Unit 1: International Organization and Global Governance

Defining the Concepts of International Organization and Global Governance

The evolution of international organizations is closely associated with the process of globalization and global governance. Nevertheless, their roots can be traced back to the emergence of the modern international system after the Peace of Westphalian in 1648. Because the early international system had been mainly dominated by European nation states, first IOs emerged in the 19th century in Europe. The Congress of Vienna (1815) created a more convenient atmosphere for the development of IOs.

The increase and diversification of IOs in international politics is closely related to globalization which emerged as a result of the rapid changes of the 20th century. Diez and his colleagues describe globalization as a “catch-all” concept that refers to “the widespread perception of the world as merging into a shared global economic and social space, a process caused by information technologies and an increased degree of interdependency” (Diez et.al., 2011:78-79). Globalization and interdependence are the key factors that have paved the way for global governance.

Defining the Concept of International Organization

The emergence of the Concert System in Europe following the Congress of Vienna heralded the establishment of international organizations (Heywood, 2011: 433). The European “concert was not a full-fledged IGO (intergovernmental organization) but rather an informal mechanism for consultation that helped states cooperate while retaining their autonomy” (Mansbach and Taylor, 2012: 318). However, toward the end of the century some organizational mechanisms were established by states in order to negotiate the peace terms and bring stability to Europe, especially after the major wars. For example, The Paris Conference (1856), the Berlin Conference (1878), and The Hague Conferences (1899 and 1907) can be considered as mechanisms of early forms of IOs. However, the League of Nations is the first permanent IO that was established for the maintenance of international peace and security.

The international organization is an umbrella term that covers both intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs). IGOs refer to formal institutions whose members are predominantly states. INGOs, on the other hand, have a different composition of membership from IGOs as their members are mainly individuals or groups of individuals rather than states. Evans and Newnham categorize IOs as ‘public’ and ‘private.’ Nevertheless, all these organizations can be identified as non-state actors in international politics (Evans and Newnham, 1998: 270). After the Second World War, the number of both IGOs and INGOs has remarkably increased because of the growing interactions across the world. This owes a lot to the development in communication technologies.

Defining the Concept of Global Governance

The Commission on Global Governance defines governance as “the sum of the many individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs. It is a continuing process through which conflicting or diverse interests may be accommodated and co-operative action may be taken. It includes formal institutions and regimes empowered to enforce compliance, as well as informal arrangements that people and institutions either have agreed to or perceive to be in their interest” (The Commission on Global Governance, 1995).

James Rosenau, on the other hand, offers a new concept, global governance, which refers to the systems of rules to have a transnational control that encompasses all levels of human activity (Rosenau, 1995: 13). Rosenau develops a broader understanding of global governance because both ‘the systems of rule’ and ‘all level of human activity’ reflect a holistic approach to understanding international affairs. His conceptualization of global governance involves multiple types of actors from the local to the transnational (Dingwerth and Pattberg, 2006: 189-190).

Classification of International Organizations

Membership

The first and the most important criterion to categorize IOs is the membership composition. As stated above, the term of international organization is an umbrella concept. Therefore, the membership composition may help avoid any confusion on the type of international organizations.

In fact, the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) holds that “any international organization which is not established by intergovernmental agreement shall be considered as a non-governmental organization, including organizations which accept members designated by governmental authorities” (ECOSOC, 1968).

Intergovernmental organizations are divided into three categories:

• IGOs under the total control of the leading member states
• Semi-autonomous IGOs
• Autonomous IGOs

This typology is based on member states’ influence in the organization. The first type of IGOs reflects the classical realist approach that IGOs only act on the basis of the will of their member states. Semi-autonomous IGOs, on the other hand, are organizations that can cooperate with states to achieve collective goals through mediating or arbitrating disputes, providing forums, and helping toward finding a peaceful solution to conflicts. On the other hand, autonomous organizations enjoy a freedom of maneuver in pursuing their own policies (Mansbach and Taylor, 2012: 317-318).

Aims and Activities

The founding document of an organization defines its main aims. These aims can vary based on the subject matter of the organization. For example, the main purpose of the UN is defined in the Preamble of the UN Charter as maintaining international peace and security. Thereby, its overarching aim of maintaining international peace and security also determines the nature of its activities in different issue areas.

Having studied the aims and activities of IOs, Archer has identified three types of organizations based on the relationship that these organizations aim to promote among their members. The first are those organizations that encourage cooperation among its members, who are not in conflict with one another. The second is those organizations that aim at reducing the intensity of a conflict among its members through the methods of conflict management and conflict prevention. The third is those organizations that aim at producing confrontation between its members or between its members and nonmembers. The functions of the UN Security Council defined under Chapter VII of the Charter exemplify this third type of organization and of the nature of relationship (Archer, 2001: 54-55).

Structure

The structure refers to the institutional formation of the IOs. Some international organizations such as the UN have a complex and overarching organizational structure that consists of different branches, permanent missions in headquarters as well as regional and country offices. Some IOs, on the other hand, have only one secretariat office to carry out all its activities. What is more, some IOs hold regular monthly or annual meetings, while others do not set a regular schedule for their meetings. The hybrid organizations such as the ILO have different institutional mechanisms for NGOs and member states.

