RODRIGUEZ, ELOISE ANNE L.

INTLORG – “AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL – CONSTRUCTIVISM”

OVERVIEW-HISTORY

Amnesty International (AI) is a London-based non-governmental organization focused on

human rights which have created a global movement with a mission to prevent and stop grave
violations of human rights such as the freedom on conscience and expression, freedom from
discrimination and the rights to physical and mental integrity. The organization is independent
from all forms of governments and political ideologies, and all economic and religious interests
forming a international community of human rights defenders based on the principles of
international solidarity, effective action for the individual victim, global coverage, the universality
and indivisibility of human rights, impartiality and independence, and democracy and mutual
respect. Amnesty has grown from seeking the release of political prisoners to upholding the whole
spectrum of human rights working to protect and promote all the human rights that are enshrined
in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. All of its actions are based on well-researched
facts and serve one purpose: to protect the human rights of those who can't protect themselves.

Amnesty International began with one man's outrage and his courage to do something about
it. After learning of two Portuguese students imprisoned for raising a toast to freedom in 1961,
British lawyer Peter Benenson published an article, “The Forgotten Prisoners” in the Observer
newspaper. Reprinted in newspapers across the world, his call to action sparked the idea that
people everywhere can unite in solidarity for justice and freedom. Since the organization draws
attention to human rights abuses and campaigns for compliance with international laws and
standards, it works to mobilize public opinion to put pressure on governments that let abuse take
place. It carries out its struggle for human dignity for all human rights victims by mobilizing
public opinion throughout the world to pressure government officials and other influential persons
to stop human rights abuses. Amnesty International's primary goals include the following: (1)
freeing all prisoners of conscience or “any person who is physically restrained (by imprisonment
or otherwise) from expressing (in any form of words or symbols) any opinion which he honestly
holds and which does not advocate or condone personal violence.”; (2) ensuring prompt and fair
trials for all political prisoners; (3) abolition of the death penalty, torture, and other degrading
punishment; (4) ending extrajudicial executions and "disappearances"; and (5) working to ensure
that the perpetrators of human rights abuses are brought to justice in accordance with international
standards. Over time Amnesty International has expanded its scope to cover human rights abuses
committed by non-governmental bodies and private individuals, including armed political groups.

During the first half of the new decade, Amnesty International continued its focus on the
torture and abuse of women, children, ethnic minorities, and persons discriminated against based
on sexual orientation including homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered persons. After several
years, Amnesty International's agenda turned to the challenges arising from globalization and the
reaction to the 11 September 2001 attacks in the United States. 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 what it saw as the growing power of companies and the
undermining of many nation states as a result of globalization.

Amnesty International has been a major factor in a number of victories including an

international agreement to ban torture,an increasing number of countries that reject Capital
Punishment, and, in 2003, the inauguration of the International Criminal Court in the Hague,
Netherlands. Yet the organization continues to face many obstacles. Although torture has been
banned by international agreement, it continues secretly in many countries. Moreover, the
governments and political organizations of numerous countries still permit or participate in the
wrongful imprisonment and the disappearance of political prisoners as well as other human rights
abuses.

II. STRUCTURE OF THE ORGANIZATION

Amnesty International is largely made up of voluntary members, but retains a small number
of paid professionals. Members are basically divided or organized as “sections” in countries in
which the organization has a strong presence. The member-states or “sections” are responsible for
coordinating basic AI activities which usually accounts a significant number of members which,
in turn, will form into groups with a professional staff and a board of directors. Two organizational
models exist in the organization: “international networks” which promotes a specific theme or
identity and “affiliated groups” which, technically, do the same as sections but in isolation. The
organizations mentioned are represented by the International Council (IC), the most senior
decision-making body within Amnesty as a whole, which is led by the IC Chairperson and
convenes every two years. The IC is composed of representatives from the International Board and
individual country sections. In addition to electing the International Board, the IC has the authority
to set the organization’s strategic goals, create new policies and bodies for internal governance,
and amend Amnesty’s statute. 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 International Board (formerly known as the International Executive Committee or

