LECTURE NOTES :
Introduction to International
Organisations
IRO - Leiden University
Dr. Gisela Hirschmann
6441HIIOH
(Made in) 2021-2022
Cyprien VENOT
1
, Contents
Part 1: Introduction to International Organisations - 3
IOs and IR theories (Lecture 1) - 3
History of IO research (Lec. 2) - 7
History of IOs (LoN and foundation of the UN) (Lec. 3) - 10
Part 2: The United Nations - 17
The United Nations, part 1: General Assembly (Lec. 4) - 17
The United Nations, part 2: WHO, IOM & UNHCR (Lec. 5) - 21
The United Nations part III (Lec. 6) - 27
Part 3: Sub-Organisations in Depth - 33
International Courts: ICJ and ICC (Lec. 7) - 33
Trade and Labor (Lec. 8) - 36
Development and Finance - World Bank & IMF (Lec. 9) - 40
Climate and the Environment (Lec. 10)) - 44
Regional Organizations (Lec. 11) - 48
,Important; Exemple; Actors; Date; Number; Definition
Part 1: Introduction to International Organisations
Dr. Gisella Hirshmann
IOs and IR theories
(Hurd, I., pp. 16-41)
I. IR theories’ view on International Organisations (Theoretical
strands)
➢ (Neo-)Realism
This is one the supposedly earliest international relations theories.
Morgenthau is the main representative of this idea, with the
basic assumption that the IR system is anarchic (no superior
authority ≠ chaos). The second assumption is that states are
unitary actors, same size, same shape, same interests (like pool
balls). This power is defined in terms of hard power and
material factors. The theory of hegemonic stability, part of the
theory of (neo-)realism, puts forward the argument that
hegemonic states create IOs if it is in their interest. According to
this theory, IOs are instruments for powerful/hegemonic states to
pursue their national interests.
→ Theory of Hegemonic stability
States make cost-benefit calculations and then decide whether to use an
IO or not. The UN should be looked at as a club of victorious of WWII, and the
allies thought it was in their interest to pursue the increase of their power
through an IO. Another example is the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank,
this recent organisation is under the leadership of China. Given the
rising power of China, the state saw it in their interest through this
new IO. This theory takes into consideration shifts in balances of
power. The AIIB could be a competitor to the US dominated world
bank.
➢ (Neoliberal-)Institutionalism
A couple of decades into its existence, neo-realism got a
competitor. There are various types of institutionalism, with
many strands. In this case, it is closely related to the neorealist
approach. With its main representative being Robert Keohane.
Institutionalists say that states are unitary actors but are
interdependent, pool balls but in-framed by the system through
which their interdependence is characterised. What a state does
3
,has influence on the others. They also argue that the creation of IOs is much
more likely than what neo-realists think, IOs have a more active role, by
enabling cooperation through reducing transaction costs (cooperation games
→ game theory).
Part of this theoretical strand is principal-agent theory (contractualism
/ broad liberalism). A theory that sees this act of delegation between states to
IOs as subconsciously relevant. By delegating, for example, the monetary
compliance to an institution, states don’t have to do it themselves (no
transaction costs). The principal-agent is the boundary between
institutionalism and liberalism.
➢ Liberalism
Likewise to institutionalism,
liberalism is very broad. It is important to
look at how we conceive states. According
to liberalism, states are not unitary.
“Opening the black box of states” → states
are not all the same, democracies may have
different foreign-policies than autocracies.
It therefore matters of how domestic
institutions look like (parliament, media,
lobbies, civil society, etc).
→ For a long time states were seen as unitary as their basic interest was
to maximise their power (no matter if they were democracies or
autocracies).
Liberalists would argue that states can learn from previous
interactions, and also from mistakes (their own and others). Some strands of
liberalism also argue that shared values matter (ideation-liberalism),
therefore not only about power and material interests, but shared values that
make states create IOs. Liberals also argue that states are economic
interdependent (especially states that share the same economic system → the
more trade the less war)
The foundations are said to go back to Grotius, the understanding of
humans being able to reason and progress → to get to a better cooperation.
Also goes back to Emmanuel Kant → Kantian triangle of peace. IR forms part
of that triangle, peace can be achieved if states are democracies (they wouldn't
find themselves against each other), are economically interdependent, and if
they are part of international organisations. This idealist thinking influenced
the creation of the LoN (and the 14 points and international law as a whole).
,Important; Exemple; Actors; Date; Number; Definition
➢ Social constructivism
This theory is relatively new, not necessarily an IR theory with origins in
other disciplines, it is considered as a “meta-theory”. Assumptions of
constructivism are not particularly about states but they have been adopted to
make an argument for state-behaviour. The core argument, put forward by its
representative Alexander Wendt, is that “Anarchy is what states make of it”
(1999). Basically saying that the neo-realism argument is wrong, that the
system is not anarchic but made anarchic of how states see it. Not only
material interests and power matter. Norms, ideas, discourse and culture
are relevant in shaping a state’s behaviour, a state’s interest is shaped by these
values.
These interests are also shaped by IOs, in constructivist terms they are
autonomous actors who socially construct world politics (they shape the
interests of states). Briefly, IOs have the power to shape the constitution of
world order. Yet, they are not the only relevant actors. The field of world
politics is much wider than interactions. Important actors are also: Norm
entrepreneurs (civil society, transnationals... ), advocacy networks,
epistemic communities (scientific communities who put forward policy
proposals that matter for IR). For a very long time these non-state actors have
not been taken into consideration in world politics.
➢ Critical theories
Critical theories are reflexive and taken into consideration by the
position of the researcher. We distinguish between analytic theories and more
normative theories. There are a wide range of critical theories:
(Neo-)Marxism; Neo-Gramscianism; World systems theory; Feminist
theories; post-colonial theory. All sharing the aim to overcome modern
theories and the existing system. They are more normative. Depending on the
theory, they argue that the international structure is heavily shaped by:
economics/financial systems, structures of production (neo-marxists),
transnational elites (neo-gramscianism, arguing that IR are constituted by
them), masculinity (feminists argue that international structures are based on
masculine structures).
IOs are conceived as structures that embed either global capitalism,
patriarchal structures or imperial structure (post-colonial vision), and are
therefore representatives of these hegemonic states. Critical theories aim to
overcome the current structure of current IR, as they expose their deficiencies,
showing that they are currently not neutral, embedding certain imbalances.
The main critic is to counter this neo-realist institutionalist understanding of
5
, an equal participation in the international system, as well as pointing out the
inequalities in that system.
II. Overview
Example:
The US govt decided in the end of 2020 to withdraw its membership from the
WHO:
- From a neo-realist view, IOs are in the hands of the major powers. The
US saw the WHO as an instrument through which it had interests. The
current administration sees China as a competitor, the US therefore sees
it’s interest in it diminishing
- Institutionalist theories would argue that the WHO is crucial to reduce
transaction costs between states, and the WHO does it by creating a
forum for states to share important information. The US government
does not value this information anymore and sees it more costly than
beneficial, through the institutional pov.
- From a liberalist view, domestic politics matters. We would look at the
fact that with the elections that happened, Trump wanted to divert
attention from his own failure dealing with the pandemic.
- Constructivists would look at what is happening in the WHO. Seeing that
the WHO has created its own bureaucratic behaviour, that member
states might fear to lose control over. But from their POV, not thinking
that their absence would cause trouble to the IO
