The Huge Growth of International Organisations and the Range of Their Activities since 1945 - Term Paper Example

 Account for the Huge Growth in the Number of International Organisations and the Range of Their Activities since 1945 International organisations are a relatively recent phenomenon, which sprung out of necessity to devise new models for co-operation within a growingly interdependent world. Notwithstanding that a number of academics still debate on the reasons which brought them about, the theories underlying their coming to existence, and not least their expediency, they are a fact. This fact is underscored and rubber-stamped as a factor on the international relations arena by yet another fact. The number of international organisations has been growing in multiples “from about 30 in 1910 to 70 in 1940 to more than 1,000 by 1981”, as Robert Keohane noted in International Institutions: Can Interdependence work? The quantitative expression of their splurge is not a reason in itself to judge that states, who have decided to join certain international organisations, have voluntarily relegated certain duties into their hands. No organisation as yet enjoys the right to be a state’s exclusive proxy in the realm in operates. Rather, by wide consensus international organisations are seen as the states' tools to wield common inter-state rules within the field of their activity, and at a lesser cost than states would have paid had they worked on a state-by-state basis. In view of the above, two reasons emerge as instrumental in these entities’ growth. First, states recognised that global matters were in need of systematic coordination and that to co-ordinate properly they were in need of international organisations. Second, states came to believe that multilateral co-operation by means of such bodies would yield them more potential gains than if working individually (Keohane). Since multilateral co-operation by definition covers the entire spectrum of international relations, so does the scope of activities of international organisations. To make this argument even more precise, international organisations are active where states admit there is need for common rules and regulations that would act as a benchmark for all member states. With the advent of globalisation, common rules have become a must in the fields of security, economy and finance, environment, technology, law and human rights and all points of their intersection in between. Empirical evidence affirms this claim. While their sheer number prevents one from enumerating them all, there are a few prominent institutions one cannot afford to omit. The United Nations (UN), the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), the European Union (EU), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) are all established institutions, whose origins date back to the birth of institutionalism and whose say matters in multilateral negotiations within their scope of activity. Since they appear to be the most potent actors by virtue of their efficiency, material support by states, viability, and eminence, their range of activities must have proven the most useful for the states and public alike. Hence, a brief overview of their activities will be presented below. Yet before speaking of practical results, a discussion about the main theories and changes in patterns of state behaviour, which have brought modern international organisations into being, seems important. For this reason, an outline of the main schools of institutional thought will be furnished beforehand. Academic discourse still spars over which theoretical foundations suit modern international institutions the most, as well as over which line of thought – together with its assumptions – is the most appropriate to today’s reality. In an extensive review named The False Promise of International Institutions, John J. Mearsheimer puts side by side the theories of liberal institutionalism, collective security and critical theory. All three emerge as alternatives to realism, international relations’ theoretical guideline for 700 years. In a nutshell, realism is described as the interplay of self-interested actors, who trust no one. They are convinced that an inter-state agreement can only last until the gain from it outweighs the gain from another, because each state is inherently willing to dominate within a constantly changing balance of power. The three theories mentioned above, all burgeoning last century, rest on the belief that realism’s pessimistic world outlook needs reshuffle. To that end, they introduce new assumptions and patterns of behaviour to achieve durable peace and security in all fields of international relations. Liberal institutionalism, for example, argues that increased co-operation in the economic and environmental fields can “help reduce the likelihood of war.” By creating rules, or institutions as Mearsheimer calls them, states will be less inclined to cheat, which in liberal institutionalism's view is the main predicament to international co-operation. For this very reason, institutions and, organisations that run institutions operationally, are necessary (Mearsheimer, p. 14). Liberal institutionalists Robert Keohane and Lisa Martin argue in The Promise of Institutionalist Theory, that institutions are also useful in contemporary policymaking on the international arena in that they “can provide information, can reduce transaction