the United States is a member nation. The UN is like the grandmother of multinational organizations. An administrative body, it was created after World War II to replace the defunct League of Nations. The UN is a council of international representatives dedicated to world peace, economic development and human rights. Funding comes from member nations based on their gross national product (GNP), but countries also often donate money for specific United Nations programs like UNIFEM, a women's advocacy group, and UNICEF, a children's rights program.

Another example of a government HRO is the International Criminal Court (ICC), a treaty-based international court set up to try those accused of crimes against humanity. Currently, it's investigating cases in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic, Uganda and Darfur on issues such as genocide, sexual slavery, and the use of child soldiers. Though an independent body, the ICC works closely with the UN and is financed by member nations.

Government HROs can do a lot of good for human rights, but they don't have as much freedom as independent organizations. We'll look at a couple of those on the next page as we examine international human rights organizations.

Only governmental human rights organizations (HROs) have the power to enforce laws, but independent HROs can still effect a lot of change -- both directly and indirectly. Being independent, they can pick and choose where their funding comes from, which bolsters their ability to remain neutral. However, without the budget and legal authority of government HROs, the most powerful weapon at the disposal of independent HROs is public outrage. To that end, their goal is to raise awareness of human rights violations in order to draw enough attention for governments to take action. Unlike government organizations, independent HROs tend to be a small nucleus of administrators and researchers backed by a large decentralized network of members, contacts, and NGOs. These are just a few examples of international independent HROs operating today:

Research and people power is all well and good, but what do these organizations actually accomplish? And how do they protect themselves?

When you think about human rights and the organizations that aim to protect them, it's important to remember three basic problems.

The first is lack of information. How do we know what conditions in North Korean work camps are like? How many slaves are still out there? How do we know if genocide is taking place if it happens somewhere the international community has no access? Information is key to mobilization, which is why most human rights organizations (HROs) are actively -- or even singly -- concerned with gathering data, publishing reports and drumming up public support through media awareness.

The second problem is that there must be a balance between the gravity of crimes against human rights and how realistic the possibility of change is. For instance, Chinese rule of Tibet is one of the highest profile issues in the world, but in spite of years of protests and political pressure, the problem has remained a brick wall for human rights advocates. On the other hand, Amnesty International reports several times a month on political prisoners everywhere from Azerbaijan to Zimbabwe being pardoned or released due to the power of public awareness.

The third issue is the problem of action. The world is a messy, complicated place, and interfering overseas is tricky business. Direct action is difficult even when you live in a country where known human rights abuses are happening, so how can you know you're working effectively for change? It would be nice to have a dashing superagent who parachutes in, unseats a warlord, then passes out ballots and T-bone steaks, but there's a shortage of those people in the international community.

So if direct intervention is impossible, what else can be done? The first step is most often raising awareness of the frequency of human rights violations. Real change in human rights comes from public awareness, and public awareness comes from organizations that have the power to spur large groups of people into letter-writing campaigns, vigils, public demonstrations and donations. Though it often feels like a drop in the bucket, the power of public awareness cannot be understated. The fall of apartheid and the Orange Revolution in Ukraine both testify to the power of public involvement and awareness.

Feel like getting involved? Turn to the next page for lots more information on human rights and HROs all over the world.