International organisations

International organisations J. Meierhenrich IR2085, 2790085

2012

Undergraduate study in Economics, Management, Finance and the Social Sciences This is an extract from a subject guide for an undergraduate course offered as part of the University of London International Programmes in Economics, Management, Finance and the Social Sciences. Materials for these programmes are developed by academics at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). For more information, see: www.londoninternational.ac.uk

This guide was prepared for the University of London International Programmes by: J. Meierhenrich, Senior Lecturer, Department of International Relations, The London School of Economics and Political Science. This is one of a series of subject guides published by the University. We regret that due to pressure of work the author is unable to enter into any correspondence relating to, or arising from, the guide. If you have any comments on this subject guide, favourable or unfavourable, please use the form at the back of this guide.

University of London International Programmes Publications Office Stewart House 32 Russell Square London WC1B 5DN United Kingdom www.londoninternational.ac.uk Published by: University of London © University of London 2012 The University of London asserts copyright over all material in this subject guide except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form, or by any means, without permission in writing from the publisher. We make every effort to contact copyright holders. If you think we have inadvertently used your copyright material, please let us know.

Contents

Contents Introduction............................................................................................................. 1 Aims ............................................................................................................................. 1 Learning outcomes......................................................................................................... 1 How to use this guide..................................................................................................... 2 The purpose of the subject guide.................................................................................... 2 Reading......................................................................................................................... 3 Activities........................................................................................................................ 3 Online study resources.................................................................................................... 3 Syllabus.......................................................................................................................... 5 Examination................................................................................................................... 5 Recommended study time............................................................................................... 6 List of abbreviations....................................................................................................... 6 Chapter 1: The study of international organisations............................................... 9 Aims and learning outcomes........................................................................................... 9 Essential reading............................................................................................................ 9 Further reading............................................................................................................... 9 Introduction................................................................................................................. 10 Concepts...................................................................................................................... 10 Questions..................................................................................................................... 13 Theories....................................................................................................................... 16 Disciplines.................................................................................................................... 18 A reminder of your learning outcomes........................................................................... 19 Sample examination questions...................................................................................... 19 Part I: The theory of international organisations.................................................. 21 Chapter 2: Realism................................................................................................ 23 Aims and learning outcomes......................................................................................... 23 Essential reading.......................................................................................................... 23 Further reading............................................................................................................. 23 Introduction................................................................................................................. 24 Classical realism, or the tragic view of international politics........................................... 24 From classical realism to structural realism.................................................................... 25 The ‘relative gains problem’ in international cooperation............................................... 25 The false promise of international institutions: John Mearsheimer.................................. 26 Conclusion................................................................................................................... 27 A reminder of your learning outcomes........................................................................... 27 Sample examination questions...................................................................................... 27 Chapter 3: Liberalism............................................................................................ 29 Aims and learning outcomes......................................................................................... 29 Essential reading ......................................................................................................... 29 Further reading............................................................................................................. 29 Introduction................................................................................................................. 30 Classical liberalism, or the idealistic view of international politics................................... 30 From idealism to pluralism............................................................................................ 31 From pluralism to neo-liberal institutionalism................................................................ 32 Game theory of international institutions: Robert Keohane............................................ 32 i

85 International organisations

Regime theory of international institutions: Stephen Krasner.......................................... 33 Peace theory of international institutions: Bruce Russett ............................................... 34 Conclusion................................................................................................................... 35 A reminder of your learning outcomes........................................................................... 35 Sample examination questions...................................................................................... 35 Chapter 4: Constructivism..................................................................................... 37 Aims and learning outcomes......................................................................................... 37 Essential reading.......................................................................................................... 37 Further reading............................................................................................................. 37 Introduction................................................................................................................. 38 From rationalism to cognitivism.................................................................................... 39 Social theory of international institutions: Michael Barnett and Martha Finnemore......... 40 Micro-processes of socialisation: Alastair Ian Johnston................................................... 41 Conclusion................................................................................................................... 43 A reminder of your learning outcomes........................................................................... 43 Sample examination questions...................................................................................... 43 Part II: The history of international organisations................................................ 45 Chapter 5: A history of international organisations.............................................. 47 Aims and learning outcomes......................................................................................... 47 Essential reading.......................................................................................................... 47 Further reading............................................................................................................. 47 Introduction................................................................................................................. 48 The origins of international organisations, 1815–1914.................................................. 48 The rise of international organisations, 1918–1945....................................................... 49 The proliferation of international organisations, 1945–present ..................................... 50 Conclusion................................................................................................................... 51 A reminder of your learning outcomes........................................................................... 51 Sample examination questions...................................................................................... 51 Part III: The practice of international organisations.............................................. 53 chapter 6: The league of nations (1919) and the UN (1945)............................... 55 Aims and learning outcomes......................................................................................... 55 Essential reading.......................................................................................................... 55 Further reading............................................................................................................. 55 Introduction................................................................................................................. 56 Institutional origins of the League of Nations................................................................ 56 How the League of Nations worked.............................................................................. 58 Institutional effects of the League of Nations................................................................ 59 Institutional origins of the United Nations .................................................................... 62 How the UN works....................................................................................................... 63 Institutional effects of the UN....................................................................................... 64 Conclusion................................................................................................................... 66 A reminder of your learning outcomes........................................................................... 66 Sample examination questions...................................................................................... 67 chapter 7: The IMF (1945) and the World Bank (1945)......................................... 69 Aims and learning outcomes......................................................................................... 69 Essential reading.......................................................................................................... 69 Further reading............................................................................................................. 69 Introduction................................................................................................................. 70 Institutional origins of the IMF ..................................................................................... 70 ii

Contents

How the IMF works...................................................................................................... 71 Institutional effects of the IMF...................................................................................... 72 Institutional origins of the World Bank.......................................................................... 74 How the World Bank works.......................................................................................... 75 Institutional effects of the World Bank........................................................................... 76 Conclusion................................................................................................................... 78 A reminder of your learning outcomes........................................................................... 78 Sample examination questions...................................................................................... 78 Chapter 8: GATT (1947) and the World Trade Organization (1995)....................... 79 Aims and learning outcomes......................................................................................... 79 Essential reading.......................................................................................................... 79 Further reading............................................................................................................. 79 Introduction................................................................................................................. 80 Institutional origins of GATT ........................................................................................ 80 How GATT worked........................................................................................................ 81 Institutional effects of GATT.......................................................................................... 83 Institutional origins of the WTO..................................................................................... 83 How the WTO works..................................................................................................... 84 Institutional effects of the WTO..................................................................................... 85 Conclusion................................................................................................................... 87 A reminder of your learning outcomes........................................................................... 87 Sample examination questions...................................................................................... 87 Chapter 9: NATO (1952) and the OSCE (1995)....................................................... 89 Aims and learning outcomes......................................................................................... 89 Essential reading.......................................................................................................... 89 Further reading............................................................................................................. 89 Introduction................................................................................................................. 90 Institutional origins of NATO ........................................................................................ 90 How NATO works......................................................................................................... 92 Institutional effects of NATO......................................................................................... 93 Institutional origins of the OSCE................................................................................... 94 How the OSCE works.................................................................................................... 95 Institutional effects of the OSCE.................................................................................... 96 Conclusion................................................................................................................... 98 A reminder of your learning outcomes........................................................................... 98 Sample examination questions...................................................................................... 98 chapter 10: European Communities (1957) and the EU (1992)............................. 99 Aims and learning outcomes......................................................................................... 99 Essential reading.......................................................................................................... 99 Further reading............................................................................................................. 99 Introduction............................................................................................................... 100 Institutional origins of the EC ..................................................................................... 100 How the EC worked.................................................................................................... 103 Institutional effects of the EC...................................................................................... 105 Institutional origins of the EU...................................................................................... 106 How the EU works...................................................................................................... 108 Institutional effects of the EU...................................................................................... 110 Conclusion................................................................................................................. 112 A reminder of your learning outcomes......................................................................... 112 Sample examination questions.................................................................................... 113 iii

