International organizations

Since the end of World War II, international organizations (IOs) have grown in both number and influence, becoming an increasingly powerful force in the international arena. IOs can be divided into two broad categories: intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

An intergovernmental organization, sometimes also referred to as an international governmental organization and both abbreviated as IGO, consists of three or more nation-states that have signed a treaty legally establishing the organization and specifying its purposes. In addition to the founding treaty, most IGOs also have a variety of organs that are designed to help the organization achieve its purposes. Specifically, IGOs typically have a deliberative body, which discusses policy; an executive organ, which makes policy decisions; an administrative organ, which implements policy; and a variety of specialized agencies. In addition to these typical IGO organs, many IGOs have some mechanism for the adjudication of conflicts and disagreements that arise among members. IGOs are always founded by governments which recognize that it is in their national interests to obtain multilateral agreements and pursue actions to deal with threats, challenges, or problems that cannot be dealt with effectively at the unilateral level. A nongovernmental organization (NGO), is a voluntary group of individuals or organizations, usually not affiliated with any government, that is formed to provide services or to advocate a public policy. Although some NGOs are for-profit corporations, the vast majority are non-profit organizations. Some NGOs, particularly those based in authoritarian countries, may be created or controlled by governments. By most definitions, political parties and criminal or violent guerrilla organizations are not considered NGOs. The issues addressed by NGOs run the gamut of human concerns (e.g., human rights, environmental protection, disaster relief, and development assistance), and the scope of their activities may be local, national, or international.

There are two key dimensions which are valuable in any comparative analysis of IGOs. The first is the scope of the IGO, by which I mean the number of issue areas it can influence in international relations. The second is the domain of the IGO, meaning the number of states and significant non-state organizations over which it is able to exert influence. The United Nations is the extreme example: it has scope over an almost limitless range of issue areas and potential issue areas, and its domain includes almost every state in the world today. However, the sheer range of the scope and its near comprehensive domain have meant that it has always been seriously constrained in what it can actually achieve, not least because it is composed of independent sovereign states, including the most powerful states in the world, far beyond the capacity of the UN to dominate or control, and because it is dependent on the concerted support and the economic and military resources of its key member states in order to implement its policies.

In complete contrast there are numerous functional IGOs established to deal with narrowly defined special functions. This type of IGO is sometimes assumed to be an ultra-modern development, but in fact some were established in the 19th century. Probably the first of these specialized functional IGOs was the Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine set up in 1815. A more recent (20th-century) example is the International Police Organization, better known by its acronym, INTERPOL, an association of over 100 national police forces devoted to fighting international crime.

One category of IGO which expanded very rapidly in the 20th century is the regional IGO, including the European Union (EU), the Organization of American States (OAS), and the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). These IGOs were formed to strengthen cooperation by states at regional level. Not all these regional organizations are committed to developing full-scale regional integration or even partial integration. The European Union is the only IGO which has managed to achieve a relatively high level of economic integration. Most of its member states are now committed to using the euro, a common currency designed for all EU states. By contrast the OAS and ASEAN have not advanced very far beyond improved intergovernmental economic discussions and cooperation on issues on which they agree. An important variety of IGO is the special interest organization which has a very specific issue area and a domain which crosses all regional boundaries. A good example is the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).

Last but not least there are IGOs which have been established with the objective of promoting regional security. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is the best known of these but there are also the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Australia, New Zealand and US Security Treaty group (ANZUS), and other security groupings elsewhere in the world. NATO is far and away the most powerful and integrated of these regional military security organizations. NATO’s aim when it was founded in 1949 was to provide a strong defensive alliance to protect the whole North Atlantic area, including all Western Europe, against possible military expansion by the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact satellite allies. One might have thought that NATO would disappear with the ending of the cold war, but far from fading away, the Alliance has actually increased its membership by admitting East European countries such as Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic which were able to liberate themselves from communist rule at the end of the cold war. NATO, OSCE, and the other regional defense organizations are legitimate IGOs under the UN Charter.

IGOs have several strengths and weaknesses. The strengths are that: they hold state authority; their institutions are permanent; they provide a forum for discussion; they provide information and allow multilateral cooperation. However, their membership is limited and it prohibits the membership of private citizens, which makes IGOs undemocratic. In addition, not all IGOs allow universal membership. IGOs often overlap resulting in a complex network. States have to give up part of their sovereignty, which weakens the state’s ability to assert its authority. Inequality among state members creates biases and can lead powerful states to misuse these organizations. 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.