INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS (IOs) have become a central part of international relations.

As Hurd (2014)
writes: As interdependence increases, the importance of international organizations increases with it. We find international
organizations in one form or another at the heart of all of the political and economic challenges of the twenty-first century
While their existence in the international system is relatively new, the presence of these IOs have shaped the way that
international relations between different actors are carried out. International Organizations, while often a vessel of state
actions, have also themselves become actors. International organizations are organizations, comprised of states, in order to
pursue some sort of common purpose or objective. Often, these organizations set the rules for behavior and activity among
state and non-state actors in the international system.
As Ian Hurd (2014) explains, international organizations are constituted by international law as independent entities,
separate from states that make them up as their founders and their members. The practical expression of this independence
varies greatly across organizations, but in a formal sense they are corporate persons much like firms are persons in
domestic commercial law. This means that they have legal standing, with certain rights and obligations, and can sue and be
sued (29). This is an interesting point, and one that will continue to be discussed with regards to different international
organizations. On the one hand, they are their own entity, and are often treated as such. On the other hand, they are often
made up of states, of which the leaders of those said states have their own domestic and international political interests. The
balance between their interests and the charters and objectives of an international organization are critical in the international
relations discourse. In fact, Hurd says as much, saying that The dilemma of international organization as a practice in world
politics is of course that these actors are composed of units which are themselves independent actors, and so formal
international organizations are always collective rather than unitary actors. When they operate as agents they are unitary
actors in the same way that national governments, also composed of many individuals and factions, are recognized as unitary
actors in world politics (29). And often times, we have seen just this; international organizations have clearly failed to live
up to what its charter has specifically called for, the reason why the international organization exists to begin with (Pease,
2012: 3).
This distinction in how to understand what an international organization is not unique; many, have asked what is an
international organization, saying that [t]he history of international organizations as a field of study suggests no clear
answer to the question (Pease, 2012: 2). Historically, the early international organizations were comprised of state actors
(Pease, 2012). However, much of this is because, for much of the history of international relations, particularly since the
Peace of Westphalia in 1648, the international system has primarily been a state-centric one. However, we have started to
see a much greater role for non-state actors in international organizations. As we shall see in cases such as the United
Nations, there are specific roles for NGOs which include shadow reports, involvement on committees as consultants on
global issues , etc This page will cover the overview of international organizations in the international system, how
international organizations relate to international relations, what roles these different IOs serve, as well as how they are
related to state and non-state actions. Then, sub-pages under the International Organizations category will cover specific
international organizations such as the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Health
Organization, and regional organizations such as the European Union, The Arab League, along with other regional
international organizations.
REALISM
For Realists (sometimes termed structural Realists or Neorealists, as opposed to the earlier classical Realists) the
international system is defined by anarchythe absence of a central authority (Waltz). States are sovereign and thus
autonomous of each other; no inherent structure or society can emerge or even exist to order relations between them. They
are bound only by forcible coercion or their own consent.
In such an anarchic system, State power is the keyindeed, the onlyvariable of interest, because only through power can
States defend themselves and hope to survive. Realism can understand power in a variety of wayseg militarily,
economically, diplomaticallybut ultimately emphasizes the distribution of coercive material capacity as the determinant
of international politics.
This vision of the world rests on four assumptions (Mearsheimer 1994). First, Realists claim that survival is the principal
goal of every State. Foreign invasion and occupation are thus the most pressing threats that any State faces. Even if domestic
interests, strategic culture, or commitment to a set of national ideals would dictate more benevolent or cooperative
international goals, the anarchy of the international system requires that States constantly ensure that they have sufficient
power to defend themselves and advance their material interests necessary for survival. Second, Realists hold States to be
rational actors. This means that, given the goal of survival, States will act as best they can in order to maximize their
likelihood of continuing to exist. Third, Realists assume that all States possess some military capacity, and no State knows
what its neighbors intend precisely. The world, in other words, is dangerous and uncertain. Fourth, in such a world it is the
Great Powersthe States with most economic clout and, especially, military might, that INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS,
PRINCIPAL THEORIES are decisive. In this view international relations is essentially a story of Great Power politics.