85 International organisations

chapter 11: The Organisation of African Unity (1963) and the African Union (2002)........................................................................................... 115 Aims and learning outcomes....................................................................................... 115 Essential reading........................................................................................................ 115 Further reading........................................................................................................... 115 Introduction............................................................................................................... 116 Institutional origins of the OAU .................................................................................. 116 How the OAU worked................................................................................................. 118 Institutional effects of the OAU................................................................................... 118 Institutional origins of the AU..................................................................................... 120 How the AU works...................................................................................................... 121 Institutional effects of the AU...................................................................................... 122 Conclusion................................................................................................................. 124 A reminder of your learning outcomes......................................................................... 124 Sample examination questions.................................................................................... 124 Chapter 12: The ICYT (1993), the ICTR (1994) and the ICC (2002)...................... 125 Aims and learning outcomes....................................................................................... 125 Essential reading........................................................................................................ 125 Further reading........................................................................................................... 125 Introduction............................................................................................................... 126 Institutional origins of the ICTY and ICTR ................................................................... 126 How the ICTY and ICTR work...................................................................................... 128 Institutional effects of the ICTY and ICTR.................................................................... 129 Institutional origins of the ICC.................................................................................... 132 How the ICC works.................................................................................................... 134 Institutional effects of the ICC..................................................................................... 136 Conclusion................................................................................................................. 136 A reminder of your learning outcomes......................................................................... 137 Sample examination questions.................................................................................... 137 Chapter 13: Conclusion....................................................................................... 139 Aims and learning outcomes ...................................................................................... 139 Essential reading........................................................................................................ 139 Further reading........................................................................................................... 139 Introduction............................................................................................................... 140 How do international organisations matter? Theoretical conclusions............................ 140 How do international organisations matter? Empirical conclusions.............................. 142 Conclusion................................................................................................................. 143 A reminder of your learning outcomes......................................................................... 143 Sample examination questions.................................................................................... 143 Appendix 1: Sample examination paper............................................................. 145 Appendix 2: Bibliography.................................................................................... 147

iv

Introduction

Introduction This study of international organisations, a 200 course, builds on the foundations laid by 11 Introduction to international relations. It offers a comprehensive introduction to the theory, history, and practice of international organisations. Through an in-depth and interdisciplinary examination of these frequently misunderstood international institutions, the course introduces students to key themes in the field of international relations. The international organisations we will discuss in this course range from the League of Nations to the United Nations, from the World Bank to the World Trade Organization, from the European Union to the African Union, from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to the International Criminal Court. The course is designed to equip you with the analytical tools necessary for making sense of the evolution of the international system from the nineteenth century to the present, and for accurately and critically assessing the role of international organisations therein. The subject guide’s disciplinary ambit ranges from anthropology to economics, from history to law and from political science to sociology. Against the background of diverse disciplinary approaches, it acquaints you with key themes and essential readings concerning the study of international organisations. By tracing the changing forms and functions of multilateralism across space and time, the guide provides students with an accessible and comprehensive overview of one of the most important and policy-relevant fields of study in international relations.

Aims The course and this subject guide aim to give you an understanding of the major theoretical and empirical aspects of the role of international organisations in international politics, including, inter alia, their impact on: • the practice of international cooperation and conflict • the maintenance of international peace and security • the management of international economic relations • the promotion of international environmental standards • the prosecution of international crimes • related matters of concern to international society.

Learning outcomes At the end of this course, and having completed the Essential reading and activities, you should be able to: • demonstrate you have thoroughly understood the core literature on international organisations • engage with this literature critically by developing your own argumentation • explain the main theoretical approaches and empirical issues in the study of international organisations • write clearly, effectively and critically about these issues. 1

85 International organisations

How to use this guide The subject guide is organised into three parts and 13 chapters. Each of the parts is devoted to a major theme in the study of international organisations, namely the theory, history and practice of these institutions, respectively. For it is imperative that students in the social sciences, including international relations, excel at both theoretical and empirical reasoning. And when it comes to the latter, it is indispensable that you acquire a solid appreciation of international organisations, then and now. For we will only be able to imagine institutional futures if we comprehend institutional pasts. Part I is dedicated to the theory of international organisations. Comprising three chapters, it provides an overview of contending bodies of thought, namely: • realism (including neo-realism) • liberalism (including neo-liberal institutionalism) • constructivism. Each chapter explicates the major tenets of the intellectual perspective with which it is concerned, with particular reference to the contributions of major scholars, ranging from John Mearsheimer to Robert Keohane, and from Ernst Haas to Michael Barnett and Martha Finnemore. Part II consists of one chapter and is concerned with the history of international organisations. It offers a brief history from 1815 to the present. Part III covers the practice of international organisations. Grounded in the theoretical and historical foundations laid in Chapters 1–5, Chapters 6–12 turn to the contemporary law and politics of select international organisations. The focus is on sets of major international organisations. Each of the chapters provides an analysis of institutional origins, effects and futures. Moreover, you will find a concise overview of the institutions and procedures that make each international organisation work. Unless otherwise stated, all websites in this subject guide were accessed in April 2012. We cannot guarantee, however, that they will stay current and you may need to perform an internet search to find the relevant pages. Parts I–III are framed by introductory and concluding chapters that preview and review, respectively, the study of international organisations.

The purpose of the subject guide The purpose of this subject guide is to provide an overview of the key concepts, questions, theories, disciplines and methodologies relevant to the study of international organisations. It should be read alongside – not instead of – the books, chapters and articles assigned as Essential reading. It is through the diligent and regular preparation of these materials that you will acquire an improved understanding of the nature and operation of international organisations. As such, the subject guide offers a convenient entry point into the subject matter, but no more than that. It offers some food for thought and an intellectual framework within which you can organise your studies. It must be complemented with insights derived directly from the scholarly literature. Turning from the subject guide as a whole to its constituent parts, each chapter is organised in an identical manner. After setting out its particular aims and learning outcomes, it proceeds to set out the reading materials relevant to the topic in question. 2

Introduction

Reading Each chapter generally lists two categories of reading: Essential reading and Further reading. All listings under the rubric of the former are mandatory and indispensable for making sense of the topic in question. They are listed in order of importance and should be read carefully and in their entirety. All readings listed under the latter rubric are optional and are listed alphabetically at the start of each chapter. Further readings are resources for you to consult in order for you to further your interest or deepen or broaden your knowledge of the topic in question. To help you read extensively, you have free access to the VLE and University of London Online Library (see below). There is a full bibliography for this course in an appendix at the end of the guide.

Essential reading The following three introductory texts are recommended for purchase. Hurd, Ian International Organizations: Politics, Law, Practice. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011) [ISBN 9780521147378]. Armstrong, David, Lorna Lloyd and John Redmond International Organisation in World Politics. (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2004) third edition [ISBN 9781403903037]. Karns, Margaret P. and Karen A. Mingst International Organizations: The Politics and Processes of Global Governance. (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, 2010) second edition [ISBN 9781588266989].

Detailed reading references in this subject guide refer to the editions of the set textbooks listed above. New editions of one or more of these textbooks may have been published by the time you study this course. You can use a more recent edition of any of the books; use the detailed chapter and section headings and the index to identify relevant readings. Also check the virtual learning environment (VLE) regularly for updated guidance on readings.

Activities Each chapter of this subject guide contains several learning activities. These activities are designed to aid you in the comprehension and retention of the theoretical and empirical information. The nature of the activities varies. Some of them highlight additional, particularly salient resources; others demand independent study. At the conclusion of each chapter, the guide summarises in the form of a reminder the chief learning outcomes that you are expected to have reached. The inclusion of Sample examination questions is intended to facilitate appropriate preparation for the written examination. As part of your studies, you are strongly encouraged to attempt to answer at least one of the questions per chapter under timed examination conditions. Answers should be around 1,500 words in length, and you should strive for originality, soundness and clarity of argument and evidence, as discussed below.

Online study resources In addition to the subject guide and the Essential reading, it is crucial that you take advantage of the study resources that are available online for this course, including the VLE and the Online Library.

3

85 International organisations

You can access the VLE, the Online Library and your University of London email account via the Student Portal at: http://my.londoninternational.ac.uk You should have received your login details for the Student Portal with your official offer, which was emailed to the address that you gave on your application form. You have probably already logged in to the Student Portal in order to register. As soon as you registered, you will automatically have been granted access to the VLE, Online Library and your fully functional University of London email account. If you forget your login details at any point, please email uolia.support@ london.ac.uk quoting your student number.

The VLE The VLE, which complements this subject guide, has been designed to enhance your learning experience, providing additional support and a sense of community. It forms an important part of your study experience with the University of London and you should access it regularly. The VLE provides a range of resources for EMFSS courses. • Self-testing activities. Doing these allows you to test your own understanding of subject material. • Electronic study materials. The printed materials that you receive from the University of London are available to download, including updated reading lists and references. • Past examination papers and Examiners’ commentaries. These provide advice on how each examination question might best be answered. • A student discussion forum. This is an open space for you to discuss interests and experiences, seek support from your peers, work collaboratively to solve problems and discuss subject material. • Videos. There are recorded academic introductions to the subject, interviews and debates and, for some courses, audio-visual tutorials and conclusions. • Recorded lectures. For some courses, where appropriate, the sessions from previous years’ study weekends have been recorded and made available. • Study skills. Expert advice on preparing for examinations and developing your digital literacy skills. • Feedback forms. Some of these resources are available for certain courses only, but we are expanding our provision all the time and you should check the VLE regularly for updates.

Making use of the Online Library The Online Library contains a huge array of journal articles and other resources to help you read widely and extensively. To access the majority of resources via the Online Library you will either need to use your University of London Student Portal login details, or you will be required to register and use an Athens login: http://tinyurl.com/ollathens The easiest way to locate relevant content and journal articles in the Online Library is to use the Summon search engine. If you are having trouble finding an article listed in a reading list, try removing any punctuation from the title, such as single quotation marks, question marks and colons. 4

Introduction

For further advice, please see the online help pages: www.external.shl.lon. ac.uk/summon/about.php

Syllabus As stated in the Regulations, the course seeks to give students an understanding of the major theoretical and empirical aspects of the role of international organisations in international politics, including, inter alia, their impact on the practice of international cooperation and conflict, the maintenance of international peace and security, the management of international economic relations, the promotion of international environmental standards, the prosecution of international crimes, and related matters of concern to international society. • Origins of international organisations: why do IOs such as the Organization of American States emerge? • Development of international organisations: what goes on within IOs such as the United Nations? • Effects of international organisations: what difference do IOs such as the International Monetary Fund make? • Pathologies of international organisations: when do IOs such as the European Union go wrong?

