International organizations are international legal persons which are established by an international agreement duly signed and put into effect by the governmental bodies of at least three States. The constituting documents, which are usually called statutes, accommodate provisions regarding the main structure, features and working principles of the organization. These include the basic aims, purposes, goals and principles of the organization, the membership criteria, the main bodies/organs and their powers, as well as the decision-making and voting procedures

No. Although possessing an international legal personality is crucial for organizations to take part in international politics, the opposite is not necessarily true. Indeed, there are regular “summit” meetings or entities that do not hold a legal personality and yet are quite influential in international politics. The G-7/8 is indeed one of the most active and effective decision making and standard-setting global actor although it does not possess a legal personality.

The main motivation of the States in establishing organizations has always been international and regional cooperation. They are perceived as useful legal and political tools by States, as they constitute a platform thanks to which certain foreign policy goals that cannot be, or not desired to be, reached individually are better accomplished together with other member States on an institutional basis. 

Once a group of States agree that some concerns are to be dealt with institutional mechanisms, they usually sign a treaty establishing a defence pact and declare that an attack against any of them is in fact directed to all of them. The legal basis of such regional organizations is provided by the UN Charter. The Charter, which prohibits threat and use of force in its Article 2/4, permits States to defend themselves against an armed attack individually or collectively (Article 51). More importantly, Article 52, which is the true legal basis of regional security organizations, allows States to establish “regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with” regional and international peace and security, provided that they are “consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations”.

Best known and most quoted theories of international politics are realism and liberalism (idealism, rationalism). There are also a wide range of theories that oppose these two, which are usually referred to as critical theories/approaches, such as Marxism, feminism, constructivism and so on. All of these general theories of international relations are also adjusted to international and regional organizations.

Liberals (idealists, rationalists) suggest that States are not (potential) enemies but (potential) partners, as they basically stand for providing welfare and peace to their respective citizens. It then means that cooperation especially in between economically coherent States is vital. Regional organizations in particular are established to foster common interests and thus realise the win-win principle.

Organization have, or create in the course of time, bodies deemed necessary for the fulfilment of organizational purposes and functions. Yet they all, almost as a rule, basically have three main bodies: Secretariat, plenary assemble and specially authorised body.

Plenary assemble is the sole body that contains the governmental representatives of all member States. It is usually equipped with general powers and authorities regarding the structure and operation of the organization. It approves the budget, admits new members, amends the statute and so on. It ordinarily meets sparsely, say annually or even once in two years, to discuss, consult and negotiate general issues on its agenda. 

Organizations are open to observer members which are sometimes called “contact States”, “dialog partners” etc.. There are two distinctive characteristics of this status. First, observers, unlike full-member States, are not party to the statute and therefore do not hold especially the voting right. Although their mere participation and contribution to plenary meetings and debates is somehow regarded important, there are cases where this status is granted as a means of preparation for, and transition to, full-membership. Second, observer status is not confined to States. It is also granted to non-State actors such as other international and regional organizations, unrecognised States/entities, multinational companies and non-governmental organizations, as their political standing, economic power or technical expertise is valued. 

Organizations have rules arranging ways of dealing with incompatible and noncompliant States. The ordinary way is suspension according to which certain rights of the member in question is restrained. Many organizations suspend the voting right until a further decision in order to put diplomatic and political pressure on the “naughty” member. The responsibilities and obligations of the suspended member continue though. So, despite making evident that the organization is a bit inharmonious, the suspension decision usually puts the blame/burden on the member concerned. The suspension decision is to be lifted once it normalises. In cases of essential problems or the perception that suspension would not be effective at all, organizations may also expel their members. Expulsion is in fact not that much preferred, for it somehow gives the impression that the organization is incapable of enforcing its principles even to its own members and bringing them into line. It will also be an indicator of weakness and fragility and put the organization on the spot in international politics.

There are two decision-making models in organizations: Consensus and voting.

Consensus is a model where decisions are taken without voting. Each and every member holds the right to express its opinion on a draft resolution. Objections, suggestions, proposals and amendment requests are voiced until a compromise and consent is reached at. At a point where no party raises further issues, the resolution is assumed to be assented. 

In the voting model, each member casts its vote on a draft resolution and the decision is deemed to be taken if the affirmative votes exceed a certain number or ratio. In simple majority, the affirmative vote requirement is more than half of all votes cast. In qualified majority, affirmative votes should be more than half of the votes cast. Finally unanimity, contrary to the general understanding, does not require affirmative votes of all members but simply seeks that no single negative vote is cast. So absences or abstentions are ignored which in turn means that members that do not effectively want to block (“veto”) a resolution may well prefer either not participating the voting or being present but casting a blank vote. The main weakness of this model is the fact that it has the potential to concretise and crystallise the diversity of views among its members.

Organizations may also need additional financial means for unusual or extraordinary activities and expenditures. Ad hoc budgets are raised in such cases with the contributions of willing members. There are members who contribute to ad hoc, as well as regular, budgets in order to increase their respective influences within and outside the organization.

Possessing an international legal personality, first and foremost, means having rights, powers and obligations within international legal realm. Organizations are not only subject to all relevant sorts of international responsibilities, they also have the capacity and capability to create legal rules. 

Weak States would  benefit from processes, as being co-members with other States  and strengthen their positions in international and regional circles. Moreover, at least being a member and holding a vote power would be quite advantageous especially during important decision-making processes. Last but not least, organizations would give member States the opportunity to put the whole blame regarding the criticisms of third States on the organization and claim that the undesirable decision or policy in question is that of (the other members of) the organization.

NATO and Warsaw Pact are the most known examples of collective self-defence organizations which characterised the Cold War.

Economic co-operation is transforming into economic co-production, regionalism is gradually being replaced by regions-based global actors and States.

It is based on an assumption that there are politically neutral and even apolitical problems, the solutions of which are to be, and can only be, found by technicians and bureaucrats. It also means that the root causes of such problems are not political either and they do not stem from preferences of political, economic and social actors. It can include issues ranging from combatting epidemics, climate change and poverty to arranging and even encouraging cultural, sporting and tourism activities.

Realism argue that organizations are a result of States’ seek of security. They, as the main if not the sole actor of international relations, simply want to maximise their interests and survive in a world of homo homini lupus. As this cannot be ensured individually particularly in certain regions, States do and should be part of institutional military alliances against common enemies. Although convening under an umbrella organization usually led by powerful allies would mean some sort of dependency, the sense of security and protection obtained worth it. This is simply because of the fact that self-interest compels collective acts.