ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Abraham Delleh WALA is a Liberian with expertise in administration, compliance, security and corporate governance. He holds both Bachelor’s and a Master’s degree in Public Administration from the University of Liberia. As part of his research and comparative analysis of administration and public policy in Africa, he has traveled extensively throughout the region, including visits to Ghana, Sierra Leone, Guinea, Côte d’Ivoire, Togo, and the Benin Republic. He aspires to become a Lawyer so he can offer legal services to humanity.
Executive Summary:
In contemporary global politics, international organizations play an enormous role. To most of the world, they symbolize the hope for international peace and security through global cooperation and mutual economic development. Examples of international organizations include the United Nations (UN), the World Bank (International Bank for Reconstruction and Development), the International Committee of the Red Cross, and Greenpeace. Most international organizations operate as part of one or more international regimes. An international regime is a set of rules, standards, and procedures that govern national behavior in a particular area. International regimes include arms control, foreign trade, and Antarctic exploration. International organizations are often central to the functioning of an international regime, giving structure and procedures to the “rules of the game” by which nations must play (Mingst, 2014). For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the European Union (EU) are key organizations that define the international trade regime. In general, international organization stands for a membership group that operates across national borders for specific purposes (Rana, 2004). The idea of international organization reflects the cooperative arrangement instituted among states, usually by a basic agreement, to perform some mutually advantageous functions implemented through periodic meetings and staff activities. The Penguin Dictionary of International Relations defines international organization as “formal institutional structures transcending national boundaries which are created by multilateral agreement among nation states. Their purpose is to foster international cooperation in areas such as security, law, economic and social matters, and diplomacy.” However, in the modern sense, an international organization, or more formally an intergovernmental organization (IGO), is an organization, such as the United Nations, European Community, or the WTO, with sovereign states or other IGOs as members (Archer, 2001). Such organizations function according to the principles of intergovernmentalism, which means that unanimity is often required. The European Union is, however, an exception to this rule in some areas. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are private organizations that can also be international in scope. Generally and correctly used, however, the term “international organization” is reserved for intergovernmental organizations only (Archer, 2001). It is in this sense that the term “international organization” is used. Bennett identifies the characteristics of international organization that include: a permanent organization to carry on a continuing set of functions; voluntary membership of eligible parties; a basic instrument stating goals, structure, and methods of operation; and a permanent secretariat to carry on continuous administrative, research, and information functions. Legally speaking, the nature of an international organization is different from other organizations in the sense that the former must be established by a treaty providing it with legal recognition, and usually, in order to safeguard state sovereignty, operates at the level of consent, recommendation, and cooperation rather than through compulsion or enforcement. International organizations so established are subjects of international law, capable of entering into agreements among themselves or with states (Shaw, 2017). Thus, international organizations in a legal sense are distinguished from mere groupings of states, such as the G-8 and the G-77, neither of which have been founded by treaty, though in non-legal contexts these are sometimes referred to as international organizations as well. International organizations must also be distinguished from treaties; while all international organizations are founded on a treaty.
