|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amnesty International (commonly known as Amnesty or AI) is a non-governmental organization (NGO) comprising "a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights".[1] Founded in the UK in 1961, AI compares actual practices of human rights with internationally accepted standards and demands compliance where these have not been respected. It works to mobilize public opinion in the belief that it is this which has the power to exert pressure on those who perpetrate abuses.
RationaleThe rationale of Amnesty International is formed from several key ideas. It argues that
Early history: 1961-1979 and origins
Amnesty International was founded in July of 1961, by the English lawyer Peter Benenson, who had converted to Roman Catholicism in 1958. The idea for Amnesty International was conceived when, travelling to work one morning, he read of the plight of these two students in the news. Benenson also traced the idea back to the Spanish Civil War, and he was aware of existing activism in the area, notably the communist-backed 'Appeal for Amnesty in Spain'. Benenson, in consultation with other writers, academics and lawyers, particularly the Quaker peace activist Eric Baker, wrote via Louis Blom-Cooper to David Astor, editor of The Observer newspaper, who, on May 28, 1961, published Benenson's article The Forgotten Prisoners. The article brought the reader’s attention to those “imprisoned, tortured or executed because his opinions or religion are unacceptable to his government”[3] or, put another way, to violations, by governments, of articles 18 and 19 of the UDHR. The article described these violations occurring, on a global scale, in the context of restrictions to press freedom, to political oppositions, to timely public trial before impartial courts, and to asylum. It also launched 'Appeal for Amnesty, 1961', the aim of which was to mobilize public opinion, quickly and widely, in defence of these individuals who Benenson named "Prisoners of Conscience". In the same year Benenson had a book published, Persecution 1961, which detailed the cases of several prisoners of conscience investigated and compiled by Benenson and Baker.[4] What started as a short appeal soon became a permanent international movement, ‘Amnesty International’, working to protect those imprisoned for non-violent expression of their views and to secure worldwide recognition of Articles 18 and 19 of the UDHR. From the very beginning, research and campaigning were present in Amnesty International’s work. A library was established for information about prisoners of conscience and a network of local groups, called ‘THREES’ groups, was started. Each group worked on behalf of three prisoners, one from each of the then three main ideological regions of the world: communist, capitalist and developing. By the mid-1960s Amnesty International’s global presence was growing and an International Secretariat and International Executive Committee was established to manage Amnesty International’s national organizations, called ‘Sections’, which had appeared in several countries. The international movement was starting to agree its core principles and techniques. For example, the issue of whether or not to adopt prisoners who had advocated violence, like Nelson Mandela, brought unanimous agreement that it could not give the name of ‘Prisoner of Conscience’ to such prisoners. Aside from the work of the library and groups, Amnesty International’s activities were expanding to helping prisoner’s families, sending observers to trials, making representations to governments, and finding asylum or overseas employment for prisoners. Its activity and influence was also increasing within intergovernmental organizations; it would be awarded consultative status by the United Nations, the Council of Europe and UNESCO before the decade was out.
