Mike, you are far from being a dummy lawyer as you just came with one of the very last theoretical discussion about Ngo in political anthropology, at least in the French school.

Wilf and Stan are both right and wrong about the evolution of NGOs influence on War (as a concept and not an event or a practice).
The text JMM came from echoes with the work of two anthropologists, Laetitia Atlanie Duault (Au Bonheure des Autre) and Michel Agier (Des Camps de Refugiers au Gouvernement Humanitaire) which are unfortunately not yet translated in English (as far as I know).
It also echoes the work of Theodor Trefon, a Belgian researcher on DRC, and his work on NGOs in Kinshasa.

What Atlanie-Duault demonstrate in her work is that the concept of civil society, and therefore NGOs as key if not main partner, in Nation Building is linked and bound to Cold War US strategy to undermine former Soviet Union by creating a civilian counter power and basically prepare a civilian based new elite meant to replace former communist elite.
The second point is that civil society legitimacy has been established as a universal reality under the purpose to support and make the post Cold War consensus on Democracy inattackable. Anyone who does not support the idea of civil society as the legitimacy of the power (in opposition to power based on force) is then a dictator supporter. The theory of the clash of civilizations is a good illustration of this, as is the rejection of Shia conception of Nation as the core object of the State.

If Atlani-Duault reflection is based on the former Soviet Union States, Agier reflection is directly based on the practice of Humanitarian action and most precisely on the Refugees question. What he points out is that now, the civil society has found, through Human Rights a legal basement to some understanding of NGO role/legitimacy into war. By putting the Human Rights above all as the corner stone of Humanitarism, some NGO, mainly Anglo-Saxon NGOs as Oxfam, found or established themselves as a moral warrant of warfare and War in general. What Agier calls the Humanitarian Global Government. As war is being compared to a criminal act and no more as a legitimate ultimate resource into State relationships, International NGOs are basically trying to make civil society (based on their understanding of it, driven by Cold War strategy in fact) as the only legitimate representation of the people and then challenge States as representation of Nation legitimacy.
If I am not that clear, please tell me.

So, in fact, what Wilf and Stan are evaluating through a 1907 War Law definition of Neutrality is this competition between States and NGOs to be the moral and legitimate body to regulate war.
What is interesting is that Humanitarian action which in fact founds it legitimacy into Geneva Conventions is based on the 1907 War Law definition of neutrality. But actually, NGO do not respect that definition of neutrality because they place Human Right as their first source of legitimacy. On that subject, there is an excellent book A Bed for the Night from David Rieff (http://www.amazon.com/Bed-Night-Huma.../dp/074325211X)
What is also interesting is that MSF has been part of the very first organization to challenge this definition of Humanitarian Neutrality (it was created against it in fact) and is now coming back to it. MSF likes to think that ICRC is becoming more like them while, from an external eye, they are become more and more like ICRC.
It would be interesting to have Marct point of view on this as he definitively is much more familiar than me with US and Anglo-Saxon approach of the question.

About the African NGOs, I will come later with a post, time for me to organize some thoughts and find English sources on the subject.

Merry Christmas

M-A