Reframing NGOs: The Identity of an

International Relations Non-Starter

NORBERT GTZ
University of Helsinki, Finland

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 intro-
duction 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 his-
tory 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 art-
icle provides a non-substantial, functional and politics-oriented defin-
ition 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.

KEY WORDS associations civil society conceptual history

IR theory linguistic turn NGOs United Nations

Introduction
If the number of related acronyms is any indicator of the vitality of a con-
cept, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have to be counted among
the most vivid and relevant phenomena of our time. Characterized in the
post-Cold War environment by the continuing rise of post-material values in
the Western hemisphere and beyond, on the one hand, and disillusionment
about the capacity of states or inter-governmental agencies to solve the press-
ing problems of our times, on the other, NGO frequently seems to serve
as shorthand for New Great Organization (Ginsburg, 1998/99: 29). At

European Journal of International Relations Copyright 2008

SAGE Publications and ECPR-European Consortium for Political Research, Vol. 14(2): 231258
[DOI: 10.1177/1354066108089242]
 European Journal of International Relations 14(2)

the same time, as vehicles for political expectations tied to the agenda of
either social movements or neo-liberal socioeconomic doctrines, NGOs are
obvious objects of controversy and easily appear to be failed or ideologically
adverse Never Good Organizations (Ginsburg, 1998/99). Because of this
tension and the conspicuously vague nature of both the residual category
non-governmental organization and its acronym, which invite specification
and active supplementation, there is probably no other term with an equally
thriving flora of extended three letter acronyms (ETLAs). The invention of
the GONGO, the government(ally) organized non-governmental organiza-
tion, is just one particularly puzzling example of the language games regu-
larly played with NGOs. Indeed, the acronym has started to take on a life of
its own, giving way to the intriguing result of authors expressing reservations
about the very definition of NGOs as non-governmental organizations
(Otto, 1996: 110).
Best established of the sub-concepts is probably the INGO, the inter-
national non-governmental organization. The same phenomenon as projected
by the GONGO has been insinuated by the interpretation of NGO as stand-
ing for next government official. Interestingly, there are multifarious sub-
concepts that question the non-governmental character of NGOs. Similar in
content to the GONGO are the GINGO, the government-inspired NGO,
and the GRINGO, the government regulated/run and initiated NGO. To a
somewhat lesser degree, sub-concepts such as QUANGO (quasi NGO),
PANGO (party-affiliated NGO), RONGO (retired officials NGO), DONGO
(donor-organized NGO), DINGO (donor international NGO), and
CONGO (co-opted NGO) are also closely tied to the sphere of government.
However, the acronym CONGO is also used to denote both the Conference
of NGOs in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations and com-
mercially oriented NGOs, which brings us to the field of BINGOs (business
interest NGOs), BONGOs (business-organized NGOs) and the MONGO
(my own NGO), terms used to pin down for-profit or individual private
interest NGOs. Both MONGO and MANGO can be used to denominate
mafia(-organized) NGOs, but the latter acronym has been given several
meanings and might also stand for manipulated NGOs or, value-neutral, for
Macedonian NGOs. Given this background, it is hardly surprising that the
Tuvalu Association of NGOs is not unrivalled in using the acronym TANGO.
While a regional anchoring is open in character, most of the sub-concepts
mentioned above obviously exhibit tension vis-a-vis what still seems to be the
main association with the plain concept of NGOs, namely the PINGO (pub-
lic interest NGO) in general, and the RINGO (religious international NGO),
the ENGO (environmental NGO), and the NGDO (non-governmental
development organization) in particular. A specific variant of the latter is the
Development Justice and Advocacy NGO (DJANGO). The acronym NGO

232
 Gtz: Reframing NGOs

has facetiously been interpreted as standing for En-J-Oy in regard to the staff
of aid-receiving organizations, alluding to their special privileges that are
unavailable to the surrounding communities. Similarly, such an interesting
bird as the FLAMINGO, the Flashy Minded NGO (representing the rich)
has been suggested for adaptation.1
Despite the obvious intent of discrediting NGOs, these acronyms do pro-
vide a good impression of conflict and demarcation within the sphere of
NGOs, but also of different paradoxes and types of non-governmental
organizations. Evidently, the family of NGO blurs the various boundaries
between the government sector, commercial interests, and the sphere of
privacy. Apart from the NGDO, the non-governmental development organ-
ization, for which the acronym DENGO has been suggested but has for
unknown reasons failed to gain currency, the only common denominator of
the extended acronyms seems to be that they are more appealing than the
original from an aesthetic point of view. The question arises as to whether or
not the observer was right in his conclusion that one might summarize the
case for and against NGOs by way of a parody of Shakespeares statement
about roses: an NGO by any other name would smell as sweet or as ran-
cid (Ginsburg, 1998/99: 29). For the purpose of the article at hand, this
problem calls for a critical assessment of the background, meaning and
achievement potential of the concept of NGOs in International Relations, as
well as a suggestion for how the concept should be reframed in order to
enhance its accuracy and analytic value.
This article argues that NGOs, despite the increasing attention directed to
them in the past decade, are not yet adequately recognized or understood.
As the prevailing confusion about the term largely results from poor know-
ledge of the politics behind its introduction and function, the overarching
question is how NGOs have been socially constructed as actors on the mar-
gins of the international stage. Thus, a sound insight into the terms little-
known conceptual background in what might be called a Westphalian
nomenclature is provided. The article suggests that the prevalent NGO
terminology is an outcome of political games played by various actors, with
language and conceptual frames used as powerful tools shaping perceptions
and minds, restricting and containing the signified organizations. After
briefly demonstrating the unsatisfactory, frequently idiosyncratic and
negligent scholarly treatment of the phenomenon of NGOs, the article goes
on to shed light on the invention and formative phase of the term in
connection with the design of the world order since World War II. It then
outlines the subsequent use of the expression in the context of the United
Nations system, as well as the terminologically and conceptually challenging
tendency of recourse to civil society. Finally, the construction and conceptual
history of the term NGO in International Relations is interpreted as a

233
 European Journal of International Relations 14(2)

reflection of an overly state-centric worldview in both the praxis and discip-

line of international relations. The conclusion provides a non-substantial,
functional and politics-oriented definition of the term NGO, which differs
significantly from previous attempts to attach meaning to it. Moreover, sug-
gestions for improved choices of terminology in general International
Relations theorizing are provided.

Conceptual Fragmentation in the IR Margin

Unsurprisingly for a residual category, the term non-governmental organ-
ization and the acronym NGO, like a Russian nesting doll, can be used with
narrow or wider meanings. On the one hand, there are huge differences in
understandings of what exactly belongs to the non-governmental sphere.
Counter-intuitively, non-governmental is predominantly understood as
simultaneously implying a non-profit orientation, while, by convention,
non-state is regularly used as a wider generic term that also comprises busi-
ness and sometimes intergovernmental and criminal organizations.2 The
arbitrariness of this distinction is evident: it can be illustrated by the simple
fact that the English non-governmental is translated into other languages
like German or Swedish as non-state.
On the other hand, NGOs are quite often equated with specific types of
organizations only. For example, non-governmental organizations are fre-
quently equated with international non-governmental organizations
(Martens, 2002: 27980). The preoccupation of the discipline of International
Relations with international NGOs is bad enough as a methodological bias,
based as it is on the application of a double standard for the selection of rele-
vant research units for the non-governmental and governmental spheres: while
states are regularly identified as units of analysis on functional grounds, namely
in their capacity as actors in international relations, NGOs are usually identi-
fied as relevant units only if they conform to the demand for international sub-
stance or structure. Evidently, the application of different criteria for the
selection of units of analysis for different types of actors produces a distorted
image of the world imagine an IR discipline dealing only with IOs and not
with nation-states! The reductionism becomes even worse when the acronym
INGO is truncated, because in effect this eliminates any conceptual space for
national NGOs. Moreover, such a definition contradicts United Nations docu-
ments and practices, which, it will be shown, have been crucial to the concept
of NGOs. Characteristically, studies operating in this way do not manage to
uphold the declared narrow scope of their subject matter, that is limiting it to
international non-governmental organizations, and frequently use the
acronym NGO subsidiarily as a generic concept comprising both national and
international organizations (e.g. DeMars, 2005; Martens, 2005).

