Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs),
Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs), and
International Law

• Liberalism and Constructivism: IGOs, NGOs, and International law matter in international politics
– Liberals: do not replace states as primary actors; provide alternative venues for states to engage in collective action, for individuals to join with others in pursuit of common goals
– Constructivism: changing norms and institutions shape issues
• Realism: skeptical of IGOs, NGOs, and international law
– Anarchy in international system; states are forced to act in own selfinterest, rely on self-help mechanisms
– IGOs are controlled by states; states prefer weak organizations
– States grant NGOs legal authority, and can take away that authority; not really independent actors
– States comply with international law when it’s in their self-interest to comply
– Skeptical of long-term gains to be achieved; doubt collective action is possible; states will not rely on collectivity to protect national interests
• Radicalism: also skeptical
– IGOs, NGOs, int’l law serve interests of dominant states

• Why do states organize collectively?
• Federalism
– War caused by states exercising sovereignty; military competition among sovereign states
– Peace attainable if states give up sovereignty, invest it in federal body
• Functionalism
– War caused by economic deprivation and disparity
– Build and expand habits of cooperation
– Habit of cooperation will spill over into cooperation in political and military affairs
• Collective Goods
– Tragedy of the commons = individual rational attempts to maximize private gain leads to collective suffering and eventually individual suffering
– Collective goods – market mechanisms break down; alternative forms of management necessary
– Solutions: coercion; restructure preferences through rewards and punishments; alter size of group

• International system
– Contribute to habits of cooperation
– Engage in information-gathering, surveillance
– Aid in dispute settlement
– Conduct activities
– Arena for bargaining
– Lead to creation of international regimes (rules, norms, and procedures developed by states and international organizations out of common concerns used to organize common activities)
• States
– Instrument of foreign policy
– Legitimize foreign policy
– Enhance information
– Punish states; constrain state behavior
• Individuals
– Socialize them in international norms
– Educate individuals about national similarities, differences

• Sovereign equality among member states; legal equality; one vote per state in General Assembly
– Yet, veto power among five permanent members of
Security Council (China, France, Russia, UK, US)
– Weighted voting in budget negotiations in WB and IMF
• Only international problems within jurisdiction of UN
– Charter does not authorize intervention in domestic jurisdiction of any state
– Distinction has weakened over time (due to globalization and increasing interdependence, issues
(e.g., human rights, civil wars) increasingly viewed as international issues)
• Primary aim to maintain international peace and security
– States should refrain from threat or use of force, settle disputes peacefully, support enforcement
– Notions of security have moved beyond traditional realist view (protection of national security) to include human security, which runs up against state sovereignty

• Security Council – responsible for ensuring peace and security and deciding enforcement measures
– Handicapped by Cold War and use of veto by US and
USSR
– More active post-cold war; increasing power relative to
Assembly
• General Assembly – debates any topic within charter’s purview; admits states; elects members to special bodies
– Bulk of work done in 6 committees
• Secretariat (headed by Secretary General) – gathers information; coordinates and conducts activities (chief administrative officer; spokesperson)
– Power largely dependent on occupant (influential, activist Kofi Annan; less so Ban-Ki-Moon)
• Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) – coordinates economic and social welfare programs, actions of specialized agencies (WHO, UNESCO)
• Trusteeship Council – oversaw decolonization processes

• North-South conflict
• Peacekeeping
– Traditional peacekeeping = primary mode during Cold War; contain interstate conflict through third-party military force; prevent escalation; separate warring parties; troops invited in by disputants; establish buffer zone (Table 7.4, 176)
– Complex peacekeeping = more recent development, post-
Cold War; response to interstate and intrastate conflicts (civil wars, ethnonationalist conflicts) in states that have not requested UN assistance; broad range of military and nonmilitary functions (nation-building) (Table 7.5, 177); successes (Namibia) and failures (Rwanda)
• Enforcement and Chapter VII (US invasion/occupation of Iraq
(2003) without UN approval)
• Reform issues: amending the charter (requires 2/3 of members and 5 permanent member of SC); security council reform (highly controversial)

