International Organizations (IOs) in World

Politics: Theoretical Approaches

 “Who” are IOs?

“Why” care about them?

“What” do they do?
“How” they do?
 The role of IOs in World
Politics

Realist-Neorealist Approaches
Neoliberal Approaches
Constructivist and Critical Approaches
 Interest-based approaches
to IOs
Neoliberalism
States are “rational egoists” who care only
about their “own” gains and losses.
They live under “anarchy”.
Their ultimate aim is to realize their main
“interests”.
Yet, they are “uncertain” about the
“decision” of other states.
They are also “uncertain” whether other
states will keep their commitments towards
each other or not.
 Interest-based approaches
As a result,
Governments miss the opportunity of striking
“mutually beneficial” bargains.
They quit their agreements because of
“uncertainty”
Fear to be “cheated” on bargains and cooperation.
They do not “know” how other states will act.
Thus, they usually “miss” the best alternatives.
Interest-based approaches
Prisoner’s Dilemma
 Interest-based approaches
to IOs
IOs reduce this fear and make it easier for
states to cooperate.
“HOW”

IOs generally have “monitoring

arrangements”.
The greater probability of being “caught”
reduces the expected “utility of cheating”
 Interest-based approaches
to IOs
IOs produce connections or “linkages”
between issues (agreements).
Violating a particular agreement has
consequences beyond this particular issue.
It might affect the ability to achieve one’s
goals elsewhere.
Thus, IOs have “reputational effects”
This raises the “cost” associated with non-
compliance and makes cooperation more
likely.
 Interest-based approaches
to IOs

“IOs help to access others’ reputation by

providing standards of behavior against
which performance can be measured, by
linking these standards to specific issues”
(Keohane, After Hegemony)
 Interest-based approaches
to IOs
These facts related to “benefits” and
“costs” do not “guarantee” compliance to
IOs rules and decisions under all
circumstances
Still “beneficial” for a rational-egoist who
is sensitive for “long-term interests”
IOs provide “information” and make
commitments more credible.
 Interest-based approaches
to IOs
IOs are “valuable” and “functional” for
states,

not only to “overcome” cheating problems

BUT ALSO for

“cooperation” on a particular issue.

 Interest-based approaches
to IOs
Therefore, IOs have “valuable
functions”
 Reduction of “mutual uncertainty” is the
main function

“functionalexplanation” to IOs
Like an “economist”
COSTS and BENEFITS
 Power-based approaches
to IOs
Neorealism
International Politics is a struggle for
power
Each state strives not only to be the most
powerful actor in the system, but also to
ensure that no other state achieves that
position
It is a state of security competition
 Power-based approaches
to IOs
States can never be certain about the
intentions of other states.
Intentions can change so quickly.
Uncertainty is unavoidable when
assessing intentions.
No room for trust among states
States are instrumentally rational.
 Power-based approaches
to IOs

UNCERTAINITY

Neorealism Neoliberalism
( security ) (information)
 Power-based approaches
to IOs

“..minds can be changed, new leaders can

come to power, values can shift, new
dangers and opportunities can arise”
(Jervis, Cooperation under Security
Dilemma)
 Power-based approaches
to IOs
States can not depend on others for their
security.
Alliances are possible, but they are only
temporary marriages of convenience.
 Today’s alliance partner might be
tomorrow’s enemy. (or visa versa)
States aim to maximize their relative
power positions over other states.
 Power-based approaches
to IOs
States do care about relative gains when
considering cooperation.
Cooperation is not impossible, but
difficult to achieve when states care about
relative gains.
Concerns about cheating also hinder
cooperation.
 Power-based approaches
to IOs

“When faced with the possibility of

cooperating for mutual gain, states that
feel insecure must ask how the gain will
be divided. They are compelled to ask not
“will both of us gain?”, but “who will
gain more?”
(K. Waltz, Theory of International Politics)
 Power-based approaches
to IOs
Neoliberals talks about “cooperation” games,
whereas regime theories talk about
“coordination” games while explaining the role
of IOs in world politics.
Neorealist argue that international politics is
“more complicated” than neoliberals argue.
(Issue-specific problems)
Besides cooperation, coordination is an issue at
stake in the realm of world politics. (relative
considerations)
 Power-based approaches
to IOs
Institutions are basically the reflection of the
distribution of power in the world.
They are based-on the self-interested
calculations of the great powers.
They have no independent effect on state
behavior.
Institutions only matter on the margins.
 Power-based approaches
to IOs

The most powerful states create and

shape institutions so that they can
maintain their share of world power, or
even increase it.

