FIRST LESSON NOTE ON POL 322 2023

 

International Organizations

 

International organisations are entities established by formal political agreements between their members that have the status of international treaties; their existence is recognised by law in their member countries; they are not treated as resident institutional units of the countries in which they are located.

International organization is the process by which states establish and develop formal, continuing institutional structures for the conduct of certain aspects of their relationships with each other. It represents a reaction to the extreme decentralization of the traditional system of international relations and an effort by statesmen to adapt the mechanics of that system to the requirements posed by the constantly increasing complexity of the interdependence of states. Particular international organizations may be regarded as manifestations of the organizing process on the international level.

 

An international governmental organisation (IGO), also referred to as an intergovernmental organisation, is an organisation with a membership of only states. The organisation is usually founded upon a treaty, or a multilateral agreement, and consists of more than two states. Member states determine the way in which the organisation is run, vote within the organisation and provide its funding.

The history of international organization

The process of international organization had its origins in the nineteenth century, largely in Europe. Innovations associated with the rise of industrialism and the introduction of new methods of transport and communication stimulated the creation of special-purpose agencies, usually called public international unions, designed to facilitate the collaboration of governments in dealing with economic, social, and technical problems. Notable among these were the International Telegraphic Union (1865) and the Universal Postal Union (1874), which survived to become specialized agencies of the United Nations system (the former under the title International Telecommunication Union) after World War II. In the political field, an effort to institutionalize the dominant role of the great powers of Europe was undertaken at the Congress of Vienna in 1815.

While the resultant Concert of Europe did not assume the character of a standing political organization, the same pattern functioned until World War I as the framework for a system of occasional great-power conferences which lent some substance to the idea that the European family of states constituted an organized entity. This concept was broadened by the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907, which admitted small states as well as great powers, and extra-European as well as European states, to participation in collective political deliberations. Near the end of the nineteenth century, the establishment of the Pan American Union and the initiation of a series of inter-American conferences reinforced the Monroe Doctrine and Simón Bolívar’s pronouncements by giving institutional expression to the idea that the states of the Western Hemisphere constituted a distinct subgroup within the larger multi-state system.

These nineteenth-century beginnings provided, in large measure, the basis for the phenomenal development of international organization since World War I. Certain distinctions which emerged during this period between political and nonpolitical agencies, between the status of great powers and that of small states, between regional and geographically undefined organizations were to prove significant in the later course of international organization. Basic patterns of institutional structure and procedure were evolved. The trend toward broadening the conception of international organization to include entities beyond the confines of the European state system was initiated. Most importantly, the dual motivations of international institution building (a) the urge to promote coordinated responses by states to the problems of peaceful intercourse in an era of growing economic, social, and technical interdependence, and(b)the recognition of the necessity for moderating conflict in the political and military spheres became operative in this period.

The conception of international relations underlying international organization is frequently described as idealistic, in the sense that it minimizes the element of conflict and emphasizes the potentialities of harmony and cooperation in the relationships of states. International organizations are characterized, by supporters and critics alike, as arrangements for cooperation among states. Most accurately, international organization can be said to rest upon a dualistic conception of international relations, one which acknowledges both conflictual and cooperative relationships as basic features of the multistate system. In principle, international organization represents an attempt to minimize conflict and maximize collaboration among participating states, treating conflict as an evil to be controlled and cooperation as a good to be promoted. In these terms, international organization both denies the inevitability of war and other manifestations of hostility among nations and expresses a commitment to the harmonization of international relations.

In fact, a more sophisticated analysis of international organization reveals a much more complex approach to the conflictual and cooperative aspects of international affairs than that described above. Some international agencies are primarily concerned with problems of conflict, while others emphasize the promotion of collaboration: within the United Nations, for instance, the Security Council is illustrative of the former type and the Economic and Social Council of the latter. Moreover, conflicting interests of states intrude upon programs of cooperation, making it necessary for cooperation-oriented agencies to deal with problems of conflict, and the common interests of states provide the means by which conflict-oriented agencies undertake to cope with tendencies toward international disorder. Thus, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a regional agency inspired by the East–West conflict after World War II, but it relies upon cooperation among its members to enable it to meet the dangers posed by that conflict. Similarly, the concept of collective security envisages cooperative action by most members of a general international organization as the essential means for deterring or defeating aggression.

