INSTITUTIES VAN WERELDBESTUUR
HOORCOLLEGE 1 | 11 november
International organisations as normative powers | IGO’s and
international relations theory:
We will focus on three specific interesting international organisations.
- The European Union (EU) and specifically its foreign policy
- The United Nations, specifically the Security Council & The Human Rights Council.
- (Partly) the International Criminal Court (ICC)
Ian Manners (2002) | Definition of a normative power → the European Union as a
non-military, civil power using its economic and diplomatic strength to maintain peace and
security, based on the principles of democracy, rule of law, social justice and respect for human
rights. (‘Normative power Europe’).
To what extent can we see these international organisations as playing as a normative power in
the world.
It is possible that we conclude that the UN and the EU are ineffective as normative power
organisations, but if we compare them to their predecessors which will lead to the conclusion
that they are successful. Maybe we will have negative conclusions, but the organisations
nowadays are more effective in comparison; why is that? Their functioning should be compared
to their predecessors, every institution should be looked at in historical perspective.
Assessing their functioning from a historical perspective:
- European Concert of Powers: European conference of Berlin (1884-1885)
- Predecessor United Nations: League of Nations
Kinds of international governance
International organisations (IO’s): Formal intergovernmental bureaucracies that have a legal
standing, physical headquarters, executive head, staff and substantive focus for their operations.
Examples:: The UN, the EU, NATO, the ICC and the League of Nations.
Intentional institutions: both formal and informal manifestations of regularised interstate
behaviour. An example of this is the concert of europe
International regime: implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules and decision-making
procedures around which actors’ expectations converge in a given area of international relations.
| non-governmental organisations like Amnesty might be a part of this international regime. A
term we use to bridge over concepts or organisations etc which is far broader than just an
institution or organisation, (overkoepelende term).
,IR Theories as tools to analyse IO’s and International Institutions
IR Theories don’t represent reality completely, they’re just our tools to understand the
complexity of international relations.
→ Both realism and institutionalism approach state actors as if they are billiard balls, as if
nothing happens inside states, as if there are no internal groups able to play a role in the
establishment and functioning of international organisations, either directly or indirectly
through their government.
(Neo) realism and international governance
This theory is made by researchers who argue that either the historical reality according to them
is a reality in which realism rules; others state that this is how states should behave, because it is
the best way to survive. According to realism, the world is one big anarchy.
These states all argue to be sovereign national states → they all have to deal with each other on
an international level (while there are many differences between states). Regarding this, every
state might behave differently from each other. If they all try to negotiate with each other, they
will end up in war due to their differences. → Realists think that states should minimise contact
with each other to prevent conflict. In order to survive, it might also be helpful to attack another
state or to start a war. But only do this if you are sure of the promotion of your own national
interests (in this case political and economical interests). Promotion of national interests: The
more capital you have, the stronger you are internationally and the bigger your chance at
survival is. If there is an opportunity to attack another state to attack another state, then it is
acceptable. But also be mindful of other countries, your own attack may lead to them attacking
you.
Within realism, a balance of powers is required. → There should be a superpower. If there is a
superpower, there should be a second one to create balance.
The international system is an anarchic system based on the principle of national sovereignty.
To protect and strengthen their national interests (security and economic) states compete with
each other.
War and conquest are acceptable in order to maintain or return a balance of power.
States cooperate when it is in their interest. But too much international cooperation is
dangerous because of the relative gains dilemma. The less they bother with each other’s
business the safer they are.
In the end it is the international political system — bipolar or multipolar — that determines the
behaviour of states and that of international organisations and not the other way around.
What do realists think about international cooperation? → Realists are no big fans of
international cooperation, not quite certain of the importance of the organisations at
international level. It’s up to states, and eventually states are the leading factor in how relations
are characterised.
However, it might sometimes be interesting to become part of an organisation to gain
something, it can be helpful. Working together in a security organisation can be helpful to
improve your own security.
