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

2. 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

3. 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)

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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