234
 Gtz: Reframing NGOs

Lately there has been a notable tendency to restrict the use of the acronym
NGO to organizations concerned with sustainability and development in a
narrower or wider sense, sometimes including the issues of peace, human
rights, and cultural exchange (e.g. Iriye, 2002). This concerns basically the
type of NGOs seeking to promote global change, which social movement
theorists have labelled transnational social movement organizations
(TSMOs) (Kriesberg, 1997: 12). In development discourse, NGOs are often
distinguished from grassroots organizations (GROs) or, with the opposite
tendency, from private voluntary organizations (PVOs) driven by the donors
of development aid. Authors in favour of rival conceptual approaches to the
sphere beyond states and markets like third sector or nonprofit sector are
supplied with a good excuse for picking the narrowest definition of NGOs
available to demonstrate the mismatch of the term for geographically and
topically indeterminate purposes (Salamon and Anheier, 1997b: 1213).
In sum, while the MONGO principle (my own NGO) might be a phe-
nomenon observable in a number of empirical cases, it clearly permeates the
discourse on NGOs of both practitioners and scholars. Indeed, it has rightly
been noted that the term NGO, despite being commonly accepted and wide-
spread in academia, remains terra incognita due to the customary nebu-
losity of its content (Martens, 2002: 272). The observation that the
cacophony of competing voices within a mature voluntary sector can be
deafening (Korten, 1990: 99) applies no less to the competing voices on this
sector and actors such as NGOs. In the absence of convincing analytical
accounts, idiosyncratic definitions have ample opportunity to flourish.
The undeniably diverse field of NGOs is frequently believed to be frag-
mented to the point where only by confining themselves to partial accounts
of the field and to restrictive definitions can scholars produce meaningful
results. In opposition to this view, it has been argued that the market sector,
comprising anything from the roadside vendor to transnational corporations,
is similarly multifaceted and that the issue at hand is ultimately not prob-
lematic subject matter, but rather unsophisticated conceptual thinking
(Salamon and Anheier, 1997a: 23). Indeed, while there can be no doubt
that specialized research is important, the term NGO is established as
describing a broad range of private organizations serving public purposes,
and it remains epistemologically unsatisfactory to give up the quest for over-
arching theorization. There is no easy way out of this dilemma to which
Niklas Luhmann has drawn attention; namely that, on the one hand, the
imprecision of a concept increases in direct proportion to the amplitude of
its subject matter, while, on the other hand, specialized knowledge leads
into a maze of disconnected details (Luhmann, 1982: 69). At present, the
predominant problem lies in attempts to narrow down the meaning of the
NGO concept to a manageable research unit, ultimately contributing

235
 European Journal of International Relations 14(2)

considerably to the confusion and absence of a common language and dis-

course in the larger scientific community.
Moreover, the design of such units frequently leads to works in close spir-
itual symbiosis with the subject matter of the research. As a result, there is an
abundance of studies that uncritically or apologetically stylize NGOs as
force for good in global politics, a peerless hope for humankind (Halliday,
2001: 23; DeMars, 2005: 4, 37). John Keanes striking observation that
global civil society is occasionally looked at as something like a world prole-
tariat in civvies applies equally to the related concept of NGOs (2003: 65).
With a prescription of non-neutral scholarly perspectives, Edwards statement,
NGOs do not want to be studied like animals in the zoo (1998/99: 59),
in reality asks that they be treated as a protected species. However, it is
mistaken to class an instrumental entity such as non-governmental organ-
ization a priori with concepts that stand for good things such as democracy,
empowerment, participation (cf. Stromquist, 1998/99: 65). Rather than
designating a normative end, NGOs belong to the category of functional
concepts such as the state, power, structure, and agency. The lack of studies
addressing NGOs with thought-provoking scholarly distance is deplorable;
the topic begs to be handled in a disenchanting manner and as a contingent
element in a complex world.
As a whole, theoretical disinterest or abdication has led to a puzzling over-
all underdetermination of the concept of NGOs. Thus, there is a strong need
for closer theoretical and empirical scrutiny and an overarching view of the
topic. Despite a growing body of literature attendant on the proliferation of
NGOs in the past decades, Bertil Dunrs observation from 1999 continues
to be valid: NGOs are still very much off-piste in international politics/
international relations research (Dunr, 1999: 78). For example, they are
conspicuously absent in two major works published since then; they are
noticeably missing in both Alexander Wendts constructivist Social Theory of
International Politics (1999) and John J. Mearsheimers neo-realist The
Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001). More significant for the state-of-the-
art of the discipline as a whole and for current teaching agendas and univer-
sity curricula, NGOs are far from being assigned an adequate role in either the
best-selling IR-introduction The Globalization of World Politics (Baylis and
Smith, 2005) or in the similarly structured, more academically oriented
Handbook of International Relations (Carlsnaes et al., 2002). In both books,
they are merely mentioned en passant in a few passages in addition to being
treated as one element in a broader chapter on transnational actors. In the
Handbook, NGOs are at least given a slight precedence in the chapter on this
topic. However, such priority was declaredly a compensatory measure, due to
the circumstance that multinational companies are addressed extensively in
three (!) additional chapters (Risse, 2002: 262). Evidently, despite a growing

236
 Gtz: Reframing NGOs

body of literature, NGOs remain in the margin of the discipline of

International Relations.

The Coining of NGOs

The term non-governmental organization is fairly young. While IR scholars
have realized that establishing jargon is a way for NGOs to influence how
negotiators and observers perceive various issues and proposals in a negotia-
tion (Corell and Betsill, 2001: 76), they rarely discuss the premises and
implications of the term NGO itself. Indeed, interest in the forces that sus-
tain its use seems to be lacking, and there are only vague notions of why and
how it was coined and gained currency. Evidently, the International
Relations community has chosen to treat the term as unproblematic. Either
negligently or intentionally, IR circles have refrained from exploring the
agenda-setting implied by its use and, thus, have also failed to gain insight
into the politics behind what has been uncritically adopted as an analytical
category. The purpose of the sections that follow is to provide a profound
understanding of the conceptual history (Koselleck, 1992; Skinner, 2002) of
non-governmental organization and of certain implications this choice of
terminology entails.
It is common knowledge that the term NGO did not gain currency before
the end of World War II. It is likely a neologism of that time (cf. Willetts,
2002). Likewise, it is also known that more expressive terms like association,
(special) interest group, social movement, voluntary organization, and
civil society organization continue to be preferred over non-governmental
organization in reference to domestic politics. The situation was much the
same in the mid-1940s. To mention just two examples: in a task description
from 1945, the US State Departments Division of Public Liaison was
assigned the responsibility of relations with private groups and organizations
interested in the formulation of foreign policy (US Government, 1945:
196). Similarly, in the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation
Administration (UNRRA), the standard term used both before and after
1945 was voluntary (relief) agency. However, the Council of UNRRA, in a
resolution passed at its first session in November 1943, also mentioned non-
governmental sources of financial contributions to its budget (Woodbridge,
1950: III 58, cf. I 13843). The use of the attribute non-governmental on
this occasion, which possibly constitutes the terms introduction to the vocabu-
lary of international organizations, can safely be described as placing it in a
context of instrumentality rather than one of cross-sector cooperation. In
contrast, a semi-participatory context was established in a letter by Secretary
of State Cordell Hull to President Roosevelt (dated 22 December 1941) on
the establishment of an Advisory Committee on Post-War Foreign Policy.

237
 European Journal of International Relations 14(2)

While the actual committee was to consist of government officials and prom-
inent individuals, appropriate non-governmental agencies were listed along-
side government departments and agencies as institutions with which the
Committee was to maintain close contact. At the same time, some of the
appointed individuals actually occupied leading positions in private organiza-
tions (Robins, 1971: 1634, 256).
An obvious, materialist assumption is that the rise of new words or expres-
sions reflects innovations in the world of phenomena. However, this hypoth-
esis is defeated in the present context: private associations as actors in
international arenas are not unique to world politics in the second half of the
20th century. Despite a marked increase in their number after World War II,
there was no change in quality that would have required a new terminology
(Chiang, 1981: 33). On the contrary, in the first half of the 20th century the
terms international associations, private international organizations, and
voluntary agencies had been used for what today are often named INGOs
(White, 1951: 3; Seary, 1996).
The breakthrough for the term non-governmental organization came in
a document with outstanding norm-setting capacity. Article 71 of the
Charter of the United Nations reads:
The Economic and Social Council may make suitable arrangements for con-
sultation with non-governmental organizations which are concerned with mat-
ters within its competence. Such arrangements may be made with international
organizations and, where appropriate, with national organizations after con-
sultation with the Member of the United Nations concerned.