, Regardless of all this, you never know what another country might gain from all this, states
should be suspicious → relative gains theory
Relative gains theory → If another state gains more than you in this organisation, they become
more powerful and this might be a risk for your own state.
— ‘Never trust a state because of its beautiful blue eyes, because every state thinks about its own
survival’
International Organisations have become independent players in the world, they influence the
international system and individual behaviour of states. This is nonsense according to realists
(especially newer realists)
States are determined by international political systems.
John Mearsheimer and the example of NATO
If you have a bipolar political system (during cold war), soviet and US. they both knew they were
equally powerful, in a situationship where they would both be in war or destroy each other, a
balance of power was important. Both states tried to be a little more powerful than the other,
eventually they will stay the same amount of power. In order to continue with this balance of
power, these states will do everything.
→ Mearsheimer: See, the international political system will determine what these states
do. After WWII: two superpowers, their answer on that challenge was the maintaining of
a balance of power.
Important to take into account regarding Mearsheimer → international organisations that
become part of the political system is an invention, they are just instruments of both states to
keep this balance of power.
Example: History of NATO
Nato was not an organisation that fell out of the air, it was invented by the US. To be strong
enough against the SOviet union, they did the same → Warsaw-Pact | US: in order to ensure
security we have to create NATO and maintain the balance of power.
→ Why did nato keep existing after the cold war? Us was ten years the superpower in the world,
no longer needed nato. Politicians in the US (rightwing) argued that they didn't need other
states.
Nato reformed: organisation that got busy with humanitarian interventions.
IO reinvents itself after the cold war, no longer directed at evading a war.becomes an
organisation to try and play a role in international peace and security. (reinvention in 1990’s
until into 2000’s)
— A hegemonic power (the United States) in competition with another hegemon (Soviet
Union) establishes an IO (NATO) to maintain the power of balance between the two |
IO’s are therefore only instrumental to maintaining the balance of power which was
already there because of the presence of two hegemons.
Liberalism & international governance
Liberalism is the other main river of IR theories:
HOORCOLLEGE 1 | 11 november
International organisations as normative powers | IGO’s and
international relations theory:
We will focus on three specific interesting international organisations.
- The European Union (EU) and specifically its foreign policy
- The United Nations, specifically the Security Council & The Human Rights Council.
- (Partly) the International Criminal Court (ICC)
Ian Manners (2002) | Definition of a normative power → the European Union as a
non-military, civil power using its economic and diplomatic strength to maintain peace and
security, based on the principles of democracy, rule of law, social justice and respect for human
rights. (‘Normative power Europe’).
To what extent can we see these international organisations as playing as a normative power in
the world.
It is possible that we conclude that the UN and the EU are ineffective as normative power
organisations, but if we compare them to their predecessors which will lead to the conclusion
that they are successful. Maybe we will have negative conclusions, but the organisations
nowadays are more effective in comparison; why is that? Their functioning should be compared
to their predecessors, every institution should be looked at in historical perspective.
Assessing their functioning from a historical perspective:
- European Concert of Powers: European conference of Berlin (1884-1885)
- Predecessor United Nations: League of Nations
Kinds of international governance
International organisations (IO’s): Formal intergovernmental bureaucracies that have a legal
standing, physical headquarters, executive head, staff and substantive focus for their operations.
Examples:: The UN, the EU, NATO, the ICC and the League of Nations.
Intentional institutions: both formal and informal manifestations of regularised interstate
behaviour. An example of this is the concert of europe
International regime: implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules and decision-making
procedures around which actors’ expectations converge in a given area of international relations.
| non-governmental organisations like Amnesty might be a part of this international regime. A
term we use to bridge over concepts or organisations etc which is far broader than just an
institution or organisation, (overkoepelende term).
,IR Theories as tools to analyse IO’s and International Institutions
IR Theories don’t represent reality completely, they’re just our tools to understand the
complexity of international relations.
