International organisations

Introduction to International Organisations

Final test
 25th October 13.00 exam
- Review session - 21 October
- (Resit – 10th January)
 Textbook + scholarly articles (from the online library)
 Multiple choice
 It is a memory test
- Dates -> year
- Reading materials (cases are important)

Course material
 Readings
 Lectures
 Online additional material
 Items discussed on discussion board

Lecture 1 – concept and terms

IOs NGOs
 Established by states  Established by non-state actors
 (usually) based on inter-state  Common purpose (goal)
treaty  Local, national or transnational
 Regional or international
Examples – Human rights watch,
Examples – UN, IMF, NATO, EU Coalition for the International
Note; IOs can be formal or informal Criminal Court

Core definition - International organisations specifics
 IOs are a specific class of international institutions
- Institution; A body of norms, rules and practices that shape behaviour
and expectations, without necessarily having the physical character of
an international organisation.
 characteristics
- Created by formal intergovernmental agreements
- Bureaucracy/headquarters
- Formal treaty base
- Formal rules and procedures
- Regular state meetings – Usually once a year
- At least 3 member-states

Categorisation
1) Membership
 Universal – every state can become a member (UN)
 Limited (regional) – only some states can become a member (EU)
2) Competence
 Comprehensive/general purpose – IO deals with many different issues
ad topics (UN)

, Limited/issue-specific – IO focuses on a specific team (WTO)
3) Function
 Rule-making organisation – makes policy and sets rules (UN)
 Operational organisation – executes policy (IAEA)

4) Decision-making authority
 Intergovernmental – decision taken by all member states based on
horizontal authority (NATO)
- Do not surrender any power or sovereignty
- Pooled sovereignty
 Supranational – decision taken by organisational body designated
member states based on vertical authority (EU)
- Delegated sovereignty

Three forces of IOs in world politics

Obligation Compliance Enforcement
 Direct  Explicit  Direct
- following the - Pronounced - Sanctions that
existing rules when mechanism (stated follow if member
becoming a on paper) that must states do not follow
member be followed the rules/law
 Indirect - Rarer than implicit  Indirect
- New policies that  Implicit - Expose member
are made that have - show compliance states, use social
a legal impact (not through soft means pressure to prevent
sure if they should by creating a further escalation
be followed) certain
- Not agreed to when environment
first participated

Three views on the role of IOs in world politics
1) IOs as Actors - Subject of international law
 Legally: IGOs are independent entities with legal personality
 ICJ opinion 1949 on reparations for injuries
 ICC statute – ‘the court shall have international legal personality’
 Politically: independent actorness through social recognition
 Collective actor that are able to do what its constituent parts are unable
to do on their own
 Empirically evident trough practices of influencing world politics (ICC
arrest warrants, UN GA resolutions)

2) IOs as Fora
 Physical forum/arena for debate and negotiation
- Exchange of interests and information
- Policy-making
 States as relevant actors
- Plenary organ

, 3) IOs as tools
 IGOs as tools in the hands of their member states pursue their own
personal interests
- Examples; SC and US invasion in Iraq 2003, IMF, International Court of
Justice


Lecture 2 – IOs and IR theory (online lecture)

 (Neo-)Realism
 The international system is anarchic, so without a superior authority
 States unitary actors
- All are the same, have the same interest -> power is the national
interest
 IOs are instruments for (powerful/hegemonic) states to pursue
their national interests
- Theory of hegemonic stability
 States make cost benefit calculations and then decide whether it is
wise to use an IO or not
 Example of IOs; EU, NATO

 (neoliberal)-Institutionalism
 States: are unitary actors but interdependent
 View IOs as Fora
 IOs enable cooperation among states by reducing transaction
cost
- Different types of cooperation games (game theory)
 What is similar and different between neo-realist and institutionalists
- The core difference is that institutionalists that states are not as
independent (much more connected) with each other that while
neorealist believe they are completely independent.
- Neo realists view IOs as tools that we do not give too much power but
can use to their advantage so that not one state gains more power than
the other.
while institutionalists believe that IOs enable cooperation between
states
- Neo-realists see the system as anarchic while institutionalists see it as
anarchic with interdependence

 Liberalism
 States are not unitary -> states as plural actors (democracies –
autocracies)
- Domestic institutions (parliament, media, lobby groups, civil society,
etc)
 Cooperation because of; (what makes them create IOs)
- Learning – learning from own mistakes or mistakes from others
- Shared values (idealism)
- Economic interdependence
 Foundations