Examination Important: the information and advice given here are based on the examination structure used at the time this guide was written. Please note that subject guides may be used for several years. Because of this we strongly advise you to always check both the current Regulations for relevant information about the examination, and the VLE where you should be advised of any forthcoming changes. You should also carefully check the rubric/ instructions on the paper you actually sit and follow those instructions. This course is assessed by a three-hour unseen written examination. As part of the examination, which accounts for 100 per cent of the grade, students are required to answer four out of 12 questions. The appendix contains a Sample examination paper. In order to test for deep acquisition of knowledge, you are expected to integrate theory and history and bring empirical evidence to bear on the examination questions you choose. Several criteria are applied in the evaluation of examination answers. Firstclass essays will excel in terms of all of the following criteria: 1. Originality of argument: How unexpected is the claim advanced? 2. Use of literature: Has relevant scholarship been digested and put to good use? 3. Soundness of analysis: Is the inquiry comprehensive and logically consistent and addressing the posed question? 4. Organisation of evidence: Have argument and evidence been introduced and presented in a compelling manner? 5. Validity of findings: Does the argument remain valid when applied empirically? 6. Clarity of presentation: Are grammar, punctuation and references flawless? You are strongly advised to consult past examination papers as well as Examiners’ commentaries as part of your examination preparation. The 5

85 International organisations

latter in particular contain valuable information about how to approach the examination. Both sets of documents can be found on the VLE. Remember, it is important to check the VLE for: • up-to-date information on examination and assessment arrangements for this course • where available, past examination papers and Examiners’ commentaries for the course which give advice on how each question might best be answered.

Recommended study time The Strategies for success subject guide gives information for students about courses and study time. Generally, a typical course requires six to eight hours study per week as a minimum.

List of abbreviations ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations AU

African Union

CEDAW

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women

CIS

Commonwealth of Independent States

COE

Council of Europe

CSCE

Conference for Security and Co-operation in Europe

DPA

Department of Political Affairs, United Nations

DPKO

Department of Peacekeeping Affairs, United Nations

EC

European Community

ECCC

Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia

ECOMOG Economic Community of West African States Monitoring Group ECOSOC

United Nations Economic and Social Council

ECOWAS

Economic Council of West African States

ECHR

European Convention on Human Rights

E-10

Elected 10 Members of the UNSC

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organization

GATT

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

G-7

Group of Finance Ministers of 7 Industrialised Countries

G-8

Group of Heads of Government of 7 Industrialised Countries and Russia

G-77

Group of 77 Developing Countries

G-20

Group of 20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors of 19 Countries and EU

IAEA

International Atomic Energy Agency

ICC

International Criminal Court

ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

6

ICJ

International Court of Justice

ICRC

International Committee of the Red Cross

Introduction

ICTR

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

ICTY

International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia

IFAD

International Fund for Agricultural Development

ILO

International Labour Organization

IMF

International Monetary Fund

IMO

International Maritime Organization

IPCC

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

ITU

International Telecommunication Union

MERCOSUR Common Market for the Southern Hemisphere NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement NAM

Non-aligned Movement

NATO

North Atlantic Treaty Organization

OAS

Organization of American States

OAU

Organisation of African Unity

OHCHR

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

OPEC

Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries

OSCE

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe

P-5

Permanent Five Members of the UNSC

R2P

Responsibility to Protect (or Rtop)

SADC

Southern African Development Community

SCSL

Special Court for Sierra Leone

TEU Treaty on European Union UIA Union of International Associations UNCTAD

United Nations Commission on Trade and Development

UNDP

United Nations Development Programme

UNEP

United Nations Environment Programme

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization UNFPA

United Nations Population Fund

UNGA

United Nations General Assembly

UNHCR

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

UNICEF

United Nations Children’s Fund

UNODC

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

UNSC

United Nations Security Council

UPU

Universal Postal Union

WEU

Western European Union

WFP

World Food Programme

WHO

World Health Organization

WIPO

World Intellectual Property Organization

WMO

World Meteorological Organization

WTO

World Trade Organization

7

85 International organisations

Notes

8

Chapter 1: The study of international organisations

Chapter 1: The study of international organisations Aims and learning outcomes The aim of this chapter is to elaborate what it means to study international organisations from a scholarly perspective. It explores the nature of international organisations − and the challenges involved in making sense of them. By the end of this chapter, and having completed the Essential readings and activities, you should be able to: • describe what international organisations are • distinguish international institutions from international organisations • outline the difference between the description and the study of international organisations, namely, the difference between journalistic and academic writings.

Essential reading Hurd, Ian, International Organizations: Politics, Law, Practice. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), pp.1−14. Ruggie, John Gerard ‘Multilateralism: The Anatomy of an Institution’, International Organization, 46(3) (Summer 1992), pp.561−98. Hollis, Martin and Steve Smith Explaining and Understanding International Relations. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), pp.45−91.

Further reading Archer, Clive International Organizations. (London: Routledge, 2001) third edition. Armstrong, David, Lorna Lloyd and John Redmond International Organisation in World Politics. (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2004) third edition. Avant, Deborah D., Martha Finnemore and Susan K. Sell (eds) Who Governs the Globe? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010). Barnett, Michael and Raymond Duvall (eds) Power in Global Governance. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005). Claude, Inis Swords into Plowshares: The Progress and Problems of International Organization. (New York: Random House, [1956] 1971) fourth edition. Duffield, John ‘What Are International Institutions?’ International Studies Review, 9(1) (Spring 2007), pp.1−22. Fawcett, Louise and Andrew Hurrell (eds) Regionalism in World Politics: Regional Organization and International Order. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996). Karns, Margaret P. and Karen A. Mingst International Organizations: The Politics and Processes of Global Governance. (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, 2010) second edition. Kratochwil, Friedrich V. and John G. Ruggie ‘International Organization: A State of the Art on an Art of the State’, International Organization, 40(4) Autumn 1986), pp.753−75. Martin, Lisa and Beth Simmons (eds) International Institutions: An International Organization Reader. (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2001). Mattli, Walter and Ngaire Woods (eds) The Politics of Global Regulation. (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2009). 9

85 International organisations Rittberger, Volker, Bernhard Zangl and Andreas Kruck International Organization. (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2012) second edition. Rochester, J. Martin ‘The Rise and Fall of International Organization as a Field of Study’, International Organization, 40(4) (September 1986), pp.777−813. Ruggie, John Gerard (ed.) Multilateralism Matters: The Theory and Practice of an Institutional Form. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993). Zartman, I. William and Saadia Touval (eds) International Cooperation: The Extents and Limits of Multilateralism. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).

Introduction This chapter provides an overview of the rise and fall and rebirth of international organisations as a sub-field of study in the field of international relations. The discussion proceeds under four separate headings: 1. concepts 2. questions 3. theories 4. disciplines. It will quickly become apparent that the meaning of international organisations is in the eye of the beholder, for scholars of different persuasions and disciplines have contending and even irreconcilable views of whether international organisations matter in international politics, and of the conditions under which they might. In passing, the chapter introduces a working definition of ‘international organisations’, distinguishing the concept from that of ‘international institutions’. Related concepts to be discussed include ‘unilateralism’, ‘bilateralism’ and ‘multilateralism’, as well as ‘cooperation’. In response to the complexity of the subject matter, this chapter makes a case for the triangulation of insights from the theory, history and practice of international organisations. This notwithstanding, the principal basis of this intellectual endeavour is the social sciences.

Concepts For those not familiar with them, the notion of the ‘social sciences’ frequently is awe-inspiring. In this context an anecdote comes to mind that involves National Public Radio or NPR, the influential US non-profit radio network (Hechter and Horne, 2003: 3). At one point, a journalist at this American equivalent of the BBC was wondering how rocket scientists expressed the idea that something may be difficult but ‘It isn’t rocket science.’ In order to find out, the NPR journalist did what journalists do best: he asked around. The first stop, naturally, were the rocket scientists. How did they convey that something was demanding but not beyond their natural grasp? The rocket scientists that the NPR reporter interviewed responded that they often said that ‘something may be difficult, but it isn’t theoretical physics’. Naturally, the reporter proceeded to interview a theoretical physicist. The theoretical physicist responded that he and his colleagues often said that ‘something may be difficult, but it isn’t social science.’ The purpose of this anecdote is to drive home the point that social phenomena are usually staggeringly complex − complex enough to intimidate a theoretical physicist. And international organisations are 10

