Analysis of the Role of Intergovernmental Institutions in the Governance of Peace and Security - Coursework Example

A Critical Analysis of the Role of Intergovernmental Institutions in Governance of Peace and Security Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Date A Critical Analysis of the Role of Intergovernmental Institutions in the Governance of Peace and Security Introduction Intergovernmental institutions or organisations are entities that are created when two or more nations sign a treaty or an agreement with the aim of working in good faith on issues where they share similar interests.1 Therefore, the foundation of these institutions is based on the understanding that they will pursue a common goal and build a common approach to problems or issues of interests. States have emerged since the seventeenth century to play leading roles in the world in different spheres like politics, economy, peace and security. According to Zohal (2011), the powers of these states are limited without the formation of interstate institutions that encompasses the aspirations of different players in the global scene. 2It is essential to note that the interstate institutions like the United Nations, the European Union and the OECD have continued to play significant roles in many spheres of the global economy, security, stability, politics, and peace.3 However, different views have been postulated by different scholars, theorists and leaders on the role of these organizations. Some have argued that intergovernmental institutions represent the state self-interests and cannot meet what is expected of them in the long-term. For the purpose of this research essay, the article makes a critical analysis of the role of these institutions in the governance of peace and security. The paper uses some theories in its critical examination of the role that these institutions play. Intergovernmental institutions overview In the last six decades, intergovernmental institutions have broadened and reviewed their objectives and mandates that have enabled them to reach the international level based on their membership.4 Today, over ninety percent of nations in the world are members of the United Nations, the World Bank and even the International Monetary Fund. Furthermore, regional organizations like the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation have extended their mandate, membership and objectives since their formation more than four decades ago. It suffices to not that because of these changes; these institutions have become the favorite subjects of criticism for failing in their missions, objectives and ensuring that they play a significant role in international security and peace. 5 In the aftermath of the World War II and later on the Cold War, international institutions have been viewed as engines that will propel the world to a period of stability, peace and security. However, these organizations have been criticised for not only failing in their role but being influenced by powerful countries in their operations because of their geo-political interests and not for the purpose of creating peace and security. According to McGrew (2011), these organizations do not work either individually or collectively. Some have asked the logic behind nations or states using intergovernmental organisations or institutions as engines for cooperation in creating peace and stability. These nations have postulated that some issues arise because of their structures and operations. 6 Additionally, international relations theories based on these complex phenomenon attempts to explain why nations use these entities. Conversely, the independence of these institutions is dependent on these countries as they can limit or extend their mandate and thus their independence. Such moves interfere in the operations, restructuring and even dissolution of these organisations. Furthermore, there have been moments with these entities have collided with the interests and sovereignty of nations, especially when they establish new structures for regulating international movements, for instance cross-border relationships. According to Wouters and de Man (2009), one of the primary reasons why countries seek to create or participate in these intergovernmental institutions is the fact that they delegate their power on issues that require expertise, information, knowledge, resources and time that they may not have. Another argument is that these entities complement the role that governments play, especially denationalisations policies. Imperatively, nations cannot make decisions that undermine their delegated roles or functions because of the supranational and transnational features of the national decisions, especially when using the principle of international cooperation. However, critics and objective proponents for the significant role played by these institutions are categorical that politicisation of these decisions brings into focus the legitimacy and autonomy of these organizations.7 Intergovernmental institutions have two essential features that distinguish them from other organizations. These two features are centralisations of power and independent decision making abilities. These organizations carry out activities that enjoy legitimacy and affect the legitimate power of state or nation activity. Additionally, centralization may interfere with state’s perceptions in complicated interactions between or among different players and nations. Centralisation highlights the political situation of the interactions between and among states. Therefore, these institutions provide forums for neutral, depoliticized and certain decisions in a more effective manner than under any treaties or agreements. 8 These organisations outline the particular terms of their interactions between and among states and attempt to create balanced relationships between stronger and weaker nations, their interests and knowledge. Again, the organisational structure adopted by these institutions influences the transformation of interstate cooperation and adapts itself to certain situations. Essentially most of these organizations carry out functions aimed at supporting cooperation between events that deal with critical issues aside from implementing set regulations. 