Mia
Probst
1st year class notes : Introduction to international organisations
Overview
1. Lecture : introduction
2. Lecture 2 : IOs and IR theory
3. Lecture 3 : history of IO and IO research
4. Lecture 4 : League of nations and origins of the UN
5. Lecture 5 : the united nations part II
6. Lecture 6 : the united nations part III
7. Lecture 7 : international courts
8. Lecture 8 : trade and labor
9. Lecture 9 : global economic governance
10. Lecture 10 : global climate governance
11. Lecture 11 : regional organizations
,lecture 1 05/09
summary
1. what are IO?
2. categorize
3. 3 forces
4. 3 views
introduction: concepts and characteristics
IO conceptual and normative sense = divided povs
- seen as gods
- seen as monster that cannot be stopped
- a vessel so empires can live through them
core debate: why do IO exist, why do we need them?
IO =/= NGO
by states =/= by non-states
usually based on inter state treaties =/= “common purpose”
regional or global =/= local, nat°, transnat°
informal IO (ex: G7 etc)
● what are IO?
○ specific class of international institutions
○ institution: a body of norms, rules and practices that shape behavior and
expectations, without necessarily having the physical character of IO → broad
term
○ IO specific features
■ formal treaty base
■ bureaucracy/HQ
■ at least 3 member states
■ regular meetings (“zombies” if no meeting)
■ formal rules + procedures
● catégorisation
1. membership
universal (everyone can become a member if recognized as a state) / limited (only some can
be ex:EU)
2. competence
comprehensive/general purpose → deal w many diff issues
limited/issue specific → on a specific theme
BUT not black and white → not necessarily stiff to 1 category
3. function
rule making organizat° = make policies+rules
operational organizat° = executes policy (ex: IAEA on atomic energy)
4. decision making authority
,intergovernmental → by all member states (vote, decide…) = horizontal authority
⇒ pooled sovereignty (they pool their authority) ex: NATO
supranational → by organizational body = delegate authority (give theirs up) = vertical
authority
⇒ delegated sovereignty : practical (no need to all meet together)
● three forces of IOs in world politics
1. obligation (direct, indirect)
direct: what the states sign up for, on paper
indirect: might arise further on (new policies w legal impact) not necessarily
agreed to
formal/informal
2. compliance (explicit, implicit) = how IO ensure states do what they signed up
implicit: soft means, create a certain environment, high pressure to comply
explicit: direct mechanism, stated on paper (ex: sanctions)
3. enforcement (direct, indirect) = what can IO actually do
pressing question (how to interact w other state, how to act in conflict…)
direct: ex→ IMF (withdraws money)
indirect: expose countries that violate human rights, rely on social pressure
put on states
● 3 views on the role of IO in world politics
1. IO as actors
legally: IO are independent entities w legal personality (right+responsibilities
according to internat° law)
politically: independent actorness through social recognition (has to be
recognize as such) → collective actors are able to do what individual can’t
→ empirically evident through practices of influencing world politics
2. IO as forum
get together to exchange info, interests, policy making
crucial
states as relevant actors
3. IO as tools
tools in the hands of member states → used in pursuit of their own goals
fulfill what member states decided what they wanted it to be
, lecture 2 09/09
IOs and IR theory
2 min debates:
- why do states cooperate, create/join IO?
- what is the role of Ios in world pol?
plan:
1. (neo) realism
2. (neolib) institutionalism
3. liberalism
4. social constructivism
5. critical theories
⇒ how are they relevant to the study of io?
1. (neo) realism
= internat° system is anarchic, no superior authority
states = unitary actors → same interests = advance own power
power = material
IO are instruments for (powerful/hegemonic) states to pursue nat° interest
(theory of hegemonic stability = IO created if they are considered useful by hegemonic
states) ⇒ cost/benefit; rational to create IO or not
UN created bc increase of their power through an IO
IO can’t be + powerful of states → impossible
2. (neolib) institutionalism
states = unitary actors but interdependent
IO = likely to be created, enable coopeart° by reducing transaction costs
→ connected to “cooperation games”
→ cost reduced = bc states meet on a regular basis ⇒ cost of uncertainty goes down bc the
knowlege on the other states goes up
contractualism = act of delegat° to IO to have lower costs
3. liberalism
states = plural actors (not all the same) ex: democracies have diff interests than
autocracies + importance of domestic institutions
cooperation incentive matters
cooperati° bc
- learning (from mistakes)
- shared values matter
Probst
1st year class notes : Introduction to international organisations
Overview
1. Lecture : introduction
2. Lecture 2 : IOs and IR theory
3. Lecture 3 : history of IO and IO research
4. Lecture 4 : League of nations and origins of the UN
5. Lecture 5 : the united nations part II
6. Lecture 6 : the united nations part III
7. Lecture 7 : international courts
8. Lecture 8 : trade and labor
9. Lecture 9 : global economic governance
10. Lecture 10 : global climate governance
11. Lecture 11 : regional organizations
,lecture 1 05/09
summary
1. what are IO?
