WEEK 1 – INTRODUCTION OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
preliminary remarks
- impossible to give a definition of international organizations as was given a couple of
decades ago (eg. Akehurst)
- international legal society is looking at the international legal order
o importance of states and increasing role of international organizations
rise and importance of IO’s
- J. Klabbers, An Introduction to International Organizations Law (3rd ed. 2015, p. 1)
o “Whatever activity one wishes to engage in, be it the sending of a postcard to
a friend abroad or the purchase of a television set produced in a foreign
country, it is more than likely that the activity is in one way or another
regulated by the activities of an international organization.”
- C.F. Amerasinghe, Principles of the Institutional Law of IOs (2nd ed. 2005, p. 7)
o “They [- international organizations] have clearly had a significant impact on
the lives of people in individual countries, while positively influencing relations
between nations and creating an effective and friendly modality for the
conduct of international intercourse.”
- Ph. Sands & P. Klein, Bowett’s Law of International Institutions (6th ed 2009, p.1)
o “The development of international organizations has been, in the main, a
response to the evident need arising from international intercourse rather than
to the philosophical or ideological appeal of the notion of world or global
government.”
- N.D. White, The Law of International Organisations (3rd ed. 2017, p. ix)
o “International organizations are a central component of modern international
society. The sheer number, variety and complexity of these international
actors create an impression of chaotic activity, sometimes of immense
importance, sometimes of profound impotence. Organizations can act in a
governmental capacity, on other occasions they resemble diplomatic
conferences of sovereign equals prevalent in the nineteenth century, with the
result that some organizations challenge the supremacy of the nation state,
others simply facilitate the continued dominance of states as established
international actors.”
- H. Mosler ((RdC 1974 IV, p. 189)
, o “They [- international organizations] now form a kind of superstructure over
and above the society of states.”
these first sentences of books are really wrong nowadays, they do not cover reality
importance and proliferate?
is it really true that IOs have become more important over the years, that they proliferate etc?
three formidable counter-arguments on the role and importance of IO’s
1. since 1990s: era of liberalization, privatization
o more market, less governmental
o less government, means less need fir intergovernmental cooperations,
intergovernmental organizations
o implications for IOs?
2. era of more flexible, informal frameworks
o is it true that governments like to work in IOs, or do they prefer rather
cooperation within informal frameworks of cooperation?
o e.g. G20, G7, BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South-Africa), Ukraine
defense contact group (US led), European Political Community
o how South-Africa became part of BRICS was very informal (done in a
couple of hours), no formal procedure in place/decision-making
3. era of “the new sovereignty”, “new nationalism”
o ‘America first’ from right (populist parties) to left
o Bolsonaro (promised to leave UN); Bolsonaro….
o ‘we take out own decisions’; ‘no more IOs’; withdrawals from IOs (EU (Brexit),
ICC)
- are they right?
o globalization, multilateralism, activities of IOs have gone too far, are
threatening ‘national sovereignty’, national identities, etc?
- are they wrong?
o dangerous development? has it been forgotten that the UN was established
“to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”?
o nationalist approaches fail to address a growing number of global problems,
etc.
o from good-doers to wrong-doers?
o from panaceas to Leviathans?
excursus: G20
, - informal group of 20 most important economies (19 states + EU)
- rotating presidency
- created in 1999 by G7 meeting, but became a central coordination forum only
following the 2008 crisis
- Pittsburgh G20 Summit 2009: G20 is the “premier forum for international economic
Cooperation”
is the G20 an international organization?
- not international organization (not based on formal treaty, no constituent instrument
that has been ratified etc.)
- no formal rules, but there is practice
o many meetings over the years, creating certain routine (rule, expectations)
customary IL
- Ruffert/Walter, Institutionalisiertes Volkerrecht (2009), p. 201 (G8): ‘cooperation within
the G20 has not been sufficiently ‘condensed’, or ‘crystallised’, such that it has been
transformed into an international organization’
what’s wrong with this?