Bizarrely, Secretary of State Edward R. Stettinius, the chairman of the US

delegation to the conference that drafted the Charter, announced that this
paragraph stands on its own and needs no interpretation (1945: 121). While
some grievance about the rather condescending terminology and humble
wording of Article 71 has been expressed by NGO leaders and others with
the benefit of hindsight (Fenaux, 1978: 194; Shestack, 1978: 97), the initial
conceptual choice implied that in the UN system, all transnational actors
have to accept the label NGO, in order to participate (Willetts, 2002).
While literature on NGOs to date does not explain the remarkable shift in
terminology, a closer survey of the records and files from the United Nations
Conference on International Organization, which convened in San Francisco
from 25 April to 25 June 1945, helps provide an answer. Interestingly, at an
early stage of the discussions in San Francisco, the terms pressure groups,
private organizations and unofficial organizations were still used instead
of non-governmental organizations (UNCIO, 1945 V: 1534).
The main driving force behind the drafting of Article 71 at the United
Nations Conference on International Organization came from a country not

238
 Gtz: Reframing NGOs

usually thought of as avant-garde in the enhancement of private initiative,

namely the Soviet Union (Russell, 1958: 798801). Its inclusion in the
Charter was a compromise made in the allies dispute over the status of the
World Trade Union Conference (WTUC), which had convened in London
from 6 to 17 February 1945. The participants of this conference presented
a declaration through which they sought accreditation to the San Francisco
Conference in an advisory and consultative capacity and urged provision
be made for effective Trade Union representation in the Assembly of the
International Organisation and that qualified and responsible representatives
of the Trade Union Movement shall be associated with both the Security
Council and the Social and Economic Council (WTUC, 1945: 239). In a
second departure at the subsequent founding Congress of the World
Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) in Paris in Autumn 1945, the London
declaration was interpreted as having requested representation in the
General Assembly, in a consultative capacity, and full representation with
the right to vote, on the Social and Economic Council, a redescription taken
as basis for a new request (WFTU, 1945: 272).
The ultimate goal of the Soviet government was to establish the WFTU as
a specialized agency with observer status rivalling the ILO (Russell, 1958:
799). This commitment was an attempt to play out the UN Charters We,
the peoples, as organized in the world labour movement, against Western
governments (see WTUC, 1945: 250). Soviet authors later defended the
broad term non-governmental organizations against the suggestion by others
to more accurately speak of international societal organizations by pointing
to the de facto stipulation of the Charter and irreconcilable differences
in bourgeois and socialist concepts of society. While they viewed Rotary
Clubs as a paradigmatic example of bourgeois society, these organizations
were contrasted with true societal organizations fighting for freedom from
capitalist exploitation and all types of repression as well as the danger of
imperialist wars such as the WFTU. According to the Soviet point of view,
the term NGO was sufficiently broad to pool the opposing worlds of
oppressors fraternities and legitimate mass organizations under a common
label (Morozov, 1971: 14950). Thus, given the need to handle matters of
international concern in a pragmatic fashion, the term NGO is closely tied
to the notion of class struggle, which it transcends, and the Cold War, which
had yet to be declared.
However, the primary function of the term NGO at the San Francisco
conference was something different. The generally shared but superficial view
which relates it merely to Article 71 (with its nonetheless low-key partici-
patory element and legal progress) is misleading. Preceding the conference
a clear distinction had been introduced in the State Department between
inter-governmental organizations and non-governmental international

239
 European Journal of International Relations 14(2)

organizations, whereby the latter category should not be invited or encour-

aged to send representatives, but no obstacles would be placed in the way of
their voluntarily sending representatives to San Francisco (FRUS, 1945 1:
153). According to the published conference documentation, the first time the
expression non-governmental organizations was used was in a point on
the agenda for the third meeting of the steering committee on 10 May 1945.
The issue at stake was that, upon a previous decision of the steering commit-
tee to allow commissions and committees of the conference to invite repre-
sentatives of five intergovernmental organizations to attend their meetings,
one commission had decided to invite a representative of the WTUC
(UNCIO, 1945 V: 20612).
In this context, the introduction of the term non-governmental organ-
ization served as an important rhetorical marker of the difference between
the WTUC and the intergovernmental organizations that had been given
status in San Francisco, and ultimately worked as a conceptual device to keep
out unofficial organizations. Thus, in his introductory statement, the host of
the conference, Edward R. Stettinius, underlined the government approach
and expressed his concern that nongovernmental organizations would
change the basic character of the Conference and moreover would set a new
precedent for conferences of this kind (UNCIO, 1945 V: 208). As far as
can be determined from the summary record of the deliberations that fol-
lowed, the term non-governmental organizations was solely used by par-
ticipants opposed to admitting such organizations to the conference and by
a participant providing background information; those speaking in favour of
admitting such organizations expressed themselves in other words. The most
outspoken attempt at a rhetorical counter-strategy on the delegitimization
implied by the term NGO was reportedly made by the representative from
New Zealand: The WTUC was more than an intergovernmental body, it
was an international body (UNCIO, 1945 V: 210).
Admission of the WTUC to the San Francisco conference was rejected at
the meeting by a vote of 33 to 10.3 Yet, given internal pressure from labour
organizations in the allied countries and external pressure from the Soviet (see
UNCIO, 1945 I: 60) and other governments, Article 71 eventually opened
to the possibility of a compromise on the issue by granting consultative sta-
tus (at the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations) as a non-
governmental organization to what was to become the WFTU. Article 71
also accommodated the Bolivian proposal to establish a procedure that
would give adequate representation in the Economic and Social Council to
the organized labor of the word (UNCIO, 1945 III: 586). At the same
time, the article codified a practice frequently applied at the League of
Nations: namely, involving private international organizations in the pro-
ceedings of intergovernmental work. While the formalization undoubtedly

240
 Gtz: Reframing NGOs

constituted progress in legal terms, it also implied a de facto limitation of the

scope of inclusion of NGOs and a confinement to what was considered low
politics issues compared to the informal arrangements that had long pre-
vailed in the League. In many of the Leagues organs, private organizations
had access that frequently amounted to full participation exclusive of the
right to vote, more akin to the status Specialized Agencies enjoy today on
strength of Article 70 of the Charter (Chiang, 1981: 359; Pickard, 1956:
247, 50, 72). One reason for the relatively strong position of NGOs at the
League of Nations was probably that some of these functioned in practice as
a sort of substitute representation from the United States.4
At the San Francisco conference, after initial opposition, the delegation of
the United States supported the provision on non-governmental organiza-
tions according to Article 71. Not only had 1200 such organizations sent
representatives to San Francisco, tasked with monitoring and lobbying for
their clients (Alger, 1999: 393), the inclusion of organization representa-
tives (Robins, 1971: 203) also corresponded to the governments attempt
to create a national consensus on the United Nations in order to avoid a dis-
aster in line with the failed attempt to gain domestic approval for League of
Nations membership in 1920. One of the measures to this effect was to
admit 160 private organizations from the United States as observers and to
attach representatives of 42 organizations to the government delegation in
an unofficial consultative capacity. While such a status had initially been
rejected by the US delegation on the grounds of anticipated practical incon-
venience, President Roosevelt had endorsed it for its political merit. Thus,
there was both an informal domestic model and the chance for NGO con-
sultants to exert pressure on an issue vital to them (Robins, 1971: 8690,
1023; cf. Chiang, 1981: 3949, 224; Seary, 1996: 257; Eichelberger,
1977: 26774; Russell, 1958: 595).
The driving force of the US delegation consultants for the inclusion of
participatory elements in the Charter was James T. Shotwell of the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace. Shotwell had participated in the found-
ing of the ILO in Paris 1919 and he was particularly impressed by this organ-
izations unique tripartite structure with governments and national labour
and employer organizations, all represented independently from one
another. Consequently, a working group of the consultants submitted a (less
far-reaching) proposal on ECOSOC to the delegation of the United States;
in the proposal the term non-governmental organizations was used. This
proposal was drafted after the term non-governmental organizations had
been adopted as part of the conferences accepted language code (Robins,
1971: 122, 2168).5 Conjecture that this wording might deviate from the
authentic language of the authors is fanned by the fact that, on the occasion
of the tenth anniversary of the San Francisco Conference, the consultants of

241
 European Journal of International Relations 14(2)

the US delegation put a plaque on the wall of their former meeting room to
serve as a reminder of their particular contribution to the Charter provisions
for human rights and United Nations consultation with private organiza-
tions (Robins, 1971: 161).
In his report to the President of the United States, Edward R. Stettinius
regarded the consultancy model as an asset, suggesting it be carried over in
a more formalized fashion to the new international organization (1945:
1201). The eventual relative openness of US decision-makers toward
NGOs has partly been explained by the value attributed to them in influ-
encing public opinion to be more favourable toward the United Nations,
partly by the attempt to benefit from NGOs material and immaterial
resources, and partly by the wish to gain a measure of control over their
activities (Snider, 2003: 3779).

