Types of international organizations – different types with concrete examples
By membership type (who are the members):
States: Intergovernmental organizations (IGOs)
Global (UN, IMF)
Regional (NAFTA, EU, NATO)
Investors: Transnational corporations (TNCs)
Individuals/Legal bodies: International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs): e.g. Red Cross, FIFA, etc, Civil society organizations (CSOs)
Legitimate
Illegitimate (terrorist groups, organized crime structures)
By focus of activity :
- International security
- Trade and investment
- Economic development
- Human rights
- Social problems
- Protection of the environment
- Political agendas
- Others
- UNIVERSAL (all of the above) – The United Nations system
By limits to states’ sovereignty:
International – based on cooperation among sovereign states on common issues, its resolutions are advisory, and not always obligatory;
Supranational – could adopt binding and obligatory decisions for legal bodies and individuals in member countries
By Principles of Entry :
Open – any country/legal/physical body could join;
Closed – by invitation of the founding members (e.g. NATO, ASEAN, others)
By Geographical coverage:
Global (UN, WB, IMF, International Associations)
Regional (Organization of Gulf(African) states, APEC)
Cross-regional, based on a particular criteria, subject matter (Organization of Islamic Conference - OIC, Organization of petroleum exporting Countries – OPEC)
By Type of Establishment Agreement:
formed on the basis of international treaties, ratified by member countries;
formed on the basis of joint statements, declarations (BRICS, G20);
By type of structure/ bureaucracy:
formal (developed) structures, offices, secretariats, Boards, permanent staff;
simple structures (small rotating secretariats, no physical headquarters)
International and supranational organizations – principal differences, concrete examples
Theory of international organizations: main schools of thought, key postulates, modern applicability
Theoretical framework and underpinnings of the IO analysis have several streams/schools differing in their approach as regards:
Ø positioning IOs within the international “power&politics” framework
Ø who is considered to be the main actor in international politics
Main schools of thought:
Ø Realism - political aspect of IOs
Ø Liberalism (internationalism) –legal aspect of IOs
Ø Constructivism (universalism) – social aspect of IOs
|
|
|
Realism – “skeptical” view on IOs:
Ø The ultimate arbiter of outcomes in international relations is power. Power drives the politics.
Ø States (countries) are the key international actors with the most power since they control most of the planet’s military power.
Ø IOs do not have such power. IOs just reflect the existing balance of power and the interests of powerful states.
Ø Hence, IOs are axillary in the international politics as they function to the benefit and in the interest of most powerful states.
(also called the “system analysis” scientific stream of thought)
Liberalism – optimistic/idealistic view on IOs:
Ø the approach is based on the international law prospective (rules, regimes, agreements) rather than on the study of power&politics (“institutional analysis” school of thought)
Ø it sees states in international society as people in domestic society. People are generally following the rules and laws established in their domestic society. So do the states in international society. Hence, IOs become the expressions of the rules that govern international society.
Ø IOs are important because they regulate relations among states.
Ø IOs are important institutes of international governance, enabling dialogue and development of new international institutions (norms, rules)
Ø IOs are fundamentally cooperative since they arise only with the consent of all actors (states)
Constructivism – “global governance” prospective view on IOs:
Ø differs fundamentally from the previous two as it is not state-centric
Ø the focus on complexity of international relations and increasingly diminishing roles of sovereign states in global governance
Ø sees states as increasingly irrelevant in the face of a developing global society, a global society of people rather than of states
Ø considers that much of the international politics is shaped based on the ideas (perceptions) of people and states about themselves and the world around them (ideas about “ally” and “enemy”)
|
|
|
Ø IOs are more important as expressions of, and the creators of global civil society than they are as regulators of relations among states
Ø IOs should be studied as partial replacements for states rather than as mediators among states
Дата добавления: 2022-07-02; просмотров: 36; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!