9 The question of legitimacy of these institutions Legitimacy of these institutions, especially from a political perspective has been a debate for many years. However, the issue has come to the attention of international relations specialists who postulate that their legitimacy is related to certain criteria that guarantees trust and continuity of intergovernmental institutions. 10Other researchers in the field posit that these institutions seek to create solid connections between their activities and social value structures where they belong as one way of showing their legitimacy.11 However, Lawrence (2008) is categorical that legitimacy lies in the means they use in achieving their goals and objectives.12 It is clear that most researchers conclude that these institutions have legitimacy problems and as such they threaten the achievement of their role in peace and security. 13Critically, even if issues dealing with their legitimacy are addressed, the structures that govern these institutions is viewed as flawed and solutions must be found to make them more legitimate, especially in achieving global peace and security. The role of these institutions in the governance of peace and security Intergovernmental institutions participate as neutral and autonomous actors on the international stage and seek to transform the relationship between nations, and increase the efficiency and legitimacy of their collective and individual decisions. As a result, they need to balance between the short and long term actions based on the interests of concerned parties, especially powerful countries that join these entities to influence their geo-political interests in peace and security and small nations that may decline to join since the decisions made may seek to undermine their sovereignty . 14 Conversely, authoritarian nations may be reluctant in allowing these institutions to make decisions on their behalf as such decisions may interfere with their national political policies. Furthermore, the undemocratic and unstable ones may tend to limit the involvement of these organisations in their territory in quest for governance of peace and security. These institutions continue to be in the forefront in facilitating negotiations and implementing peace and security treaties, dispute resolution, and offering technical and development assistance in the transformation of the security sector at the global level. However, the most important attribute of these institutions is that they remain neutral, impartial and autonomous.15 Neutrality helps them to remain mediators between and among states in implementing their decisions while impartiality ensures that they do not have a favored party in a conflict. Finally, independence implies that they can make decisions on their own without any coercion from member countries. Theories on the role of intergovernmental institutions in the governance of peace and security Different theories attempt explain the role these institutions in peace and security governance. Some of the theorists argue that these institutions represent state self-interests and have no capacity to satisfy their expectations. Conversely, another school of thought believes that these institutions have been instrumental in promoting cooperation and achieving peace and security. In this section, three theories are used to discuss the role of these organisations in peace and security governance. Constructivism Constructivists argue that these organisations regulate state behavior and modify their identity and interests, a situation that in turn directs the actions of these nations (Mitchell, 2006). According to Finnemore (in Hobson, 2003), states are normative and adaptive entities and through these institutions, they can adapt international values and norms of appropriate way of conducting business and behaving by formulating their policies and even domestic systems.16 Effectively, they are pushed to cooperate international even when their state power and utility maximisation interests are not met. The proponents of the theory are categorical that relative gain is irrelevant and postulate that nations stand to gain more through cooperation as opposed to what they will gain as individual countries.17 Again, they believe that intergovernmental institutions constrain self-interest of nations and infuse good norms that control states from deviating in their cooperation at the global stage. Constructivists’ optimistic view on the role played by these organisations concurs with neo-liberals. Therefore, intergovernmental organisations have the role of promoting the democratic process of the member nations and encouraging these states to pursue peaceful conflict management approaches (Mitchell, 2008). Neo-Liberalism The liberal institutionalists make their argument in favour of the essential role that these organisations play in promoting cooperation and stability. They postulate that nations seek to maximise their “absolute gain” through the assessment of their welfare independent from others, which is, what will they stand to gain in their cooperation? Such a proposition is essential in promoting cooperation among countries and creating and sustaining mutual benefits. They argue that in a situation where a state focuses more on getting absolute gain, it becomes more feasible to have cooperation and collective security. Therefore, neo-liberals believe in the attainment of collective security and posit that nations can dedicate themselves to the preservation of their joint interests through intergovernmental institutions. According to Keohane (2006) these institutions can facilitate cooperation and in their absence, the prospects of humanity are doomed. Furthermore, the value of these organisations in promoting cooperation cannot be overemphasised. The theorists of Neo-Liberalism affirm that these institutions have the role of encouraging cooperative norms, monitoring if these