2. categorize
3. 3 forces
4. 3 views
introduction: concepts and characteristics
IO conceptual and normative sense = divided povs
- seen as gods
- seen as monster that cannot be stopped
- a vessel so empires can live through them
core debate: why do IO exist, why do we need them?
IO =/= NGO
by states =/= by non-states
usually based on inter state treaties =/= “common purpose”
regional or global =/= local, nat°, transnat°
informal IO (ex: G7 etc)
● what are IO?
○ specific class of international institutions
○ institution: a body of norms, rules and practices that shape behavior and
expectations, without necessarily having the physical character of IO → broad
term
○ IO specific features
■ formal treaty base
■ bureaucracy/HQ
■ at least 3 member states
■ regular meetings (“zombies” if no meeting)
■ formal rules + procedures
● catégorisation
1. membership
universal (everyone can become a member if recognized as a state) / limited (only some can
be ex:EU)
2. competence
comprehensive/general purpose → deal w many diff issues
limited/issue specific → on a specific theme
BUT not black and white → not necessarily stiff to 1 category
3. function
rule making organizat° = make policies+rules
operational organizat° = executes policy (ex: IAEA on atomic energy)
4. decision making authority
,intergovernmental → by all member states (vote, decide…) = horizontal authority
⇒ pooled sovereignty (they pool their authority) ex: NATO
supranational → by organizational body = delegate authority (give theirs up) = vertical
authority
⇒ delegated sovereignty : practical (no need to all meet together)
● three forces of IOs in world politics
1. obligation (direct, indirect)
direct: what the states sign up for, on paper
indirect: might arise further on (new policies w legal impact) not necessarily
agreed to
formal/informal
2. compliance (explicit, implicit) = how IO ensure states do what they signed up
implicit: soft means, create a certain environment, high pressure to comply
explicit: direct mechanism, stated on paper (ex: sanctions)
3. enforcement (direct, indirect) = what can IO actually do
pressing question (how to interact w other state, how to act in conflict…)
direct: ex→ IMF (withdraws money)
indirect: expose countries that violate human rights, rely on social pressure
put on states
● 3 views on the role of IO in world politics
1. IO as actors
legally: IO are independent entities w legal personality (right+responsibilities
according to internat° law)
politically: independent actorness through social recognition (has to be
recognize as such) → collective actors are able to do what individual can’t
→ empirically evident through practices of influencing world politics
2. IO as forum
get together to exchange info, interests, policy making
crucial
states as relevant actors
3. IO as tools
tools in the hands of member states → used in pursuit of their own goals
fulfill what member states decided what they wanted it to be
, lecture 2 09/09
IOs and IR theory
2 min debates:
- why do states cooperate, create/join IO?
- what is the role of Ios in world pol?
plan:
1. (neo) realism
2. (neolib) institutionalism
3. liberalism
4. social constructivism
5. critical theories
⇒ how are they relevant to the study of io?
1. (neo) realism
= internat° system is anarchic, no superior authority
states = unitary actors → same interests = advance own power
power = material
IO are instruments for (powerful/hegemonic) states to pursue nat° interest
(theory of hegemonic stability = IO created if they are considered useful by hegemonic
states) ⇒ cost/benefit; rational to create IO or not
UN created bc increase of their power through an IO
IO can’t be + powerful of states → impossible
2. (neolib) institutionalism
states = unitary actors but interdependent
IO = likely to be created, enable coopeart° by reducing transaction costs
→ connected to “cooperation games”
→ cost reduced = bc states meet on a regular basis ⇒ cost of uncertainty goes down bc the
knowlege on the other states goes up
contractualism = act of delegat° to IO to have lower costs
3. liberalism
states = plural actors (not all the same) ex: democracies have diff interests than
autocracies + importance of domestic institutions
cooperation incentive matters
cooperati° bc
- learning (from mistakes)
- shared values matter
