International Organization International Organization and International Relations
Week 1a - The types, functions and policy-making of IOs
Lecture
- Intergovernmental organisation (IGO): IO with membership made up of three or more states
- Transnational organisation: IO made up of private actors
- International institution: set of principles, rules and decision-making procedures around which actors’ expectations
converge in a given area of IR. Transnational and intergov. organizations are institutions, but not all institutions are Os
- International relations: structural formal contacts between gov’s through bi- and multilateral relations
- Transgovernmental relations: structural informal contacts between ministries, parliaments and other gov. bodies
- Transnational relations: structural contacts between private actors across state borders
- Brief history of IOs: Westphalia -> 19th century cooperation on health, trade, transport -> Diplomacy by conference
(Concert of Europe) -> League of Nations -> Boom of IOs after WWII
- Reasons for states to create IOs: to ease tensions; (2) coordinate actions; (3) pursue common interests; (4) pool
resources; share information; (5) adjudicate disputes; (6) symbolic value; domestic reasons
- Structure of intergovernmental organizations: founding treaty (Charter); Assembly; Secretariat; Council
- IOs as autonomous sources of power/authority: the UN as an ‘actor’/a ‘tool’ (for states; neorealist)/a ‘forum’
- Autonomy can lead to ‘pathologies’: irrational mandates; bureaucratic culture (too many rules); isolation of IOs from the
communities they are meant to be helping; ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach; impartiality
- What is UN policy? Actions and principles promoted through UN treaties, resolutions, programmes, projects, missions
- Where is UN policy applied? International peace and security, human rights, humanitarian aid, sustainable development
- Who enacts UN policy? Secretary General, Secretariat, UN agencies, ICJ, ICC, UN tribunals, peacekeeping forces, NGOs,
member states, the private sector (particularly important in the context of the environment)
- Who creates UN policy? Policy-making power unevenly distributed among UN organs; Debate regarding
intergovernmentalist/transnational influences (Cronin 2002)
- Theorising about IOs influenced over the years by broader debates in IR and real-world events
- Early studies often compared IOs by examining institutional blueprint without considering issues like power or politics
- 1960s: behaviouralism popularised, focus on political behaviour of actors, verifying testable propositions
- 1970s-1980s: ‘failures’ (oil crisis, Vietnam war) decreases interest in IO research, because of doubt about ability of IOs
- 1980s-present: end of Cold War, decline of US hegemony leads to increased interest in IOs
Readings
(Readings: Gutner - Chapter 1-2; Cronin - Two faces of the UN: Tension between intergovernmentalism and transnationalism)
- Intergovernmentalist perspective: states use UN for what they can get out of it. Therefore, policy reflects distribution of
international power
- Transnational perspective: elements of UN system operate with autonomy from states, with constituencies that go well
beyond states, and have independent power to initiate projects and policies. For example: Secretary General and
Secretariat, UN’s legal personality. This gives the UN an international identity and culture, separate from the MS
-> according to Cronin, the transnational perspective is mostly true, but only for all areas apart from security issues
- Rational choice institutionalism: from economics, self-interested rational actors. Institutions can structure, constrain and
condition individual choices of states. Many approaches derive from this broad cleavage, e.g. neoliberal institutionalism.
- Sociological institutionalism: from sociology; critiques efficiency/functionality assumptions of RC (IOs are not only
created to efficiently achieve goals, but also because of norms, ideas etc.); emphasis on social factors (norms, ideas,
culture, meanings); more receptive to idea that IOs can develop autonomy. An example is constructivism.
,International Organization International Organization and International Relations
Week 1b - Regional organizations
Lecture
- Region: dispute over what defines a region (shared proximity; culture; economic ties; religion; language). Geography and
location are not enough to define a region
- Regionalisation: process of economic integration, driven by the market rather than by governments
- Regionalism: state-led projects of cooperation, built through intergovernmental dialogues, treaties and institutions
- Regional integration: social transformation marked by lowering of internal boundaries, raising of external boundaries,
increased flows of people, goods, capital, etc. and transfer of sovereignty to supranational authority
- Preferential trading arrangements (PTAs): trading blocs, in which members receive preferential access to one another’s
markets; can be of all sorts, but the most common include customs unions, free trade areas and common markets
- Regional organisations (ROs): int. institutions with a bureaucracy and restricted membership, providing structure for
cooperation and coordination. The fact that it has a bureaucracy is important, because that is what it makes a RO
- The EU defies definition -> A regional state? Federal state? Post-Westphalian state or confederation?