nations comply, and meting out sanctions to the defectors and defaulters (Burchill, 2005). Therefore, these organizations play an essential, if not a critical role, in enhancing, facilitating and promoting cooperation between and among nations and states. Moreover, Neo-Liberals recognize the existence of structural anarchy and the importance of military power and the importance and prominence of state interests. However, they argue that the best way to protect these interests and military power is through intergovernmental institutional frameworks where cooperation is encouraged (Meirehenrich, 2012). They believe that such an approach helps in addressing the risk of security competition between nations and promotes peace and security. Again, they postulate that as these institutions feed the relevant nations with security information, they enable them to reduce uncertainties and other associated risks that can emerge because of anarchy (Nathan, 2012). According to Hobson (2003), intergovernmental organisations are important in making the world not only cooperative but peaceful. The overall argument is that intergovernmental organisations play a critical role in maintaining international peace, security and stability. For instance, different regional organisations are cited in their efforts to create peace and stability in their jurisdictions. For instance, the Association of South East Asian Nations in maintaining stability in the region cannot be overemphasised. Again, the efforts of the United Nations and its agencies in creating peace through its peace keeping missions in conflict zones is mentioned by the proponents of the theory. Nathan, (2012) supports the neoliberals’ perspective of the positive role that intergovernmental institutions by citing evidence in international cases in conflict zones. Nathan states that it will be irrational to assert that these organisations do not have the capacity to bring peace. Nathan accounts for the progress made by regional intergovernmental institutions in the peace and security area through preventive diplomacy, post-war building, mediation, and arms control and disarmament process. He makes his point by giving the role of the African Union in Kenyan civil violence in 2007 election dispute and IGAD’s effort in solving the Sudanese conflict. Conclusively, neoliberals assert their belief in intergovernmental institutions as important players in facilitating interstate cooperation and the maintenance of peace and security. Imperatively, global peace and security can be achieved as the proponents assert that when nations recognize that they must found and support organisations whose mission is to create stability and security in different regions and globally. The need for member states to forego their self-interest is fundamental in achieving security, peace and stability. Constructivists and neoliberals believe that the international system, though with its characteristic anarchy and self-preservation of state players, has the ability to enhance peace and security. Nea-Realism Neo-realists or structural realists postulate that the intergovernmental institutions are a result of the different state interests and cannot function with autonomy. The neo-realists believe that these organisations and their functions are determined by state interests. Based on their interests, these nations cooperate or compete (Sinclair& Byers, 2006). They argue that intergovernmental institutions like the United Nations, The European Union, The World Bank, and IMF among others are intergovernmental institutions that states use to safeguard their interests and pursue absolute gain. They critically state that based on the self-interest preservation, these organisations do not play an important role in achieving global peace and security. 18These institutions, for instance, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) have failed to prevent wars yet they are supposed to ensure that peace and security is maintained. Accordingly, neo-realists argue that the institutions are a reflection of state interests as most of the powerful states are not ready to relinquish their power.19 As a result, the competing state interests undermine their independent role on the global stage. As stated, proponents of the theory argue that international cooperation cannot be achieved since nations and states care for their relative position than their role in the international space. Imperatively, it becomes challenging for these organisations to pursue peace and security because of the need to achieve relative gains.20 States are compelled to ensure that they gain first through such engagements and when they realise that their relative gains cannot be guaranteed, they may not push for their agenda in a more vigorous way. Imperatively, states are keen on ensuring that their relative position or gain in their cooperation with others is protected and guaranteed.21 Therefore, if their interests or gain are not safeguarded, cooperation becomes a challenge and fragile. Again, neo-realists believe that states or nations cooperate with these entities when it is convenient and suitable to them. Another essential aspect is that these intergovernmental institutions survive when they allow states to safeguard their interests and help them realise their relative gain. Imperatively, they cannot maintain peace and security because of their limited autonomy due to the conflicting state interests in their management. These theories provide divergent views on the role of these organisations in a critical and objective manner. As demonstrated, the role of these institutions in global peace and security is a subject of debate and theoretical interpretations and perspectives. The indispensable role that these organisations play cannot be underestimated. 