Non-governmental organizations coalition in influencing global agenda
This study aims to show how a coalition of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) can influence the human rights agenda. This study relies on the advocacy coalition Framework (ACF) assumption that multiple varieties of actors involved in the policy process may combine to form coalitions. This study examines how Amnesty International (AI), Human Rights Watch (HRW), and the International Crisis Group (ICG) formed a coalition to advocate for measures to address humanitarian crises in Sri Lanka and Darfur. This study employed qualitative research methods and relied on secondary sources related to the topic. The findings show that a coalition formed by human rights organizations can influence policies adopted by the international community and can also influence actions taken by national communities. This study concludes that just as states need to form a coalition with other states or work as “allies” to promote human rights on a national and global level, NGOs also function in a similar manner.
Afp C (2009) NGOs urge Japan to save Tamil civilians in Lanka. The Daily Star, 12 May. [Accessed 16 August 2021]. https://www.thedailystar.net/news-detail-87872.
Albright EA (2011) Policy change and learning in response to extreme flood events in Hungary: An advocacy coalition approach. Policy studies journal 39 (3):485-511. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00418.x.
Amnesty International (2006) Joint letter to UN Security Council. Amnesty International, 24 May. [Accessed 14 August 2021]. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ior40/025/2006/en/.
Amnesty International (2010a) UN must investigate Sri Lanka Rights violations. Amnesty International, 17 May. [Accessed 17 April 2021]. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2010/05/un-mustinvestigate-sri-lanka-rights-violations/.
Amnesty International (2010b) Sri Lanka: International inquiry needed to address alleged war crimes (Joint Letter to the Lessons Learned & Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) on Sri Lanka from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch & International Crisis Group). Amnesty International, 14 October. [Accessed 10 June 2022]. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa37/015/2010/en/.
Amnesty International (2004) Sudan, Darfur: “too many people killed for no reason”. International Secretariat. Amnesty International, 3 February. [Accessed 10 June 2022]. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/afr54/008/2004/en/.
Bellamy AJ (2013) The responsibility to protect: Added value or hot air? Cooperation and Conflict 48 (3):333-357. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0010836713482448.
Bellamy AJ & Williams PD (2011) The new politics of protection? Côte d’Ivoire, Libya and the responsibility to protect. International Affairs 87 (4):825-850. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2346.2011.01006.x.
Capella ACN (2016) Agenda-setting policy: strategies and agenda denial mechanisms. Organizações & Sociedade 23 (79):675-691. https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-9230713.
Gardachew BD (2021) The rhetoric and reality of the AU peace operations in Darfur (Sudan): Is the ‘African Solution’enough? African Security Review 30 (2):247-267. https://doi.org/10.1080/10246029.2021.1898999.
Haar RN & Pierce JJ (2021) Foreign policy change from an advocacy coalition framework perspective. International Studies Review 23 (4):1771-1791. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viab044.
Haugbolle S & Hastrup A (ed) (2013) The Politics of Violence, Truth and Reconciliation in The Arab Middle East. London & New York: Routledge.
Heinmiller BT, Osei EM, & Danso E (2021) Investigating ACF policy change theory in a unitary policy subsystem: The case of Ghanaian public sector information policy. International Review of Public Policy 3 (3:1). https://doi.org/10.4000/irpp.1894.
Henry AD, Ingold K, Nohrstedt D, & Weible CM (2014) Policy change in comparative contexts: Applying the advocacy coalition framework outside of Western Europe and North America. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 16 (4):299-312. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2014.941200.
Human Rights Watch (2004) Abuses in Darfur by government forces. [Accessed 17 April 2021]. https://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/sudan0404/4.htm.
Human Rights Watch (2018) Sri Lanka. [Accessed 17 April 2021]. https://www.hrw.org/asia/sri-lanka.
Human Rights Watch (2009) Joint letter to Japanese prime minister on Sri Lanka. [Accessed 22 April 2022]. https://www.hrw.org/news/2009/05/10/joint-letter-japanese-prime-minister-sri-lanka.
Ingold K (2011) Network structures within policy processes: Coalitions, power, and brokerage in Swiss climate policy. Policy studies journal 39 (3):435-459.
International Crisis Group (2010b) Sri Lanka: Crisis group refuses to appear before flawed commission. International Crisis Group, 14 October. [Accessed 22 April 2022]. https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south-asia/sri-lanka/sri-lanka-crisis-group-refuses-appear-flawed-commission.
International Crisis Group (2010a)War crimes in Sri Lanka. International Crisis Group, 17 May. [Accessed 17 April 2021]. https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south-asia/sri-lanka/war-crimes-sri-lanka.