- The EU is the starting point for many studies of regionalism but only part of the overall picture of regional organization
- Long history of ROs between states (e.g. League of Armed Neutrality in Europe, Monroe Doctrine in the Americas)
- In many cases, organisation built around a Great Power in a defined region (see examples above)
- Non-European regional movements (‘pan-ideologies’) emerged in 19th/20th centuries, contributing towards RO creation
The four waves of economic regionalism
- 1st wave: 19th century; industrialisation led to more European trade; integration disrupted as WWI broke out
- 2nd wave: after WWI; some PTAs set-up; much more discriminatory; contributed to economic downturn and extremism
- 3rd wave: from late 50s; marked by EEC, CMEA, EFTA; many blocs formed amongst developing countries, due to
decolonisation; CMEA and poorer blocs not particularly successful
- 4th wave: end of CW; world no longer split; ‘new regionalism’; PTAs used to incentivise economic and political reforms
- Main question of debate: Are ROs a façade for Great Power politics?
- Many ROs have local hegemons as a driving force
- Some large states seem to use ROs to gain legitimacy or build support for preferred policies
- Not many examples of ROs that pursue policy that goes against the interest of ‘their hegemon’
- But…
- Some argue the rise of ROs (and lowering of boundaries) actually reflects the decline of Great Power politics
- ROs offer smaller states a bigger voice and that smaller states profit from the RO’s protection, e.g. Ireland
- Great Power-less ROs contradict the claim
- Defining characteristics of new regionalism include: economic integration plus political elements; multilevel governance
(especially in Europe); strong international legal framework; cooperation across many dimensions/increasing diversity
-> EU is first case of new regionalism, but its traits can also be identified in AU, ECOWAS, ASEAN, Mercosur, CARICOM
- Regions play more prominent role at global level, pervasive to the UN system. Regions work as caucuses, in commissions
New Regionalism - The example of the African Union
- AU established to accelerate African economic integration and provide the organisation with improved security powers
- Organs for political engagement; remit moves beyond trade; broad legal framework; works as negotiating bloc at IOs
- Study of regionalism initially dominated by European (some US) ideas of regionalism
-> neofunctionalism: once economic sectors are integrated, there would be a spill-over effect in other sectors (Haas)
- Unlike Eurocentric regional integration theory, comparative regionalism does not necessarily imply or try to explain loss
of sovereignty - more attention for: different development of IOs; norms, culture and identity; non-state actors
- Regional integration theory mostly focused on Europe now
- Key debates today are between variants of:
- Intergovernmentalism: governments are key actors, use integration to achieve and economic and security goals
- Neofunctionalism: interest groups and supranational actors empowered by integration and shape it in their
interest; ‘spill-overs’ push integration beyond intergovernmental bargain
- Post-functionalism: resulted from neofunctionalism, focuses on backlash mechanism of integration from
economic and cultural ‘losers’: forces that push back at (economic, social, political) integration
, International Organization International Organization and International Relations
Brexit - Differentiated disintegration? - as argued by Schimmelfennig
- ‘Differentiated disintegration’ is the selective reduction of a state’s level and scope of integration (due to the same
concerns), while integration is still going on, because of discomforts with commitments made. This is most likely to
happen with states with strong identities. It can occur in an internal or external sense:
- Internal: state remains in RO, but seek withdrawal from some commitments made during integration process
- External: state leaves RO, but they remain part of some of the agreements they were initially part of
- Brexit, arguably, a case of differentiated disintegration:
- Unanticipated integration outcomes fuelled Eurosceptic actors
- Immigration and sovereignty dominated the campaign
- Bargaining power held by ‘status quo’ in negotiations; the EU has the negotiation power, not the UK
- Post-functionalist explanations of integration explain demands for opt-outs to integration, stemming from concerns for
sovereignty and negative outcomes of integration
Readings
(Readings: Gutner - Chapter 11; Acharya - Comparative Regionalism: A Field Whose Time Has Come?)
- ROs give states options to go “forum shopping/shifting”: selecting the best venue to pursue their interests.
- ROs may disappear - some reasons are: (1) a lack of interest from their major powers; (2) perceived inefficiency; (3) issue
behind the creation of the RO has itself changed or disappeared.
- European Commission: executive body; 28 Commissioners; supposed to represent the interests of the EU as a whole;
“guardian of the treaties”; has some governmental functions, although it is not a government: proposing legislation, etc.
- Council of the European Union (EU Council): represents interests of governments of individual MS; created to be primary
decision-making body; meets to discuss EU’s political priorities; it “co-decides” on legislation put forward by Commission
- European Parliament: debates and passes EU law and the EU budget, with the Council; makes sure that EU institutions
are working democratically; gained power over time.
- European Court of Justice (ECJ): interprets provision of EU treaties and Community decisions; settles disputes between
MS and the EU and between individuals and corporations and other groups in the EU; seeks to ensure MS comply with EU
law; its interpreting of EU law through rulings has strengthened its power and the EU’s power vis-à-vis MS.
- European Central Bank: established by 1998 Treaty of Amsterdam; tasked with formulating monetary policy in the euro
area; ECB’s main goal is to maintain price stability and keep inflation low.
- “It is not comparative regionalism, but comparative regionalisation whose time has come.”