NGOs in the United Nations System

In the early years of the United Nations there was a noticeable tendency to
narrow the scope of arrangements with non-governmental organizations
(Bock, 1955: 17). The principal United Nations document on NGOs is the
ECOSOC resolution of 1950, which compiled and changed the provisions of
a number of earlier resolutions and has since been updated twice, in 1968 and
1996. Due to ambiguities and lacunae, these resolutions have been rated as
insufficiently drafted (see Aston, 2001: 946). For the purpose of consultative
arrangements with the ECOSOC, the 1950 resolution plainly defines an
NGO as any international organization which is not established by inter-gov-
ernmental agreement. However, exceptions to this provision are prescribed
in Article 71 of the Charter, which explicitly classifies national organizations
as a subgroup of non-governmental organizations. The exceptions depend on
consultation with the appropriate member state, on a special focus of interest
to the Council and, save in exceptional cases, on a lack of affiliation with an
international umbrella organization (ECOSOC, 1950: 25). By the revised
resolution of 1996, the concept of NGO relevant to the United Nations sys-
tem has been redefined as one of a democratically structured national or inter-
national organization that is not established by a governmental entity or
intergovernmental agreement. At the same time, a provision inserted in 1968
continues to be valid; according to the provision, organizations that accept
members designated by governmental authorities are considered NGOs
provided that such membership does not interfere with the free expression
of views of the organization (ECOSOC, 1996: 54; cf. ECOSOC, 1968: 21).
This amendment formalized the prevailing practice by which it was accepted
that NGOs not only comprised government officials, but also governments
and government departments (United Nations, 1955: 556).

242
 Gtz: Reframing NGOs

From the outset, the purpose of the consultative arrangement has always
been to secure expert information or advice from organizations having special
competence on the one hand, and to enable organizations that represent
important elements of public opinion, to express their views on the other
(ECOSOC, 1946: 484). While the stipulations do not imply that both
requirements must be met at the same time, the second provision can be seen
as a demarcation from commercial interests, which are not explicitly excluded
from the concept of non-governmental organizations. It is possible that the
provision that states consultative status should only be given to organizations
willing to promote the United Nations and work toward conformity with the
spirit and principles of its Charter contributed to an understanding of non-
governmental organizations as norm entrepreneurs rather than as for-profit
entrepreneurs. Moreover, the quest for democratic internal structures was sub-
sequently incorporated into the provisions and was strengthened considerably
by the resolution of 1996. However, the fact that states with questionable
human rights records are particularly eager to obtain representation in the
NGO Committee and frequently form a majority has given rise to the obser-
vation the fox is guarding the hen-house (Aston, 2001: 950, cf. 955).
The fateful decision (Chiang, 1981: 96) to introduce a hierarchical oper-
ational distinction of three categories of NGOs with different types of con-
sultancy status in the United Nations was made in the very beginning. This
decision established the practice of distinguishing between (1) organizations
with broad membership and concerns similar to those of the ECOSOC, (2)
organizations with select concerns, and (3) other organizations that would
occasionally contribute to the work of the ECOSOC. Although the names
of the three categories as well as their specific obligations and privileges have
changed over time, the basic ideas and structures have remained the same.
The problem with this system is that the criteria for the categorization of
organizations are vague, resulting in a classification based on political bar-
gaining rather than on objective standards. Overall, while the significance of
the differences between the categories is debatable (Dunr, 1997: 310),
there is a definite sense of the organisations being ranked by their status
(Willetts, 1996: 33). The mechanism described above brings about a num-
ber of adverse effects for NGOs: discrimination between consultancy haves
and have-nots, organizations are turned into objects of the discretionary
grading power of intergovernmental organizations, with a potentially pacify-
ing and acquiescing effect, and consultancy ultimately becomes a political
game in a larger divide et impera framework (Ghils, 1992). On the other
hand, NGOs gain prestige in politics and before the larger public by being
able to cite a consultative relationship with the United Nations; moreover, in
this capacity they wield a certain potential to influence multilateral processes
(Shestack, 1978: 99, 1167; Boli and Thomas, 1999: 30).

243
 European Journal of International Relations 14(2)

The range of attitudes toward NGOs within the United Nations is diver-
gent, but has improved over time. Earlier, interventions by NGOs are said to
not have been taken seriously in the ECOSOC (Sharp, 1968: 39).
Governments have been criticized for regularly sending their lowest-ranking
and least significant representatives to the Committee on NGOs, but NGOs
have likewise been notorious for unprofessional representation (Chiang,
1981: 230, 2358). A self-revealing insight into the social construction
and gendering of NGOs is provided by Hernane Tavares de S. In his
memoirs, the former head of the United Nations information services con-
trasts bad press with
the gushing brigade, represented at its caricatural level by droves of ladies
equipped with flowery hats and a grim determination to love the United
Nations and to be internationally minded. They swarm about the
Headquarters building, collecting printed material and demanding to be lec-
tured at. They are usually referred to as the NGOs, and in effect they all
belong to one or another of the non-governmental organizations accredited to
the UN. (Tavares de S, 1966: 294)
At the other extreme of NGO appreciation stands Secretary-General Boutros
Boutros-Ghalis proposition that non-governmental organizations are a
basic form of popular representation in the present-day world and that their
participation in international organizations is, in a way, a guarantee of the
political legitimacy of those international organizations (Boutros-Ghali,
1995: 3459). This suggestion goes well beyond any generally acknow-
ledged function of NGOs, but at the same time, it points to a loophole
inherent in the very construction of the international system: in a world of
nation-states NGOs become resources and providers of legitimacy for inter-
national civil servants and intergovernmental organizations, an independent
constituency and public of their own (Willetts, 1982: 24; Kissling, forth-
coming). Moreover, NGOs, with their principled ideas and technical expert-
ise, can lend intergovernmental politics a universal, non-partisan flavour
otherwise not easily obtainable (Boli and Thomas, 1999: 30). While there is
certainly a measure of lip service to NGOs in the United Nations system and
tensions remain defining the relationship between the governmental and
intergovernmental world (Chiang, 1981: 24; Natsios, 1996: 75), this basic
potential of NGOs provides them with an often overlooked strategic value
for their accrediting institutions. By the end of 2006, there were more than
2700 NGOs in consultative status with ECOSOC. Moreover, since the
1990s, relations between NGOs and the United Nations have grown
increasingly intense, extending to such traditionally sealed forums as the
Security Council (Martens, 2005). Indeed, as Chadwick Alger has noted,
NGO practice is again moving far beyond legal provisions, repeating the
interwar experience (2003: 408).
244
 Gtz: Reframing NGOs

In a recent operational definition, the United Nations Department of

Public Information identifies an NGO as a not-for-profit, voluntary citizens
group, which is organized on a local, national or international level to address
issues in support of the public good (United Nations, 2005). However,
given its semantic vagueness, it is hardly surprising that the concept of non-
governmental organizations is not applied consistently within the United
Nations system. In fact, it has been maintained that different United Nations
organs and agencies play definitional games in order to accommodate their
clients and for other instrumental reasons (Judge, 1997). A particular confu-
sion of language has been noted in connection with the United Nations
Conference in Environment and Development (UNCED, Earth Summit) in
1992. Peter Willetts has identified no less than five different meanings
attached to the term NGO in the conferences central Agenda 21 document.
In part, the conceptual disarray was due to leading activists dislike and
pointed challenges of the term non-governmental organization (Willetts,
1996: 55, 61; cf. United Nations, 1992: 373, 457, 45960).
NGOs themselves have always found the term NGO an alienating device.
Concurrent with Johan Galtung in the scientific community, Malaysian
NGO activist Anwar Fazal has suggested the thought-provoking parallel of
calling governments NPOs, or non-peoples organizations (Allain, 1989: 38).
At the most basic level, dissatisfaction with the term NGO is due to the
negative identity it ascribes to the designated phenomenon. In fact, NGO
translates as irrelevant in the mindset of conventional diplomatic agents.
Anthony Judge, the long-time Director of Communications and Research of
the Union of International Associations (UIA), describes NGO as a term
like non-whites with pejorative connotations that has been well-exploited
to marginalize the bodies to which the label has been attached, whether they
identified with the label or not (Judge, 2003). While the journal of the UIA
was titled NGO Bulletin in the beginning of the 1950s, this was a brief inter-
lude. Not only are the names of its successors, International Associations and
Transnational Associations, in themselves programmatic counter-proposi-
tions, they also occasionally publish articles critical of the term NGO. The
suggestion to redefine the acronym NGO as Necessary-to-Governance
Organizations has been another attempt from within the UIA to dispose of
the unloved non-governmental (Judge, 1995). The UIA is a particularly
relevant player in this connection because it publishes the Yearbook of
International Organizations, with official recognition by the ECOSOC, and
because it enjoys an excellent reputation in academia.
To give a more selective example of the terminology struggle regarding
NGOs, in a report prepared by what is now the Environmental Liaison
Centre International (ELCI) at the seat of the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) in Nairobi, a substitute for the term NGO was asked

