Conceptualising “modes”, of international
organisation: international, transnational, supranational processes and actors.
by Declan Fearnley
Student ID: 9708634
International organisation
Post World War 2, internationalism was expected to be the new
phenomenon. However, as internationalism involves agreement among
nation-states, interests have to be shared (and critics would say diluted), for
an international organisation to work. The UN and other international
organisations have remained relatively weak because they are mainly arenas for
national actors and are dependent on agreement between the other national
actors. The densest network of international organisations is found in Western
Europe, characterised by being the region with the lowest level of interstate
conflict.
International organisations can be broadly split into Intergovernmental
Organisations (IGOs) and International Non-Governmental Organisations (INGOs or
NGOs). NGOs consist mainly of
individuals and/or private organisations whereas IGOs consist of member states.
So an example of an NGO could be the WWF, PETA or the ICBL, while examples of
IGOs would be the UN, WTO and the IMF.
An IGO could be defined as a formal institution established by agreement
between governments, which is multilateral and must have three or more member
states as specified by the Union of International Associations, with a secretariat
and an “international legal personality”. Its functions can be general or
limited to certain economic, social, cultural, political or security concerns.
The League of Nations was the first multipurpose intergovernmental organisation
and Post World War 2, when internationalism was the “in”, thing the UN was
created. Irrespective of the criticisms of the UN, an interesting
characteristic of its flexibility is that while Switzerland is not a member, is
it part of the many specialised agencies of the UN. If we look at the various
international organisations, they could be defined by 6 core functions;
coercing norm-breakers, mediation, intelligence sharing, problem solving,
socialisation and shaping norms, and generating narratives of mutual identification.
Morgan Stanley, Aer Lingus, Strategic Air Command, Unilever, Ford
Foundation, Catholic Church, CIA and the World Bank.
The above is a list of public and private, national and international,
profit making and charitable, religious and secular, civil and military. And
while all of these organisations may appear to have little in common at a
glance, they do in fact share three characteristics.
While nations operate through international organisations, transnational
organisations operate within nations. International organisations have the
common interests of nations as their focus, while transnational organisations
pursue a single interest in many national units. Perhaps, what defines the
difference between the international organisation and the transnational
organisation most starkly is that one requires accord between nations while the
other requires access to nations.
While the rise of transnational organisations in the post war era was
unexpected, in retrospect it is totally understandable. Internationalism never
brought the world together as was envisaged. The disappointment with the UN for
example, was borne out of a frustration by what many saw a failure by the UN to
admit to the weakness that exists in the very essence of its operation. While
it endured countless accusations of having become nothing more than an “elite
old-boys debating society”, the new boys of the transnational organisations,
unfettered by such concerns as consensus among nations, were busy sewing up the
world in webs.
It is not uncommon to hear commentators bemoan the “death of the State”,
in the wake of the proliferation of transnational organisations especially in
the guise of multinational corporations. The technological revolution continues
unabated. With the rise of multinational corporations, the latest technology
becomes affordable for somebody earning even the most modest of wages. And
while initially, with tools such as the Internet and e-mail, a whole new
transnational sub-culture existed on-line, beyond the notice and care of the
state, recent world events have forced the state to in fact embrace the most up
to date forms of communication and surveillance technology. We have moved from
a state of affairs at the beginning of the 1990s where the state and technology
were at odds, to the point now where the “big brother”, elements has entered
our lives. Never before have there been so many cameras on the streets. New
security laws have been passed that grant the state unprecedented access to our
personal communications. One might say that the state has turned full circle
and is very much alive and well.
Traditionally states have been the subject of international relations.
Supranationalism and global governance are direct challenges to the dominance
of the state as the primary actor. The best successful working example of
supranationalism today is the EU. However, while there is much unity between
the member states on many issues and expansion continues, there remains much
discord among the member states as to how integrated Europe should be. Belief
in supranationality can be found in differing strengths depending on what
member state you are in. In some member states there is a dominant belief in
further European integration, while in other member states this is not the
desired way forward. Definitely there are some countries where nationalism is
still something to be protected. The idea of a European constitution is one
integration step too far. And this is one of the main obstacles that
intergovernmentalism and supranationality faces.