1.0 Acronyms
- United Nations (UN)
- World Trade Organization (WTO)
- North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
- European Union (EU)
- Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU)
- Non-Governmental Organization (NGO)
- Intergovernmental Organization (IGO)
- International Criminal Court (ICC)
- Group of Eight (G8)
- Group of 77 (G77)
2.0 Introduction
During his millennium commencement speech, Former Secretary-General Kofi Annan spoke about how the challenges of the twenty-first century would not be conquered if it were not for international organizations (Annan, 2000). It is widely believed that international organizations should be responsible for the maintenance of international peace and stability, be this economic, social, or political, and that they should act in the interest of the international community. According to critics of these institutions, there should be greater transparency, regulation, and control within these organizations so that they reflect more than just the interests of the powerful states. The creation of an international forum for multilateral negotiations came about with the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) in 1889, which is still active today and has membership of national parliaments. The IPU was the predecessor to the League of Nations, created in 1919 after the end of the First World War; this later became the United Nations after the failure of the League to prevent international conflicts. The legacy of the IPU, the League of Nations, and other early international alliances was not the institutions’ effectiveness as actors, but rather as forums for nations to voice their opinions and promote dialogue. This was arguably their greatest achievement, as even after the failure of the League, nation-states still felt the need for an institution that would allow them to share their ideas and provide an opportunity to settle disputes peacefully (Claude, 1966). Thus emerged the United Nations, which to this day remains the only institution with universal membership. It is the largest of all international organizations, which is why it will be analyzed for the purpose of this paper. The aim of this paper is to investigate the role of an international institution as a stage for states to bring matters to the attention of the international community and how this is a victory in itself for international relations. This assertion will be verified by firstly examining the critiques of international institutions through international relations theory, namely neorealism, highlighting its limitations and breaking down its core assumptions. The paper will then follow with an analysis of neoliberal institutionalism and its discourses as an alternative to neorealism, as well as constructivism and its theory of institutions as socially constructed concepts determined by the sharing of ideas (Wendt, 1999). It will finally conclude with the idea that institutions play a crucial role in the international system. The neorealist approach argues that international institutions are and always will be fundamentally ineffective, as they cannot prevent states from being self-interested and engaging in power politics. Scholars such as John Mearsheimer believe that institutions only have marginal power, giving way to an arena of power relations between states, making them a reflection of the distribution of power in the international system.
This is contested in Keohane and Martin’s response, as they develop the theory that “institutions are created simply in response to state interests, and that their character is structured by the prevailing distribution of capabilities.” Mearsheimer challenges this by stating that institutions only promote peace by manipulating the actions of member states. They advocate cooperation in a world that is intrinsically competitive, so naturally states will use this pretext to take advantage of others. To this end, neorealist assert the irrelevance of international institutions, as they believe they do not alter the self-interested anarchic system of states. This idea that institutions play a non-role in international relations is reductionist, as the argument that states will not respond to constraints and opportunities provided by these institutions is greatly flawed. This can be exemplified by the UN’s regulation on the use of military force; many states are willing to comply with these standards because doing so reduces the risks and costs of engaging in conflict while simultaneously working toward disarmament. The establishment of the United Nations was focused on coordinating and aiding states’ efforts to achieve common goals under the founding principles of sovereignty and non-intervention. Thus, the primary purpose of the UN is not to intervene in internal affairs but rather to promote discussions and give states the tools to resolve disputes themselves. The idea was never to establish a “world government,” and therefore the institutions of the UN should not be described as such. An example of this is the Earth Summit, where members discussed actions to be taken regarding environmental sustainability and climate change, after which world leaders would reconvene in follow-up meetings to monitor progress. Classical and neorealist claim that the international system is an anarchic, self-interested power struggle between states, which is why there is a vast amount of distrust in global institutions such as the UN (Waltz, 1979). However, many have affirmed that “in a world of multiple issues imperfectly linked, in which coalitions are formed transnationally and trans-governmentally, the potential role of international institutions is greatly increased.” One of the so-called failures of the UN is its inability to prevent conflicts, but in reality, many of these conflicts arise from deep-rooted ethnic, political, and ideological tensions that cannot be resolved even through bilateral diplomatic efforts, as exemplified in the Arab–Israeli conflict, Western Sahara, and the disputed region of Kashmir. This reflects unrealistic expectations of the UN as an actor. Thus, the neorealist critique can be viewed from two different angles: that of the liberal institutionalists, who affirm that nations do comply with standards imposed by international organizations, and the pragmatic discourse, which concerns itself with the idea of the UN as a stage providing a framework for discussions and multilateral agreements.