245
 European Journal of International Relations 14(2)

for as early as the mid-1970s in order to recognize the positive attributes of

the diverse and uneven activity we have identified as contributing to values
and goals which are the substance of UNEPs mandate. Three fundamental
problems with the term NGO are identified in the report, namely: (1) in
many cultures non might be difficult to distinguish from anti; (2) non
might be understood as indicating deficiencies or a lack of independent qual-
ities; and (3) it is based on corporatist thought, associated here with the
manipulation of societal interests by political elites (Hayes, 1977). While the
ELCI Board at the time judged the report as being too political, and despite
its questionable narrowing down of the issue of corporatism, its long-term
success or foresightedness can be seen in the gradual departure from NGO
terminology within UNEP. In recent developments, UNEPs Civil Society
& NGOs Unit, created in 1999, has been replaced by the Major Groups
and Stakeholders Branch in 2004. For all non-legal purposes, UNEP has
largely gone over to address civil society organizations (CSOs), not NGOs
(e.g. Poulton and Simpson, 2004).
Nevertheless, in addition to the traditional administrative and increasing
scholarly use of the term NGO, there has been a certain adoption of this
language into common usage, in particular from the 1970s onwards
(Willetts, 2002). In fact, it has been maintained that the term NGO has
become popular among the activists themselves (Martens, 2002: 271).
Others claim that NGO and INGO are generic terms not used by the
organizations themselves (Hfner, 1995: 927). Be this as it may, obviously
the terms non-governmental organization and NGO are frequently used
in the discourse on transnational interactions today, not least by the media.
It is particularly remarkable that the acronym NGO is in use not only in the
English-speaking world but also in countries such as Germany and Sweden,
where it does not relate to a corresponding body of words.
However, while the legal and administrative United Nations term NGO
partly proliferates in unconventional arenas, it is clearly on the retreat in its
traditional strongholds. With the exception of UNESCO, by the same token
as UNEP, all other more well-known, specialized agencies and programmes
in the United Nations system have changed their terminology in favour of
civil society (organizations) as cover concept.6 Even the United Nations
itself, despite far-reaching adherence to the term NGO, starts on its web-
site by prominently addressing civil society, not NGOs. Programmatic UN
documents of recent origin, for example the Cardoso-report, likewise prefer
the term civil society (United Nations, 2004). In fact, some representatives
of NGOs with consultative status are worried about the increasing reference
to civil society in the UN Secretariat and about the use of this term as inter-
changeable with the term NGOs because they feel this tendency blurs an
important distinction that is made in the UN Charter (Paul, 1999). In plain

246
 Gtz: Reframing NGOs

language: it poses a danger to the privileged position of consultant NGOs as

compared to other segments of civil society. Generally speaking, from the
early 1990s onwards, a number of alternative designations have gained cur-
rency in international relations. While some of them, such as grass-roots
organization or community based organization, only refer to a particular
(here: local) level of organization, a term like civil society organization
(CSO) is obviously a strong alternative all the way from the local to the
global arena (Willetts, 2002).

Perspectives on Conceptual History

Interpreting this brief outline of the conceptual history of the term non-
governmental organization, it can be established that the term was neither
established as an import from ordinary language, nor as a self-description of
the organizations concerned, nor as a theoretical or scholarly category.
Rather, it entered the scene of world politics as a piece of government-speak
justifying a non-participatory approach and as a piece of technical UN jar-
gon (Willetts, 2002) used to keep the signified at a comfortable distance.
The term NGO was a heteronomous identifier from the perspective of diplo-
mats and governments, with a bold element of technocratic othering of the
signified organizations. Literally, the given entities were not attributed a posi-
tive identity apart from being recognized as organizations. On the contrary,
they were fenced around in a plain manner, piled in the catch-all or dustbin
category intended for an amorphous environment beyond the governmental
and inter-governmental arena. In systems theory, this amazingly outspoken
binarization would make a good textbook example of a system homogeniz-
ing its environment by means of a self-referential construction of difference.
It is worth noting that the term NGO was invented in a realm well known
for its consciously inaccurate and sometimes deceitful use of language, the
realm of diplomacy where, with all likelihood, it first achieved the status of a
standard expression (cf. Willetts, 1982: 1).
The terminological reframing that occurred at the San Francisco
Conference might also have been a consequence of the totalizing war-time
mobilization of the private sector in all countries, diminishing the perception
of this sector as genuinely private or representative of special interests as well
as increasing the plausibility of its redefinition as more unspecifically non-
governmental. Concerning the wording of Article 71, it might be relevant
that private is a concept that seemed neither attractive to the Soviet Union
in general nor appropriate for the WTUC. Nor did it correspond to the ini-
tial intention of establishing this organization as a specialized agency. The
formalization of a consultative relationship of nominally unitary state actors
in an intergovernmental organization with private organizations might also

247
 European Journal of International Relations 14(2)

have induced the choice of the bland title non-governmental organization

that downplays the potentially controversial non-aggregated partiality of the
latter (Willetts, 2002). It is regularly overlooked that the term non-govern-
mental organization was introduced in a context of banning, trimming, and
restraining the role of these organizations in multilateral arenas. The term is
the product of a liberalrealist pact that considers the individual as an entity
primarily defined by national polity (Otto, 1996: 129). Indeed, given the
largely uncontested standing of sovereign governments in official inter-
national relations now and then, the term non-governmental organization
can easily be read as stigmatizing a group of actors that is met with consid-
erable amount of reluctance and suspicion.
Given this background, it is easy to understand why the concept of NGOs
superseded alternatives in the scholarly discipline of International Relations
not only in descriptive studies on the United Nations, but in theorizing works
as well. In their prevalent variant, IR scholars have simply submitted to the
worldview of governments and diplomats. The term NGO refers directly to
the main units of analysis that the scientific community has defined as rele-
vant, namely states/governments, and it is in an inverse manner self-explana-
tory in regard to the supposed marginality of its content. Paradoxically, the
term NGO enjoys wide currency in International Relations precisely because
it is a non-starter by definition.
Moreover, the term NGO aptly serves as a marker of distinction of the
International Relations discipline vis-a-vis Political Science and Political
Theory in general. Because of their stronger focus on the plurality of societal
or political forces, the latter are naturally reluctant to adopt the concept of
NGOs and continue to favour competing terms with a positive content for
domestic purposes. Thus, Peter Willetts observation from the sphere of pol-
itics applies equally to the scientific discourse: while expressive terms such as
pressure group, private voluntary organization or civil society organization
could all be applied legitimately to most NGOs . . ., there is mutual con-
nivance in most political processes at the global level to hide behind the
uncontroversial catch-all term NGOs (Willetts, 2002). While the second half
of this statement is a mere reflection of the official governmental and scholarly
perception, in other contexts the same author has convincingly argued that ter-
minological choices matter if they carry a mental imagery of important/unim-
portant and that he himself prefers terms other than NGO (Willetts, 1982:
18, cf. 1). In sum, thanks to its idiosyncratic, apolitical and ultimately self-
defeating character, the term NGO is a natural darling for dominant
International Relations theory with its disregard of society and its prevalent dis-
ciplinary strategy of incremental professional dissociation from Political Science.
At present, we can observe a decline in the position of states and govern-
ments both in practical matters and in scholarly reflection and, thus, an

248
 Gtz: Reframing NGOs

implicit and sometimes explicit re-evaluation of the non-governmental also

becomes necessary. The unofficial, the grass-roots, the self-reliance, and pos-
sibly the anti-government connotations of non-governmental gain appeal,
not least among some NGO activists. However, the traditional mechanism
of allocating meaning works even beyond the inescapable logical dependency
of the negative from the positive. Of course, this is not to say that no useful
work has been or can be accomplished under the heading NGO. It is
unavoidable as a descriptive category in the United Nations system, and it
has become a cipher for the exchange of ideas on a polymorphic phenom-
enon not easily pinned down by any single term. However, the expression
non-governmental organizations remains part of a frame that is biased by a
governmental or statist outlook even there, where the perspective is not other-
wise distorted in this way.