Chapter 1: The study of international organisations

among the most complex of these phenomena. Put differently, newcomers to the study of international organisations should not feel discouraged if it takes them a few weeks to wrap their heads around some of the terminology and rather abstract ideas that are germane to the academic literature in international relations and related fields of study. It is normal to feel temporarily disoriented during the transition from journalism to academia in the study of international organisations. This being so, this guide is designed to help you meet the challenge. Let us start with ‘concepts’. Concepts are the building blocks of any serious undertaking in the social sciences. As imagined constructs of abstract thought, concepts refer to a general idea or notion that corresponds to some set of entities and which names, often by way of simplification, the defining attributes or essential features of the set. Examples of much-debated concepts include ‘democracy’, ‘liberalism’, ‘freedom’ and ‘development’. As such, concepts form the basis of theory development, and they also influence the selection of units of analysis, what is often referred to as ‘cases’, in the methodology of the social sciences. What, then, are we to make of the concept of ‘international organisations’? The question is far from trivial, for before we can make claims about their role(s) and utility in international politics, we must make sure that we are talking about the same phenomenon. Otherwise our findings might not be comparable − like the proverbial apples and oranges. Or, as Elinor Ostrom (1986: 4), a recent Nobel Laureate in Economics, once put it: ‘No scientific field can advance far if the participants do not share a common understanding of key terms.’ The conceptual imperative applies to students as much as it does to scholars. An examination answer that fails to carefully clarify the terms it uses, will be wanting from the outset. Having established the importance of concepts, we shall now look at a few definitions of the concept of ‘international organisation’. The point is not to adopt one or another of these definitions, but to be aware of the varied conceptual landscape, and the challenges involved in defining the essence of the phenomenon at the heart of this subject guide. In 1970, Michael Wallace and David Singer proffered this definition: [An international organization] must consist of at least two qualified members of the international system [and have been] created by a formal instrument of agreement between the governments of national states… [In addition,] [t]he organization must hold more or less regular plenary sessions at intervals not greater than a decade [and have a permanent secretariat with a permanent headquarters and which performs ongoing tasks].

Already 14 years earlier, in 1956, Inis Claude, arguably the founding father of the systematic study of international organisations, had introduced this conceptualisation: International organization [in the singular] is a process; international organizations [in the plural] are representative aspects of the phase of that process which has been reached at a given time.

Crucially, Claude’s distinction brings us to an important concept, namely that of ‘multilateralism’, that is related to that of international organisation, but not identical to it. Here is a nominal definition by Robert Keohane, an eminent scholar of international relations whose work will be featured prominently in Chapter 3 of the subject guide below: 11

85 International organisations [Multilateralism] is the practice of co-ordinating national policies in groups of three or more states.

Another scholar, John Ruggie (1992), as the assigned article makes clear, takes issue with this definition. Although Ruggie’s classic article is conceptually and theoretically demanding, it is not just of academic significance. Incidentally, Ruggie, like several other leading scholars of international relations, has oscillated between theory and practice. In addition to having made major contributions to international relations theory (notably to what we will encounter as constructivism in Chapter 4), Ruggie has served in the higher echelons of the United Nations system. Now at Harvard University, and formerly at Columbia University, Ruggie, between 1997 and 2001, served as UN Assistant Secretary-General and chief advisor for strategic planning to Kofi Annan, then UN SecretaryGeneral. Since 2005, Ruggie has been the Secretary-General’s Special Representative on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises. Why is such biographical information worth mentioning? It is worth mentioning to highlight that the academic study of international organisations is neither divorced from nor irrelevant, as some claim, to the practice of multilateralism in the international system. But let us get back to the task at hand and introduce a useful working definition adapted from Clive Archer (2001: 33) who defines international organisations as: formal, continuous structures established by agreement between members… from two or more sovereign states with the aim of pursuing the common interest of membership.

The advantage of this definition is its explicit focus on the formal characteristics of international organisations that Wallace and Singer had already emphasised thirty years earlier. This brings us usefully to the question of how the concepts of ‘international organisations’ and ‘international institutions’ relate to one another. Although in current affairs and journalistic parlance the two terms are used synonymously, in the study of international organisations a marked conceptual difference exists. This distinction will become ever clearer in the theoretical and empirical chapters to come. At this point, a basic differentiation will suffice. For the purpose of this subject guide, the concept of international institutions connotes, following John Duffield (2007: 7): relatively stable sets of related constitutive, regulative, and procedural norms and rules that pertain to the international system, the actors in the system (including states as well as nonstate entities), and their activities.

The contrast between this definition and virtually all of the aforementioned definitions of international organisations is stark. The conceptual difference can be put more simply than in Duffield’s words. To avoid confusion, students may want to think of international institutions as (some of) the ‘rules of game’ in international politics, consisting of the formal legal rules (such as international law) and the informal social norms (such as international ethics) that govern individual behaviour and structure social interactions among states and other actors on the international stage. By this token, students will want to conceive of international organisations as formal instantiations of certain aspects of international institutions that come with attributes such as buildings and bureaucracies and budgets. International organisations thus refer to those groups of people and the governance they create in an effort to coordinate collective action for the pursuit of specific international public or private 12

Chapter 1: The study of international organisations

or mixed goods. By way of example, an international organisation such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the UN, can be seen as a formal expression of the operation of international law, one of several international institutions in the international system. Whereas international law is a rather amorphous set of related constitutive, regulative and procedural norms and rules, the ICJ is a very concrete brick-and-mortar organisation, composed of 15 judges elected to nine-year terms of office by the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council, and headquartered in the imposing Peace Palace on Carnegieplein in The Hague. The distinction between international institutions and international organisations goes back loosely to yet another Nobel Laureate in Economics, Douglass North, who spent several decades coming to terms with the significance of domestic institutions. Incidentally, it was for this important and pathbreaking body of work that he was awarded the Swedish Academy’s coveted prize. Activity What is the conceptual distinction between ‘international institutions’ and ‘international organisations’?

Questions Having established that concepts matter in the study of international organisations, it is useful to elaborate further on how exactly they matter. In a most basic sense, it is impossible to ask real-world questions about social phenomena without putting a label on them. What kinds of questions are pressing when it comes to international organisations? Why should we care about them in the first place? Three answers come to mind: ubiquity, centrality and pathology. First, international organisations make for an important subject of study because they simply are everywhere. Take the allegations over corruption in the higher ranks of FIFA, the world football association, that came to a head in 2011. FIFA is an international organisation. As is the International Olympic Committee, the IOC, which every four years organises the Olympic Games. Both FIFA and IOC are private international organisations, better known as non-intergovernmental organisations (INGOs), of which more in Chapter 8, when the subject guide turns to the classification of international organisations. The point is that international organisations exist above and beyond the handful of public international organisations (IGOs) that regularly make the news, such as the UN, the IMF, the World Bank or the WTO. There are far more international organisations than there are sovereign states in the international system. The Union of International Associations (UIA), publisher of the Yearbook of International Organizations, in 2010 came up with a total figure of 63,397, of which it classified 7,554 as IGOs.1 According to the UIA, all of the international organisations on its roster combined convened a staggering 316,534 international meetings in the reporting period 2009–10.2 In short, international organisations are ubiquitous − not an insignificant reason to study them. Second, international organisations make for an important subject of study because they are central to many facets of international life. Talking about sovereign states, for example, it is difficult to get by as a polity in the international system without being accredited by the UN. For what some have called ‘juridical statehood’ (Jackson and Rosberg, 1982) is

Union of International Associations, Yearbook of International Organizations 2010– 2011, Volume 5 (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2010), p.35, Figure 2.9. The figure breaks down as follows: 7,544 IGOs and 55,853 INGOs. Needless to say, the precise number of international associations depends on the method of classification and counting used. The UIA is working with a rather broad definition. 1

Joel Fischer, ‘International Meeting Statistics for the Year 2010,’ Union of International Associations, Press Release, June 2011, available at www.uia. be/sites/uia.be/files/ documents/statistics/ press/press11.pdf 2

13

85 International organisations

bestowed exclusively in the iconic building on New York City’s East River. Without the imprimatur of the world body, no state will rest easily. Empirical statehood, as it were, is necessary for survival in international politics, but is generally not sufficient for success. The case of Palestine is a case in point. In the spring of 2011, Palestinian representatives lobbied fiercely for a UN vote on Palestinian statehood in September of that year, preparing the submission of a resolution that would bring UN membership and thus international independence from and leverage vis-à-vis Israel. If we assume, for a moment, that states are the most important actors in the international system, and that the UN has a constitutive role in making these actors acceptable to international society, we would be hard-pressed to deny the centrality of at least this particular international organisation. Say what you like about the effectiveness of the UN system, it is undeniable that it does play an important role in international politics (as well as in the domestic politics of many countries). Consider also the UN’s involvement in the context of state formation after state collapse under the umbrella of what has become known as ‘international territorial administration’. And numerous other international organisations have lent their helping hands and funds to these missions as well, from the IMF and World Bank to the EU and NATO, to name but a few. Third, and perhaps less obvious, international organisations make for an important subject of study because most of them are marred, in one way or another, by various pathologies. The term is apt. First used by Karl Deutsch many decades ago, it made a return in recent years, when Michael Barnett and Martha Finnemore (1999) usefully re-introduced it into the study of international organisations. For it is regrettable but undeniable that there appears to be ‘rather uncritical optimism about IO behavior’ that can be traced back to the so-called Wilsonianism (named after former US President Woodrow Wilson) that was born in the early twentieth century and which conceived of international organisations solely as promoters of peace and well-being. The strong wish of many liberal thinkers around the world to see the destructive power of states curbed by multilateralism often blinded them to the pathological aspects of international organisations. Surprisingly, scholars of international relations have largely failed to take seriously the study of IO dysfunction. Presumably, the fear that constructive criticism from the left could embolden destructive critics on the right (for example, US politicians favouring American isolationism over American internationalism) persuaded some scholars to forgo a serious engagement with international organisations and instead simply rehearse the well-worn moral defence of international organisations, which holds, drawing loosely on Immanuel Kant’s Perpetual Peace, that multilateralism qua nature is always preferable to unilateralism. As a result of this benign academic neglect of the dark sides of international organisations, neither scholars nor practitioners are sufficiently prepared for devising policies aimed at improving the effectiveness of international organisations in the twenty-first century. For as Barnett and Finnemore (2004: 34−5) not long ago reminded us, international organisations are, first and foremost, bureaucracies. And bureaucracies everywhere ‘are infamous for creating and implementing policies that defy rational logic, for acting in ways that are at odds with their stated mission, and for refusing requests of and turning their backs on those to whom they are officially responsible’. In other words, the third reason for studying international organisations relates to the surprisingly perverse incentives to which they regularly give rise and the unintended consequences that they often produce. 14