 

The concept of International Relation

International relations is an academic discipline that focuses on the study of the interaction of the actors in international politics, including states and non-state actors, such as the United Nations (UN), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and Amnesty International. One of the key features of the international system is that it is a state of anarchy - each state in the system is sovereign and does not have to answer to a higher authority.

International relations has to do with the study of such things as foreign policy, international conflict and negotiation, war, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, international trade and economics, and international development, among other subjects. International relations' is a broad scope that requires an interdisciplinary approach, drawing upon the fields of economics, law, political science, sociology, game theory, and also psychology.

Sovereignty is one of the most important and popular concepts in contemporary international relations. The concept has been subjected to a lot of interpretations (misinterpretations) a good example is that some of the ills in the contemporary international system both at the domestic and interstate levels are blamed on sovereignty. Sovereignty as a concept in both domestic and international politics dates back several centuries. The genesis of it could be traced to the 16th century Frenchman philosopher Jean Bodin, who in 1576 published the groundbreaking treatise that was known as the six Books. Bodin tried to make an input in what is systematic presentation of what sovereignty means in both national and external politics. The two broad notions of sovereignty were distinguished by Bodin as domestic and external sovereignty which has been upheld as constant till date.

 

 

Domestic or Internal Sovereignty

Domestic Sovereignty according to Bodin in Ojo and Amadu (2002 p29) simply means “the absolute authority and perpetual power of a state over its citizens and subjects unrestrained by law”. This definition was given at the time as an insight into the domestic politics of Bodins time and at that time state has unlimited coercive authority over its citizens and subjects. That time was also when the Europe feudal monarchs legitimized absolute powers only enjoyed by them. The Pope as at that time was both the spiritual as well as temporal leader of the Holy Roman Empire. Prior to its logical meaning as at that time Bodin’s notion of sovereignty made no room for the right of the citizens to challenge their rulers. Quite well indeed, the citizens were mere objects and not subjects of their leaders who where answerable only to God, the Supreme Being for their actions. In a nutshell Bodin’s definition gave legitimacy to atrocities of 16 century monarchs against their subjects (Ojo and Amadu, 2002).

Domestic sovereignty according to Fawcett, it is a mere “power and authority of a state over all persons, things and territory within its reach”.

External sovereignty

This is used synonymously with independence, which is only a status symbol in international politics. External sovereignty in this context is all about “independence” as a status which states used to gain membership in international intergovernmental organizations such as Economic Community of West African States(ECOWAS), European Union (EU), United Nations (UN) etc., for instance, Gambia that are small in terms of population of less than half a million, and the United States of America (USA) that are large in population that is close to three hundred million people, are considered to be equal for the purpose of external sovereignty since they are both independent state the idea is in theory not bound by any higher constitutional arrangements outside their own territories. At the United Nations General Assembly, the USA and the Gambia have one equal vote each. This equality is theoretical in the sense that when it comes in taking decision the developing countries are silenced by the developed countries.

It is a belief that external sovereignty does not mean that a state is free to do what it likes in the international system, or within its territory

THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

In fact, rather than referring to the international system as a present-day world government, it is more common to refer to international law as representing only the potential roots of a possible future world government. The modern rise of international law can be traced back to the Peace of Westphalia of 1648, which ended the Thirty Years’ War in part by recognizing the right of territorial sovereignty in interstate affairs. What came to be known as the Westphalian order is defined by two principles: state territoriality—the international recognition of well-defined borders—and the right to non intervention in domestic affairs. The Westphalian order placed the independent nation-state at the center of the international system at the expense of larger supranational authorities such as the Holy Roman Empire or the Roman Catholic Church. Nonetheless, international law constituted only a minimal system of coexistence, and military force remained the primary mechanism for the settlement of conflict. The early nineteenth century witnessed the formation of the Concert of Europe—a balance of power arrangement with the goal of establishing security on the continent in the wake of the Napoleonic wars. Yet it was not until the end of World War I (1914–1918) and the founding of the League of Nations that the first systemic international organization was formed with the purpose of avoiding war altogether. And it was not until the close of World War II (1939–1945) that the formation of the United Nations, and the establishment of the International Military Tribunal for the Punishment of War Criminals, made aggressive war an internationally recognized crime.