→ Both realism and institutionalism approach state actors as if they are billiard balls, as if
nothing happens inside states, as if there are no internal groups able to play a role in the
establishment and functioning of international organisations, either directly or indirectly
through their government.
(Neo) realism and international governance
This theory is made by researchers who argue that either the historical reality according to them
is a reality in which realism rules; others state that this is how states should behave, because it is
the best way to survive. According to realism, the world is one big anarchy.
These states all argue to be sovereign national states → they all have to deal with each other on
an international level (while there are many differences between states). Regarding this, every
state might behave differently from each other. If they all try to negotiate with each other, they
will end up in war due to their differences. → Realists think that states should minimise contact
with each other to prevent conflict. In order to survive, it might also be helpful to attack another
state or to start a war. But only do this if you are sure of the promotion of your own national
interests (in this case political and economical interests). Promotion of national interests: The
more capital you have, the stronger you are internationally and the bigger your chance at
survival is. If there is an opportunity to attack another state to attack another state, then it is
acceptable. But also be mindful of other countries, your own attack may lead to them attacking
you.
Within realism, a balance of powers is required. → There should be a superpower. If there is a
superpower, there should be a second one to create balance.
The international system is an anarchic system based on the principle of national sovereignty.
To protect and strengthen their national interests (security and economic) states compete with
each other.
War and conquest are acceptable in order to maintain or return a balance of power.
States cooperate when it is in their interest. But too much international cooperation is
dangerous because of the relative gains dilemma. The less they bother with each other’s
business the safer they are.
In the end it is the international political system — bipolar or multipolar — that determines the
behaviour of states and that of international organisations and not the other way around.
What do realists think about international cooperation? → Realists are no big fans of
international cooperation, not quite certain of the importance of the organisations at
international level. It’s up to states, and eventually states are the leading factor in how relations
are characterised.
However, it might sometimes be interesting to become part of an organisation to gain
something, it can be helpful. Working together in a security organisation can be helpful to
improve your own security.
, Regardless of all this, you never know what another country might gain from all this, states
should be suspicious → relative gains theory
Relative gains theory → If another state gains more than you in this organisation, they become
more powerful and this might be a risk for your own state.
— ‘Never trust a state because of its beautiful blue eyes, because every state thinks about its own
survival’
International Organisations have become independent players in the world, they influence the
international system and individual behaviour of states. This is nonsense according to realists
(especially newer realists)
States are determined by international political systems.
John Mearsheimer and the example of NATO
If you have a bipolar political system (during cold war), soviet and US. they both knew they were
equally powerful, in a situationship where they would both be in war or destroy each other, a
balance of power was important. Both states tried to be a little more powerful than the other,
eventually they will stay the same amount of power. In order to continue with this balance of
power, these states will do everything.
→ Mearsheimer: See, the international political system will determine what these states
do. After WWII: two superpowers, their answer on that challenge was the maintaining of
a balance of power.
Important to take into account regarding Mearsheimer → international organisations that
become part of the political system is an invention, they are just instruments of both states to
keep this balance of power.
Example: History of NATO
Nato was not an organisation that fell out of the air, it was invented by the US. To be strong
enough against the SOviet union, they did the same → Warsaw-Pact | US: in order to ensure
security we have to create NATO and maintain the balance of power.
→ Why did nato keep existing after the cold war? Us was ten years the superpower in the world,
no longer needed nato. Politicians in the US (rightwing) argued that they didn't need other
states.
Nato reformed: organisation that got busy with humanitarian interventions.
IO reinvents itself after the cold war, no longer directed at evading a war.becomes an
organisation to try and play a role in international peace and security. (reinvention in 1990’s
until into 2000’s)
— A hegemonic power (the United States) in competition with another hegemon (Soviet
Union) establishes an IO (NATO) to maintain the power of balance between the two |
IO’s are therefore only instrumental to maintaining the balance of power which was
already there because of the presence of two hegemons.
Liberalism & international governance
Liberalism is the other main river of IR theories:
