THEORIES TO THE CONCEPT OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS

International Organizations (IOs) have become a central part of international relations. As Ian
Hurd,Professor at North Western University, writes: “As interdependence increases, the
importance of international organizations increases with it. We find international
organizations in one form or another at the heart of all of the political and economic
challenges of the twenty-first century”. While the existence in the international system is
relatively new, the presence of these IOs have shaped the way that international relations
between different actors are carried out. International Organizations, while often a vessel of
state actions, have also themselves become actors. International organizations are
organizations, comprised of states, in order to pursue some sort of common purpose
or objective. Often, these organizations set the rules for behaviour and activity among state
and non-state actors in the international system. International Organizations, while often a
vessel of State actions, have also themselves become actors. International organizations are
organizations, comprised of states, in order to pursue some sort of common purpose
or objective. Often, these organizations set the rules for behaviour and activity among State
and non-State actors in the international system.

The different international relations theories approach international organizations from their
own set assumptions about how the international system works, and the role of international
organizations within their respective positions. Based on how they view the world,
international organizations serve a specific role in international affairs. So, for example, for a
theory that advocates power and security, international organizations may be seen as
functioning a particular way given this behavioural characteristic, whereas someone else who
views the international relations theory as something different, could also in turn have a
different perception on international organizations. Thus, it depends on who you ask as to
how what role international organizations serve, as well as their level of effectiveness in the
international political system.

Realism and International Organizations

Realism is one of the main theories in the study of international relations. Realists main
focus is on the concepts of power and security as they relate to states in the international
system. Realists argue that power and security are what really matter in international
relations. And because of this attention to power and those who emphasize state security, for
many realists, international organizations serve only to help a state reach its objective in that
idea of security or increased power. Thus, for a realist, international organizations either
don’t matter very much, particularly compared to individual states, or if they are worth
noting, it is only in that IOs function for the interests of the states. And while the state may at
times cooperate with other states on international matters, to many realists, once we are
speaking about actions against a state’s true interest, international organizations will be
highly unlikely to be influential.
Realists do not believe that an international organization can stop powerful countries from
doing something, particularly if their interests are not aligned on a said issue
This is not to say that they don’t matter, but rather, that international organizations might not
be achieving what some hope that they do. , “International organizations can also play an
intervening role in great power calculations”, something in line with the state-interest
argument. She goes on to say that “These [international] organizations are used by the
hegemony and great powers to further their interests in the international system. Other non-
great-power states may also use international organizations to attain goals and to have a voice
within the existing system” . Furthermore, on the issue of realism as it relates to international
law, a cornerstone of international organizations, similar to international organizations
themselves, international law is either “irrelevant” to a realist, or only serves to benefit the
state and their objectives of power and security.

Realists often point to major wars in the past as an example of failed attempts of international
organizations. These international organizations came out of conflict, created to stop
additional wars from breaking out. Yet, this is not what has happened. Rather, international
organizations such as the League of Nations, and also the United Nations were unable to stop
conflict from taking place.
However, there are also arguments that IOs can matter on some matters. Pease (2012)
referencing Schweller & Preiss (1997) writes that “First, international organizations
provide a mechanism for great-power collusion. Great powers usually benefit from the
existing order and have an interest in maintaining it. After all, the fact that they are great
powers suggests that they are doing well under existing rules and institutions. International
organizations may not be useful if great-power interests collide, but do permit great powers
to control other states in international systems. Second, international organizations are
useful for making minor adjustments within the existing order, while the basic underlying
principle and norms remain uncompromised. An enduring international order must be
flexible to account for changes in national interest and for rising and declining states. Third,
international organizations can be agents of international socialization. International
organizations legitimize the existing order, thereby gaining the acceptance of the status quo
by those who are dominated. Finally, “international institutions are the ‘brass ring’ so to
speak: the right to create and control them is precisely what the most powerful states have
fought for in history’s most destructive wars” (Schweller & Preiss, 1997: 13)”.
Neo –Realism: (Structural Realism): It is an offshoot approach of realism.

They find that for understanding the causes of war, one should focus not on the individual or
national level but on the Inter State system, which is made up of a structure and interacting
units. Thus, Neo-Realism has moved away from the domestic system and focussed solely on
the international system.

With the above approach, both structural realists as well as the Neo - Realist believe that the
solutions is for States to act as ‘Structural Units” in the system and balance power against
power.

Liberalism and International Organizations:

The international relations theory of liberalism takes a very different position regarding
international organizations and international law. For a liberalist who advocates the
possibility of cooperation in international relations, international organizations are
quintessential, as they not only allow a physical platform and space for state cooperation, but
within the international organizations’ charter is often a set of requirements that States and
Non-State actors have regarding this cooperation in international affairs. International
organizations are not formed for calculated interests of one state (solely for their own power)
(there there is not a need for a hegemon to exist for an international organization to continue
functioning), but rather, these organizations are created because of their need with regards to
international issues. Thus, for a State, they have a lot of positive incentives to join an
international organization. 

Thus, for liberals, international organizations are avenues for diplomacy, cooperation, and
international peace. They often point to various achievements on human rights,
environmental policies, among other issues such as economic cooperation and
interdependence to illustrate the positive role of international organizations in international
affairs. In fact, not only do international organizations allow actors to come together to solve
issues, but their presence more specifically helps to circumvent the “collective action
problem” issue, where, by working together, much more can be accomplished than if each
state or actor works individually.

And unlike realists’ views of international law, for liberals, the rule of law is the foundation
of society and international law is the foundation of global society.

Neo-Functional (Institutionalism)

Institutionalism is a Neo-Functional approach. The theory of institutionalism in line with the

functional approach ascribes individual importance to institutions. The difference between
functional and institutional approaches is that the latter does not claim as much influence of
International Organisations (IO) as the former claims to the point of IOs emerging as
supranational actors. They share the view of realists that States are unitary rational actors
interacting in an unsecure world, and they accept that sovereign will is essential for the
creation of IOs.

However, they perceive that institutions do impact States in their own way. They can prevent
or moderate the prevalence of self-calculated interests of States. They can tone down the
individual priorities.

OTHER TEHORIES:

Feminism and International Organizations:

Feminism in international relations looks at the role of gender in international affairs. They
example how leaders view gender, policies related to gender, as well as human rights abuses
based on gender. In addition, they also bring to light the role of women in international
relations.
Marxism and International Organizations
Marxism as it relates to international relations and international organizations looks at the
role of economic power as it relates to international affairs. To some marxists, international
organizations are merely tools used by more economically powerful states to impose their
control and influence over less economically strong states. Thus, those who are economically
dependent on other states and international organizations are often the ones who suffer in the
international system.

Constructivism and International Organizations:

As Ian Hurd explains, “actors behave toward the world around them in ways that are shaped
by the ideas that they hold about the world, and that these ideas are generated by past
interactions . 
Constructivism suggests that international relations, and within that international
organizations, are in and of themselves not necessarily pessimistic and towards issues such as
power and security, nor are they innately positive and cooperative in their nature. But rather,
relationships and institutions are viewed a certain way depending on the actors.