After World War II, international law entered a new stage represented by the ban on the use of force and the elevation of human rights to the status of international law through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Historically, the subjects of international law had always been groups or collective actors, principally states. But with the rise of human rights and war crimes legislation more and more international law came to refer directly to the individual person, independent of particular group membership. With this development some understand international law to be following a trajectory that points away from the statist Westphalian model of international relations toward a universalist, cosmopolitan model of world government.

Most international law, however, remained state- or group-based well into the start of the twenty-first century. Many late-twentieth century developments do, however, point toward the coexistence of an alternative cosmopolitan model. For example, the International Criminal Court (ICC) points toward the development of an international system of justice in which individuals could claim to be citizens of the world subject to a single law executed by a single world government. Thus one might imagine a future world government as taking form around such a notion of universal citizenship. The ICC was founded in 1998 to prosecute perpetrators of the most heinous crimes recognized by the entire international community, including “genocide” and “crimes against humanity.” However, important obstacles to its success remain: Not all countries immediately recognized its authority, subsequently undermining its claim to universality; most important, the United States disputed its mandate, claimed special exemption from its jurisdiction, and pressured other countries—especially its aid recipients—to do the same. Similarly, other trends suggest that the decentralized structure of the international system could just as easily develop away from the consolidation of a coherent world government. For example, in the early years of the twenty-first century, international regulation was increasingly the product of private-public partnerships, resulting in a pluralization of rule-making structures rather than their institutional concentration.

Historical overview of International Organization (The League of Nations)

The League of Nations was the first permanent early international Organization that lasted for some years. The first meeting of the League of Nations was held in 1920 at Geneva in Switzerland. It was created by the Versailles and other peace treaties ending World War I. The upbraided nationalism that had inflamed Europe in the early 20th century was widely seen as a major cause of World War I. The horrendous losses in the War convinced many Europeans that there must never be another war.

 A League of Nations proposed by the 28th US president (1856 - 1924) Woodrow Wilson who served in office from 1913 to 1921 and lead America through World War 1(1914 - 1918) was seen as a way of preventing war in the future through a system of collective security. The League was a culmination of other political thinkers who had late the intellectual background; men like the duke de Sully and Immaniuel Kant. The League failed in the face of Fascism (a RIGHT WING political system in which people’s lives were completely controlled by the state and no political opposition is allowed to air their views on it was used in Germany and Italy in the 1930s and 40s). Its successor was the United Nations (UN)

Original Members of the League of Nations - January 10, 1920 Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, el Salvador, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Italy, Japan, Liberia, Netherlands, New Zealand Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Persia, Peru Poland, Portugal, Rumania, Siam, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, South Africa, United Kingdom, Uruguay Venezuela, Yugoslavia (40 members).
1920	Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Finland, Luxembourg were admitted to the League
1921	Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania are admitted to the League
1922	Hungary was admitted to the League
1923	Ethiopia, Ireland are admitted to the League
1924	Dominican Republic is admitted to the League
1925	Costa Rica withdraws from the League
1926	Germany is admitted to the League Brazil withdraws from the League
1931	Mexico is admitted to the League
1932	Iraq, Turkey are admitted to the League
1933	Germany, Japan withdraw from the League
1934	Afghanistan, Ecuador, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are admitted to the League
1935	Paraguay withdraws from the League
1936	Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua withdraw from the League
1937	Egypt is admitted to the League el Salvador, Italy withdraw from the League
1938	Chile, Venezuela withdraw from the League Austria is annexed by Germany
1939	Hungary, Peru, Spain withdrew from the League Albania is annexed by Italy Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is expelled from the League
1940	Rumania withdrew from the League
1942	Haiti withdrew from the League

Source: Adopted from: "Essential Facts about the League of Nations," Tenth Edition (Revised), LON Information Section, Geneva, 1939, pp. 11-29.

 If we take a look at the original members of the League of Nations, from the data above we see how their down fall began by some members pulling out, the annexed of Albania by Italy and the expelling of Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Their failure started from 1933 - 1942 and finally seized to exist after the world war 11 in 1939 - 45. Also the United states that are among the world powers are not part of the League of Nation.

Article 11 of the League’s Covenant stated:

‘‘Any war of threat of war is a matter of concern to the whole league and the league shall take action that may safeguard peace’’

Therefore, any conflict between nations which ended in war and the victor of one over the other must be considered as the League failure.

Successes of the League of Nations

The League settled various cases that were tabled before them.

v  First they quickly proved its value by settling the Swedish-Finnish dispute over the Åland Islands (1920–21),

v  guaranteeing the security of Albania (1921),

v  rescuing Austria from economic disaster,

v  settling the division of Upper Silesia (1922),

v  and preventing the outbreak of war in the Balkans between Greece and Bulgaria (1925). In addition,

v  the League extended considerable aid to refugees; it helped to suppress white slave and opium traffic;

v   it did pioneering work in surveys of health; it extended financial aid to the needy states; and it furthered international cooperation in labor relations and many other fields.

 Failures of the League of Nations

The problem of bringing its political influence to bear, especially on the great powers, soon made itself felt.

v  This was when their failures started by Poland refusing  to abide by the League decision in the Vilnius dispute, and the League was forced to stand by powerlessly in the face of the French occupation of the Ruhr (1923) and Italy's occupation of Kérkira (1923).

v   Failure to take action over the Japanese invasion of Manchuria (1931) was a blow to the League's prestige, especially when followed by Japan's withdrawal from the League (1933).

v  Another serious failure was the inability of the League to stop the Chaco War (1932–35) between Bolivia and Paraguay. In 1935 the League completed its successful 15-year administration of the Saar territory by conducting a plebiscite under the supervision of an international military force.

v   But even this success was not sufficient to offset the failure of the Disarmament Conference that lead to the, Germany's withdrawal from the League (1933),

v  and Italy's successful attack on Ethiopia in defiance of the League's economic sanctions (1935).

v   In 1936, Adolf Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland and denounced the Treaty of Versailles; in 1938 he seized Austria.

v  The league was faced by threats to international peace from all sides; the Spanish civil war,

v  Japan's resumption of war against China (1937),

v  and finally the appeasement of Hitler at Munich (1938) and finally the League collapsed. German’s claims on Danzig, where the League commissioner had been reduced to impotence, led to the outbreak of World War II.

 

The last important act of the League came in Dec., 1939, when it expelled the USSR for its attack on Finland. In 1940 the League secretariat in Geneva was reduced to a skeleton staff; some of the technical services were removed to the United States and Canada. The allied International Labor Organization continued to function and eventually became affiliated with the United Nations. In 1946 the League dissolved itself, and its services and real estate (notably the Palais des Nations in Geneva) were transferred to the United Nations. The League's chief success lay in providing the first pattern of permanent international organization, a pattern on which much of the United Nations was modeled. Its failures were due as much to the indifference of the great powers, which preferred to reserve important matters for their own decisions, as to weaknesses of the organization.

The Origins of Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs) was extended far back in history to three main sources:

1. Community of Humankind
2. Big- Power Peacekeeping
3. Pragmatic cooperation

 

1. Community of Humankind

International Governmental Organizations order wise known as international organizations is a universal concept of humankind which was dated back at 300B.C. The history has it that as early as 478B.C. the Greek city states established the Delian League to create unified response to the threat from Persia. A few decades ear­lier, Hugo Grotius (1583–1645), out­lined pi­o­neer­ing ideas for an in­ter­na­tional legal sys­tem. They had an alliance which had the characteristics of two IGOs, the first one was permanent and is supposed to last until ‘‘ingots of iron,’’ (a lump of pure metal) thrown into the sea, rose again. The second one has it that the League had an Assembly of representatives that was appointed by the city states for policy decision. Even though they are dominated by the Athens the Assembly was a precursor of UN Assembly’s current structures. 

