Improving human rights NGO ethics and accountability: A critique of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and human rights utopianism

Abstract

This commentary calls for a more critical relationship with human rights NGOs, specifically, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. I argue that their politics, positionality, and power are often obscured by their conflation as intrinsically imperfect organizations that yield power and influence with the moral principles of human rights and with international human rights law itself, which are popularly perceived as unimpeachable and sacred in a secular ethical way. I contend that this conflation—often a deliberate and strategic one espoused by the organizations themselves—undermines the integrity of their work and the capacity to hold them accountable for their human rights advocacy. I illustrate ways in which both organizations have neglected to respect human rights and, specifically, principles of equality and universality. I further argue that both organizations need to be humbler and more honest about the moral, legal, and practical limitations of their work and ways in which it can be compromised. This is due to the exigencies of donor dependency and the politics of fundraising, the social, cultural, and political contexts in which the organizations operate and the expectations and demands of their supporters, and the nature of human rights as a movement, body of law, and expression of moral idealism that can sometimes obscure its prejudices, assumptions, and pathologies of power.