Legitimacy, INGOs and Counterterrorism Erla Thrandardottir Global Development Institute University of Manchester Vincent Charles Keating Center for War Studies University of Southern Denmark

The Problems of INGOs and Counterterrorism Legislation INGOs have many similarities to terrorist organizations Transnational structure Actively political Commit crimes for political goals Engage in pressure tactics Subvert state authority Fringe NGOs and connections to other groups

Political Pressure on INGOs Two major areas of political pressure Questions of representativeness, effectiveness Heightened security concerns A “backlash against civil society that has accelerated in the global War on Terror” (Van der Borgh and Terwindt 2012)

How Have NGOs Responded? Crackdown on civil society actors with use of war on terror language more pronounced in authoritarian states Less direct effect in liberal democratic states, though problems with increased uncertainty Self-censorship greater effect than direct control

Problems with Existing Literature Overlooks considerations of legitimacy Omits two questions What sociological power do NGOs have as legitimate actors? What is the possibility of leveraging this in NGO resistance to legislation? Current passive model of INGO involvement State legislation -> INGO adaptation

Theorizing Legitimacy Ian Clark: In society, legitimacy determines Rightful membership Rightful conduct David Beetham: Legitimacy can be found in Legal validity Justification in terms of shared beliefs Publicly affirmation Thrandardottir: Four models of NGO legitimacy Market Model Social Change Model Institutional Model Critical Model

Central Questions to Explore Can INGOs use their pre-existing legitimacy create a contest of legitimacy? Counterterrorism legislation has legal validity, but not automatically justification in terms of shared beliefs or public affirmation Empirical question of Consensus around central legitimate purpose of INGOs Success/failure of existing politics of resistance

Case Study Charities funding cage Roddick Foundation The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust Initially designated a ‘jihadist front’ by the United States Charity Commission rules that they cannot be funded Reverses decision after court ruling in 2015