Functions of International Organizations

The first main function of IOs is articulation and aggregation. This refers to the ability of IOs to bring together unions or organizations that focus on similar issues. IOs enable the actors who share similar objectives to work together for better conditions and help them make their voice heard. In case of disagreement, members may leave the umbrella organization and establish a new international organization. Trade unions, youth movements, employers’ associations generally illustrate this function of IOs (Archer, 2001: 94).

The second significant function of IOs is norm-setting. International organizations greatly contribute to the creation of new norms. They also encourage states to involve in norm-setting processes. Throughout the 20th century, IOs played key roles in the development of new international norms especially on human rights, slavery, global economy, and environment (Archer, 2001: 96- 97).

The third function of IOs is recruitment. This refers to their organizational capacity to allow new members to become a member of the international community with full rights. IGOs, for instance, accept non-self-governing territories into membership in a way to improve their political power and help them learn how to follow their interests in the international arena.

The fourth main function of IOs is socialization. In general, socialization can be considered as a learning process of states about values. INGOs can enable people who share the same beliefs to get socialized at the international level.

Other three significant functions of IOs are rule-making, rule application, and rule adjudication. Although these kind of functions are more associated with states, IOs also fulfil such roles in the international system. These functions of IOs are particularly important because the absence of a central authority makes it difficult to produce common rules in international politics.

International Relations Theories and International Organizations

There are different theories on the role of IOs in world politics. This implies that the literature on IR theories accommodates diverging views on how the international system operates, what roles IOs play, and how they contribute to global governance with a particular reference to the universal values of peace and stability in world politics. The way in which IOs are perceived (either as independent actors or merely an extension of nationstates’ influence mechanisms), provides a breakpoint in the theoretical discussion on IOs.

The main theoretical classification on the role of international relations is structured around: traditional realism, liberalism, Marxism along with constructivism, feminism, the green theory, and other integration theories.

Realism and International Organizations

Realism is one of the major theories of international relations. The state-centric approach of realism is accepted as its distinctive trait, since the state is theoretically acknowledged as the main actor in international relations who follows its own interests and compete for power in the international system. Realism considers the concept of power as the ability to change and adjust the behavior of others in an anticipated way.

Liberalism and International Organizations

In its debate on international affairs, liberalism focuses on the individual rather than on the state and draws its basic ethical tenets from the value of the human being. Based on the works of Adam Smith such as The Wealth of Nations and of John Locke such as The Essay Concerning Human Understanding, the liberal approach acknowledges the possibility of establishing cooperative relations between not only individuals but also nation states.

Critical IR Theories and International Organizations

• Marxism: Marxism primarily focuses on the role of economic power in international affairs. Marxism criticizes capitalism as the main mode of production on the grounds that it causes inequalities among nation states and thus destabilizes the world order and increases the possibility of a conflict among states (Cox, 1981: 127; Katzenstein et al., 1998: 664-666).
• Constructivism: Constructivism is one of the recent prominent theories of International Relations. The constructivist approach focuses on the epistemology and sociology of knowledge as well as the agentstructure debate.
• Feminism: As one of the critical theories of international relations, feminism focuses on the role of gender and gender politics in international affairs.
• Green Theory: This theoretical approach suggests that today IOs play a significant role in the decision-making mechanisms that deal with environmental issues and develop “legally binding” policies negotiated and agreed upon by nation states and non-state entities.

Integration Theories and International Organizations

Integration theories are considered to be useful for several reasons. First, they help us understand the rationale behind integration processes and the effects of such processes in terms of costs and benefits. Second, integration theories shed light on the functioning of formal institutional structures. Third, it is argued that these theories provide a clear understanding of how institutions work.

Federalism as an integration theory gained prominence in the post-Second World War period. Following the War, the idea of establishing a supranational political union in Europe dominated the agenda of West European nations. The rationale behind this initiative was to prevent any future wars and establish a lasting peace in Europe.

Functionalism / Neofunctionalism: Functionalism is an integration theory concerning the development, role, and functioning of IOs. David Mitrany , the founding father of the functionalist theory, justifies the establishment of IOs based on their social, economic, political, and other related functions that are deemed essential for promoting the interests of nation states.

Neofunctionalism, a theory of regional integration, was developed in the 1960s and 1970s as a “moderate conceptual tool” for assessing the European integration process. Neofunctionalism expands the notions of functionalism by combining the “functionalist mechanisms” with “federalist goals,” devoting extensive self-sufficiency to “supranational” institutions.

Universalism Vversus Regionalism

Universalism

The idea of global governance is based on the formation of an international society , which consists of nation states that aim at forming global institutions and following global practices.

Regionalism

Regionalism is a theory or practice of the integration process, which coordinates social, economic, and political activities within a specific geographical location embodying a number of states (Best and Christiansen, 2014).