IEC), led by the International Board Chairperson, consists of eight members and the International
Treasurer. The International Board is the source of guidance and leadership for Amnesty
worldwide. It is elected by, and accountable to, the IC, and meets at least two times during any
one year and in practice meets at least four times a year. The role of the International Board is to
take decisions on behalf of Amnesty International, implement the strategy laid out by the IC, and
ensure compliance with the organization's statutes. The Board is ultimately responsible for
ensuring that the organization is in compliance with relevant statutes, formulating strategic plans,
scrutinizing financial affairs, and deciding on structural changes at the international level (such as
approving new country sections). On the other hand, the International Secretariat (IS) is
responsible for the conduct and daily affairs of Amnesty International under direction from the
International Board. It is run by approximately 500 professional staff members and is headed by a
Secretary General. The Secretariat operates several work programmes; International Law and
Organizations, Research, Campaigns, Mobilization, and Communications. Its offices have been
located in London since its establishment in the mid-1960s.

Amnesty’s beginnings were narrowly focused on a single issue, “Prisoners of Conscience,”

as reflected in its well-known founding myth. Along with this commitment to opposing repression
of freedom of expression, Amnesty International's founding principles included non-intervention
on political questions, a robust commitment to gathering facts about the various cases and
promoting human rights. Amnesty International primarily targets governments, but also reports on
non-governmental bodies and private individuals considered as non-state actors. Some specific
aims are to: abolish the death penalty, end extrajudicial executions and "disappearances",
ensure prison conditions meet international human rights standards, ensure prompt and fair
trial for all political prisoners, ensure free education to all children worldwide, decriminalize
abortion, fight impunity from systems of justice, end the recruitment and use of child soldiers,
free all prisoners of conscience, promote economic, social and cultural rights for
marginalized communities, protect human rights defenders, promote religious tolerance,
protect LGBT rights, stop torture and ill-treatment, stop unlawful killings in armed conflict,
uphold the rights of refugees, migrants, and asylum seekers, and protect human dignity.
More importantly, Amnesty’s emphasis on the primacy of action over substance has led to its
continuously fluctuating mandate, ideological pronouncements driven by bias rather than universal
moral principles, and invented legal and factual claims.

Amnesty is a highly bureaucratic organization that operates much like a multinational

corporation or a government. At the same time, Amnesty continues to present itself as a grassroots,
member-driven organization or a self-organised group of individuals pursuing common interests
through a volunteer-based, non-profit organization. Amnesty describes itself as “a global
movement of more than 3 million supporters, members and activists” however, while members
pay dues, there is no official definition for supporters or activists. For example, in the US Section
of Amnesty, ‘supporters’ are defined as anyone who “has signed up to receive updates from the
organization” while “activists” are defined as people who have taken action for the organization
within a recent timeframe in which it could be through online or offline participation. Amnesty’s
self-identification as a “global movement” belies the complexities of the organization. Amnesty
operates through a highly complex bureaucratic corporate structure with numerous international
and country-specific organizations.

On top of this complicated bureaucratic structure, Amnesty launched the Secretary

General’s Global Council -- “a volunteer forum that brings together leaders in the arts, business
and philanthropy to work together to further human rights” -- in 2013. The Global Council, a
byproduct of a major organizational restructuring, is meant to play a critical role in attracting the
support required to ensure the success of this transformational project. In addition, Amnesty has
more than 80 country sections, each one with differing levels of independence from the IS. Country
sections are essential to Amnesty, because they provide the majority of its funding and membership.

In the more than 50 years since Peter Benenson founded Amnesty, the focus of the
organization’s activities has changed considerably. In its early decades, Amnesty’s main interest
and source of influence were its campaigns for the release of prisoners of conscience, particularly
in closed and non-democratic societies. The original core principle of Amnesty’s mandate was that
prisoners who advocated for or engaged in violence could not be designated as a “prisoner of
conscience,” and the NGO would not campaign on his or her behalf. This standard was so strict
that Nelson Mandela was originally excluded from advocacy by the organization.

