International Organization and International Relations Year 1 – Block 3 & 4
Week 2: International Organization 1-2
Lecture 3
No class and no readings
Lecture 4 – History and future of regional IOs: The example of Europe
Lecture (p. 2)
Readings (p. 3-8)
Gutner – Chapter 11 (p. 207-220 + EMU/Euro crisis + Perspectives on the EU)
Paterson – Reluctant hegemon? Germany moves centre stage in the European Union
,International Organization 1 & 2 International Organization and International Relations
Week 2 – Lecture 4: History and future of regional IOs: The example of Europe
Lecture
The formation period 1945-1961
Schuman Plan 1950 (ECSC)
• David Mitrany Towards a working Peace System: try to make practical arrangements:
EEC/Euratom 1957
Institutional Legacy of the Cold War
- NATO - US presence in Europe
- OSCE (Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe)
- Military basket
- Trade basket
- Human rights basket
- Arms Control Treaties
- Discourses silently steer our behaviour. They’re the rules of the game.
- We have changed the traditional power politics discourse to a discourse of integration. We have
stopped playing that game. This is historical change.
- Why has this happened? - We have institutionalised the discourse.
Images of Europe’s future
- Great power games (traditional analysis)
- Who are the main players?
- What are the main traditional conflicts?
- What is our answer? We need to become a federation
- Fortress Europe
- Multi-speed Europe / Enhanced Cooperation / Europe à la carte
- Olympic Rings/ Variable Geometry
- France/Germany
- Britain/Ireland
- Nordic countries
- Mediterranean countries
- Visegrád
- Cyprus
- Balkans
- Muddling through (Europe of ‘wadlopers’)
- Neo Middle Ages
- Hanseatic league (urban geopolitics)
- Urban life is unsustainable. It depends on networks
- Concentric circles - The European Security Order
- Inner core: EU/NATO
- Next layer: insiders with strong economies
- Next layer: insiders with weak economies
- Next layer: candidate member states and association treaties
- Last layer: outsiders
- Europe is designer and result of global processes
- “That’s the problem with dictators: they grow old and then you need a civil war to replace them
with the next one.”
- Mearsheimer Back to the Future: Without a common enemy there is no reason for integration and
cooperation and countries will fall back into the old patterns of power politics.
2
, International Organization 1 & 2 International Organization and International Relations
Readings
Gutner – Chapter 11 (p. 207-220 + EMU/Euro crisis + Perspectives on the EU)
There is a great range of ROs, by issue area, importance, capacity, structure, and effectiveness.
Scholars typically define ROs as “a group of countries located in the same geographically specified
area”. While this seems straightforward, there is debate about how to differentiate between regions
- 3 approaches: (1) materialist, classical theories of geopolitics (e.g. territory); (2) ideational, critical
theories of geography (regions as socially constructed); (3) behaviour theories (e.g. idea that political
practices shape regions). Scholars also refer to “subregional” Os, a way to further delineate
distinctions. Apart from region, we can also divide ROs by sector, e.g. security, economy, legal, etc.
The relationship between ROs and IOs - and their MS - is complex: some ROs complement existing
IOs, while others cause consternation because they may take power away from them. ROs face many
of the same challenges as the IOs. ROs may complement and cooperate with IOs, IOs may delegate
activities or issues to ROs - and many do interact closely with their regional counterparts. ROs also
give states options to go “forum shopping”: selecting the best venue to pursue their interests.
Overview of regional organizations
In the first decades after WWII, newly created ROs blossomed around the world. States creates ROs
for many of the same reasons they create IOs. Reasons also depend on whether it is a larger and
powerful, or a smaller and less powerful state. ROs may also disappear - some reasons are: a lack of
interest from their major powers; (2) perceived inefficiency; (3) issue behind the creation of the RO
has itself changed or disappeared. In this context, the NATO is of course a very interesting example.
Each region has some well-known ROs, although there is variation in how developed, formalized and
powerful they are. While Europe is home to the deepest and widest set of ROs, Asia (APEC, ASEAN)
knows much less formal ROs than Europe and North and South America. Latin America has a number
of ROs (Mercosur, NAFTA, CACM), but also a development bank and regional courts. Africa is home
to the AU, ECOWAS etc. In the Middle East, ROs include organizations like OPEC and the Arab League.
Debates about regionals
The literature on ROs is rich and deep. It includes work on integration, inter-regionalism, and the role
of ROs in individual sectors and issue areas. It evaluates performance of ROs, explains their rise and
decline, and looks at how they interact with one another, states and international organizations. On
the latter, various perspectives can be distinguished:
- It is argued that ROs are helpful to global ones, e.g. as a stepping stone between national and global
governance. In many ways, global organizations encourage the existence of ROs. For Thakur and Van
Langenhove, regionalism is “an integral part of multi-layered and multi-actor governance”.
- Some have argued that ROs can counter the problematic practices or limitations of IOs, e.g. NATO
can more quickly deploy forces than the UNSC and its troops are better equipped and trained.
- Others argue that ROs have many weaknesses: (1) biased to pursue regional interests; (2)
corruptness or lack of experience or capacity; (3) as bureaucratic as large IOs; (4) lack of legitimacy.
- Another overarching critique of ROs is that they may draw legitimacy away from global institutions,
e.g. the WTO. The rise of bilateral and regional free trade agreements erodes the role of the WTO.
The European Union
The EU is a “politico-economic union of 28 member states” that operates through seven
supranational institutions of decision-making, that have complex relationships with national
governments, but also with sub-national actors and international actors. The EU is not easy to grasp:
“It combines attributes of a state with those of an IO, yet it closely resembles neither”. There is
discussion on how exactly to define what it has become but also widespread acknowledgement of
the powerful role of it and its institutions are having in MS and global governance.