Institutionsare essentially “arenas for

acting out power relationships”.
 Power-based approaches
to IOs
Ex. League of Nations and United Nations

Basically the reflection of distribution of power

in world politics.
 United Nations collective security function is a
failure (?) (Only 1950 Korea and 1990 Gulf War
exceptions)
UN’s record “at best” is a “mixed one”
Still reflects the “post-second world war order”
 Knowledge-based approaches
to IOs
Social Constructivists
They stress “ideas” and “knowledge” as
explanatory variables.
IOs are not just “structures”, they are
“agents” themselves.
IOs are not only the “reflection of power
politics”. They, by themselves, “exercise
power” as they “constitute” and
“construct” the social world.
 Knowledge-based approaches
to IOs
Both neorealists and neoliberals agree that IOs
help states further their interests where they are
allowed to work.
They both treat IOs, according to
constructivists, as “empty shells” which could
be manipulated by other actors.

IOs are “passive” neorealists and

neoliberals
 Knowledge-based approaches
to IOs
IOs might have their own “authority”
independent from states who may created them.
IOs “power” and “autonomy” derives from at
least two sources:

1. Rational Legal Authority

2. Control over technical expertise and
knowledge.
 Knowledge-based approaches
to IOs
IOs are bureaucracies which have rational-
legal authority and control over technical
expertise.
They are political creators which can be
autonomous from their creators.
Rational-legal authority is a kind of authority
based on “legalities, procedures and rules”
Other authorities (traditional and charismatic
authority) Weber
 Knowledge-based approaches
to IOs
The power of IOs is that they present- or try to do so-
themselves as impersonal, technocratic and neutral.

The presentation and acceptance of these claims are

critical to their legitimacy and authority.
 Knowledge-based approaches
to IOs
Ex.
The UN’s peacekeepers derive part of their
authority from the claim that they are
independent, objective, neutral actors who
simply implement Security Council
resolutions.
Similarly, UNHCR’s official standing and
long experience with relief efforts help to
identify UNHCR with “expert” status and
consequently “authority” in refugee matters.
 Knowledge-based approaches
to IOs
Accordingly, the IO’s exercise power in 3
ways in world politics:

(1) Classification
(2) The fixing of meanings
(3) Diffusion of Norms
 Knowledge-based approaches
to IOs
Classification
IOs exercise power by moving persons
among social categories or by inventing
and applying such categories.

The ability to classify objects, to shift

their very definition and identity is IOs
sources of power.
 Knowledge-based approaches
to IOs
Classification
Ex. The evolving definition of “refugee”.

The category of “refugee” is different from

other categories of individuals who are
“temporarily” and “involuntarily” living
outside their country of origin-like displaced
persons, exiles, economic migrants, guest
workers, diaspora communities. -
 Knowledge-based approaches
to IOs
The UNHCR’s legal and operational
definition of the category strongly
influences decisions about who is a
refugee and shapes UNHCR staff
definitions in the field.
These are the decisions that have a
tremendous effect on the life
circumstances of thousands of people.
 Knowledge-based approaches
to IOs
Similarly organizations like World Bank set up
criteria to define someone as “peasant” in order
to distinguish them from farmer, day laborer or
other categories.
These classifications matter because only
certain classes of people are recognized by
World Bank’s development machinery as
having knowledge that is relevant in solving
development problems.
Least Developed Countries
 Knowledge-based approaches
to IOs
Another Example:
The “information” that a regime is killing
some of its citizens might have been
understood as the state’s domestic law
enforcement ninthly years ago.
But now it is understood as a major
human rights violation that is subject to
international law.
 Knowledge-based approaches
to IOs

Therefore, IOs do more than control over

information.
They also have the ability to transform
information into knowledge to construct
information in ways that give it meaning.
 Knowledge-based approaches
to IOs
The Fixing of Meanings
The IOs exercise power by virtue of their ability to fix
meanings which is also related to classification.