- criticism: unrepresentative, undemocratic
o but G20 members say: 85% of global GDP, 2/3 of world population
o but only 19+2 IOs, most countries not represented, but still very influential
decisions are taken
- 2011 French Presidency (Sarkozy) asked David Cameron (UK) to prepare a study &
suggest reforms
- also: idea to create a permanent secretariat direction of becoming a formal IO
- Cameron report (2011):
o “How are we going to clear away the obstacles to global growth, so that
[citizens of G20 members] can look to the future once again with hope,
confident of ever rising standards of living and a better life for their children
and their grandchildren? The answer is not to be found in elaborate new
institutions and global architecture. We have the machinery that we need
already. No, what we need above all is … political will.”
o “the G20 must […] formalise the Troika of past, present and future
Presidencies; and underpin it with a small secretariat, possibly staffed by
officials seconded from G20 countries and based in and chaired by the
Presidency.”
o we already have a UN, other IOs in specific areas, no need for another that
simply copies that strength of G20 is its informality
, - Cannes Summit (November 2011): G20 is “a Leader-led and informal group and it
should remain so” […] “We decide to formalise the Troika, made of past, present and
future Presidencies to steer the work of the G20 in consultation with its members. We
ask our Sherpas to develop working practices for the G20 under the Mexican
Presidency.”
no “permanent secretariat” (Sarkozy); no “small secretariat” for the Troika
(Cameron)
o each presidency needs to reinvent the wheel, no continuity inefficient)
- institutional challenge for G20: to institutionalize and become more effective and
efficient, without becoming an IO
but, in spite of this climate, in practice …
- ‘facts kick’ (Myrdal), alternative facts don’t
- UN General Assembly: Pact for the Future, adopted by consensus, 22 Sept. 2024:
o “We are at a time of profound global transformation. We are confronted by
rising catastrophic and existential risks, many caused by the choices we
make.”
o “Yet this is also a moment of hope and opportunity. Global transformation is a
chance for renewal and progress grounded in our common humanity.”
o “We recognize that the multilateral system and its institutions, with the United
Nations and its Charter at the centre, must be strengthened to keep pace with
a changing world.”
o “Today, we pledge a new beginning in multilateralism.”
but in practice…
- new IO’s continue to be created
o WTO, OPCW, ICC (multiple), IRENA, ITER (nuclear fusion IO, strong common
interest to cooperate), ICMP (International Commission on Missing Persons,
IIL §30)
o G5 Sahel (informal look but real IO)
o Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank
o Int Solar Alliance
o Square Kilometre Array Observatory
o Eastern Mediterranean Gas Forum
why do they continue to be created?
- example: size of envelopes
preliminary remarks
- impossible to give a definition of international organizations as was given a couple of
decades ago (eg. Akehurst)
- international legal society is looking at the international legal order
o importance of states and increasing role of international organizations
rise and importance of IO’s
- J. Klabbers, An Introduction to International Organizations Law (3rd ed. 2015, p. 1)
o “Whatever activity one wishes to engage in, be it the sending of a postcard to
a friend abroad or the purchase of a television set produced in a foreign
country, it is more than likely that the activity is in one way or another
regulated by the activities of an international organization.”
- C.F. Amerasinghe, Principles of the Institutional Law of IOs (2nd ed. 2005, p. 7)
o “They [- international organizations] have clearly had a significant impact on
the lives of people in individual countries, while positively influencing relations
between nations and creating an effective and friendly modality for the
conduct of international intercourse.”
- Ph. Sands & P. Klein, Bowett’s Law of International Institutions (6th ed 2009, p.1)
o “The development of international organizations has been, in the main, a
response to the evident need arising from international intercourse rather than
to the philosophical or ideological appeal of the notion of world or global
government.”
- N.D. White, The Law of International Organisations (3rd ed. 2017, p. ix)
o “International organizations are a central component of modern international
society. The sheer number, variety and complexity of these international
actors create an impression of chaotic activity, sometimes of immense
importance, sometimes of profound impotence. Organizations can act in a
governmental capacity, on other occasions they resemble diplomatic
conferences of sovereign equals prevalent in the nineteenth century, with the
result that some organizations challenge the supremacy of the nation state,
others simply facilitate the continued dominance of states as established
international actors.”
- H. Mosler ((RdC 1974 IV, p. 189)
, o “They [- international organizations] now form a kind of superstructure over
and above the society of states.”
these first sentences of books are really wrong nowadays, they do not cover reality
importance and proliferate?
is it really true that IOs have become more important over the years, that they proliferate etc?
three formidable counter-arguments on the role and importance of IO’s
1. since 1990s: era of liberalization, privatization
o more market, less governmental
o less government, means less need fir intergovernmental cooperations,
intergovernmental organizations
o implications for IOs?
