International Organisations University of London

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
Chapter 3: Liberalism............................................................................................ 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
Chapter 4: Constructivism..................................................................................... 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
Part II: The history of international organisations................................................ 45
Chapter 5: A history of international organisations.............................................. 47
Further reading............................................................................................................. 47
Introduction................................................................................................................. 48
The origins of international organisations, 18151914.................................................. 48
The rise of international organisations, 19181945....................................................... 49
The proliferation of international organisations, 1945present ..................................... 50
Conclusion................................................................................................................... 51
Part III: The practice of international organisations.............................................. 53
chapter 6: The league of nations (1919) and the UN (1945)............................... 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
chapter 7: The IMF (1945) and the World Bank (1945)......................................... 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
Chapter 8: GATT (1947) and the World Trade Organization (1995)....................... 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
Chapter 9: NATO (1952) and the OSCE (1995)....................................................... 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
chapter 10: European Communities (1957) and the EU (1992)............................. 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
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
Chapter 12: The ICYT (1993), the ICTR (1994) and the ICC (2002)...................... 125
Aims and learning outcomes....................................................................................... 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
Chapter 13: Conclusion....................................................................................... 139
Aims and learning outcomes ...................................................................................... 139
Further reading........................................................................................................... 139
Introduction............................................................................................................... 140
How do international organisations matter? Theoretical conclusions............................ 140
How do international organisations matter? Empirical conclusions.............................. 142
Conclusion................................................................................................................. 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
guides 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
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 15, Chapters
612 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 IIII 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.
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
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
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 Childrens 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
Notes
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.114.
Ruggie, John Gerard Multilateralism: The Anatomy of an Institution,
International Organization, 46(3) (Summer 1992), pp.56198.
Hollis, Martin and Steve Smith Explaining and Understanding International
Relations. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), pp.4591.
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.122.
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.75375.
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
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.777813.
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 isnt 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 isnt 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 isnt 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
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, Claudes 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
[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 Ruggies 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-Generals 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 Duffields 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
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 Academys 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 200910.2 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
bestowed exclusively in the iconic building on New York Citys 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--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
UNs 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
Kants 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: 345) 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
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
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
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 Barnetts (2002) study of the goings-on at the UN
Secretariat during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. Barnetts sole objective
was to make sense of international action and inaction from within the
much-maligned international body. Another, more recent example is
17
that of Sverine 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.748. 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
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
Notes
20
Part I: The theory of international organisations
Part I: The theory of international

organisations
21
Notes
22
Chapter 2: Realism
Chapter 2: Realism
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.
describe the key tenets of classical realism and structural realism
(commonly known as neo-realism)
explain the sources of realisms lack of faith in the power of
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.485507.
Mearsheimer, John J. The False Promise of International Institutions,
International Security, 19(3) (Winter 1994/95), pp.7391.
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, 19191939: 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 Americas Global Advantage: US Hegemony and International
Cooperation. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).
23
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 migr, 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 431404 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 mans 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 migr, 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 meansends 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--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
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 todays friend could be tomorrows 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 articles
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--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.

describe the key tenets of classical realism and structural realism
(commonly known as neo-realism)
explain the sources of realisms lack of faith in the power of
outline the evolution of realist thinking about international
organisations (IOs) over time.

1. What is at stake in the debate over relative and absolute gains?
2. What are the strengths, what the weaknesses, of John Mearsheimers
perspective on international organisations?
3. How relevant is the realist paradigm for making sense of international
organisations?
27
Notes
28
Chapter 3: Liberalism
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.
describe the key tenets of classical liberalism and neo-liberal
institutionalism
explain the sources of liberalisms 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.192211.
Pevehouse, Jon and Bruce Russett Democratic International Governmental
Organizations Promote Peace, International Organization, 60(4) (Fall
2006), pp.9691000.
Further reading
Abbott, Kenneth W. and Duncan Snidal Why States Act through Formal
International Organizations, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42(1) (February
1998), pp.332.
Alter, Karen J. and Sophie Meunier The Politics of International Regime
Complexity, Perspectives on Politics, 7(1) (March 2009), pp.1324.
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.25375.
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.37996.
Keohane, Robert O. and Lisa L. Martin The Promise of Institutionalist Theory,
International Security, 20(1) (Summer 1995), pp.3951.
29
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.131.
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.72957.
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.51353.
Ruggie, John Gerard International Regimes, Transactions, and Change:
Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order, International
Organization, 36(2) (March 1982), pp.379415.
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.
17691.
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
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 mans 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 todays 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
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 principalagent
models (e.g. Hawkins et al., 2006). Inspired by economic analyses
of domestic institutions such as commercial firms or government
bureaucracies, principalagent theory is dedicated to explicating dynamic
relations between principals (namely, states) and agents (namely,
international organisations). A relatively new strand of scholarship,
32
principalagent 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 NIs 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 Krasners 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
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 Keohanes 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,
Kants 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
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.

describe the key tenets of classical liberalism and neo-liberal
institutionalism
explain the sources of liberalisms faith in the power of international
organisations
describe the evolution of liberal thinking about international
organisations over time.

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
Notes
36

International Organisations University of London

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Organisations University of London

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International organisations

University of London International Programmes

Regime theory of international institutions: Stephen Krasner.......................................... 33

How the IMF works...................................................................................................... 71

chapter 11: The Organisation of African Unity (1963) and the

How to use this guide

The purpose of the subject guide

Online study resources

Making use of the Online Library

latter in particular contain valuable information about how to approach

Recommended study time

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination

Commonwealth of Independent States

Conference for Security and Co-operation in Europe

Department of Political Affairs, United Nations

Department of Peacekeeping Affairs, United Nations

Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia

ECOMOG Economic Community of West African States Monitoring

United Nations Economic and Social Council

Economic Council of West African States

European Convention on Human Rights

Elected 10 Members of the UNSC

Food and Agriculture Organization

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

Group of Finance Ministers of 7 Industrialised Countries

Group of Heads of Government of 7 Industrialised Countries

Group of 77 Developing Countries

Group of 20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors

International Atomic Energy Agency

International Criminal Court

ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

International Court of Justice

International Committee of the Red Cross

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia

International Fund for Agricultural Development

International Labour Organization

International Monetary Fund

International Maritime Organization

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

International Telecommunication Union

MERCOSUR Common Market for the Southern Hemisphere

North Atlantic Treaty Organization

Organization of American States

Organisation of African Unity

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for

Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe

Permanent Five Members of the UNSC

Responsibility to Protect (or Rtop)

Southern African Development Community

Special Court for Sierra Leone

TEU Treaty on European Union

United Nations Commission on Trade and Development

United Nations Development Programme

United Nations Environment Programme

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural

United Nations Population Fund

United Nations General Assembly

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

United Nations Childrens Fund

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

United Nations Security Council