Upgrade to remove ads
Only $35.99/year

CHAPTER 7

Terms in this set (32)

Why have states chosen to organize themselves collectively?
The response is found in liberalism viewpoint. They would say that within the framework of institutions, cooperation is possible.
Functionalism on IOs
Simple problems, often with technical (not political) solutions are common starting points for IOs. They promote building on and expanding the habits of cooperation nurtured by groups of technical experts. Eventually, those habits will spill over into cooperation in political and military affairs.
Collective goods
are available to all members of the group regardless of individual contributions. The use of collective goods involves activities and choices that are interdependent. Decisions by one state have effects for other states; that is, states can suffer unanticipated negative consequences as a result of actions by others.
The Roles of Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs)
IGOs contribute to habits of cooperation; through IGOs, states become socialized to regular interactions. Such regular interactions occur between states in the United Nations. Some establish regularized processes of information gathering, analysis, and surveillance. Some IGOs, such as the World Trade Organization, develop procedures to make rules, settle disputes, and punish those who fail to follow the rules. Other IGOs conduct operational activities that help to resolve major substantive problems. IGOs also play key roles in bargaining, serving as arenas for negotiating and developing coalitions.
International regimes
IGOs often spearhead the creation and maintenance of international rules and principles. They establish expectations about their behavior of other states.
Charters if IGOs incorporate
the norms, rules, and decision-making processes of regimes. IGOs help to reduce the incentive to cheat and enhance the value of a good reputation.
For states, IGOs enlarge the possibilities for foreign policy
by making and add to the constraints under which states operate and especially implement foreign policy. States join IGOs to use them as instruments of foreign policy.
IGOs also constrain states
By setting agendas and force governments to make decisions; encourage states to develop processes to facilitate IGO participation, and create norms of behavior with which states must align their policies if they wish to benefit from their membership.
IGOs affect individuals
by providing opportunities for leadership. As individuals work with or in IGOs, they, like states, may become socialized to cooperate internationally.
In traditional peacekeeping
multilateral institutions such as the United Nations seek to contain conflicts between two states through third-party military forces. These military units are drawn from small, neutral member states, invited by the disputants, and primarily address interstate conflict.
Complex peacekeeping activities respond also to civil war and ethnonationalist conflicts in states that have not requested UN assistance. Complex peacekeeping has had successes and failures. Namibia's transition from war to cease-fire and then to independence is seen as a success; Rwanda's genocide and need for humanitarian protection is seen as a failure.
...
An example of peacebuilding is
UN peacekeepers have tried to maintain law and order in failing societies by aiding in civil administration, policing, and rehabilitating infrastructure.
REALIST VIEWS OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION AND LAW
They are skeptical about international law. International law creates some order, and states comply because it is in the state's self-interest to comply. It is in the self-interest of states to have their airspace and territory respected, and to enjoy secure procedures for international trade. They are also skeptical about international organizations, both IGOs and NGOs. Realists do not put much faith in the United Nations and point to failures of the Security Council to collectively punish aggressors. Most NGOs exist at the beck and call of states; it is states that grant them legal authority, and it is states that can take away that authority.
THE RADICAL VIEW OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION AND LAW
Radicals see contemporary international law as the product of a specific time and historical process, emerging out of eighteenth-century economic liberalism and nineteenth-century political liberalism. Law primarily comes out of Western capitalist states and is designed to serve the interests of that constituency, and is biased against socialist states, the weak, and the unrepresented. IGOs, especially the UN and UN agencies, were designed to support the interests of the powerful. Those institutions have succeeded in sustaining the powerful elite against the powerless mass of weaker states. The lack of representativeness and the lack of accountability of NGOs are key issues. Most radicals see the world of NGOs based in the North as dominated by members of the same elite. NGOs are captive to the dominant interests of that system. Contemporary law and international organizations are not the agents of the political and economic changes that radicals desire.
THE CONSTRUCTIVIST VIEW OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION
They place critical importance on institutions and norms. Both IGOs and NGOs can be norm entrepreneurs that socialize and teach states new norms. These new norms may influence state behavior. Law plays a key role in constructivist thinking because it reflects changing norms. Norms are internalized by states themselves, they change state preferences, and shape behavior.
Sets with similar terms