Realists also diverge on some issues. So-called offensive Realists maintain that, in order to ensure survival, States will seek
to maximize their power relative to others (Mearsheimer 2001). If rival countries possess enough power to threaten a
State, it can never be safe. Hegemony is thus the best strategy for a country to pursue, if it can. Defensive Realists, in
contrast, believe that domination is an unwise strategy for State survival (Waltz 1979). They note that seeking hegemony
may bring a State into dangerous conflicts with its peers. Instead, defensive Realists emphasize the stability of
balance of power systems, where a roughly equal distribution of power amongst States ensures that none will risk attacking
another. Polaritythe distribution of power amongst the Great Powersis thus a key concept in Realist theory.
Realists overriding emphasis on anarchy and power leads them to a dim view of international law and international
institutions (Mearsheimer 1994). Indeed, Realists believe such facets of international politics to be merely epiphenomenal;
that is, they reflect the balance of power, but do not constrain or influence State behaviour. In an anarchic system with no
hierarchical authority, Realists argue that law can only be enforced through State power. But why would any State choose
to expend its precious power on enforcement unless it had a direct material interest in the outcome? And if enforcement is
impossible and cheating likely, why would any State agree to co-operate through a treaty or institution in the first place?
Thus States may create international law and international institutions, and may enforce the rules they codify. However, it
is not the rules themselves that determine why a State acts a particular way, but instead the underlying material interests
and power relations. International law is thus a symptom of State behaviour, not a cause.
REALISM AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
Realism is one of the main theories in the study of international relations. Realists make a number of points, but their main
focus is on the concepts of power and security as they relate to states in the international system. Realists argue that power
and security are what really matter in international relations. And because of this attention to power and those who
emphasize state security, for many realists, international organizations serve only to help a state reach its objective in that
idea of security or increased power. Thus, for a realist, international organizations either dont matter very much,
particularly compared to individual states, or if they are worth noting, it is only in that IOs function for the interests of the
states. And while the state may at times cooperate with other states on international matters, to many realists, once we are
speaking about actions against a states true interest, international organizations will be highly unlikely to be influential
(Pease, 2012: 57). Realists do not believe that an international organization can stop powerful countries from doing
something, particularly if their interests are not aligned on a said issue (Pease, 2012).
This is not to say that they dont matter, but rather, that international organizations might not be achieving what some
hope that they do. As Pease (2012) explains, International organizations can also play an intervening role in great power
calculations, something in line with the state-interest argument. She goes on to say that These [international]
organizations are used by the hegemony and great powers to further their interests in the international system (see,
e.g., Foot el al.) Other non-great-power states may also use international organizations to attain goals and to have a
voice within the existing system (57). Furthermore, on the issue of realism as it relates to international law, a cornerstone
of international organizations, similar to international organizations themselves, international law is either irrelevant to a
realist, or only serves to benefit the state and their objectives of power and security (Pease, 2012: 57-58).
Realists often point to major wars in the past as an example of failed attempts of international organizations. These
international organizations came out of conflict, created to stop additional wars from breaking out. Yet, this is not what has
happened. Rather, international organizations such as the League of Nations, and also the United Nations were unable
to stop conflict from taking place.
However, there are also arguments that IOs can matter on some matters. Pease (2012) referencing Schweller & Preiss (1997)
writes that First, international organizations provide a mechanism for great-power collusion. Great powers usually benefit
from the existing order and have an interest in maintaining it. After all, the fact that they are great powers suggests that they
are doing well under existing rules and institutions. International organizations may not be useful if great-power interests
collide, but do permit great powers to control other states in international systems. Second, international organizations are
useful for making minor adjustments within the existing order, while the basic underlying principle and norms remain
uncompromised. An enduring international order must be flexible to account for changes in national interest and for rising
and declining states. Third, international organizations can be agents of international socialization. International
organizations legitimize the existing order, thereby gaining the acceptance of the status quo by those who are dominated.
