Barnett et al: International Organizations and the Diffusions of Power
Tags: papers, un and global governance lecture 1, political science
Two schools of thought when it comes to IO’s
- Do IO’s freeze existing configurations of power?
- Do IO’s pluralize power
IO’s are defenders and agents of reform, with the ability to provide compulsory powers and insitutional powers
Compulsory powers: taking direct action, such as un peacekeeping, naming and shaming, etc
Insitutional powers: setting the agenda, declaring people persona non-grata, classifiation
- unrwa and international criminal court fall under this
- imf and world bank can disqualify countries from access to financing
- unhcr can classify who is a refugee or not
Modern IO’s are often designed by states and defend state interests, but have certain qualities which make them act in ways to improve conditions for people
Why do states create IO’s?
- Stabilize international and political agreements (“freezing” of power)
- To enhance coordination between states
The most powerful part of an IO is it’s legitimacy, and it’s ability to determine who gets a seat at the table
- Pouligny - Peace Operations Seen From Below talks about the importance of legitimacy
- libya’s endless debate about who gets a seat at the table is anotehr
IO’s have the ability to classify and create taxonomies, their expertise decides what is on the agenda and what isn’t
IO’s hedge tot he rise of the beaurcratic ideal in the 19th century, they preserve the facade of de-politicization behind expert rule, but inherently makes them more authoritarian
Global order is relatively libera, IO’s are defined by the order, and often act to preserve it. IO’s are inherently conservative, but may be compassionate. The search for IO’s to find legitmacy outside the state tends to make them more liberal