Chapter 1: The study of international organisations

To be sure, focusing on the pathologies of international organisations is very different from endorsing invectives about the UN and related organisations coming from the likes of US Republican Senator Jesse Helms and John Bolton, the firebrand former US Ambassador to the UN. The former approach is about engagement with one of the most important set of regularities of international politics, the latter about disengagement. If we care about the comity of nations, it is indispensable and high time that scholars of international relations study international organisations more rigorously, meaningfully and comprehensively than they have for most of the last 50 years. The aim of this subject guide is to give you the tools necessary for beginning to doing so. So much for the reasons for studying international organisations. Once one has resolved to take them seriously, what is to be done? In answer, the remainder of the guide offers a brief overview of important topics of study and a series of illustrative questions from the academic literature to which subsequent chapters will return. Four areas of inquiry can be profitably distinguished, namely those pertaining to the: authority, bureaucracy, efficacy and legitimacy of international organisations. Questions regarding authority take issue with the relative significance and insignificance of multilateralism. They raise subsidiary questions about whether (and, if so, how) international organisations have an independent effect on international outcomes (i.e. as actors in their own right), or whether they are merely expressions of the power of states. An exemplary question would be ‘What authority (if any) does the EU have in international politics?’ The debate over humanitarian intervention in Libya, and the strong disagreements among several leading EU member states, attests to the empirical significance of investigating the authority (or lack thereof) of international organisations. Related are questions pertaining to states’ compliance and non-compliance with the rules of international organisations. The case of the WTO and the performance of its Dispute Settlement Mechanism come to mind in the area of international trade. Questions about bureaucracy, as already intimated, have more to do with the inner workings of international organisations, notably their institutional design and practices. A newer avenue of research has prioritised the exploration of organisational cultures within, for example, the World Bank (Sarfaty, 2009), IMF (Chwieroth, 2009), UN (Barnett), and the ICC (Meierhenrich, forthcoming). A conceivable question with an empirical referent comes to mind: How does bureaucratic organisation affect AU decision-making? Does it aid or undermine international cooperation? Why and when? Efficacy, as a third major area of inquiry, can be said to be concerned with illuminating the conditions under which, say, UN peacekeeping works and fails (Autesserre, 2010). Here the emphasis is on concrete questions of performance. Lastly, there are questions pertaining to legitimacy, that is, the ways in which international organisations are perceived by those within its reach. For a staple in political science research holds that for institutions to be effective they need to be perceived as legitimate. Whether this is empirically true for international organisations, and when, is a question not conclusively answered. By way of illustration, scholars of the IMF do wonder whether structural adjustment programmes, where they failed, were ineffective because they were deemed illegitimate, or whether they came to be seen as illegitimate because they proved ineffective. It goes without saying that the list of important research questions about international organisations is far from exhausted. 15

85 International organisations

Theories Now that we have a better sense of the kinds of questions worth asking in the study of international organisations, it is opportune to illustrate the role of theories in answering them. A key part of studying international organisations academically (as opposed to journalistically) is thinking about them in terms of explanations in which certain concepts become variables. The objective of many scholars in the social sciences, albeit not all, is to combine select variables into theories. Such theories are usually tested by deriving hypotheses from them and by measuring the validity of these hypotheses against empirical evidence. Since, as mentioned, this course is committed to theoretical reasoning as well as empirical reasoning, it is important to unpack these fundamental terms of the trade, what we might call the nature of explanation. Here is a simple visual representation of the relationships among several key terms. See Figure 1.1. [A] Theory Conjecture

Independent variable (as abstract concept)

Dependent variable (as abstract concept)

[B] Operationalisation

Hypothesis

Independent variable (as measurable concept)

Dependent variable (as measurable concept)

[C] Measurement Figure 1.1: The nature of explanation

Variables are concepts with values, such as the ‘likelihood of war’ or ‘rate of compliance’ or ‘power of international organisations’. Social scientists often distinguish between dependent and independent variables. The former connotes a factor to be explained (sometimes called an explanandum in Latin), the latter a factor that does the explaining (sometimes called an explanans). This example will clarify matters: Some theorists of international relations believe that international organisations are causes of peace. In this example, peace is the dependent variable, and international organisations become the independent variable. A theory [A], then, is a somewhat formal, tentative conjecture about the relationship between a number of variables, including an independent variable (or more than one) and an independent variable (usually not more than one). In order to find out whether this conjecture holds true in the real world of international politics, it becomes necessary to derive specific hypotheses from the theory in question. This involves turning the abstract concepts at their heart into measurable concepts. This process is called operationalisation [B] and usually involves the development of indicators for the variables being measured. At its successful conclusion stands a hypothesis, which we can think of as a theory-based statement about the causal relationship that we expect to observe between the variables singled out for analysis. In our example, testing the empirical validity of the theoretical conjecture that international organisations are causes of peace can be accomplished by examining the hypothesis that densely democratic international organisations contribute to the resolution 16

Chapter 1: The study of international organisations

of international conflict. The testing of a hypothesis such as this involves the measurement [C] of indicator values. In the case at hand, this can be accomplished by comparing the incidence of militarised inter-state conflict among members of densely democratic international organisations to the propensity for conflict among members of other types of international organisations (see Pevehouse and Russett, 2006). The statement of the results of a process such as the one just described amounts to an explanation, hopefully a convincing one. But the quest for explanation is not the only way to make sense of the role of international organisations in the international system. A contending perspective prioritises understanding over explanation. See Figure 1.2. What is the difference? In our daily lives, of course, we use the two terms interchangeably. Not so in the social sciences and neighbouring disciplines. There the two perspectives stand for two radically different ways of studying the world around; they represent rival intellectual traditions. The details of these philosophies need not concern us here. Yet it is important to have a broad sense of where they differ, and why. Absent that, it will be nigh impossible to fully comprehend the dense landscape that is the theory of international organisations. Whereas explanation (favoured by most realist and liberal scholars of international relations) is about the application of the scientific method to questions of international organisations, understanding (favoured by most, but not all, constructivist scholars of international relations) is about the application of the hermeneutic method. Explanation has its origins in a philosophy of the social sciences known as positivism (as represented by such diverse scholars as the philosopher David Hume, the sociologist Auguste Comte and the philosophers Carl Gustav Hempel and Karl Popper). The emphasis of this intellectual tradition is on causality and the development of hypotheses and so-called covering laws. The singular method is deductive reasoning for the purpose of generalisation. The overarching goal of any explanation is an objective account of social action, international or otherwise. Origin

Explanation

Understanding

Positivism

Interpretivism

Concern Causality

Constitution

Method

Deduction

Induction

Goal

Generalisation

Particularisation

Ideal

Objectivity

Subjectivity

Figure 1.2: Explanation and understanding

Understanding, by contrast, has its origins in the philosophy of the social sciences known as interpretivism (as practised by the likes of the sociologist Georg Simmel and the historian R.G. Collingwood). The emphasis of this intellectual tradition is on the constitution of actors and relations and the elaboration of meaning and stories. It pursues inductive reasoning for the purpose of particularisation. The overarching goal of any effort at understanding is a subjective account of social action. For the purpose of this subject guide, scholars intent on understanding international organisations will be content with producing an ‘empathetic reading’ of, say, a given international organisation. An outstanding example is Michael Barnett’s (2002) study of the goings-on at the UN Secretariat during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. Barnett’s sole objective was to make sense of international action and inaction from within the much-maligned international body. Another, more recent example is 17

85 International organisations

that of Séverine Autesserre (2010), who delved deep into the culture of peacekeeping of MONUC, the problematic UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Explanations of international organisations have very different ambitions. They are generally aimed at saying something that holds true above and beyond the context in which the research was carried out. A prominent example of this mode of proceeding is the work of many scholars developing what became known as regime theory of international institutions (e.g. Krasner, 1985). More recent examples include the work by Andrew Moravcsik on European integration (1998), and writings on delegation and agency in international organisations (Hawkins et al., 2006). Such are the methodological differences between explanation and understanding in the study of international organisations. Martin Hollis and Steve Smith (1990: 87) summarise the principal difference neatly: ‘To understand is to reproduce the order in the minds of the actors; to explain is to find causes in the scientific manner.’ As subsequent chapters demonstrate, scholarship that unites explanation and understanding often has a great deal more to offer to the study of international organisations than scholarship that favours one over the other. Often, the impetus for crossing theoretical and methodological boundaries comes from disciplines other than political science. Activity Read Stephen Van Evera, Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997) [ISBN 9780801484575], pp.7–48. Think about the promise and limits of different methodological approaches to the study of international organisations.

