Abstract:
In recent years, certain advocacy campaigns launched in the midst of on going
peace processes by mainstream Human Rights Non-Governmental Organizations (HR
NGOs) has created much controversy. HR NGOs that base their advocacy efforts
exclusively on international legal frameworks such as the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR) and legal instruments such as the International Criminal Court
(ICC) have been accused by some groups and individuals in protracted conflict situations
of slowing down or stopping peace negotiations ignoring the urgency of local populations
for resolutions. This thesis examined this controversy in depth through mainstream HR
NGO advocacy campaigns in three active conflict zones: Northern Uganda, Darfur region
of Sudan and North-East Sri Lanka.
Findings of this research reveal the limitations of the current mainstream NGO
approach to human rights advocacy in active conflict zones and suggest a more
comprehensive “Do No Harm” approach that has the potential of addressing the many
complexities of protracted social conflicts with minimal harm to victims.