costs, make commitments more credible, establish focal points for co-ordination, and in general facilitate the operation of reciprocity.” (Keohane, R. and Martin, L., p. 42). Collective security, for its part, veers away from the “classic balance of power” principle and discards it as “ill-suited to a new era,” as Bill Clinton has put it during a 1993 presidential campaign speech. This notion, rather, takes mutual trust and multilateral co-operation centre stage in a bid to offset any hostile intentions of an aggressor. To make this happen, states must shed their individual temptations to pursue individual gain and abide by the collective norms set out by long-term multilateral agreements and observed through membership of organisations (Mearsheimer, p. 14). This theory underpins the statute of one of the most efficient international organisations to date – NATO. Critical theory, or often called constructivism, bets on transforming the set of ideas governing international politics. Theorists from this school of thought believe that it is ideas and discourse – and not structural factors, as realism theorists maintain – that mould state behaviour (Mearsheimer, p. 40). Therefore, the flawed interpretation of the world has governed the decisions of elites for the past seven centuries, which has brought the world into a chain of short-lived periods of peace and lasting wars. To end the vicious circle, theorists argue, elites need a new ideological matrix. In that, it seeks to replace the realist views and its assumptions altogether with a view that does not presume cheating (defection) or “self-help” attitude in a world where balance of power is “king”. Under this theory, ideas such as trust and sense of community are central. Now equipped with the relevant theoretical background and, more importantly, with the reasons theorists point out for states’ growing clinging to international organisations, it is much easier to understand why these entities have emerged as a lasting phenomenon, are active in as many fields, and receive as solid financial support. Taken the other way round, it is now clear why the majority of states have multiple memberships of international organisations. The word “multiple” is a key catchword here. It reflects states’ desire to avow no single organisation the entire range of activities that naturally pertain to a state. Such an approach is seen by academics as the states’ attempt to safeguard their sovereignty from potential encroachment in future. Keohane explained states’ view for the function or organisations as follows: “…[R]ather than imposing themselves on states, international institutions should respond to the demand by states for co-operative ways to fulfil their own purposes” (International Institutions: Can Interdependence Work?) This view also brought specialisation to organisations in one or more – but to recall again, not all – fields of international relations. They now exist as “a framework of complementary, mutually reinforcing” institutions, the 1994 NATO Basic Fact Sheet No. 6 has pointed out. As previously mentioned, this paper does not aim to discuss the entire range of international organisations’ activities for the mere reason their number and sophistication needs much writing space. Rather, it will briefly report the organisations whose track record has won them international acclaim as successful brokers within their field of activity. The United Nations (UN) is the sole international organisation to have emerged prior to the close of World War II. Although established in October 1945, it is the legal heir of the League of Nations, itself founded shortly after World War I. Presently, it enjoys the largest membership with 192 out of a total of 240 countries paying their annual contributions, arguably the largest annual budget ($4.2 billion) and the widest operational outreach. Its activities span peace and security, development, human rights, humanitarian affairs and human law. To run efficiently, it has broken down activities by programmes and has assigned specific executive bodies to manage and oversee them. Probably the most cited authority within the framework of the UN is the UN Security Council, whose task is to mediate international security issues. It also raised the environmentalist flag high by inspiring a worldwide climate change debate. In theoretical terms, UN clings to critical theory as it presents new ideas and patterns of behaviour, which would ultimately bring lasting peace, security and welfare to the world. NATO’s main thrust is in international security as well. It represents an alliance of 28 countries from Europe and North America and seeks to protect member states by military and political means. This organisation fully embodies the principle of collective security through Article 5 of the NATO Charter. It reads that an armed attack against any member state will be regarded as an attack against the entire membership and, therefore, all members are obliged to run to the rescue of the assaulted fellow country. The organisation emerged at the outset of the Cold War and was intended to safeguard the West from the common aggressor, then-Soviet Union. With its end, now NATO focused on combating terror. Like the UN, the European Union (EU) has also undergone its organisational revamp through the years. It set out in 1950 with the founding of the European Steel and Coal Community, to later become the European Economic