Not-for-profit non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are often considered norm entrepreneurs, or norm carriers, that contribute to the spread of norms such as those prohibiting torture or violence against women—for example, in the context of transnational advocacy networks (TANs). However, their role as norm takers is rarely studied even though it deserves attention. Whether NGOs implement norms—either by carrying out related projects themselves or by monitoring norm compliance by other actors—or whether they promote norms and translate them for other actors, they must first internalize these norms themselves. In order to be considered internalized, norms must be “so widely accepted that they…achieve a ‘taken-for-granted’ quality that makes conformance with the norm almost automatic” (Finnemore and Sikkink 1998, 904). Norm internalization can be studied in terms of translation, assuming that new norms “have to fight their way into institutional thinking” whereby “[i]nitially reluctant actors are persuaded to incorporate the novel ideas into their mental world-views” (Elgstrom 2000, 458). Studying norm internalization within NGOs is a worthwhile and important endeavor. First, we cannot rely solely on existing studies of norm internalization within International Organizations (IOs) (Elgstrom 2000), because NGOs are a different type of organization. Their work is often based on moral grounds (Heins 2008, 1–14; Lang 2013, 12), and they value individual commitment and “personal moral enthusiasm” (du Gay, Salaman, and Rees 1996, 266). Therefore, changes affecting the constitutive principles of NGO action are often met with resistance within these organizations (Hopgood 2006). NGOs are not only “purposive actors with their own identities and interests” (Stroup 2012, 7), but also consist of different entities, located at different organizational levels, and have different interests and resources (Heyse 2013; Krause 2014; Suzuki 1998). Hence, support of and resistance to norms within NGOs can exist simultaneously, and the …

中文翻译：

---

作为规范接受者的非政府组织：作为规范翻译者的内部-外部网络

非营利性非政府组织 (NGO) 通常被视为规范企业家或规范携带者，它们有助于传播诸如禁止对妇女施加酷刑或暴力的规范——例如，在跨国倡导网络的背景下（ TAN）。然而，尽管值得关注，他们作为规范接受者的角色却很少被研究。无论非政府组织是通过自己执行相关项目还是通过监督其他行为者遵守规范的方式来实施规范，或者他们是否促进规范并将其转化为其他行为者，他们首先必须自己将这些规范内化。为了被认为是内在化的，规范必须“被广泛接受，以至于它们……实现了一种‘理所当然的’质量，使符合规范几乎是自动的”（Finnemore and Sikkink 1998, 904）。可以从翻译的角度研究规范内化，假设新规范“必须努力进入制度思维”，“[i]最初不情愿的行为者被说服将新想法纳入他们的心理世界观”（Elgstrom 2000， 458）。研究非政府组织内部的规范内化是一项有价值且重要的工作。首先，我们不能仅仅依赖现有的国际组织（IOs）规范内化研究（Elgstrom 2000），因为非政府组织是一种不同类型的组织。他们的工作通常基于道德基础（Heins 2008, 1-14; Lang 2013, 12），并且他们重​​视个人承诺和“个人道德热情”（du Gay, Salaman, and Rees 1996, 266）。所以，影响非政府组织行动的基本原则的变化经常在这些组织内部遇到阻力（Hopgood 2006）。非政府组织不仅是“具有自身身份和利益的有目的的行为者”（Stroup 2012, 7），而且还由不同的实体组成，位于不同的组织层面，拥有不同的利益和资源（Heyse 2013；Krause 2014；Suzuki 1998） . 因此，非政府组织内部对规范的支持和抵制可以同时存在，并且……