Disciplines The study of international organisations was at first chiefly the province of international lawyers. Leading perspectives from international law, as Clive Archer (2001: 128) writes, ‘give particular consideration to the constitutions of international organizations, their legal personalities and institutional problems. Indeed, it was probably the Professor of Law at Edinburgh University, J. Lorimer, who first coined the expression “international organization” in 1867.’ Yet in the decades following the creation, in the mid-1940s, of the post-Second World War international order, the study of international organisations quickly became a staple of political science. Although scholarly interest has waxed and waned over the years, with international organisations as a topic moving to and from the cutting edge of international relations research, recent years have seen the emergence of sophisticated, empirically driven analyses never seen before. Even economists and sociologists have discovered formal international institutions, and an increasing number of anthropologists, too, are beginning to take seriously international organisations. The remainder will elucidate any and all of these contributions. But as encouraging as these developments are for the theory and practice of international organisations alike, it is important to be mindful of intellectual blindspots in the study of international organisations. Activity Generally speaking, how do the disciplines of anthropology, economics, history, law, political science and sociology differ?

18

Chapter 1: The study of international organisations

A reminder of your learning outcomes Having completed this chapter, and the Essential reading and activities, you should be able to: • describe what international organisations are • distinguish international institutions from international organisations • outline the difference between the description and the study of international organisations, namely, the difference between journalistic and academic writings.

Sample examination questions 1. What is multilateralism? 2. What is the purpose of studying international organisations? 3. What difference, if any, do epistemological differences make in the study of international organisations?

19

85 International organisations

Notes

20

Part I: The theory of international organisations

Part I: The theory of international organisations

21

85 International organisations

Notes

22

Chapter 2: Realism

Chapter 2: Realism Aims and learning outcomes The aim of this chapter is to elaborate what it means to study international organisations from a realist perspective. It explores the paradigm of realism in all its guises and explains why realists are sceptical about the significance of international organisations. By the end of this chapter, and having completed the Essential readings and activities, you should be able to: • describe the key tenets of classical realism and structural realism (commonly known as neo-realism) • explain the sources of realism’s lack of faith in the power of international organisations • outline the evolution of realist thinking about international organisations (IOs) over time.

Essential reading Grieco, Joseph M., ‘Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism’, International Organization, 42(3) (Summer 1988), pp.485−507. Mearsheimer, John J. ‘The False Promise of International Institutions’, International Security, 19(3) (Winter 1994/95), pp.73−91.

Further reading Baldwin, David A. (ed.) Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993). Bull, Hedley The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. (Basingstoke: Palgrave, [1977] 2002) third edition. Buzan, Barry, Charles Jones and Richard Little The Logic of Anarchy: Neorealism to Structural Realism. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993). Carr, E.H. The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. (Basingstoke: Palgrave, [1939] 2001) new edition. Doyle, Michael W. Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism. (New York: Norton, 1997). Elman, Colin (ed.) Realism Reader. (London: Routledge, 2011). Gilpin, Robert War and Change in World Politics. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983). Gruber, Lloyd Ruling the World: Power Politics and the Rise of Supranational Institutions. (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2000). Little, Richard The Balance of Power in International Relations: Metaphors, Myths, and Models. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). Keohane, Robert O. (ed.) Neorealism and its Critics. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1985). May, Ernest R., Richard Rosecrance and Zara Steiner (eds) History and Neorealism. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010). Mearsheimer, John J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. (New York: Norton, 2002). Morgenthau, Hans J. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. (Boston, Mass.: McGraw-Hill, [1948] 2005) seventh edition. Norrlof, Carla America’s Global Advantage: US Hegemony and International Cooperation. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010). 23

85 International organisations Vasquez, John A. The Power of Power Politics: From Classical Realism to Neotraditionalism. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). Walt, Stephen M. The Origins of Alliances. (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1987). Waltz, Kenneth N. Theory of International Politics. (Boston, Mass.: McGraw-Hill, 2010).

Introduction Realist approaches to international relations come in a variety of guises. What all of them have in common is the belief that international politics revolves in important ways around the acquisition and exercise of power. In what follows, I compare and contrast what the two major strands of the realist paradigm – classical realism and structural realism (more frequently known as neo-realism) – have to say about the nature and role of international organisations in the international system.

Classical realism, or the tragic view of international politics The intellectual origins of the realist paradigm lay in the classical world. Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War in particular is commonly seen as the first depiction of power politics. More than a millennium later, Hans J. Morgenthau, a German émigré, picked up and refurbished the ideas about the nature of international politics first articulated by Thucydides in the context of Athens’ war with Sparta over hegemony in the Mediterranean world in the years 431−404 bc. What united Thucydides and Morgenthau, and what, as we shall see, would come to separate them from present-day structural realists, was the belief that the origins of international power politics were to be sought in human nature. In fact, they believed that all politics, international and otherwise, was fraught with danger because of man’s deeply ingrained distrust of ‘the other’. Thomas Hobbes, of course, came to a very similar conclusion in Leviathan, published in 1651, in which the English philosopher describes the state of nature as bellum omium contra omnes (‘war of all against all’). Morgenthau, spurred on by Thucydides and Leviathan, not to mention his personal experience of the First and Second World Wars, embraced this tragic view of international politics. His publications and interventions, most notably Politics Among Nations (1948) amounted, at least at first, to a plea against the use of ethics in foreign policy, notably in US foreign policy. Morgenthau shared this scepticism of morality with another German émigré, Henry Kissinger. Positions such as these are ‘tragic’ in the sense that they conceive of international politics as a perennial struggle for survival. Because this struggle revolves centrally around fear and regularly results in suffering and pity, it becomes comprehensible why most classical realists subscribe to the Greek metaphor of tragedy when describing the nature of international politics. And yet, Morgenthau, unlike structural realists, nevertheless appreciated the role of norms and values in the creation of international peace and security. From the outset, and this is sometimes overlooked, he emphasised the importance of mutual understanding, and of ‘community’, among nations for averting major war in the international system. Furthermore, as Richard Ned Lebow has recently shown, Morgenthau in his later life especially, altered his intellectual position somewhat and began to call for ‘a principle of political organisation transcending the nation-state’. All 24

Chapter 2: Realism

of this is significant because it serves to highlight important theoretical differences between classical and structural realism, and the perspective of each on international organisations. Activity Why are classical realists so concerned with power?

From classical realism to structural realism The impetus behind the invention of structural realism was two-fold: first, to move beyond the emphasis on human nature as the principal driving force of international politics; and, second, to introduce scientific rigour into the realist research programme by advancing an integrated theory of international politics. On both of these scores, Kenneth Waltz (1979) served as the pacemaker. He also differed with classical realists when it came to the relationship between domestic politics and international affairs. Whereas the former saw similarities across these spheres, Waltz insisted on the unique nature of international politics. The key tenets of structural realism can be summarised as follows. First, Waltz and his followers conceived of international politics as a struggle for power, wealth, or security. This sphere was dominated, and crucially shaped, by great powers. Structural realists, true to their name, believed the anarchic structure of the international system was the most important determinant of state behaviour. More specifically, in keeping with their emphasis on the centrality of great powers, these new-style realists argued that the nature of polarity in the international system was of crucial importance. Although structural realists disagree amongst themselves as to whether a bipolar or multipolar system is more conducive to international peace and security, and under what conditions this might be the case, they share the belief that the anarchic structure of the international system produces an uncertainty predicament, which, in turn, gives rise to a survival imperative. Put differently, states’ fear for survival is not rooted in human nature, as classical realists believed, but has its origins in the institutional configuration of the international system. Due to this configuration, states can never be certain about the intentions of other states (and of their offensive capabilities). Structural realists assume that the sovereign-less international environment penalises any and all states that: fail to protect their vital national interests, or pursue national interests beyond their capabilities. Consequently, states (which are conceptualised as unitary-rational actors) are said to be constantly engaging in means−ends calculations. Related to this, structural realists contend that states are sensitive to any erosion of their relative capabilities. It is not just about the maximisation of power, wealth, and security, say structural realists. Rather, states are very conscious of interest maximisation vis-à-vis other states. This brings us to the so-called relative gains problem in international cooperation.

The ‘relative gains problem’ in international cooperation The neo-realist scholar responsible for drawing attention, in the late 1980s, to the difference between relative gains and absolute gains was Joseph Grieco. In a very influential article, he called into question an article of faith on the part of liberal scholars of international relations – the assumption that states, in their interactions with one another in the international system, are chiefly concerned about absolute gains. This view, argued Grieco, was both theoretically and empirically flawed. He 25

85 International organisations

showed that states not only worry about interest-maximisation as such, but about the maximisation of interests relative to the gains and losses of other states. Grieco pointed out that states are not atomistic actors, but positional actors. Following in the footsteps of Waltz, Grieco argued that the first concern of states was not the pursuit of power, as classical realists had suggested, but the maintenance of their relative position in the international system. This concern, according to structural realists, has its origins in states’ realisation that today’s friend could be tomorrow’s enemy. In other words, Grieco and his colleagues believed that international cooperation was a tricky proposition for many states because it raised the spectre of the relative gains problem. On this argument, states are reluctant to join or support international organisations if and when other states stand to gain more by doing so. In fact, say structural realists, some states may even forgo clear gains from international cooperation if that prevents other states from improving their position in the international system. After the preliminaries, we can now turn to one of the most comprehensive neo-realist analyses of international organisations. Activity Make a list of the key differences between classical realism and structural realism/neorealism.

