Summary of the material for the final exam (2021) for Introduction to International Organisations
(IIOs). INCLUDES notes from Mette Eilstrup-Sangiovanni’s article “What kills international
organisations? When and why international organisations terminate” (Total: 13 pages).
1
“What kills international organisations? When and why international
organisations terminate” by Mette Eilstrup-Sangiovanni - Notes
Table of Contents
Abstract 2
Key Concepts 2
IGO Mortality 1815-2016: Descriptive Statistics 3
Theorising IGO Death 3
Empirics: Exogenous Change and IGO Death 7
Case Studies 9
Summary and Conclusions 12
, 2
Abstract
Addresses why and under what conditions International Organizations (IOs) cease to exist.
➔ Tests the theory of “IO death” using population-wide statistical analysis and detailed
historical case studies from 1815 to 2016.
◆ Exogenous shocks are a close leading cause of IO terminations since 1815.
◆ IOs that are newly created, have small memberships and/or lack centralized structures
are more likely to fail.
International Relations (IRs) assert that international institutions and IOs are the products of costly
negotiations and contracting processes that are far too deeply ingrained in wider social and political
structures to suddenly nullify.
➔ Functionalist Theorists: High negotiation costs and “increasing returns” from institutionalised
cooperation enables states to maintain institutions as long as feasible.
➔ Sociological Institutionalists: Emphasize normative and cognitive biases that lead to
“competency traps” and institutional status quo bias.
➔ Historical Institutionalists: Cite positive feedback and institutional lock-in effects.
➔ Organizational Theorists: Highlights international administrations’ use of bureaucratic
resources to resist obsolescence.
HOWEVER, this is not the case. Of 561 Intergovernmental Organisations (IGOs) created between
1815 and 2016, 216 (about ⅖) have ceased to exist. Despite this scholars have biasedly overestimated
institutional robustness, while downplaying processes that undermine institutionalised cooperation.
Previous research has established that IGO terminations correlate with geopolitical shocks and with
specific institutional traits (such as small membership size).
Key Concepts
Formal IGOs: IOs must have a written charter, at least three sovereign parties and an independent
administrative apparatus (permanent secretariat or staff) to be classified. This research is limited to
just formal IGOs as:
● They can be explicitly terminated through legal procedures, making their deaths easier to
“diagnose” (conceptual reason).
● Institutional robustness is generally stronger for formal institutions (theoretical reason).
Ways to Die
IGOs can terminate through the five broad processes:
1. Their founding treaties can expire.
2. They can be explicitly dissolved by state parties.
3. They can be formally replaced by other organisations.
4. They can be formally merged with other organisations.
5. They can fall into disuse for a prolonged period (usually 10 years or longer, after which they
are considered not to have binding effects on their members).
, 3
IGO Mortality 1815-2016: Descriptive Statistics
Global IOs termination rates increased sharply during the decades marked by broad geopolitical
upheaval.
➔ Highest death ratios during the 1930s and 1940s (the Great Depression and World War Two -
WWII).
➔ Second highest during the 1910s (World War One - WWI).
➔ Third highest during the 1990s (the end of the Cold War).
Death ratios peaked in:
● Europe during the World Wars.
● Americas between 1910 and 1930.
● Africa between 1950 and 1970 (the largest wave of decolonisation).
Predictors of IGOs deaths:
● The size of an IGO’s membership.
➔ Shows an inverse correlation between the number of member states and the risk of
termination.
➔ However, it must be treated with caution, as it could also mean that more members in
an IGO leads to better organizational “effectiveness”.
● The function of an IGO.
➔ IGOs focused on security and judicial matters display the highest mortality rates
(more than twice as likely to terminate as more “technical” IGOs).
➔ Followed by IGOs that focus on trade, economic and social policies.
➔ However, IGOs that handle technical matters (scientific and standard-setting bodies)
have a lower mortality rate.
● The age of an IGO.
➔ IGO’s survival chances drop sharply during the first three decades of its existence.
➔ IGOs have a higher chance of surviving once reaching 30 to 50 years, eventually
stabilising after that.
Theorising IGO Death
The creation and endurance of international institutions have been debated among three main
paradigms:
1. Power-Based (or Realist) Accounts
2. Interest-Based (or “Functionalist”) Accounts
3. Historical Institutionalist Accounts
From the perspective of extant theory, IGO deaths are viewed as theoretically expected events that fail
to materialize.
➔ The absence of hypothesised “robustness-enhancing” factors is merely a contributing
component to IGOs’ deaths.
By theorising sources of institutional robustness, existing institutionalist theories can help to identify
specific candidate factors (exogenous or endogenous).