Amnesty International drew together reports from countries where torture allegations seemed most persistent and organized an international conference on torture. It sought to influence public opinion in order to put pressure on national governments by organizing a campaign for the ‘Abolition of Torture’ which ran for several years. Amnesty International’s membership increased from 15,000 in 1969[5] to 200,000 by 1979.[6] This growth in resources enabled an expansion of its program, ‘outside of the prison walls’, to include work on “disappearances”, the death penalty and the rights of refugees. A new technique, the ‘Urgent Action’, aimed at mobilizing the membership into action rapidly was pioneered. The first was issued on March 19, 1973, on behalf of Luiz Basilio Rossi, a Brazilian academic, arrested for political reasons. At the intergovernmental level Amnesty International pressed for application of the UN’s Standard Minimum Prison Rules and of existing humanitarian conventions; to secure ratifications of the two UN Covenants on Human Rights (which came into force in 1976); and was instrumental in obtaining UN Resolution 3059 which formally denounced torture and called on governments to adhere to existing international instruments and provisions forbidding its practice. Consultative status was granted at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in 1972. Recent history: 1980-2005By 1980, Amnesty International, now a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and a UN Human Rights Prize winner, was drawing more criticism from governments. The USSR was alleging that Amnesty International conducted espionage, the Moroccan government denounced it as a defender of lawbreakers, and in Argentina, Amnesty International’s 1983 annual report was banned. Such hostility made defending human rights a dangerous occupation in some countries. Throughout the 80s, Amnesty International continued to campaign for prisoners of conscience and of torture, and on the other issues added to its mandate over the years. Again new issues emerged including: extrajudicial killings; military, security and police transfers; political killings; and “disappearances” (especially under military dictatorships in Latin America). Towards the end of the decade the growing numbers, worldwide, of refugees was a very visible area of Amnesty International’s concern. While many of the world’s refugees of the time had been displaced by war and famine, in adherence to its mandate, Amnesty International concentrated on those forced to flee because of the human rights violations it was seeking to prevent. It argued that rather than focusing on new restrictions on entry for asylum-seekers, governments ought to address the human rights violations which were forcing people into exile. Apart from a second campaign on torture during the first half of the decade, the major campaign of the 80s was the ‘Human Rights Now!’ tour which featured many of the famous musicians and bands of the day playing concerts to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the UDHR. Throughout the 1990s Amnesty International, now with a membership of one million[7] led by Senegalese Secretary General Pierre Sané, worked on a wide range of issues and world events. Amnesty International was forced to react to human rights violations occurring in the context of a proliferation of armed conflict in: Angola, East Timor, the Persian Gulf, Rwanda, Somalia and the former Yugoslavia. Amnesty International took no position on whether to support or oppose external military interventions in these armed conflicts. It did not (and does not) reject the use of force, even lethal force, or ask those engaged to lay down their arms. Rather it questioned the motives behind external intervention and selectivity of international action in relation to the strategic interests of those sending troops. It argued that action should be taken in time to prevent human rights problems becoming human rights catastrophes and that both intervention and inaction represented a failure of the international community. However, Amnesty International was proactive in pushing for recognition of the universality of human rights. The campaign ‘Get Up, Sign Up’ marked 50 years of the UDHR. Thirteen million pledges were collected in support of the Declaration and a music concert was held in Paris on December 10, 1998 (Human Rights Day). In particular, Amnesty International brought attention to violations committed on specific groups including: refugees, racial/ethnic/religious minorities, women and those executed or on death row. The death penalty report When the state kills and the ‘Human Rights are Women's Rights’ campaign were key actions for the latter two issues and demonstrate that Amnesty International was still very much a reporting and campaigning organization. At the intergovernmental level, Amnesty International argued in favour of creating a United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (established 1993) and an International Criminal Court (established 2002). Post 2000, Amnesty International’s agenda turned to the challenges arising from globalization and the effects of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US. The issue of globalization provoked a major shift in Amnesty International policy, as the scope of its work was widened to include economic, social and cultural rights, an area that it had declined to work on in the past. Amnesty International felt this shift was important, not just to give credence to its principle of the indivisibility of rights, but because of the growing power of companies and the undermining of many nation states as a result of globalization. In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the new Amnesty International Secretary General, Irene Khan, reported that a senior government official had said to Amnesty International delegates: "Your role collapsed with the collapse of the Twin Towers in New York".[8] In the years following the attacks, some of the gains made by human rights organizations over previous decades were eroded. Amnesty International argued that human rights were the basis for the security of all, not a barrier to it. Criticism came directly from the Bush administration and The Washington Post, when Khan, in 2005, likened the US government’s detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to a Soviet Gulag.[9][10] During the first half of the new decade Amnesty International turned its attention to violence against women, controls on the world arms trade and concerns surrounding the effectiveness of the UN. Its membership, close to two million by 2005,[11] continued to work for prisoners of conscience. WorkAmnesty International’s vision is of a world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards. This mission translates into specific aims which are to:
Amnesty International targets not only governments, but also non governmental bodies and private individuals (non state actors). To further these aims Amnesty International has developed several techniques to publicize information and mobilize public opinion. The organization considers as one of its strengths the publication of impartial and accurate reports. Reports are researched by interviewing victims and officials, observing trials, working with local human rights activists and by monitoring the media. It aims to issue timely press releases and publishes information in newsletters and on web sites. It also sends official missions to countries to make courteous but insistent inquiries. Campaigns to mobilize public opinion can take the form of individual, country or thematic campaigns. Many techniques are deployed such as direct appeals (for example, letter writing), media and publicity work and public demonstrations. Often fund-raising is integrated with campaigning. In situations which require immediate attention, Amnesty International calls on existing urgent action networks or crisis response networks; for all other matters it calls on its membership. It considers the large size of its human resources to be another one of its key strengths. One of the most controversial issues the organization currently faces in the scope of its work is that of its position on abortion. It is argued that under certain circumstances abortion is a human right and so AI should recognize it as such; while many AI members support this stance, many others are fundamentally opposed to it and reject the premise on which the argument is founded. AI’s current position is to adopt a neutral stance on the issue and at a meeting in Mexico in August 2007 the International Council will decide whether or not to retain this stance; the Council will also consider a number of other proposals which may include advocating the right to abortion in certain circumstances and campaigning for its decriminalization and legalization in relevant countries. The topic is highly controversial within the organization. The organization's position is that a final decision will not be taken until the August 2007 meeting and membership consultation will continue until then. In the meantime, senior figures in the Catholic Church (which has traditionally been a strong supporter of AI) and a group of US legislators have been among those who have condemned any moves that would change AI's policy on abortion and warned the organization that the issue could divide its membership. OrganizationImage:Amnesty International Sections 2005.png Amnesty International Sections, 2005 Amnesty International is largely made up of voluntary members but retains a small number of paid professionals. Its organization is intended to reflect its principles of international solidarity and democracy. Members are organized according to various models depending on the strength of presence in a particular country. The movement is most established in the West, less so in the global South and East. In countries where Amnesty International has a strong presence, members are organized as ‘Sections’. Sections coordinate basic Amnesty International activities normally with a significant volume of members (some of whom will form into ‘Groups’) and a professional staff, each have a board of directors. In 2005, worldwide, there were 52 Sections. ‘Structures’ are aspiring Sections, they too coordinate basic activities but have a smaller membership and a limited staff. In countries where no Section or Structure exists people can become ‘International Members’. Two other organizational models exist: ‘International Networks’, which promote specific themes or have a specific identity; and ‘Affiliated Groups’, which do the same work as Section Groups, but in isolation. The organizations outlined above are represented by the International Council (IC) which is led by the IC Chairperson. Members of Sections and Structures have the right to appoint one or more representatives to the Council according to the size of their membership. The IC may invite representatives from International Networks and other individuals to meetings, but only representatives from Sections and Structures have voting rights. The function of the IC is to appoint and hold accountable internal governing bodies and to determine the direction of the movement. The IC convenes every two years. The International Executive Committee (IEC), led by the IEC Chairperson, consists of eight members and the IEC Treasurer. It is elected by, and represents, the IC and meets biannually. The role of the IEC is to take decisions on behalf of Amnesty International, implement the strategy laid out by the IC, and ensure compliance with the movement’s statutes. The International Secretariat (IS) is responsible for the conduct and daily affairs of Amnesty International under direction from the IEC and IC. It is run by approximately 500 professional staff and is headed by the Secretary General. The IS operates several work programs: International Law and Organizations; Research; Campaigns; Mobilization; and Communications. Its offices have been located in London since its establishment in the mid-1960s. Amnesty International is financed largely by fees and donations from its worldwide membership. It does not accept donations from governments or governmental organizations. Amnesty International Sections, 2005 Amnesty International Structures, 2005 IEC Chairpersons Secretaries General Criticism and responseSince its establishment in the early 1960s Amnesty International has occasionally been criticized. Criticisms often appear in the media in the form of quotes from government officials, and commentaries by journalists and bloggers. Criticisms have centred mainly around its reporting and alleged bias. From time to time Amnesty International publishes a selection of criticisms of itself including public statements, press reports and cartoons. Outlined below are some of main criticisms directed at Amnesty International and the organization's response.
Footnotes
Further reading
|
Sites |
Searched sites for "Amnesty International" |
|
No sites found. |
Sorry, no matching site records were found. |
Want your site listed here?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