3.0 Scope and Functions of International Organization
International organizations also differ in their scope of functions, membership and membership criteria. In terms of scope, international organizations perform a varied number of useful functions within the state system. Their chief function is to provide the means of cooperation among states in areas in which cooperation provides advantages for all or a large number of nations. They not only work as a platform to take cooperative decisions but also as the administrative tool for translating the decisions into action. They also provide multiple channels of communication among governments so that areas of accommodation may be explored and easy access will be available when problems arise. In conflict situations, if states are willing to explore the possibilities of accommodation and compromise, modern international organizations have made available a new dimension beyond the previously existing channels of diplomacy and peaceful settlement. The United Nations, the Specialized Agencies, and regional organizations provide multiple and continuous contact points through which accommodation can be reached. We must note that international organizations generally have no independent means of carrying out coercion. But states, needing to minimize the effects of conflict, find the many and diverse agencies of international organization useful for that end. The United Nations, for example, provides several major organs whose functions include the resolution of conflict. In other situations, not involving conflict, as in some of the technical work of international organizations, cooperation is facilitated by the existence of these organizations for reaching agreements that have mutual advantages for all states concerned. The fundamental idea and reality underlying modern international organizations involve diplomacy, treaties, conferences, rules of warfare, the regulation of the use of force, peaceful settlement of disputes, the development of international law, international trade, international economic cooperation, international social cooperation, cultural relationships, world travel, world communications, cosmopolitanism, universalism, peace movements, the formation of leagues and federations, international administration, collective security, and movements for world government. The role of international organizations in the contemporary world order depends on their legal recognition by the international community.
In other words, the organization is a subject of international law and capable of enforcing it by bringing international claims. It can make treaties and coordinate with other organizations to avoid unsound competition or duplication of efforts. To perform their functions effectively, international organizations are endowed with certain privileges and immunities. The agents and servants who perform the functions of international organizations also possess privileges and immunities. International organizations are also entitled to the grant of privileges and immunities for their assets, properties and representatives. Privileges for representatives may include immunity from personal arrest or detention and from seizure of their personal baggage, immunity in respect of words written or spoken and all acts done by them in their capacity as representatives, immunity from legal process of every kind, inviolability of all papers and documents, the right to use codes and to receive papers or correspondence by courier or in sealed bags, freedom from direct taxes, and immunity from jurisdiction.
4.0 Types of International Organizations
- Conventional International Organizations
These are grouped together in Types A to D. They are autonomous international governmental and non-governmental organizations of a non-profit nature. Multinational enterprises are therefore excluded. All such bodies have members in at least three countries and do not have their activities or decision-making structured in favor of any particular country.
- Federations of International Organizations
Type A includes all international organizations, whether governmental or non-governmental, which group together at least three other autonomous non-regional international bodies as full members. “Umbrella” organizations of this kind which have national organizations as an additional membership category are also included. The United Nations is included in this type because of its focal role in relation to its Specialized Agencies that are “members” of the UN system.
- Universal Membership Organizations
Type B includes all non-profit international organizations, whether governmental or non-governmental, that have a widespread, geographically balanced membership, management and policy control. Although this concept of a “universal” membership organization is much discussed, no generally accepted rule for distinguishing such bodies has been formulated. The rule applied here is that there should be members in at least 60 countries, or else in more than 30 countries provided that the distribution between continents is well balanced.
- Intercontinental Membership Organizations
Type C includes all international non-profit organizations, whether governmental or non-governmental, whose membership and preoccupations exceed that of a particular continental region, although not to a degree justifying its inclusion in the previous type. Regionally defined membership organizations: Type D includes all international non-profit organizations, whether governmental or non-governmental, whose membership or preoccupations are restricted to a particular continent or subcontinental region.
- Other “International Organizations”
These are grouped together in Types E to G. Such bodies fail to meet the simple criteria of the previous types in a variety of ways. They may nevertheless be considered “international organizations” in some respects even though their inclusion may be questioned from a number of viewpoints.