22However, these institutions have had to deal largely with a variety of issues based on their activities. Critics have argued overtime and again that intergovernmental institutions have limited role to play in achieving global peace and stability because of their legitimacy, consensus in their decision-making structures and historical accounts, especially in the developing world.23 The developing nations believe that these organisations cannot encourage peace and security because their systems are tilted in favour of the wealthy and powerful countries. These countries fell that the principle of consensus practised by these entities means that parties agree upon particular issue. However, powerful and wealthy nations have a more important role in decisions of these institutions than the developing countries. Imperatively, they fail to carry out their mandate and as such cannot lead to the establishment of peace and security at the global level. Decision-making frameworks within these organisations have heavily been a critical debate issue because such decisions can only be validated at a formal level when all actors are present. Furthermore, such decisions need to reflect the power relations between countries through a weighted voting structure representing major interests. Of important point of criticism have been situations where these institutions face hostilities from member states because of their decisions. 24These organisations find themselves in crises when one or more of their members engages in aggressive criticism of the institution or fails to agree and have consensus on critical decisions. For instance, the United Nations has had to contend with numerous and strong criticism of its management of conflicts and its policies. Many times the competing interests of political ideologies pitting the Western democratic governments, especially the United States and Europe and the Eastern countries led by China and Russia have dogged the UN and particularly the Security Council. Such critique puts to question the legitimacy and autonomy of these institutions.25 Again, NATO and the EU have had their internal activities disrupted because of the state interests of different members, especially the issue of Cyprus. From this perception, as neo-realists would postulate, intergovernmental institutions are playthings of the super nations and are used when they suit their state interests and ignored when they fail to do so. 26For instance, the UN and United States have had to pay the price for their legitimacy on their commitment to the ideals of these institutions when the U.S attacked Iraq against and without the mandate from UN’s Security Council.27 The implication is that states protect their interests before they submit to intergovernmental institutions. Conclusion The contemporary overview and the theoretical frameworks make a strong case on the role of intergovernmental institution in the governance of global peace and security. However, neo-realists and critics of the international system postulate that these organisations have not been effective in their mandate as they continue to grapple with competing national and regional interests and legitimacy. Furthermore, their decisions have overly been overruled by member states, again affecting their ability to enhance peace, stability and security. References Bradford, C. and Linn, J. (2007). Reform of Global Governance, Brookings Policy Brief Series, no. 163. Brown, A. (2005). Understanding International Relations, 3rd ed, Macmillan: Palgrave. Burchill, S. (2005). ‘Liberalism,’ in Theories of International Relations, 3rd ed, Burchill et al., Macmillan: Palgrave. Buchanan, A., Keohane, R. (2006). The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions, Ethics & International Affairs Vol.20, No. 4, pp. 405-437. Clark, I. (2003). Legitimacy in Global Order, Review of International Studies Vol.29, pp. 75-95 Griffin, K. (2003). Economic Globalization and Institutions of Global Governance, Development and Change, Vol.34, No.5 (November), pp. 789-808. Hobson, J. (2003). The State and International Relations, London: Cambridge University Press. Lawrence, R. (2008), International Organizations: The Challenges of Aligning Missions, Means and Legitimacy, The World Economy Vol.31, No.11, pp. 1455-1470 Low, P. (2011). WTO Decision-Making for the Future, WTO Staff Working Paper ERSD-2011- 05. McGrew, T. (2011). After Globalization? WTO Reform and the New Global Political Economy in Governing the World Trade Organization, edited by Thomas Cottier and Manfred Elsig, New York Cambridge University Press, pp. 20-46 Meirhenrich, (2012). “International Organisations,” London: University of London. Mitchell, S. (2006). “Cooperation in World Politics: The Constraining and Constitutive Effects of International Organisations,” Paper prepared for presentation at the 2006 International Studies Association meeting in San Diego, California and for presentation at the International Organisations in Action Conference, La Jolla, California, 2006. Mulligan, S. (2006). The Uses of Legitimacy in International Relations, Millennium – Journal of International Studies Vol.34, No.2, pp. 349-375. Nathan, L. (2010). “The Peacemaking Effectiveness of Regional Organisations,” Working Paper no. 81, London: Development Studies Institute (DESTIN). Newman, E (2007). A Crisis of Global Institutions? Multilateralism and international security. New York, NY: Routledge. Nugroho, G. (2008). “Constructivism and International Relations Theories,” Global and Strategies, Vol.2, No.1, pp 85-98 Sinclair, A. and Byers, M. (2006). “When US Scholars Speak of “Sovereignty,” What Do They Mean?” TranState Working Papers No.4, Bremen: Sfb 597. Van Lanngenhove, L. & Maes, L. (2012). The Role of the EU in Peace and Security, United Nations University. Accessed on October 29, 2016 from http://unu.edu/publications/articles/the-role-of-the-eu-in-peace-and-security.html Weiss, T. G. (2008). What’s Wrong With the United Nations (and How to Fix It). Cambridge: Polity Press. Wouters, J. and De Man, P. (2009). International Organizations as Law-Makers, Working Paper no. 21 (March), Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies . Zohal, H. (2011). What Determines Trust in International Organizations? An Empirical Analysis for the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO, MPRA Paper No. 34550. Read More