The false promise of international institutions: John Mearsheimer In a lengthy and ultimately very influential article, John Mearsheimer in the mid-1990s developed an argument about what he called ‘the false promise of international institutions’. His was a critique of liberal and constructivist scholarship on international organisations. The article’s title alludes to the normative underpinnings that, as Mearsheimer sees it, inform contending theoretical perspectives on international organisations. Simply put, international organisations cannot fulfil the many hopes invested in them. From the vantage point of structural realism, international organisations will never be more than a reflection of the distribution of power in the international system. According to Mearsheimer and other neo-realists, international institutions are epiphenomenal, by which they mean that the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund or the European Union have no independent effect on international outcomes. If and when they matter, they do so because states use international organisations instrumentally, for their own gain. If we believe Mearsheimer, international organisations are nothing more than arenas for acting out power relationships among contending states. They have no independent power themselves. He counters neo-liberal arguments in defence of international organisations (of which more in the next chapter) by pointing out, following Grieco, that the aforementioned relative gains problem means that states are far less concerned with the possibility of being cheated in international cooperation than with the possibility of ending up worse off vis-à-vis other states regardless of absolute gains. This, says structural realists, is why international organisations will only ever matter on the margins of international politics.

26

Chapter 2: Realism

Conclusion This chapter has provided an overview of leading realist perspectives on international organisations. In addition to tracing the evolution of realist thought from classical realism to structural realism, it has highlighted the central role that the relative gains problem has played in international relations theory.

A reminder of your learning outcomes Having completed this chapter, and the Essential reading and activities, you should be able to: • describe the key tenets of classical realism and structural realism (commonly known as neo-realism) • explain the sources of realism’s lack of faith in the power of international organisations • outline the evolution of realist thinking about international organisations (IOs) over time.

Sample examination questions 1. What is at stake in the debate over relative and absolute gains? 2. What are the strengths, what the weaknesses, of John Mearsheimer’s perspective on international organisations? 3. How relevant is the realist paradigm for making sense of international organisations?

27

85 International organisations

Notes

28

Chapter 3: Liberalism

Chapter 3: Liberalism Aims and learning outcomes The aim of this chapter is to elaborate what it means to study international organisations from a liberal perspective. It explores the paradigm of liberalism in all its guises and explains why liberals are optimistic about the significance of international organisations. By the end of this chapter, and having completed the Essential readings and activities, you should be able to: • describe the key tenets of classical liberalism and neo-liberal institutionalism • explain the sources of liberalism’s faith in the power of international organisations • describe the evolution of liberal thinking about international organisations over time.

Essential reading Simmons, Beth A. and Lisa L. Martin ‘International Organizations and Institutions’, in Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse and Beth A. Simmons (eds) Handbook of International Relations. (London: Sage, 2002), pp.192−211. Pevehouse, Jon and Bruce Russett ‘Democratic International Governmental Organizations Promote Peace’, International Organization, 60(4) (Fall 2006), pp.969−1000.

Further reading Abbott, Kenneth W. and Duncan Snidal ‘Why States Act through Formal International Organizations’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42(1) (February 1998), pp.3−32. Alter, Karen J. and Sophie Meunier ‘The Politics of International Regime Complexity’, Perspectives on Politics, 7(1) (March 2009), pp.13−24. Baldwin, David A. (ed.) Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993). Doyle, Michael W. Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism. (New York: Norton, 1997). Haas, Ernst B. When Knowledge is Power: Three Models of Change in International Organizations. (Berkeley, Cal.: University of California Press, 1990). Haftel, Yoram Z. and Alexander Thompson ‘The Independence of International Organizations’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50(2) (April 2006), pp.253−75. Hasenclever, Andreas, Peter Mayer and Volker Rittberger Theories of International Regimes. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). Hawkins, Darren G., David A. Lake, Daniel L. Nielson and Michael J. Tierney (eds) Delegation and Agency in International Organizations. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). Keohane, Robert O. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Economy. (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2005). Keohane, Robert O. ‘International Institutions: Two Approaches’, International Studies Quarterly, 23(4) (December 1988), pp.379−96. Keohane, Robert O. and Lisa L. Martin ‘The Promise of Institutionalist Theory’, International Security, 20(1) (Summer 1995), pp.39−51. 29

85 International organisations Keohane, Robert O. and Joseph S. Nye Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition (New York, London: Longman, c2001). Keohane, Robert O. Stephen Macedo and Andrew Moravcsik ‘DemocracyEnhancing Multilateralism’, International Organization, 63(1) (Winter 2009), pp.1−31. Krasner, Stephen (ed.) International Regimes. (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1983). Martin, Lisa L. and Beth A. Simmons ‘Theories and Empirical Studies of International Institutions’, International Organization, 52(4) (October 1998), pp.729−57. Meyer, Peter and Volker Rittberger (eds) Regime Theory and International Relations. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995). Moravcsik, Andrew ‘Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics’, International Organization, 51(4) (Autumn 1997), pp.513−53. Ruggie, John Gerard ‘International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order’, International Organization, 36(2) (March 1982), pp.379−415. Russett, Bruce and John R. Oneal Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations. (New York: Norton, 2001). Young, Oran R. ‘Are Institutions Intervening Variables or Basic Causal Forces: Causal Clusters vs. Causal Chains in International Society’, in Michael Breecher and Frank P. Harvey (eds) Realism and Institutionalism in International Studies. (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002), pp. 176–91.

Introduction Liberal approaches to international relations (IR) also come in a variety of guises. What all of them have in common is the belief that international politics is about more than the maximisation of power, wealth or security. Unlike realists, liberals are convinced that individuals as well as states are capable of cooperating despite the fact that the international system is anarchic. In what follows, I compare and contrast what the two major strands of the liberal paradigm – classical liberalism and neoliberal institutionalism (NI) – have to say about the nature and role of international organisations in the international system. Seeing that NI is generally more optimistic about the role of international organisations than are realists, I shall further distinguish among three modern variants thereof, what I call: • game theory of international institutions • regime theory of international institutions • peace theory of international institutions.

Classical liberalism, or the idealistic view of international politics In order to understand the origins of liberal thinking about international politics, it is useful to become acquainted with two important thinkers: Hugo Grotius, a seventeenth-century Dutch jurist, and Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher from the eighteenth century. Grotius was one of the first theorists of international law, emphasising its potentially constraining effects on the behaviour of states. Among other things, Grotius developed a normative system for determining just 30

Chapter 3: Liberalism

causes of war (jus ad bellum) as well as just conduct in war (jus in bello). This so-called just-war doctrine continues to influence the theory and practice of international politics in the twenty-first century. More generally speaking, the ‘Grotian tradition’ of liberal IR theory assumes that states, like individuals, are ultimately ‘sociable’. By this is meant that (most) states have a deeply rooted sense of obligation to creating and respecting rules of international society. This sense of obligation, according to Grotian IR scholars, stems from man’s nature as a rational and social creature. It gives rise to a commitment to reciprocity in international dealings. Of similar significance to the Grotian worldview is the belief, rooted in natural law theory, that there exists one universal standard of morality against which the behaviour of states could be measured. Kant, too, believed that the behaviour of states was not inevitably subject to the Hobbesian dynamic to which realists subscribe. According to Kant, one of the principal thinkers of the Enlightenment, it was conceivable that states, despite the anarchic environment of the international system, could bring about a state of perpetual peace. The key ingredients, said Kant, were ‘a republican constitution’, ‘conditions of universal hospitality’, a ‘federation of free states’. Translated into today’s parlance, Kant believed that democracy, economic interdependence and international organisations were institutional requisites of what he called a ‘pacific union’. What all liberals have in common is a belief that the distribution of power in the international system (namely, the structure of this system) is far less determinative of international outcomes than realists suggest. Unlike realists, liberal theorists of IR have a more benign view of human nature and also think that domestic politics sometimes matters. Most important for our purposes, liberals of all persuasions think that international institutions matter, whether they come in the form of international law (think of Grotius) or in the form of international organisations (think of Kant). Liberals believe that internationalism, on balance, is a force for good. Consequently, as we shall see in subsequent chapters, classical liberalism had a major influence on the practice of multilateralism in the aftermath of the First World War as well as the Second World War. But let us now turn from the origins of liberal international relations theory to its contemporary manifestations. Activity In what ways are modern liberal theories of international politics influenced by the views of Kant and Grotius?