Community and lastly, the EU. From the outset, its goal was to secure lasting peace among neighbours by creating enduring economic inter-dependence. In that, it embodies the ideas of liberal institutionalism. Ever since, the Union has undergone several waves of enlargement and currently its member state count is 27. Among its hallmark achievements are the introduction of the common European currency (the euro); the existing Schengen area that allows for the free movement of goods, people and capital; its neighbourhood policies. Not least, it has earned a broker role in international conflicts, and participates as a full-fledged member in international economic talks that until recently were the domain of sovereign states alone. With the endorsement of the Lisbon Treaty, the EU is expected to become even more influential on the international political arena with a president and High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) closely matches the UN member state count with 186 countries on its member roster. It was also formed immediately after the end of WWII with the goal to regulate monetary affairs of major capitalist states. It underwent a major transformation in the 1970s, when flexible interest rates were introduced and it could no longer perform this function. Today, it is mostly seen as the watchdog of financial stability worldwide. To that effect, it double-checks for soundness the economic and financial policies of its member states. In another key function, it helps countries in deep economic trouble to recover by offering technical assistance and by lending funds. Recently, the IMF received a key role in the efforts to fight the global economic crisis. World leaders assigned more funds to the IMF, which it has largely re-allocated to ailing developed economies, such as Iceland and the Baltic States. This organisation also largely abides by the liberal institutionalism principles. The beginnings of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) also lead back to the late 1940s when the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT). It only assumed its present name in 1995 with the Marrakech Agreement yet its goals from early age to date has all been the same – to oversee and liberalise world trade. With 153 members, whose share in world trade is a hefty 95%, it has the necessary clout to do so. It promotes itself as the platform for rules on trade, for exchange of ideas on trade, settlement of trade disputes and as the initiator of regulations that would give poorer countries more equity in dealing with more powerful trading partners. This organisation sees again liberal institutionalism at play. Naturally, among the 1000 and more extant international organisations, there are many more with an edge and deserving a closer look. Such are the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the Council of Europe or the Organisation of Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), or the International Energy Agency (IEA). Alongside its established peers, new organisations emerge by the year. Their spawn is evidence to the fact that countries have recognised the need for institutions, the third-party mediator for “norm-guided social arrangements,” and have ascribed them the role of the “medium that makes communication and co-ordinated action possible,” in Tony Porter’s words. While academics still argue whether organisations, and by extension institutions, have an influence in international political and economic discourse, states continue investing money and human resources into developing them. Governments must have recognised that this relatively new phenomenon has to go through its baby and infancy stages to become growingly efficient and score an even better track record of successes and, thus, muffle critics. Yet even now, for 50 years of existence, they have not squandered governments’ credit of trust because now they are the setters of norms that states willingly obey. References Clinton, Bill. “American Foreign Policy and the Democratic Ideal,” Campaign speech, Pabst Theater, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, October 1, 1992 Fergusson, Ian F. "The World Trade Organization: Background and Issues" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. pp. 2. Retrieved December 6, 2009 http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/98-928.pdf. "Interlocking Institutions: The Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE)," NATO Basic Fact Sheet No. 6 (Brussels, June 1994). Keohane, Robert. “International institutions: can interdependence work?(The Frontiers of Knowledge).” Foreign Policy. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 1998. Retrieved December 18, 2009 from HighBeam Research: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-20492567.html Keohane, Robert, and Lisa Martin, 1995, “The Promise of Institutionalist Theory”, International Security, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 39-51 Mearsheimer, John, 1995, “The False Promise of International Institutions”, International Security, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 5-49 Porter, Tony. “Politics, institutions, constructivism and the emerging international regime for financial regulation.” The Review of Policy Research. Policy Studies Organization. 2002. Retrieved December 18, 2009 from HighBeam Research: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-90438694.html Read More