3
Week 2: International Organization 1-2
Lecture 3
No class and no readings
Lecture 4 – History and future of regional IOs: The example of Europe
Lecture (p. 2)
Readings (p. 3-8)
Gutner – Chapter 11 (p. 207-220 + EMU/Euro crisis + Perspectives on the EU)
Paterson – Reluctant hegemon? Germany moves centre stage in the European Union
,International Organization 1 & 2 International Organization and International Relations
Week 2 – Lecture 4: History and future of regional IOs: The example of Europe
Lecture
The formation period 1945-1961
Schuman Plan 1950 (ECSC)
• David Mitrany Towards a working Peace System: try to make practical arrangements:
EEC/Euratom 1957
Institutional Legacy of the Cold War
- NATO - US presence in Europe
- OSCE (Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe)
- Military basket
- Trade basket
- Human rights basket
- Arms Control Treaties
- Discourses silently steer our behaviour. They’re the rules of the game.
- We have changed the traditional power politics discourse to a discourse of integration. We have
stopped playing that game. This is historical change.
- Why has this happened? - We have institutionalised the discourse.
Images of Europe’s future
- Great power games (traditional analysis)
- Who are the main players?
- What are the main traditional conflicts?
- What is our answer? We need to become a federation
- Fortress Europe
- Multi-speed Europe / Enhanced Cooperation / Europe à la carte
- Olympic Rings/ Variable Geometry
- France/Germany
- Britain/Ireland
- Nordic countries
- Mediterranean countries
- Visegrád
- Cyprus
- Balkans
- Muddling through (Europe of ‘wadlopers’)
- Neo Middle Ages
- Hanseatic league (urban geopolitics)
- Urban life is unsustainable. It depends on networks
- Concentric circles - The European Security Order
- Inner core: EU/NATO
- Next layer: insiders with strong economies
- Next layer: insiders with weak economies
- Next layer: candidate member states and association treaties
- Last layer: outsiders
- Europe is designer and result of global processes
- “That’s the problem with dictators: they grow old and then you need a civil war to replace them
with the next one.”
- Mearsheimer Back to the Future: Without a common enemy there is no reason for integration and
cooperation and countries will fall back into the old patterns of power politics.
2
, International Organization 1 & 2 International Organization and International Relations
Readings
Gutner – Chapter 11 (p. 207-220 + EMU/Euro crisis + Perspectives on the EU)
There is a great range of ROs, by issue area, importance, capacity, structure, and effectiveness.
Scholars typically define ROs as “a group of countries located in the same geographically specified
area”. While this seems straightforward, there is debate about how to differentiate between regions
- 3 approaches: (1) materialist, classical theories of geopolitics (e.g. territory); (2) ideational, critical
theories of geography (regions as socially constructed); (3) behaviour theories (e.g. idea that political
practices shape regions). Scholars also refer to “subregional” Os, a way to further delineate
distinctions. Apart from region, we can also divide ROs by sector, e.g. security, economy, legal, etc.
The relationship between ROs and IOs - and their MS - is complex: some ROs complement existing
IOs, while others cause consternation because they may take power away from them. ROs face many
of the same challenges as the IOs. ROs may complement and cooperate with IOs, IOs may delegate
activities or issues to ROs - and many do interact closely with their regional counterparts. ROs also
give states options to go “forum shopping”: selecting the best venue to pursue their interests.
Overview of regional organizations
In the first decades after WWII, newly created ROs blossomed around the world. States creates ROs
for many of the same reasons they create IOs. Reasons also depend on whether it is a larger and
powerful, or a smaller and less powerful state. ROs may also disappear - some reasons are: a lack of
interest from their major powers; (2) perceived inefficiency; (3) issue behind the creation of the RO
has itself changed or disappeared. In this context, the NATO is of course a very interesting example.
Each region has some well-known ROs, although there is variation in how developed, formalized and
powerful they are. While Europe is home to the deepest and widest set of ROs, Asia (APEC, ASEAN)
knows much less formal ROs than Europe and North and South America. Latin America has a number
of ROs (Mercosur, NAFTA, CACM), but also a development bank and regional courts. Africa is home
to the AU, ECOWAS etc. In the Middle East, ROs include organizations like OPEC and the Arab League.
Debates about regionals
The literature on ROs is rich and deep. It includes work on integration, inter-regionalism, and the role
of ROs in individual sectors and issue areas. It evaluates performance of ROs, explains their rise and
decline, and looks at how they interact with one another, states and international organizations. On
the latter, various perspectives can be distinguished:
- It is argued that ROs are helpful to global ones, e.g. as a stepping stone between national and global
governance. In many ways, global organizations encourage the existence of ROs. For Thakur and Van
Langenhove, regionalism is “an integral part of multi-layered and multi-actor governance”.
- Some have argued that ROs can counter the problematic practices or limitations of IOs, e.g. NATO
can more quickly deploy forces than the UNSC and its troops are better equipped and trained.
- Others argue that ROs have many weaknesses: (1) biased to pursue regional interests; (2)
corruptness or lack of experience or capacity; (3) as bureaucratic as large IOs; (4) lack of legitimacy.
- Another overarching critique of ROs is that they may draw legitimacy away from global institutions,
e.g. the WTO. The rise of bilateral and regional free trade agreements erodes the role of the WTO.
The European Union
The EU is a “politico-economic union of 28 member states” that operates through seven
supranational institutions of decision-making, that have complex relationships with national
governments, but also with sub-national actors and international actors. The EU is not easy to grasp:
“It combines attributes of a state with those of an IO, yet it closely resembles neither”. There is
discussion on how exactly to define what it has become but also widespread acknowledgement of
the powerful role of it and its institutions are having in MS and global governance.
3