Jenkins-Smith HC, Nohrstedt D, Weible, CM, & Ingold K (2018) The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Overview of the Research Program. In: Weible CM & Sabatier PA (ed). Theories of the Policy Process. New York: Routledge. 135-171.
Jenkins-Smith HC, Nohrstedt D, Weible CM, & Sabatier PA (2014) The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Foundations, Evolution, and Ongoing Research. Theories of the Policy Process 3: 183-224.
Jumbert MG (2014) How Sudan’s ‘rogue’state label shaped US responses to the Darfur conflict: what’s the problem and who’s in charge? Third World Quarterly 35 (2):284-299. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2014.878490.
Jumbert MG & Lanz D (2013) Globalised rebellion: The Darfur insurgents and the world. The Journal of modern African studies 51 (2):193-217. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022278X13000177.
Mohajan HK (2018) Qualitative research methodology in social sciences and related subjects. Journal of Economic Development, Environment and People 7 (1):23-48.
Mohan R (2014) Seasons of Trouble: Life Amid the Ruins of Sri Lanka’s Civil War. Verso Books.
Moy P, Tewksbury D, & Rinke EM (2016) Agenda‐setting, priming, and framing. The International Encyclopedia of Communication Theory and Philosophy. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118766804.wbiect266.
Ndungu LW (2011) UN Security Council decision making and conflict management in Africa: case study of 1994 Rwanda genocide and Darfur war, 2003-2010. Dissertation, University of Nairobi, Kenya.
Nick Champion (2012) Lesson learnt and reconciliation commission report and worldwide reactions, structural genocide occurring in North East Sri Lanka (Tamil Eelam), should international community act now? [Accessed 16 August 2021]. http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=9045a2bb-51e8-4f06-9897-c11876a0d3e7.
Pattison J (2010) Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: Who Should Intervene? New York: OUP Oxford.
Pely D (2017) Quasi‐Customary dispute resolution mechanisms in Israel’s Darfuri refugees. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 35 (1):111-140. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21198.
Petrie C (2012) Report of the secretary-general’s internal review panel on United Nations action in Sri Lanka. United Nation, Digital Library.
Pierce JJ (2011) Coalition stability and belief change: Advocacy coalitions in US foreign policy and the creation of Israel, 1922-44. Policy Studies Journal 39 (3):411-434. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00415.x.
Roth A, Gray J, Shockley J, & Weng H (2015) The use of secondary source data for measuring performance in operations management research. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2271202.
Sabatier PA (2019) Fostering the Development of Policy Theory. In: Weible CM & Sabatier PA (ed). Theories of the policy process. New York: Routledge. 321-336.
Sabatier PA & Weible CM (2019) The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Innovations and Clarifications. In: Weible CM & Sabatier PA (ed). Theories of the policy process. New York: Routledge. 189-220.
Taha H (2011) The failure to protect, again: a comparative study of international and regional reactions towards humanitarian disasters in Rwanda and Darfur. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing.
Toïngar É (2014) Idriss Deby and the Darfur Conflict. Jefferson: McFarland.
Totten S (2011) An Oral and Documentary History of the Darfur Genocide [2 Volumes]. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.
United Nations (2004) Report of the international commission of inquiry on Darfur to the United Nations secretary-general. [Accessed 13 August 2021]. https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/files/com_inq_darfur.pdf.
United Nations Security Council (2004) Reports of the secretary-general on the Sudan. UNSCR, 30 July. [Accessed 13 August 2021]. http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/1556.
United Nations Security Council (2006) Reports of the secretary-general on the Sudan. UNSCR, 31 August. [Accessed 13 August 2021]. http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/1706.
Weible CM, Ingold K, Nohrstedt D, Henry AD, & Jenkins‐Smith HC (2020) Sharpening advocacy coalitions. Policy Studies Journal 48 (4):1054-1081. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12360.
Wolfe M, Jones BD, & Baumgartner FR (2013) A failure to communicate: Agenda setting in media and policy studies. Political Communication 30 (2):175-192. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2012.737419.
Yap J & Scott C (2010) The breakdown of the rule of law in Sri Lanka: An overview. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1682133.
Yass S (2014) Sri Lanka and the Tamil tigers: Conflict and legitimacy. Military and Strategic Affairs 6 (2):65-82
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright of this journal is possession of Editorial Board and Journal Manager, by the knowledge of the author, while the moral right of the publication belongs to the author.
The formal legal aspect of journal publication accessibility refers to Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA), implies that publication can be used for non-commercial purposes in its original form (cannot be modified).
Every publication (printed/electronic) are open access for educational purposes, research, and library. Other than the aims mentioned above, the editorial board is not responsible for copyright violation.