From idealism to pluralism In the 1970s, Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye (who would go on to coin the term ‘soft power’) advanced on classical idealism by drawing attention to sub-state actors, notably the importance of transnational actors. Their argument was informed by the observation that modernisation in the international system also increased the level of economic interdependence among states. As a result, they argued that welfare, not security, was becoming the most important goal of states. Keohane and Nye did not set out to overturn realism, but to delineate the conditions under which the state-centric paradigm is inadequate for explaining international outcomes. Theirs was a move toward a pluralistic understanding of key processes (such as globalisation) and actors in international politics. In addition to states, multinational corporations, international organisations and nongovernmental organisations became the focus of liberal IR theory. 31

85 International organisations

From pluralism to neo-liberal institutionalism In the 1980s, this focus on explaining what Keohane and Nye termed ‘complex interdependence’ went hand in hand with a behavioural turn in liberal IR theory. Henceforth, insights and methods from economics entered the field. This scientific turn manifested itself, for example, in the increased use of game-theoretical models for making sense of cooperation. A key focus in this period was on the role of international institutions in facilitating cooperation among states. It is for this reason that the new variant that liberalism spawned came to be known as ‘neo-liberal institutionalism’. Far from idealists, these late twentieth century liberals were pragmatists. Interestingly, the principal unit of analysis was once again the state. Neoliberals (not to be confused with neo-liberals in the economic realm), just like neo-realists, believed that states were unitary and utility-maximising actors. Where they differed from neo-realists was in their belief that the barriers to international cooperation (which derived from the anarchic nature of the international system) could be overcome. The most serious impediment, said neo-liberals, was not anarchy as such, but the uncertainty predicament that it created. On the neo-liberal institutionalist argument, the more information states have about the true preferences and intentions of other states, the more likely is international cooperation. Who better to provide such information than international organisations?

Game theory of international institutions: Robert Keohane At the forefront of research on international institutions as providers of critical information was Keohane. Although game theory is not used by all neo-liberal institutionalists, the assumptions as well as non-technical applications of the method are widespread in liberal scholarship on international cooperation, then and now. In a path-breaking book, After Hegemony, Keohane provided the first full-length treatment of the puzzle of compliance. Among many other things, Keohane demonstrated that states engaged in international bargaining worry about their reputations, provided that they will be engaged in iterated (or repeated) interactions with the same state(s). Game theory made it possible for neo-liberals to see the exact conditions under which states have an incentive to forgo short-term gains in order to reap long-term benefits. The major insight coming out of this literature, which scores of scholars have since tested and refined in innumerable settings, is that interdependence in the international system often demands repeated bargaining, thus creating incentives for states to use such strategies as ‘tit-for-tat’, linking issues across different sets of negotiations, and shaming or otherwise punishing defection from bilateral or multilateral agreements. For neo-liberals, international institutions can help states discourage defection by providing information and reassurance under otherwise uncertain conditions. In recent years, the game-theoretical turn in the study of international organisations has spawned what has become known as ‘principal–agent models’ (e.g. Hawkins et al., 2006). Inspired by economic analyses of domestic institutions such as commercial firms or government bureaucracies, principal–agent theory is dedicated to explicating dynamic relations between principals (namely, states) and agents (namely, international organisations). A relatively new strand of scholarship,

32

Chapter 3: Liberalism

principal–agent theories of international organisations have sought to model the determinants of autonomy and independence in the relationship between these international actors and their principals. The overarching question is the following: To what extent are principals able to monitor and steer the behaviour of their agents once they have delegated sovereignty to them?

Regime theory of international institutions: Stephen Krasner It is important to point out that the rise of NI came via an intervening development – the invention of the concept of ‘international regimes’. Although one of the founding fathers of NI’s second variant, Stephen Krasner was and remains a neo-realist, regime theory of international institutions owes more to liberalism than it does to realism. Krasner (1983: 2) famously defined international regimes as ‘sets of implicit and explicit principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which actors’ expectations converge’. The significance of regime theory lies in the fact that it draws attention to international arrangements that are less institutionalised than international organisations yet have taken on similar roles or performed similar functions. Put differently, most international organisations (namely, formalised international institutions replete with brick-and-mortar headquarters) are embedded in larger international regimes. One might say, for example, that the International Criminal Court as well as the UN International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda are part and parcel of the ‘international criminal law regime’, a very recent regime to have emerged in international politics (and to be discussed below). In keeping with Krasner’s definition, the international criminal law regime is characterised by a series of principles (for example, international justice demands the punishment of international crimes), norms (for example, individual criminal responsibility), rules (for example, 1948 Genocide Convention; the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court), and decision-making procedures (for example, international courts and tribunals; Assembly of States Parties of the International Criminal Court). Likewise, the ‘international trade regime’ comprises principles (for example, free trade), norms (for example, trade liberalisation), rules (for example, low tariff levels for manufactured goods through GATT) and decision-making procedures (for example, World Trade Organisation). By drawing attention to the existence and operation of a whole host of informal institutional arrangements, regime theorists responded to the neo-realist claim that all state behaviour could be explained with reference to the distribution of power in the international system. They also challenged, at least partially, the emerging neo-liberal institutionalist claim that all state behaviour could be explained by reference to rational calculations of self-interest. Although regime theorists did not deny the central significance for international politics of either power or interest, what emerged from the literature was a recognition that all kinds of persistent and connected ways of doing things (principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures) mattered as well. Oran Young (see, for example, 2002), who went on to become a leading theorist of the international environmental regime, especially in the Arctic, argued that behavioural regularities, when they are coinciding with convergent expectations, generated social conventions with which states and other

33

85 International organisations

actors in international politics occasionally comply out of habit rather than in response to instrumental calculation. This insight suggested that international institutions, under certain circumstances, may not only take on a life of their own, but also, as a result, have independent effects on international outcomes. Regime theory was an important precursor, and impetus, for the heavily game-theoretic approach to international institutions that flourished in the wake of Keohane’s After Hegemony. Yet while the latter pushed primarily in the direction of rationalism, the strand of regime theory pursued by Young and others carried within it, as we shall see, the seeds for the construcivist approach to international politics (see Chapter 5 of this subject guide). Activity Based on your reading on the debate about ‘international regimes’, explain why the concept of the international regime is so influential. Why did some scholars resist the theoretical innovation?

Peace theory of international institutions: Bruce Russett Drawing on one of the first liberal statements about international politics, Kant’s aforementioned treatise On Perpetual Peace (1795), Bruce Russett has been one of the foremost analysts and proponents of the most recent liberal contribution to understanding international politics, and international organisations within it. Russett set out to inquire into the effects of three Kantian influences on international peace and security: • democracy • international trade • international organisations. Based on numerous statistical and qualitative analyses, he found that there was indeed such a thing as a ‘democratic peace’ (what Kant had termed ‘pacific peace’). He confirmed the first Kantian influence by showing that democracies will be reluctant to wage war against one another. He also confirmed that international trade created incentives for economically interdependent states to avert war. Finally, and most relevant for our purposes, Russett and his co-authors demonstrate that membership in international organisations, too, contributed to international peace and security. More specifically, Jon Pevehouse and Russett (2006) showed that particular types of international organisations, namely those with a ‘densely democratic’ membership, engendered peaceful relations among their members. (The pacific effect was less significant in more heterogeneous international organisations.) The authors highlighted three contributions in particular that the international organisations in their sample made. First, Pevehouse and Russett argued that they helped states enter into, and sustain, credible commitments. By monitoring commitments among states, international organisations can reduce the credibility gap that sometimes exists when states are bargaining over a substantive financial or trade agreement. They may also enhance the credibility of international agreements in instances of government turnover. Because an agreement is underwritten by a densely democratic international organisation, a new president, prime minister or government may be more inclined to continue to uphold the agreement than he or she otherwise would. Second, Pevehouse and Russett contended that international organisations, provided they are sufficiently democratic, contribute to 34

Chapter 3: Liberalism

dispute settlement. Because they favour mediation and other forms of peaceful conflict resolution, organisations such as the Organisation of American States or NATO or the EU have an advantage as well as added credibility as third parties when two states are on the brink of conflict or worse. Third, according to Pevehouse and Russett, what they call ‘socialisation’ is an important process that the international organisations in their study have fostered. By influencing, directly and indirectly, what counts as acceptable behaviour in a given domain of international politics, formal international institutions spread norms and contribute to identity formation. This in turn leads to trust-building among their members. The result, if we believe Pevehouse and Russett, is an ever-stronger bond, both normative and institutional, that discourages the use of force by states who share membership in a densely democratic organisation. The two authors (2006: 994) found such international organisations not only helped to lower the risk that militarised international disputes (MIDs) of any sort would arise; they also reduced the risk of non-militarised disputes turning into MIDs.

Conclusion This chapter has provided an overview of leading liberal perspectives on international organisations. In addition to tracing the evolution of liberal thought from classical liberalism to neo-liberal institutionalism, it has highlighted the distinct contributions of three varieties of the latter.

A reminder of your learning outcomes Having completed this chapter, and the Essential reading and activities, you should be able to: • describe the key tenets of classical liberalism and neo-liberal institutionalism • explain the sources of liberalism’s faith in the power of international organisations • describe the evolution of liberal thinking about international organisations over time.

Sample examination questions 1. What are international regimes? 2. Are international institutions intervening or independent variables? 3. How relevant is the liberal paradigm for making sense of international organisations?

35

85 International organisations

Notes

36