Finally, international institutions are the brass ring so to speak: the right to create and control them is precisely what the
most powerful states have fought for in historys most destructive wars (Schweller & Preiss, 1997: 13).
LIBERALISM
Liberalism makes for a more complex and less cohesive body of theory than Realism or Institutionalism. The basic insight
of the theory is that the national characteristics of individual States matter for their international relations. This view
contrasts sharply with both Realist and Institutionalist accounts, in which all States have essentially the same goals and
behaviours (at least internationally)self-interested actors pursuing wealth or survival. Liberal theorists have often
emphasized the unique behaviour of liberal States, though more recent work has sought to extend the theory to a general
domestic characteristics-based explanation of international relations.
One of the most prominent developments within liberal theory has been the phenomenon known as the democratic peace
(Doyle). First imagined by Immanuel Kant, the democratic peace describes the absence of war between liberal States,
defined as mature liberal democracies. Scholars have subjected this claim to extensive statistical analysis and found, with
perhaps the exception of a few borderline cases, it to hold (Brown LynnJones and Miller). Less clear, however, is the theory
behind this empirical fact. Theorists of international relations have yet to create a compelling theory of why democratic
States do not fight each other. Moreover, the road to the democratic peace may be a particularly bloody one; Edward
Mansfield and Jack Snyder have demonstrated convincingly that democratizing States are more likely to go to war than
either autocracies or liberal democracies.
Andrew Moravcsik has developed a more general liberal theory of international relations, based on three core assumptions:
(i) individuals and private groups, not States, are the fundamental actors in world politics ( Non-State Actors); (ii) States
represent some dominant subset of domestic society, whose interests they serve; and (iii) the configuration of these
preferences across the international system determines State behaviour (Moravcsik). Concerns about the distribution of
power or the role of information are taken as fixed constraints on the interplay of socially-derived State preferences.
In this view, States are not simply black boxes seeking to survive and prosper in an anarchic system. They are
configurations of individual and group interests who then project those interests into the international system
through a particular kind of government. Survival may very well remain a key goal. But commercial interests or
ideological beliefs may also be important.
Liberal theories are often challenging for international lawyers, because international law has few mechanisms for taking
the nature of domestic preferences or regime-type into account. These theories are most useful as sources of insight in
designing international institutions, such as courts, that are intended to have an impact on domestic politics or to link up to
domestic institutions. The complementary-based jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is a case in point;
understanding the commission of war crimes or crimes against humanity in terms of the domestic structure of a
governmenttypically an absence of any checks and balancescan help lawyers understand why complementary
jurisdiction may have a greater impact on the strength of a domestic judicial system over the long term than primary
jurisdiction ( International Criminal Courts and Tribunals, Complementarity and Jurisdiction).
LIBERALISM AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
The international relations theory of liberalism takes a very different position regarding international organizations and
international law. For a liberalist who advocates the possibility of cooperation in international relations, international
organizations are quintessential, as they not only allow a physical platform and space for state cooperation, but within the
international organizations charter is often a set of requirements that states and non-state actors have regarding this
cooperation in international affairs. International organizations are not formed for calculated interests of one state (solely
for their own power) (there there is not a need for a hegemon to exist for an international organization to continue
functioning), but rather, these organizations are created because of their need with regards to international issues
(Pease, 2012). Thus, for a state, they have a lot of positive incentives to join an international organization.
Furthermore, they challenge the idea that the international system is all about the need for military power (Pease, 2012).
Thus, for liberals, international organizations are avenues for diplomacy, cooperation, and international peace. They
often point to various achievements on human rights, environmental policies, among other issues such as economic
cooperation and interdependence to illustrate the positive role of international organizations in international affairs.
In fact, not only do international organizations allow actors to come together to solve issues, but their presence more
specifically helps to circumvent the collective action problem issue, where, by working together, much more can be
accomplished than if each state or actor works individually (Pease, 2012).
Liberalists argue that the more interdependent countries become with one another, the more of a need there will be
for international organizations to help in the sharing of information, and with regards to coordination and
cooperation efforts (Pease, 2012).
And unlike realists views of international law, [f]or liberals, the rule of law is the foundation of society and international
law is the foundation of global society (Pease, 2012: 72). International law is a key element in the evolution of
international human rights, international environmental issues, as well as other themes such as just war theory (with
the formation of international courts such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court
(ICC).
For liberalists, international organizations not only get over the collective action problem issue of anarchy, but they also
help advance economic conditions in the word, help foster common norms, they allow multinational corporations to have a
role in bringing socitiest closer to one another through the international market, and lastly, based on the issue of the rule of
law, international organizations have offer just to those who are victims of rights abuses (Pease, 2012).
CONSTRUCTIVISM
Constructivism is not a theory, but rather an ontology: A set of assumptions about the world and human motivation and
agency. Its counterpart is not Realism, Institutionalism, or Liberalism, but rather Rationalism. By challenging the rationalist
framework that undergirds many theories of international relations, Constructivists create constructivist alternatives in each
of these families of theories.
In the Constructivist account, the variables of interest to scholarseg military power, trade relations, international
institutions, or domestic preferencesare not important because they are objective facts about the world, but rather
because they have certain social meanings (Wendt 2000). This meaning is constructed from a complex and specific mix
of history, ideas, norms, and beliefs which scholars must understand if they are to explain State behaviour. For example,
Constructivists argue that the nuclear arsenals of the United Kingdom and China, though comparably destructive, have very
different meanings to the United States that translate into very different patterns of interaction (Wendt 1995). To take another
example, Iain Johnston argues that China has traditionally acted according to Realist assumptions in international relations,
but based not on the objective structure of the international system but rather on a specific historical strategic culture.
A focus on the social context in which international relations occur leads Constructivists to emphasize issues of identity and
belief (for this reason Constructivist theories are sometimes called ideational). The perception of friends and enemies, in-
groups and outgroups, fairness and justice all become key determinant of a States behaviour. While some Constructivists
would accept that States are self-interested, rational actors, they would stress that varying identities and beliefs belie the
simplistic notions of rationality under which States pursue simply survival, power, or wealth.
Constructivism is also attentive to the role of social norms in international politics. Following March and Olsen,
Constructivists distinguish between a logic of consequenceswhere actions are rationally chosen to maximize the
interests of a Stateand logic of appropriateness, where rationality is heavily mediated by social norms. For example,
Constructivists would argue that the norm of State sovereignty has profoundly influenced international relations, creating a
predisposition for noninterference that precedes any cost-benefit analysis States may undertake. These arguments fit under
the Institutionalist rubric of explaining international co-operation, but based on constructed attitudes rather than the rational
pursuit of objective interests.
Perhaps because of their interest in beliefs and ideology, Constructivism has also emphasized the role of non-State actors
more than other approaches. For example, scholars have noted the role of transnational actors like NGOs or transnational
corporations in altering State beliefs about issues like the use of land mines in war or international trade. Such norm
entrepreneurs are able to influence State behaviour through rhetoric or other forms of lobbying, persuasion, and shaming
(Keck and Sikkink). Constructivists have also noted the role of international institutions as actors in their own right. While
Institutionalist theories, for example, see institutions largely as the passive tools of States, Constructivism notes that
international bureaucracies may seek to pursue their own interests (eg free trade or human rights protection) even against
the wishes of the States that created them (Barnett and Finnemore).
CONSTRUCTIVISM AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
Constructivism is seen as one of the newer, yet also highly influential international relations theories. Constructivism
suggests that international relations, and within that international organizations, are in and of themselves not necessarily
pessimistic and towards issues such as power and security, nor are they innately positive and cooperative in their nature.
But rather, relationships and institutions are viewed a certain way depending on the actors. As Hurd (2014) explains,
actors behave toward the world around them in ways that are shaped by the ideas that they hold about the world, and that
these ideas are generated by past interactions (23). Therefore, while the past helps form how actors interact, this is not
permanent like a realist or liberalist may have one belief; interactions, as well as negative or positive perceptions, are not
infinite, but can be altered (Hurd, 2014).