Amnesty continued to expand its scope as an organization as additional types of human

rights violations were defined. This helped keep Amnesty relevant, but also had negative aspects.
First, Amnesty faced resistance from grassroots members, especially with regards to its stance on
the death penalty. Second, as the mandate expanded, Amnesty’s resources and research abilities
were unable to keep up with new issues. By 1989, Amnesty International barely had the resources
to do what it was doing then. Covering a large number of new areas would have meant diluting its
work, and its effectiveness in what Amnesty International did. As the mandate grew and shifted
over the years to accommodate more human rights issues, grassroots Amnesty members were
frequently unaware of the mandate’s actual scope. This problem was largely bureaucratic. Given
the difficulties of changing the actual Statute, interpretive resolutions (which only required a
simple majority) of the mandate were the norm.

In its early years, Amnesty was an effective human rights organization characterized by
clarity of purpose and focused on prisoner of conscience release. In contrast, its current mission
attempts to tackle the entire universe of human rights violations. In pursuit of this goal, Amnesty
has bureaucratized to the point of stagnation, spreading itself too thin to affect real change or
provide meaningful expertise. Falling further away from its original intent, Amnesty’s campaigns
prioritize countries/regions and topics that garner the most media and popular interest in order to
boost and maintain its own membership and reputation.

As I was reading articles regarding Amnesty International through a constructivist’s lens,

I came across a valid statement from M.Behravesh’s study on “The Relevance of Constructivism
to Foreign Policy Analysis”. He stated that “The relationship (of the organization and its
policies) might be investigated in three chief ways, that is, in terms of (1) the role actors and
bureaucracies play in shaping foreign policy, (2) the process of decision-making, and (3) the
effect of international system or society on the conduct of foreign policy by states.
Constructivism believes that individuals with their personal ideas and norms drive international
relations. If the people within a state have a deep hatred for an opposing state, then the state itself
would not have relations with the enemy state due to the ideals of the people. The reason why I
chose to go about this theory in line with the history of Amnesty International is because they are
essential to the paradigm as they allow for the diffusion of ideas and norms to the population
within a state. Constructivism is a learning theory found in psychology which explains how
people might acquire knowledge and learn. It therefore has direct application to education. The
theory suggests that humans construct knowledge and meaning from their experiences.

The definition and understanding of constructivism that I personally prefer using was the
definition by the Sydney School of Education and Social Work, is that “constructivism taps into
and triggers the person’s innate curiosity about the world and how things work. People do not
reinvent the norm but, rather, attempt to understand how it turns, how it functions. They become
engaged by applying their existing knowledge and real-world experience, learning to hypothesize,
testing their theories, and ultimately drawing conclusions from their findings.” True to the
definition of constructivism, Amnesty International has been setting standards on how a state must
go about the implementation of human rights to its people through its individual history and current
events.

Amnesty International is independent of all governments and is neutral in its relation to

political groups, ideologies and religious dividing lines. The movement works for the release of
women and men who have been arrested for their convictions, the color of their skin, their ethnic
origin or their faith - provided that they have not themselves used force or exhorted others to resort
to violence. Amnesty International simply stands for the people hence it influences the majority,
to help spread awareness on their rights and also implement and enjoy their rights as citizens of
their state.
Although Amnesty International does not have full control on how the states would apply the
enjoyment of human rights for their citizens, the organization believes that they will gradually help
spread proper awareness and make known the relevance of a person’s human rights is as vital as
each individual’s life.

This proved that gradually, the people have been more open to see and respect the rights
that we all have. Through everything that has been implemented with the help of Amnesty
International, the people now lean towards basing their own personal experiences or knowledge to
what the organization stands for. In recent years, Amnesty International has focused on protecting
human rights in the global refugee crisis. In 2017, the organization mobilized activists across the
United States and around the world to hold newly elected President Donald Trump’s
administration accountable for violating human rights, and we are preparing to launch a major
global campaign to protect human rights defenders, the activists who are often targeted because
they work on the front lines to protect everyone’s human rights.