• Premier regional IGO (Tables 7.7, 7.8, 184-5)
• EU = union of 27 European states designed originally in the
1950s for economic integration; has since expanded into a closer political and economic unit
– 500 million people
– EU passport
– 13.4 trillion dollar economy
– Many (13) using common currency (euro)
• Ongoing tension within between support for economic and political cooperation and concern for diminution of national sovereignty
• Principle institutions include European Commission, Council of
Ministers, European Parliament, European Council, Economic and Social Committee, and European Court of Justice
• Has moved progressively into more policy areas; conflicts have emerged over foreign policy issues and expansion

• Nongovernmental organizations = private associations of individuals or groups that engage in political, economic, or social activities usually across national borders
• Diverse in organization/scope (local, national, transnational); support base (private, part government-sponsored); membership
(mass, closed)
• Increasing influence and numbers
– Issues seen as increasingly global (require transnational and intergovernmental cooperation)
– Global conferences (global networks)
– Ending of Cold War (political openings)
– Communications revolution
• Various functions/roles
– Advocates for policies
– Channels for participation
– Mobilize mass publics
– Distribute critical assistance (in some instances, taking on roles of states)
– Monitoring function (e.g., human rights)

• Rely on soft power: credible information, expertise, moral authority
– NGOs have resources, flexibility, independent donor bases, links with grassroots groups
– Usually politically independent
– Can participate at all levels
– Can influence state behavior
– Versatile
• Limits of NGOs
– Lack traditional forms of power
– Do not have military or police forces
– Cannot command obedience
– Many have limited economic resources

• International law = body of both rules and norms regulating interactions among states, between states and IGOs, and among IGOs, states, and individuals
• Purposes: set body of expectations, provide order, protect status quo, legitimate use of force by government to maintain order; mechanism for settling disputes, protecting states from each other; ethical and moral functions, aims to be fair and equitable and delineate what is socially and culturally desirable; norms demand obedience and compel behavior
• State level: established structures for making law and enforcing law; widespread compliance; punishment
• International system: no authoritative structures (no international executive, legislature, judiciary with compulsory jurisdiction)

• Variety of sources (Figure 7.1, 196)
– Custom
– Treaties (dominant source)
• Explicitly written agreements among states; legally binding)
– Authoritative bodies
• UN International Law Commission
– Courts
• International Court of Justice
– Relatively weak (hears few cases, noncompulsory jurisdiction; few major cases; states initiate proceedings)
• National and local courts (universal jurisdiction)

• New trend – expansion of international judiciary, motivated by idea of individual responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity
– Ad hoc tribunals (International Criminal Tribunals for Former
Yugoslavia, Rwanda)
– International Criminal Court (ICC) (under UN auspices)
• Compulsory jurisdiction and jurisdiction over individuals
(genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression)
• Seen as essential for establishing international law and enforcing individual accountability
• Others critical (US, China, India, Turkey)
– US has refused to sign treaty; might make military personnel or president subject to ICC jurisdiction
– US claims “exceptional” international responsibilities as hegemon should make its military and leaders immune from prosecution; infringes on US sovereignty

• With weak authoritative structures at international level (ICJ,
ICC), why do most states obey international law most of the time?
• Liberal view: it is the right thing to do; states want to do what is right and moral; international law reflects what is right
– States benefit from doing what is right and moral; benefit from ordered world where there are expectations about other states’ behavior
– States want to be viewed positively, respected by world opinion; fear being labeled pariahs and losing face and prestige in international system
• If states choose not to follow international law, other members have recourse
– Diplomatic protests
– Reprisals
– Economic boycotts, embargoes
– Military force
• Realists emphasis self-help mechanisms; Liberals collective action and collective security