IOs do not only “define” and “classify” certain concept and

issue areas.

They also “fix” these meaning and shape world politics.

 Knowledge-based approaches
IOs
to IOs
can fix meanings in ways that orient
action and establish boundaries for acceptable
action.
For instance, in the development field, IOs
have been at the center of efforts to define
what development is.
Similarly in the post-Cold War security
politics, IOs have been at the forefront of
efforts to shift the definition of “security”
from state security towards human security.
 Knowledge-based approaches
to IOs
One consequence of these redefined meanings
of security and development is that they
“legitimate“ increased levels of IO intervention
in the domestic affairs of states. (especially to
third word states.)
The World Bank, IMF and other development
institutions have established a web of
interventions that affect nearly every phase of
the economy and polity in many Third World
countries.
 Knowledge-based approaches
to IOs
Again, issues like “democratization” and
“human rights” have both become tied to
international peace and security.
IOs, like UN, justify their interventions to
member states on these grounds.
Widespread human rights abuses
anywhere now cause for UN intervention.
(Responsibility to Protect)
 Knowledge-based approaches
to IOs
Diffusion of Norms
Having established rules and norms, IOs
are eager to spread the benefits of their
expertise.
Officials in IOs often insist that part of
their mission is to spread, inculcate and
enforce global norms and values.
 Knowledge-based approaches
to IOs
Ex. Decolonization.
The UN Charter announced an intent to
universalize sovereignty (and self-
determination) as a constitutive principle of the
society of states at a time when over half the
globe was under some kind of colonial rule.
UN encouraged the acceptance of norm of
sovereignty through resolutions and specialized
commissions.
 Knowledge-based approaches
to IOs
Therefore, as IOs classify the world, promote
and fix meanings and diffuse norms, they
frequently legitimate and facilitate their own
expansion and intervention in the affairs of
states and non-state actors.

By these these ways, IOs use their authority

to “exercise” power and “influence” the
world.
 Knowledge-based approaches
to IOs
Therefore, the “role” and “power” of IOs could
not be explained “only” as instruments of states.
They are not only “regulative” but also
“constitutive” mechanism.
They usually have their autonomy and authority
They are themselves “actors”
They use their authority to “constitute” the word
and further “expand” their authority.
 Pathologies of IOs
IOs are bureaucracies which are organized around
rules, routines and standard operating principles.
They are “rational-legal” authorities and are
expected to have a “standard” and “predictable”
response to international politics.
This is how they become “rational-legal
authorities”.
This “routinization” and “specialization” makes
them effective in completing complex social tasks.
 Pathologies of IOs

However, these standardizations might

produce dysfunctional behavior.
 Pathologies of IOs
Rather than designing the most
appropriate and efficient rules and
procedures to accomplish their missions,
IOs often tailor their mission to fit the
existing, well-known rulebook.
Ex. UN peacekeeping in 1992-1995 Bosnia.
“being neutral” –helping the aggressor(?)
 Pathologies of IOs
The idea that there exists universal rules
and procedures and technical knowledge,
experience could be transferred to
different tasks.

Ex: Cambodia and Bosnia peacekeeping

operations in 1990’s.
 Pathologies of IOs
The conflict between UN’s humanitarian
missions and the value it places on
neutrality and impartiality.

The conflict between UN’s human rights

norms and the norm of state sovereignty
in UN Charter.

CONFLICTS
The Changing Role of IOs in World
Politics
New Actors Besides States?

IOs are more than instruments of states.

They have “larger” effects in today’s

changing world politics.

EU UN
 ANY QUESTIONS?

Have a Great Weekend!