The effect of the presence of Amnesty International through the constructivists’ lenses are
also very well manifested with its establishment in the Philippines.Amnesty International’s early
years in the Philippines was made possible by international solidarity, youth involvement, and
human rights education.

During the tail-end of the martial law, a group of human rights activists came together to
form what was to be the Philippine section of Amnesty International. Fueled by international
solidarity, the time was ripe for the birth of a human rights organization. This again proves the
presence of constructivism in the objective of the Amnesty International. It’s vast influence in the
policy making of the Philippines has been present since the adoption of the Philippine Human
Rights Education Decade Plan in 1997. Amnesty International takes pride in its contributions to
the human rights movements locally and internationally. In the Philippines, with members’ actions
and support of individuals and network ,the organization campaigned and was successful in the
enactment, ratification and adoption of the following; Reproductive Health Act of 2012, Anti-
Torture Act of 2009, International Humanitarian Law Act of 2009, Juvenile Justice and Welfare
Act of 2006 (RA 9344, 10630),Repeal on the Death Penalty Law in 2006 and the Anti-Violence
against Women and their Children (Anti-VAWC) Act of 2004.

The role of Amnesty International in the Philippine society has been focused on educating
the people further on their rights through its Human Rights Education (HRE) program, which
has published various human rights education modules. The organization has also held youth
summits aimed at developing youth activists. And through their Membership Development
Program, in which they provide interested groups and individuals with a basic orientation seminar
to introduce them to human rights as well as to the organization.

This year, Amnesty International Philippines piloted the “Education and Empowerment for
Justice” project in collaboration with the International Human Rights Education Center (IHREC)
in Norway. This capacity-building project for indigenous peoples (IP), specifically women, aims
to provide IP Women with training on basic human rights, IP rights, gender and women’s rights,
documentation skills, as well as paralegal training.

Through how the organization has been going about its vision and mission, I personally think that
looking at its core values and projects through the constructivists’ lens is the best way to further
analyze the meaning of constructivism. The organization functions as how the states individually
functions. If there is a lack of importance of human rights in one state, Amnesty International does
its best to keep what they stand for, relevant. As for its presence in the Philippines, a thorough
amount of social awareness and plausible projects have been presented to the people, especially
those who lack the proper education to fight for what is rightfully theirs, to be able to further
understand the discrepancies of the state. A higher concentration of the spread of the awareness on
human rights was done by the Amnesty International, especially since the term of Rodrigo Duterte.
I tried so hard throughout this paper to really stray away from bashing or giving negative views
about the current administration but the double-effort that the Amnesty International has exerted
for the Filipinos over the past few years under Duterte’s governance only goes to show how much
our government has lacked efforts in protecting and respecting the people’s human rights.

With the issues that our government is facing internationally, it is only right to pattern the policies
being implemented to be lieu with what the people need. Over the years, Amnesty International,
as a whole, has not been short on giving the proper lectures and programs that would be vital in
keeping the people “woke” on their rights. Although of course, regardless of the joint effort of the
organizations to make a difference, the negligence of our government with regards to human rights
has already been a problem we have been trying to cease. Putting the practice of the theory of
constructivism in this type of context is the most plausible move because the way the people should
be governed, should be patterned by the type of governance they need. With how I look at it,
Amnesty International has never had any other vendetta than just spreading awareness on human
rights. In whatever way people will make of it, it is their own opinion. It just wants to help the
marginalized people, and the minorities of majority of the state by putting into consideration the
experiences of the states’ people and history collectively with its culture and society.

REFERENCES:

 Clark, Anne Marie. 2001. Diplomacy of Conscience: Amnesty International and Changing
Human Rights Norms. Princeton,N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press.
 Clarke, Anne Marie (2001). Diplomacy of Conscience: Amnesty International and
Changing Human Rights Norms. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-05743-9.
 Peter Benenson, “The forgotten prisoners,” The Observer, May 28, 1961, available at
http://www.amnestyusa.org/about-us/amnesty-50-years/peter-benenson-remembered/the-
forgotten-prisoners-by-peter-benenson. Accessed June 20, 2016
 https://www.ngo-monitor.org/reports/23/