(IIOs). INCLUDES notes from Mette Eilstrup-Sangiovanni’s article “What kills international
organisations? When and why international organisations terminate” (Total: 13 pages).
1
“What kills international organisations? When and why international
organisations terminate” by Mette Eilstrup-Sangiovanni - Notes
Table of Contents
Abstract 2
Key Concepts 2
IGO Mortality 1815-2016: Descriptive Statistics 3
Theorising IGO Death 3
Empirics: Exogenous Change and IGO Death 7
Case Studies 9
Summary and Conclusions 12
, 2
Abstract
Addresses why and under what conditions International Organizations (IOs) cease to exist.
➔ Tests the theory of “IO death” using population-wide statistical analysis and detailed
historical case studies from 1815 to 2016.
◆ Exogenous shocks are a close leading cause of IO terminations since 1815.
◆ IOs that are newly created, have small memberships and/or lack centralized structures
are more likely to fail.
International Relations (IRs) assert that international institutions and IOs are the products of costly
negotiations and contracting processes that are far too deeply ingrained in wider social and political
structures to suddenly nullify.
➔ Functionalist Theorists: High negotiation costs and “increasing returns” from institutionalised
cooperation enables states to maintain institutions as long as feasible.
➔ Sociological Institutionalists: Emphasize normative and cognitive biases that lead to
“competency traps” and institutional status quo bias.
➔ Historical Institutionalists: Cite positive feedback and institutional lock-in effects.
➔ Organizational Theorists: Highlights international administrations’ use of bureaucratic
resources to resist obsolescence.
HOWEVER, this is not the case. Of 561 Intergovernmental Organisations (IGOs) created between
1815 and 2016, 216 (about ⅖) have ceased to exist. Despite this scholars have biasedly overestimated
institutional robustness, while downplaying processes that undermine institutionalised cooperation.
Previous research has established that IGO terminations correlate with geopolitical shocks and with
specific institutional traits (such as small membership size).
Key Concepts
Formal IGOs: IOs must have a written charter, at least three sovereign parties and an independent
administrative apparatus (permanent secretariat or staff) to be classified. This research is limited to
just formal IGOs as:
● They can be explicitly terminated through legal procedures, making their deaths easier to
“diagnose” (conceptual reason).
● Institutional robustness is generally stronger for formal institutions (theoretical reason).
Ways to Die
IGOs can terminate through the five broad processes:
1. Their founding treaties can expire.
2. They can be explicitly dissolved by state parties.
3. They can be formally replaced by other organisations.
4. They can be formally merged with other organisations.
5. They can fall into disuse for a prolonged period (usually 10 years or longer, after which they
are considered not to have binding effects on their members).
, 3
IGO Mortality 1815-2016: Descriptive Statistics
Global IOs termination rates increased sharply during the decades marked by broad geopolitical
upheaval.
➔ Highest death ratios during the 1930s and 1940s (the Great Depression and World War Two -
WWII).
➔ Second highest during the 1910s (World War One - WWI).
➔ Third highest during the 1990s (the end of the Cold War).
Death ratios peaked in:
● Europe during the World Wars.
● Americas between 1910 and 1930.
● Africa between 1950 and 1970 (the largest wave of decolonisation).
Predictors of IGOs deaths:
● The size of an IGO’s membership.
➔ Shows an inverse correlation between the number of member states and the risk of
termination.
➔ However, it must be treated with caution, as it could also mean that more members in
an IGO leads to better organizational “effectiveness”.
● The function of an IGO.
➔ IGOs focused on security and judicial matters display the highest mortality rates
(more than twice as likely to terminate as more “technical” IGOs).
➔ Followed by IGOs that focus on trade, economic and social policies.
➔ However, IGOs that handle technical matters (scientific and standard-setting bodies)
have a lower mortality rate.
● The age of an IGO.
➔ IGO’s survival chances drop sharply during the first three decades of its existence.
➔ IGOs have a higher chance of surviving once reaching 30 to 50 years, eventually
stabilising after that.
Theorising IGO Death
The creation and endurance of international institutions have been debated among three main
paradigms:
1. Power-Based (or Realist) Accounts
2. Interest-Based (or “Functionalist”) Accounts
3. Historical Institutionalist Accounts
From the perspective of extant theory, IGO deaths are viewed as theoretically expected events that fail
to materialize.
➔ The absence of hypothesised “robustness-enhancing” factors is merely a contributing
component to IGOs’ deaths.
By theorising sources of institutional robustness, existing institutionalist theories can help to identify
specific candidate factors (exogenous or endogenous).