Conclusion
As the international lawyer Alf Ross once prudently remarked (and was
approvingly cited by his colleague Philip C. Jessup), Normally it is both
hopeless and inadvisable to try to alter a generally accepted terminology. In
a predictable irony, both authors continue this serene thought by pointing
to a particular case in which they considered linguistic usage to be mislead-
ing to the extent that it seemed right to them to make the attempt to
improve on it (Ross, 1947: 73; Jessup, 1956: 2). In fact, Jessups suggestion
to replace the word international with the word transnational as a generic
term for actions or events that transcend national frontiers both public and
private has increasingly found supporters, although there is a tendency to
restrict its adoption to instances involving private actors.7
The approach taken in this article is more modest, not aiming to propose
a new and unfamiliar term. I suggest substituting the term non-govern-
mental organization with civil society organization or, preferably, associ-
ation, except in cases where the particular meaning is covered by the
definition presented below. However, the main thrust is not a call to replace
NGO with a particular competing concept, but on reframing NGOs in
order to take the terms ill-hidden agenda seriously and to explicate its latent
connotations.
Unfortunately, terminological and ultimately theoretical disarray continue
to be defining characteristics of the discourse on NGOs and civil society.
Typically, a gap exists between pretentious declarations and conceptual aspir-
ations. A characteristic and highly condensed example of the prevalent prac-
tice of concept-dropping rather than clarification is provided by Ann Florini
in her highly praised book, The Coming Democracy: The private sector and
the amorphous third sector of non-governmental organizations that are

249
 European Journal of International Relations 14(2)

grouped under the heading of civil society are becoming key figures in
transnational governance, filling some of the gaps that governments are leav-
ing open (2003: 15). Given the prevailing conceptual hotchpotch, it is an
advance to get any one of these will-o-the-wisps pinned down more pre-
cisely. This article has done just that, allowing for a theoretically and empir-
ically informed understanding of the concept of non-governmental
organizations.
The problem with definitions of non-governmental organizations so far
has been that scholars have tried to understand these organizations on their
own behalf, while the term, both logically and historically, is merely a declas-
sifying deduction from the governmental body politic. While many have
lamented this regrettable fact, recognition of this basic problem has gener-
ally not prevented them from trying to systematize intrinsic qualities of such
organizations. Yet, however well-articulated any such definition might
appear, the lack of independence of specific administrative practices makes
the term non-governmental organization ineligible for typological scholarly
purposes. It is simply impossible to define away a problematic semantic fig-
uration and an equally problematic political and intellectual history. The legacy
of pariah stigma, outsider status, and dependency on a graded accreditation
procedure in the hands of the governmental antipode is inescapable and
keeps on haunting the discourse on NGOs and global governance. Any pos-
itively defined concept, such as the various concepts regularly applied in dis-
cussions on domestic affairs, makes a better starting point for a substantial
definition than the idiosyncratic public administration term NGO.
What, then, could an appropriate praxis-based definition of non-govern-
mental organization look like? Apart from general requirements for defin-
itions, such as sufficiency, simplicity, and extensibility, it would have to reflect
the semantic and political dependency from the perspective of the sphere of
governments and intergovernmental collaboration. It would have to mirror
the conceptual history and the function of the label NGO in the context of
the Westphalian system and the consultative arrangements with intergovern-
mental organizations, assigning status and distributing assets and liabilities.
Finally, the definition would have to be relational and politics-oriented
instead of typological and polity-oriented. Given the background outlined
above, the following (descriptive rather than theoretical) definition is sug-
gested: A non-governmental organization (NGO) is a private body in its
capacity of being excluded, marginalized, graded, contained, or used by a gov-
ernment, an intergovernmental organization, or an observer.
This definition is strictly relational and conditional, properly taking its logical
point of departure from the governmental world, and reflective of essential
aspects of the semantic and pragmatic dimension of the concept, which users
of the term might often not be aware of. Despite the seemingly unfavourable

250
 Gtz: Reframing NGOs

scenario it describes, in no way can it be understood as an attempt to invent a

Third Sector of NGOs by the backdoor, analogous to the Third World and
the Third Estate, as a suppressed actor with a revolutionary mission in his-
tory. There is, on the one hand, in many cases legitimate reason for nation-
states and intergovernmental actors to treat them in the ways described above.
A meaningful evaluation of these practices can only be approached on a case-
by-case discussion. On the other hand, there is a whole range of positive iden-
tities and capacities available to NGOs, all of which appear even more
favourable in the light of the admitted lack of appeal of the above formula for
purposes of self-identification or neutral deliberation.
Bertil Dunr has ironically pushed NGO speak to the extreme by writing
a book titled The Art of NGO-ing (1999). Given the increasingly questioned
authority of governments and states and the growing self-confidence of non-
state actors trends likely to continue in the future it seems probable
that we will witness a further decline of formal NGO think both in the
International Relations discipline and practice, probably fuelled by positive
notions of civil society, a concept of distinctly greater richness and appeal
(Cohen and Arato, 1992; Keane, 1998; Anheier, 2004).8 Therefore, the sug-
gestion to replace the term NGO with post-governmental organization
(Sassen, 1999) is hardly an alternative to be taken seriously not to men-
tion the additional handicap of being reminiscent of the sterile discussions on
post-modernism. Rather, it seems likely we will see a continuation of the
incremental displacement of the term NGO by the somewhat unimagina-
tive and verbose civil society organization (CSO).
While this would certainly be a sign of maturity in the NGO sector as well
as in International Relations theory, the essence of civil society can be seen
as what Alexis de Tocqueville has called lart de lassociation, a term refer-
ring to both process and structure.9 Indeed, not only is the term associ-
ation delightfully ineligible for being made an acronym, it is also favoured
by some distinguished contemporary scholars and NGO activists. Jrgen
Habermas has depicted (voluntary) associations and their networks as the
organizational substratum of the general public of citizens and, thus, as the
core of civil society (1996: 3667).10 Likewise, in an influential article, Marc
Nerfin, president of the International Foundation for Development
Alternatives, suggested association as an alternative to the politically
unacceptable term NGO (1987: 173). The concept of association could
be a prolific point of departure for the definition of a Weberian ideal type as
a way to make sense of the family of NGO acronyms and other phenomena
beyond, but not untouched by, state and market. Given the diversity of civil
society activities, the need for a set of useful sub-categories, which could be
anchored in different fields of advocacy and service, is evident. Unfortunately,
despite the recent impact of Habermasian thought on International Relations

251
 European Journal of International Relations 14(2)

theorizing,11 there is little reason to lapse into optimism about the chance
that a sense for aesthetics and a common social science project will have an
impact on the language of mainstream actors in the practice and theory of
international relations. John Keane has encapsulated the critical issue of
framing as follows:
Hannah Arendt once observed that giving a stray dog a name greatly increases
its chances of staying alive. So might it be that a clearly articulated vision of
global civil society calling upon its friends to unite against misery and
unfreedom is a significant first step in the political task of re-naming our
world, of offering it hope by freshly defining its future? (Keane, 2003: xiii)

Scholars favouring rational choice and those favouring constructivist

approaches would, in many cases, likely agree that it would be nave to assume
that all names are equal. Indeed, the concept of language games could
become a common denominator transcending the rationalistconstructivist
divide in International Relations theory. As shown in this article, the intro-
duction of the concept NGO has had far-reaching consequences. Those
scholars, politicians and activists who are convinced civil society has a role to
play in international relations have good reason to stop overlooking the
implications brought to light in the political and scholarly debate regarding
the use of negative language.

Notes
Previous versions of this article have been presented at the Joint Seminar on
International Relations, Stockholm 15 March 2006, at the 47th Annual Convention of
the International Studies Association, San Diego 25 March 2006 and at the conference
of the European Voluntary Associations Network, Tallinn 24 November 2006. For
helpful comments and suggestions I am grateful to Kjell Engelbrekt, Leelo Linask,
Alynna J. Lyon, Mark Rhinard, Gunnar Sjstedt, Henrik Stenius and two anonymous
referees. Research for this article has been conducted within a project at the University
of Greifswald and has been supported by the German Research Foundation and the
Swedish Institute of International Affairs.

1. Lists of acronyms are, amongst others, provided by Alger (1999: 3945) and
Ikeorha (2005: 4651). On En-J-Oy: Keane (2003: 160).
2. An example for this wide understanding of non-state is Arts et al. (2001);
intergovernmental organizations are excluded by: Josselin and Wallace (2001);
examples for the (unusual) inclusion of business in the concept of non-
governmental are: Keane (2003: 89); Rechenberg (1997); Judge (1995).
Commercial enterprises like General Motors have been accredited to United
Nations Conferences as NGOs (Schechter, 2001: 184).
3. Besides New Zealand, the representatives of the Soviet Union, France, and China
spoke up in favour of WTUC admission.

252
 Gtz: Reframing NGOs

4. I owe this idea to Torbjrn Norman. Cf. Pickard (1956: 50, 54).
5. It is worth noting that Shotwell, in his personal account of post-war planning,
talks positively about non-governmental representatives at the ILO, see:
Shotwell (1945: 229).
6. This applies to FAO, ILO, IMF, UNCTAD, UNDP, UNICEF, WHO and the
World Bank, based on a review of their websites in February 2006. In contrast to
these specialized agencies, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner
for Human Rights (OHCHR) also sticks to the NGO terminology.
7. Jessup (1956: 2). See in particular the special issue on Transnational Relations
and World Politics in International Organizations 25(3); Risse-Kappen (1995);
Keck and Sikkink (1998).
8. This is not to say that the concept is without problems, see Amoore and Langley
(2004).
9. Tocqueville (1951: 124) speaks of lart de lassociation. Tellingly, the richness of
the original expression was carried by Henry Reeves 18th-century translation as
the art of association (Tocqueville, 1899: II ch. 7), but in a way characteristic
of the 1960s belief in positivist social engineering misunderstood by George
Lawrence as a bare technology of association (Tocqueville, 1969: 522).
10. Cf. the definition of NGOs as voluntary associations by Willetts (2002); in the
German original Habermas uses terms like Assoziationen, Assoziationswesen,
Assoziationsverhltnisse, Vereinigungen, Organisationen, and Bewegungen
(1992: 4434).
11. See the special section on Habermas and IR theory in Review of International
Studies 31(1); see also: Risse (2000).

References
Alger, Chadwick F. (1999) Strengthening Relations between NGOs and the UN
System: Toward a Research Agenda, Global Society 13(4): 393409.
Alger, Chadwick F. (2003) Evolving Roles of NGOs in Member State Decision-
Making in the UN System, Journal of Human Rights 2(3): 40724.
Allain, Annelies (1989) IBFAN: On the Cutting Edge, Development Dialogue 2: 538.
Amoore, Louise and Paul Langley (2004) Ambiguities of Global Civil Society,
Review of International Studies 30(1): 89110.
Anheier, Helmut K. (2004) Civil Society: Measurement, Evaluation, Policy. London:
Earthscan.
Arts, Bas, Math Noortmann and Bob Reinalda (eds) (2001) Non-State Actors in
International Relations. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Aston, Jurij Daniel (2001) The United Nations Committee on Non-Governmental
Organizations: Guarding the Entrance to a Politically Divided House, European
Journal of International Law 12(5): 94362.
Baylis, John and Steve Smith (eds) (2005) The Globalization of World Politics: An
Introduction to International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bock, Edwin A. (1955) Representation of Non-Governmental Organizations at the
United Nations. Chicago, IL: Public Administration Clearing House.

253
 European Journal of International Relations 14(2)

Boli, John and George M. Thomas (1999) INGOs and the Organization of World
Culture, in John Boli and George M. Thomas (eds) Constructing World Culture:
International Nongovernmental Organizations Since 1875, pp. 1349, 3038.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Boutros-Ghali, Boutros (1995) Keynote Address to the 47th DPI/NGO Conference,
Transnational Associations 47(6): 3459.
Carlsnaes, Walter, Thomas Risse and Beth A. Simmons (eds) (2002) Handbook of
International Relations. London: Sage.
Chiang, Pei-heng (1981) Non-Governmental Organizations at the United Nations:
Identity, Role, and Function. New York: Praeger.
Cohen, Jean L. and Andrew Arato (1992) Civil Society and Political Theory.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Corell, Elisabeth and Michele M. Betsill (2001) NGO Influence in International
Environmental Negotiations: A Framework for Analysis, Global Environmental
Politics 1(4): 6585.
DeMars, William E. (2005) NGOs and Transnational Networks: Wild Cards in World
Politics. London: Pluto.
Dunr, Bertil (1997) The Fight for Greater NGO Participation in the UN, Security
Dialogue 28: 30115.
Dunr, Bertil (1999) The Art of NGO-ing. Research Report 32. Stockholm: Swedish
Institute of International Affairs.
ECOSOC (1946) 3: Arrangements for Consultation with Non-Governmental
Organizations, Economic and Social Council, Official Records 2, Annex 14: 4816.
ECOSOC (1950a) 288B (X): Arrangements for Consultation with Non-Governmental
Organizations, Resolutions adopted by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
during its session 10: 2433.
ECOSOC (1968) 1296 (XLIV): Arrangements for Consultation with Non-
Governmental Organizations, Resolutions adopted by the Economic and Social
Council (ECOSOC) during its session 44: 216.
ECOSOC (1996) 1996/31: Consultative Relationship between the United Nations
and Non-Governmental Organizations, Resolutions and Decisions of the Economic
and Social Council: 5361.
Edwards, Michael (1998/99) Are NGOs Overrated? Why and How to Say No,
Current Issues in Comparative Education 1(1): 5561.
Eichelberger, Clark M. (1977) Organizing for Peace: A Personal History of the
Founding of the United Nations. New York: Harper & Row.
Fenaux, Robert (1978) The Transnational Family of Associations (INGOs) and the
New World Order, Transnational Associations 30(4): 1929.
Florini, Ann M. (2003) The Coming Democracy: New Rules for Running a New
World. Washington, DC: Island Press.
FRUS (1945) Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers 1945, vol. 1:
General: The United Nations. Washington, DC: Department of State (published
1967).
Ghils, Paul (1992) International Civil Society: International Non-governmental
Organizations in the International System, International Social Science Journal
44: 41729.

254
 Gtz: Reframing NGOs

Ginsburg, Mark B. (1998/99) NGOs: Whats in an Acronym?, Current Issues in

Comparative Education 1(1): 2934.
Habermas, Jrgen (1992) Faktizitt und Geltung: Beitrge zur Diskurstheorie des
Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.
Habermas, Jrgen (1996) Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse
Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Halliday, Fred (2001) The Romance of Non-state Actors, in Daphn Josselin and
William Wallace (eds) Non-state Actors in World Politics, pp. 2137. Basingstoke:
Palgrave.
Hayes, Peter (1977) The Term NGO: Provisional Comments by the NGO
Environment Liaison Centre, Nairobi, Transnational Associations 29(4): 1368.
Hfner, Klaus (1995) Non-Governmental Organizations, in Rdiger Wolfrum (ed.)
United Nations: Law, Policies and Practice, vol. 2, pp. 92735. Mnchen: Beck.
Ikeorha, Offiaji Dele-Israel (2005) NGOs in the Twenty-First Century. Kaduna:
Network Publishers. Available from: http://cangoshq.tripod.com/21stcen-
tury.pdf. Accessed 20 April 2006.
Iriye, Akira (2002) Global Community: The Role of International Organizations in
the Making of the Contemporary World. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Jessup, Philip C. (1956) Transnational Law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Josselin, Daphn and William Wallace (eds) (2001) Non-state Actors in World Politics.
Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Judge, Anthony (1995) NGOs and Civil Society: Some Realities and Distortions:
The Challenge of Necessary-to-Governance Organizations (NGOs),
Transnational Associations 47(3): 15680.
Judge, Anthony (1997) Interacting Fruitfully with Un-Civil Society: The Dilemma
for Non-civil Society Organizations, Transnational Associations 49: 12432.
Judge, Anthony (2003) Global Civil Society: Strategic Comments on The Path
Ahead Discussion Paper, Brussels. Available from: http://www.laetusinprae-
sens.org/docs00s/civahead.php. Accessed 20 April 2006.
Keane, John (1998) Civil Society: Old Images, New Visions. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Keane, John (2003) Global Civil Society? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Keck, Margaret E. and Kathryn Sikkink (1998) Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy
Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Kissling, Claudia (forthcoming) The Evolution of CSOs Legal Status in
International Governance and its Relevance for the Legitimacy of International
Organizations, in Jens Steffek, Claudia Kissling and Patrizia Nanz (eds) Civil
Society Participation in European and Global Governance: A Cure for the Democratic
Deficit? Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Korten, David C. (1990) Getting to the 21st Century: Voluntary Action and the
Global Agenda. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian.
Koselleck, Reinhart (1992) Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kriesberg, Louis (1997) Social Movements and Global Transformation, in Jackie Smith,
Charles Chatfield and Ron Pagnucco (eds) Transnational Social Movements and Global
Politics: Solidarity Beyond the State, pp. 318. Syracuse, NY: University Press.

255
 European Journal of International Relations 14(2)

Luhmann, Niklas (1982) Interaction, Organization, and Society, in Niklas Luhmann

(ed.) The Differentiation of Society, pp. 6989. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Martens, Kerstin (2002) Mission Impossible? Defining Nongovernmental
Organizations, Voluntas 13(3): 27185.
Martens, Kerstin (2005) NGOs and the United Nations: Institutionalization,
Professionalization and Adaptation. New York: Palgrave.
Mearsheimer, John J. (2001) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: Norton.
Morozov, Grigorij I. (1971) Internationale Organisationen: Ihre Rolle im Prozess der
Vernderung des internationalen Klassenkrfteverhltnisses. Berlin: Staatsverlag.
Natsios, Andrew S. (1996) NGOs and the UN System in Complex Humanitarian
Emergencies: Conflict or Cooperation, in Thomas Weiss and Leon Gordenker
(eds) NGOs, the UN, and Global Governance, pp. 6781. Boulder, CO: Rienner.
Nerfin, Marc (1987) Neither Prince nor Merchant: Citizen An Introduction to
the Third System, Development Dialogue 1: 17095.
Otto, Dianne (1996) Nongovernmental Organizations in the United Nations
System: The Emerging Role of International Civil Society, Human Rights
Quarterly 18(1): 10741.
Paul, James A. (1999) NGOs and the United Nations: Comments for the Report of the
Secretary General, New York: Global Policy Forum. Available from: http://www.
globalpolicy.org/ngos/docs99/gpfrep2.htm. Accessed 20 April 2006.
Pickard, Bertram (1956) The Greater United Nations: An Essay Concerning the Place
and Significance of International Non-governmental Organizations. New York:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Poulton, Naomi and David Simpson (2004) Natural Allies: UNEP and Civil Society.
Nairobi: UNEP.
Rechenberg, Hermann (1997) Non-Governmental Organizations, in Rudolf
Bernhardt (ed.) Encyclopedia of Public International Law, vol. 3: Jan Mayen to
Pueblo Incident, pp. 6128. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Risse, Thomas (2000) Lets Argue!: Communicative Action in World Politics,
International Organization 54(1): 139.
Risse, Thomas (2002) Transnational Actors and World Politics, in Walter Carlsnaes,
Thomas Risse and Beth A. Simmons (eds) Handbook of International Relations,
pp. 25574. London: Sage.
Risse-Kappen, Thomas (ed.) (1995) Bringing Transnational Relations Back In: Non-
State Actors, Domestic Structures and International Institutions. Cambridge Studies
in International Relations 42. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Robins, Dorothy B. (1971) Experiment in Democracy: The Story of US Citizen
Organizations in Forging the Charter of the United Nations. New York: Parkside.
Ross, Alf (1947) A Textbook of International Law: General Part. London: Longman.
Russell, Ruth B. (1958) A History of The United Nations Charter: The Role of the
United States 19401945. Washington, DC: Brookings.
Salamon, Lester M. and Helmut K. Anheier (1997a) Introduction: In Search of the
Nonprofit Sector, in Lester M. Salamon and Helmut K. Anheier (eds) Defining
the Nonprofit Sector: A Cross-national Analysis, pp. 18. Manchester: Manchester
University Press.

256
 Gtz: Reframing NGOs

Salamon, Lester M. and Helmut K. Anheier (1997b) The Challenge of Definition:

Thirteen Realities in Search of a Concept, in Lester M. Salamon and Helmut K.
Anheier (eds) Defining the Nonprofit Sector: A Cross-national Analysis, pp. 1128.
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Sassen, Saskia (1999) A New Geography of Power?, New York: Global Policy
Forum. Available from: http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/sassen.htm.
Accessed 20 April 2006.
Schechter, Michael (2001) Making Meaningful UN-sponsored World Conferences in
the 1990s, in Michael Schechter (ed.) United Nations-sponsored World Conferences:
Focus on Impact and Follow-up, pp. 184217. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
Seary, Bill (1996) The Early History: From the Congress of Vienna to the San Francisco
Conference, in Peter Willetts (ed.) The Conscience of the World: The Influence of
Non-Governmental Organisatons in the UN System, pp. 1530. London: Hurst.
Sharp, Walter R. (1968) The United Nations Economic and Social Council. Columbia
University Studies in International Organization 5. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Shestack, Jerome J. (1978) Sisyphus Endures: The International Human Rights
NGO, New York Law School Law Review 24(1): 89123.
Shotwell, James T. (1945) The Great Decision. New York: Macmillan.
Skinner, Quentin (2002) Visions of Politics, vol. 1: Regarding Method. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Snider, Christy Jo (2003) The Influence of Transnational Peace Groups on US
Foreign Policy Decision-Makers during the 1930s: Incorporating NGOs into the
UN, Diplomatic History 27: 377404.
Stettinius, Edward R. (1945) Charter of the United Nations: Report to the President
on the Results of the San Francisco Conference. Washington, DC: Government.
Stromquist, Nelly P. (1998/99) NGOs in a New Paradigm of Civil Society,
Current Issues in Comparative Education 1(1): 627.
Tavares de S, Hernane (1966) The Play Within the Play: The Inside Story of the UN.
New York: Knopf.
Tocqueville, Alexis de (1899) Democracy in America. New York: Colonial Press.
Available from: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper/detoc/ch2_07.htm.
Tocqueville, Alexis de (1951) uvres compltes, vol. 1: De la dmocratie en Amrique,
vol. 2. Paris: Gallimard.
Tocqueville, Alexis de (1969) Democracy in America. Garden City, NY: Anchor.
UNCIO (19451955) Documents of the United Nations Conference on International
Organization, San Francisco, 1945, vol. 122. London: United Nations
Information Organization.
United Nations (1955) Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs, vol. 3:
Articles 5572 of the Charter. New York.
United Nations (1992) Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development, Rio de Janeiro, 314 June 1992, vol. I: Resolutions Adopted by the
Conference. New York.
United Nations (2004) We the Peoples: Civil Society, the United Nations and Global
Governance: Report of the Panel of Eminent Persons on United NationsCivil Society
Relations. New York.

257
 European Journal of International Relations 14(2)

United Nations (2005) NGOs and the United Nations Department of Public
Information: Some Questions and Answers. New York. Available from:
http://www.un.org/dpi/ngosection/brochure.htm. Accessed 20 April 2006.
US Government (1945) United States Government Manual.
Wendt, Alexander (1999) Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge Studies
in International Relations 67. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
WFTU (1945) Report of the World Trade Union Conference Congress: September 25
October 8 1945, Palais de Chaillot, Paris. Paris: World Federation of Trade Unions.
White, Lyman Cromwell (1951) International Non-Governmental Organizations:
Their Purposes, Methods, and Accomplishments. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press.
Willetts, Peter (1982) Pressure Groups as Transnational Actors, in Peter Willetts
(ed.) Pressure Groups in the Global System: The Transnational Relations of Issue-
Oriented Non-Governmental Organizations, pp. 127. London: Pinter.
Willetts, Peter (1996) Consultative Status for NGOs at the United Nations, in Peter
Willetts (ed.) The Conscience of the World: The Influence of Non-Governmental
Organisatons in the UN System, pp. 3162. London: Hurst.
Willetts, Peter (2002) What is a Non-Governmental Organization?, in UNESCO
(ed.) Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems: Encyclopedia of Institutional and
Infrastructural Resources. Oxford: Eolss Publishers: Available from
http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/CS-NTWKS/NGO-ART.HTM).
Accessed 20 April 2006.
Woodbridge, George (ed.) (1950) UNRRA: The History of the United Nations Relief
and Rehabilitation Administration, vol. 13. New York: Columbia University Press.
WTUC (1945) Report of the World Trade Union Conference, County Hall, London,
February 6th to 17th, 1945. London: Trades Union Congress.

258