2. era of more flexible, informal frameworks
o is it true that governments like to work in IOs, or do they prefer rather
cooperation within informal frameworks of cooperation?
o e.g. G20, G7, BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South-Africa), Ukraine
defense contact group (US led), European Political Community
o how South-Africa became part of BRICS was very informal (done in a
couple of hours), no formal procedure in place/decision-making
3. era of “the new sovereignty”, “new nationalism”
o ‘America first’ from right (populist parties) to left
o Bolsonaro (promised to leave UN); Bolsonaro….
o ‘we take out own decisions’; ‘no more IOs’; withdrawals from IOs (EU (Brexit),
ICC)
- are they right?
o globalization, multilateralism, activities of IOs have gone too far, are
threatening ‘national sovereignty’, national identities, etc?
- are they wrong?
o dangerous development? has it been forgotten that the UN was established
“to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”?
o nationalist approaches fail to address a growing number of global problems,
etc.
o from good-doers to wrong-doers?
o from panaceas to Leviathans?
excursus: G20
, - informal group of 20 most important economies (19 states + EU)
- rotating presidency
- created in 1999 by G7 meeting, but became a central coordination forum only
following the 2008 crisis
- Pittsburgh G20 Summit 2009: G20 is the “premier forum for international economic
Cooperation”
is the G20 an international organization?
- not international organization (not based on formal treaty, no constituent instrument
that has been ratified etc.)
- no formal rules, but there is practice
o many meetings over the years, creating certain routine (rule, expectations)
customary IL
- Ruffert/Walter, Institutionalisiertes Volkerrecht (2009), p. 201 (G8): ‘cooperation within
the G20 has not been sufficiently ‘condensed’, or ‘crystallised’, such that it has been
transformed into an international organization’
what’s wrong with this?
- criticism: unrepresentative, undemocratic
o but G20 members say: 85% of global GDP, 2/3 of world population
o but only 19+2 IOs, most countries not represented, but still very influential
decisions are taken
- 2011 French Presidency (Sarkozy) asked David Cameron (UK) to prepare a study &
suggest reforms
- also: idea to create a permanent secretariat direction of becoming a formal IO
- Cameron report (2011):
o “How are we going to clear away the obstacles to global growth, so that
[citizens of G20 members] can look to the future once again with hope,
confident of ever rising standards of living and a better life for their children
and their grandchildren? The answer is not to be found in elaborate new
institutions and global architecture. We have the machinery that we need
already. No, what we need above all is … political will.”
o “the G20 must […] formalise the Troika of past, present and future
Presidencies; and underpin it with a small secretariat, possibly staffed by
officials seconded from G20 countries and based in and chaired by the
Presidency.”
o we already have a UN, other IOs in specific areas, no need for another that
simply copies that strength of G20 is its informality
, - Cannes Summit (November 2011): G20 is “a Leader-led and informal group and it
should remain so” […] “We decide to formalise the Troika, made of past, present and
future Presidencies to steer the work of the G20 in consultation with its members. We
ask our Sherpas to develop working practices for the G20 under the Mexican
Presidency.”
no “permanent secretariat” (Sarkozy); no “small secretariat” for the Troika
(Cameron)
o each presidency needs to reinvent the wheel, no continuity inefficient)
- institutional challenge for G20: to institutionalize and become more effective and
efficient, without becoming an IO
but, in spite of this climate, in practice …
- ‘facts kick’ (Myrdal), alternative facts don’t
- UN General Assembly: Pact for the Future, adopted by consensus, 22 Sept. 2024:
o “We are at a time of profound global transformation. We are confronted by
rising catastrophic and existential risks, many caused by the choices we
make.”
o “Yet this is also a moment of hope and opportunity. Global transformation is a
chance for renewal and progress grounded in our common humanity.”
o “We recognize that the multilateral system and its institutions, with the United
Nations and its Charter at the centre, must be strengthened to keep pace with
a changing world.”
o “Today, we pledge a new beginning in multilateralism.”
but in practice…
- new IO’s continue to be created
o WTO, OPCW, ICC (multiple), IRENA, ITER (nuclear fusion IO, strong common
interest to cooperate), ICMP (International Commission on Missing Persons,
IIL §30)
o G5 Sahel (informal look but real IO)
o Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank
o Int Solar Alliance
o Square Kilometre Array Observatory
o Eastern Mediterranean Gas Forum
why do they continue to be created?
- example: size of envelopes
