THE LAW AND POLITICS OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS

The lecture focuses on the issue of law and politics of international organizations.

1. THE LAW AND POLITICS OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS S M Masum Billah (PhD, VUW) Professor Department of Law Jagannath University

2. Introductory Comments Inhabit a dynamic space at the intersection of international law and international politics. Established by international treaty and governed by international law. Populate the international landscape, addressing issues of war and peace, economics, environment, and virtually every other field of human endeavor, including many once considered to be exclusively matters of domestic law such as education and health. H ave become increasingly institutionalized, international organizations have become key actors in the evolving architecture of global governance .

3. Presentation Sequence Explains the major theoretical approaches to the creation and functions of IOs. Analyzes the most important conceptual debates over the autonomy, accountability, and legitimacy of IOs. W hy IOs increasingly seem unable to effectively address matters of pressing international concern. A brief conclusion follows.

4. Why IOs are formed and what purposes they serve. Four theories : i) Realism ii) Functionalism iii) Constructivism iv) Liberalism They mainly differ by the variables they emphasize and the causal mechanisms assumed to drive the state behavior .

5. Realism Three assumptions: ( i) states are the central actors in an anarchic international environment; ( ii) states are endowed with interests that are often conflictual; and ( iii) each state has material power capabilities that shape the substance and structure of international law and organizations. Shaped and limited by the states that found and sustain them and have little independent effect . Realism is “the theory that international lawyers love to hate”! Collective good better. Whether institutions have strong or weak effect depends on what states intend.

6. Criticism of the Realist Approach D oes little to predict or explain important shifts in the structure of the international system (i.e., the rise and fall of the Arab Spring or the collapse of the Soviet Bloc ). Does not explain why the states spend substantial time and resources to create and maintain them . What is state interest by the way?

7. Functionalism Provides a compelling rationale for states to create and maintain IOs. States create IOs to solve cooperation problems that cannot be resolved unilaterally or via decentralized solutions. States overcome collective action problems by reducing transaction costs, providing information, facilitating issue linkages, increasing transparency, and lengthening the shadow of future. Rational Design (RD) features: (membership, scope, centralization, control, and flexibility). Addresses problems: information, distribution, enforcement. Dispute resolution: compulsory vs. noncompulsory jurisdiction, available remedies, initiation of proceedings, the length and terms of judicial appointment etc.

8. Social Constructivism Value, history, practices, institutions, multiculturalism, language change a society. Constructivists reject the idea that state interests exist prior to social interaction; rather interest and identity are a product of social interaction. As IOs provide focal points for state interaction. WB, for example, have redefined the concept of “development”, OECD have helped invent the concept of trade in services. IOs help to foster the density of continuous interactions that are necessary to make, remake, or unmake international law.

9. Liberalism

10. Liberalism Liberal approach open the black box of the states to foreground the roles of the individual and social groups and their relative power in the society to influence state policy. States are embedded in domestic and international civil society , which shapes the underlying preferences upon which state policy is based. Governments to include internationally enforceable intellectual property norms in the trade system, eventually resulting in the WTO’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs Agreement). Liberal approaches invite focus not simply on how domestic interest groups shape international rules and institutions, but also on how those rules and institutions, in turn, are used to shape domestic policy.

11. Conceptual debates about IOs Three most pressing issues of IOs: Autonomy Accountability and Legitimacy They are distinct, yet intersecting.

12. Autonomy A sense of independent legal personality. The landmark 1949 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Reparations Case found that the UN possessed international legal personality and could bring a legal claim on its own behalf, notwithstanding the UN Charter’s silence on both issues. The Court reasoned that: “[u] nder international law, the [UN] must be deemed to have those powers which, though not expressly provided in the Charter, are conferred upon it by necessary implication as essential to the performance of its duties.” Credible commitment, international neutrality, Principal-Agent Relations. Agency, delegation and transfer of power ( delegation most appropriate for IOs).

13. Accountability Accountability “implies that some actors have the right to hold other actors to a set of standards. IOs power in modern world have increased. This calls for accountability. UN body’s responsibility for Oil-for-Food scandal and UN peacekeepers’ role in triggering a cholera outbreak in Haiti have intensified these demands.

14. Contd. Examples of Accountability mechanisms: reviewing , judging, and sanctioning IO actions. In practice, IOs are measured and ranked in terms of their: transparency, participation, evaluation of operations and quality of complaint and response mechanisms. Global Administrative Law have ensured a kind of “intra-regime responsibility”.

15. Legitimacy Legitimacy continues to occupy a central position in our understanding and evaluation of governance institutions. States ’ consent to form the IO is regarded as legitimacy. Related to the justification and acceptance of political authority. Legitimate institution is “morally justified in attempting to govern”. WTO’s consent requirement suffers from “democratic deficit”, requires less normative justification.

16. Fragmentation and proliferation IOs have embraced fragmentation and proliferation. As opposed to centrality, this is a response to diversity Hierarchy and coherence are laudable goals for any legal system, including international law, but at the moment they are impossible goals. The benefits of the alternative, multiple forums, are worth the possible adverse consequences … the risk is low and the potential benefits to the peaceful settlement of international disputes is high. State do “relational” interactions like “regulatory,” (administrative) “operational,” (join venture) and “conceptual”(reconceptualize things) interactions.

17. Institutional Deadlock The UN obviously has not eliminated global conflict it has: facilitated the settlement of many regional conflicts, played a central role in the decolonization process, and greatly elevated the prominence of human rights in international legal and political discourse. IOs at the center of functional regimes have also overseen significant achievements: the GATT/WTO and Bretton Woods institutions have spearheaded an enormous expansion of the global economy that has helped to lift millions out of poverty, the WHO was instrumental in virtually eliminating polio and smallpox and reducing infant mortality, and the UNHCR has assisted over 30 million refugees fleeing war, persecution, and famine. Make the conveniences of modern life possible (ICAO, IPU).

18. Contd. However, IOs role are in deadlock and, perhaps, have declined. To mention just a few prominent examples: multilateral efforts to address global climate change, perhaps the planet’s most pressing challenge, have proven largely unsuccessful to date; Many round of global trade talks, launched in 2001, have long been stalemated. Why, then, the global cooperation seems to be failing just when it is needed most? Lack of global leadership—USA, Japan busy with own affairs. Growing multipolarity of international relations, where power is diffusing but politics is diversifying. Institutional structures—voting, memberships etc.

19. Contd. For all of these reasons, states and other international actors are experimenting with other forms of governance: Networks public–private partnerships informal groupings regional frameworks a variety of cross-institutional collaborations.

20. Conclusion If the international community is to successfully resolve the pressing global problems of today and tomorrow, international organizations will play key roles. Thus it is critical for international law and international relations scholars to understand the law and politics of international organizations. In this presentation some of the most important ideas, concepts, and assumptions have been discussed that shape the debate surrounding the IOs. It also reflects the vibrancy, creativity, and richness of contemporary approach to the IOs.

21. Thank you