Conceptualising
‘levels’ of International Organisation: regional, cross-regional, global
processes and actors
Eoghan Walsh
MA International Studies
ID 8906785
The concept of a region has its roots in geography, the Latin stem rego, to rule, defines a region as that place where a ruler held dominion. Today the term is used more loosely and often figuratively. Geography is often a minor characteristic of a region which may be primarily defined in terms of language, currency, free trade, politics, culture or even the behaviour of the region’s heads of state.
Where regions are composed of states or other administrative sub-units their boundaries are precisely delineated. In general though regions are not crisply defined: they overlap, they relate more to zones than boundary lines, they change over time, they are defined for specific purposes, new regions are invented while other loose their relevance and fade away.
Regions tend to be organised into a hierarchy: countries are grouped into continents and subdivided into various administrative regions which are further sub-divided. Primary channels of communication are with other regions at the same level as well as the levels directly above and below.
Historically geographical proximity was a major force in determining the cohesiveness of a region. With improved telecommunications regions can be more dispersed while maintaining communication within the region. This also have affected how regions communicate with each other. Rather than having to go up and down the hierarchy they increasingly communicate directly with each other.
International organisation takes places at all levels from the individual to the state to supra-state level. It can be formal or informal or take on a more organic, ‘non directed’ form like the trading in international currency markets. The enormous diversity of international organisation is reflected by the aims of the different organisations: some aim to ensure peace and security for the world, others search for the most beautiful woman.
Formal organisations have some kind of charter describing the aims of the organisation, the membership and what process will be employed by the organisation to do business. In general however there are additional actors and process outside the organisation which impact on its dealings and outcomes.
The World Trade Organisation, for example, is an organisation of trade representatives from its member states and free trade areas. The WTO’s (ostensible) aim is to promote free and fair trade through a process of negotiation and horse-trading between its members and the use of trade sanctions for members who don’t comply. Outside the formal organisation trade associations lobby the WTO members to promote policies favourable to their members by negotiation and representation. Another very different actor outside the WTO is the anti-globalisation movement. This is an ad hoc alliance of individuals who disagree with the policies of the WTO and have organised mass demonstrations of protest.
The bottom level of international organisation is the individual. The internet has allowed individuals to organise regardless of geographic location and to form supra-regional organisations. This is unusual within international organisation that the individual can have a direct input. In any case, the individual’s impact is limited and relies on mass protest by thousands or millions of people.
The process of international organisation can be broadly categorised as competitive or consensual. In competitive interactions one view comes to dominate over all others as in war or ‘beauty contest’ type organisation such as sporting events like the World Cup. By contrast, consensual arrangements seek to find an outcome which is acceptable to a majority or all of its members, often through some democratic process.
Both consensual and competitive processes work well within a regional hierarchy. The ‘winners’ a low level go forward to compete at the next higher level in the hierarchy. In the consensual model the intention is to produce outcomes at the highest level which will reflect the views of the greatest possible number of individuals at the bottom level. In effect this tends to produce a compromise situation which is unacceptable to the smallest number of people. There also tend to be asymmetries in both models at the higher levels. In the consensual model, smaller actors tend to have disproportionately greater representation while the opposite is true in confrontational settings. For example, Ireland with 1% of the EU’s population has 3 out of 87 (or 3.5%) votes on the Council of Ministers. In the World Cup by contrast, Brazil has a far larger population of potential teams members to draw on than Ireland though within the organisation they accorded equal status.
At the top level of international organisation, with the exception of war, all interaction must be by consensus as the membership of international organisations is ultimately voluntary. If a state disagrees strongly enough with the consensus they can choose to leave an organisation or act against the consensus in their own best interests. The larger, older and stronger an organisation the greater are the costs to an individual state to leave or work against the organisation. While this gives some organisations leverage over members, ultimately an international organisation of states can not coerce its members in the same way that a state can over its citizens through the legitimate use of force over them.
Due to the absence of any effective global government, the consensual process can break down at the highest level and revert to a confrontational process of war. This is graphically illustrated by the current (February 2003) attempts by the UN to force Iraq to disarm. As the consensus within the organisation becomes more fraught, the competitive process of war moves to the forefront.
To conclude, it is worth noting that even at the highest level of a consensual process the actors are still individuals, even if representing their country or other body. The interpersonal relationship between these individuals can have a great impact on the outcome. Where this relationship is very strong, individuals can bypass the consensual mechanism of the organisation to broker a deal between themselves which they can then in concert push through the formal structures of the organisation.