- Special Types
Several types are used to handle bodies which raise special problems. All except Type R organizations are only listed, having no descriptions. Inactive or dissolved international organizations. Type H includes all international non-profit organizations, whether governmental or non-governmental, which have been dissolved, are currently inactive, or are otherwise dormant. It includes only those bodies that would have appeared in Types A to D, occasional exceptions being made for bodies that appeared in Types E or F.
- Multinational Enterprises
Type M (now incorporated into Type F) was developed to include multinational enterprises, whether governmental or non-governmental. It is to this type that profit-making corporations would therefore be allocated.
- National Organizations
Type N includes bodies known to hold meetings with extensive international participation. The type is also used for national bodies which have names that create the impression they should be in any of the preceding types. Bilateral intergovernmental bodies are allocated to this type. Organizations are included here if they are encountered during search procedures for those in the preceding types or if it is believed they may be of interest to users. No systematic efforts are made to trace individual organizations of this type.
- Religious Orders, Fraternities and Secular Institutes
Type R includes religious, military and fraternal orders or congregations, together with similar bodies based on charismatic leadership or commitment to a set of religious practices. Many of these bodies cannot be treated as “conventional” international organizations because of their special decision-making procedures and their partially dependent relationship to religious hierarchies. A major reason for including this type lies in the interesting range of questions raised by the differences and similarities between orders and many conventional organizations, each concerned in their own way with human and social development. Of special interest, for example, is the parallel between papal “approval” of an order and the “recognition” accorded to NGOs under Article 71 of the UN Charter.
- Multilateral Treaties and Agreements
Type T includes multilateral treaties, conventions, pacts, protocols or covenants signed by three or more parties. It excludes those concerned with a specific country, a specific event, or the creation of an intergovernmental organization.
5.0 Conclusion
In conclusion, this research paper revealed that the role international organizations should play in world politics is dependent on the theoretical framework and interpretation of what the institutional system entails. For neo-realists, international institutions are and will always be ineffective, as they cannot alter the anarchic structure of the international system (Waltz, 1979). Neo-liberal institutionalists argue the opposite, as they believe institutions greatly influence state conduct by both creating strong incentives for cooperation whilst at the same time implementing disincentives, as observed in the case of nuclear proliferation (Keohane, 1984). Constructivists take a very different approach by questioning the core assumptions of the other theories and drawing attention to the relationship between structure and agency, as well as the construction of state and institutional interests (Wendt, 1992). This essay has sought to argue that we should look at the United Nations system objectively as a forum for nations to come together and tackle issues that are of concern to the international community. This was the primary objective of the institution in 1945, which is why forcing it to develop into an impartial, effective governing force seems quite naïve and unrealistic (Weiss, 2008). As stated by former Assistant Secretary-General Robert Orr, “as an actor, there is so little we can do, and often the people accusing us are the same ones who prevent us from being able to act.” For this reason, perhaps instead of focusing on the failures and reform within the UN, we should concentrate on the attributes and virtues that it has as an effective center for harmonizing discussions and developing common goals for states. Rather than reducing the solution to problems of structural reform and widening participation efforts, we could look at promoting the UN as the prime setting for diplomacy and negotiation, as this has undeniably been its role since the beginning.
References
- Deitelhoff (2009) (The discursive process of legalization: Charting islands of persuasion in the ICC case).
- Hopf (1998) (The promise of constructivism in international relations theory).
- Navari (2009) (Liberalism).
- Traub (2007) (The secretary-general’s political space).
- United Nations (1945) (Charter of the United Nations).
- Klabbers (2015) (An introduction to international organizations law (3rd Ed.). Cambridge University Press).
- Newman, Edward (2007) (A crisis of global institutions? Multilateralism and international security. Routledge).
- Weiss, Thomas G., & Daws, Sam (2018) (The Oxford handbook on the United Nations. Oxford University Press).
- Wendt, Alexander (1992) (Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization).
- Wendt, Alexander (1999) (Social theory of international politics, Cambridge University Press).