The first example of IGO in the modern times was based on keeping peace which was the Hague System, named for 1899 &1907 peace conferences that were held at the city in Netherlands. Very many numbers of European that were up to 44 was in attendance, also North America and Latin America participated. They included rudimentary general assembly and a judicial system. Series of standards was adopted by the conference to limit the conduct of war. Furthermore, they also took another step in creating the League of Nations after World War I. The League has an organizational structure than that of the Hague system. Their aim was mainly to create peace among themselves.

 After the World War, 50 countries came together in establishing the United Nations (UN). The United Nations also maintain its idea which was peacekeeping. The United Nations was embraced by the entire world. Their aim was mainly to see that the entire worlds are in peace that is to say that they represent the coming together of all the root systems of international organizations. They are properly involved in extensive cooperation and integration of the world at large.

ii. Big power peacekeeping

It is the idea of the IGOs to see that the powerful countries maintain peace. This is one good thing about the United Nation’s idea why because if these giant countries are not being checked the small countries will be in trouble or in mess. A times, there will be a situation whereby the giant country will invade the weaker or smaller countries and turn them into slavery and take over their land but thank God for United Nations that has come to rescue the oppressed nations. It was an idea of the Europeans for them to have an informal coalition of major European powers this was formed after the fall of Napoleon in 1815.Because of this there was relatively peace through balance of- (big)-power diplomacy, until the out break of world War1 in 1914. The big power philosophy was transferred to the council of the League of Nations. The Council was replaced by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC composed of 15 Members:

·         five permanent members: China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States,

·         and ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly (with end of term date):

5 out of 15seats were assigned permanently to the big power victors of World War1, just to maintain peace. Otherwise the council has the authority under the Leagues covenant to deal with matters that affects the world peace.

 As the UN succeeds the League of Nations, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), was created and manned by the big powers of the world.

iii. Pragmatic Cooperation

The IGOs emanated as a sheer necessity. Due to the complex problems that faced our world there was need to create specialized agencies to deal with specific economic and social problems. The oldest surviving IGOs that was the six –member Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine, was established in1815, and the Interna&tional Telegraphic (now Telecommunications) Union (1865) was among the oldest surviving Inter governmental Organizations with global membership. The growth of specialized IGOs has been very unusual and impressive. The area of International activity is also reflected in the United Nations (UN) through the 22 specialized agencies such as the world Health Organization that has to do with it.       

Role of international Organizations

There are limitations of their mem­bers and in re­la­tion to their ge­o­graph­i­cal spheres of ac­tiv­ities (e.g. Organization of Amer­i­can States) or strive for global par­tic­i­pa­tion (e.g. In­ter­na­tional Tele­graph Union). They can de­vote them­selves to a spe­cific field of ac­tion (e.g. OPEC) or ad­dress a broad range of top­ics (e.g. United Na­tions).International Governmental Organization is characterized by reg­u­lar gen­eral As­sem­blies and ple­nary ses­sions, a per­ma­nent sec­re­tariat and an iden­ti­fi­able head­quar­ters. IGOs are usu­ally headed by lead­ers whose ti­tles can vary con­sid­er­ably (Sec­re­tary-Gen­eral of the United Na­tions, Di­rec­tor-Gen­eral of the World Health Organization, Pres­i­dent of the World Bank, Man­ag­ing Di­rec­tor of the In­ter­na­tional Mon­e­tary Fund, etc.). It is of great im­por­tance that the as­signed rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the mem­ber states and es­pe­cially the staff of the per­ma­nent sec­re­tariat of an IGO are ex­clu­sively com­mit­ted to the in­ter­ests of the mem­ber states.

Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs) are more than in­stru­ments of co-op­er­at­ing na­tion states; they de­velop their own in­sti­tu­tional logic and pro­ce­dures and pur­sue their own in­ter­ests in re­gard to their organizational goal. The term "in­ter­na­tional organization", how­ever, goes be­yond the var­i­ous forms of in­ter­gov­ern­men­tal co­op­er­a­tion and also des­ig­nates pri­vate organizational forms of transna­tional groups and as­so­ci­a­tions. In some cases, INGOs are fore­run­ners of IGOs, for ex­am­ple the In­ter­na­tional As­so­ci­a­tion of the Legal Pro­tec­tion of Labour, whose ac­tiv­i­ties were the basis for the ILO, founded in 1919. Above all, how­ever, INGOs are never com­pletely free from gov­ern­mental in­flu­ence. They have to pur­sue their ac­tiv­i­ties within the scope of a le­git­i­mate legal gov­ern­men­tal frame­work and are in many cases ac­tive in areas (health, pro­tec­tion of the en­vi­ron­ment, etc.) that are ul­ti­mately leg­is­lated by the state alone.

They differ in function, of membership and membership criteria. They have various goals and scopes, often outlined in the treaty or charter. Some IGOs developed to fulfill a need for a neutral forum for debate or negotiation to resolve disputes. Others developed to carry out mutual interests with unified aims to preserve peace through conflict resolution and better international relations, promote international cooperation on matters such as environmental protection, to promote human rights, to promote social development (education, health care), to render human they, in­ter­na­tional com­mu­ni­ca­tions, sci­en­tific co­op­er­a­tion, labour organizations, eco­nomic co­op­er­a­tion, the in­ter­na­tional food regime, Internal aid, and the economic development, as­sist­ing refugees and dis­placed per­sons as well as is­sues of in­ter­na­tional law. Some are more general in scope like the United Nations while others may have subject-specific missions (such as Interpol or the International Organization for Standardization and other standards organizations).

Expansion and growth

Presently there are more than 6,743 International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) worldwide, and this number continues to rise daily. The increase is attributed to globalization, which increases and encourages the cooperation among and within states. Globalization has provided easier means for International Governmental Organizational (IGO) growth, as a result of increased international relations. As they continued to expand it was observed that they went extra mile to grow economically, politically, militarily, as well as on the domestic level.

 Economically, IGOs benefit material and non-material resources for economic growth. International Governmental Organizations also provide more political stability among the state that was concerned. Meanwhile Military alliances were formed by establishing common standards in order to ensure security of the members to ward off outside threats. With the formation of IGOs it has encouraged autocratic states to develop into democracies in order to form an effective and internal government.

 Participation and involvement

Several reasons may ginger states to become a member of International Governmental Organization (IGOs) likewise other reasons may disqualify them to become a member. These reasons are stated below.

Reasons for membership participation

1. Economic rewards: In the case of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), many different countries receive economic benefits from membership in the free trade agreement. For example, Mexican companies are given better access to U.S. markets due to their membership.
2. Political influence: Smaller countries, such as Portugal and the Netherlands, who do not carry much political clout on the international stage, are given a substantial increase in influence through membership in IGOs, such as the European Union. Also for countries with more influence such as France and Germany they are beneficial as the nation increases influence in the smaller countries' internal affairs and expanding other nations dependence on themselves, so to preserve allegiance
3. Security: Membership in an IGO such as NATO gives security benefits to member countries. This provides an avenue where political differences can be resolved.
4. To improve on the survival of democracy: It has been noted that member countries experience a greater degree of democracy and those democracies

Reasons for Rejecting Membership

1. Loss of sovereignty: Membership often comes with a loss of state sovereignty as treaties are signed which require cooperation on the part of all member states.
2. Insufficient benefits: Often membership does not bring about substantial enough benefits to warrant membership in the organization.

Strengths of IGOs

1. They hold state authority.
2. Their institutions are permanent.
3. They provide a forum for discussion.
4. They are issue specific.
5. They provide information.
6. They allow multilateral co operations.

Weaknesses:

Membership is limited, prohibits the membership of private citizens. This makes IGOs undemocratic. In addition, not all IGOs allow universal membership.

IGOs often overlap resulting in a complex network.

1. States have to give up part of their sovereignty, which weakens the state's ability to assert its authority.
2. Inequality among state members creates biases and can lead powerful states to misuse their power on the weak states.

They can be deemed unfair as countries with a higher percentage voting power have the right to veto any decision that is not in their favor, leaving the smaller countries powerless.