POSC 2200 – International Organizations

1. POSC 2200 – International Organizations Russell Alan Williams Department of Political Science

2. Unit Five: International Organizations, NGO’s & International Law October 22 & 24: “International Organizations and Non Governmental Organizations” Required Reading: • Globalization of World Politics, Chapters 18, 19 and 20. • Thomas Weiss, “The Illusion of UN Security Council Reform,”The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 26(4), (2003), Pp. 147-161. (Available through e-journals, or from the instructor.) Outline: • International Organizations • Explaining the Proliferation of IGO’s • Illustration: The United Nations • The UN and International law • Reform of the UN • International Non-Governmental Organisations – INGO’s • Conclusions

3. 2) International Organisations – IO’s: “Intergovernmental Organizations” (IGO’s): • Bodies established by more than two states, controlled by member states, that formalize relations over areas of common interest • Proliferation of global and regional institutions is relatively new E.g. Canada is a member of: • UN, WTO, Kyoto Protocol (?), IMF, WB, NAFTA, OECD, OAS . . . and many more • None of these existed in 1940!

4. 1) Explaining the Proliferation of IOs: Intensification of globalization and global governance highlights the importance of international institutions “International Regimes”: Implicit or explicit rules around which actors expectations converge • Normally specific to certain “Policy Domains” • E.g. Trade Regime – centres on World Trade Organization (WTO) • E.g. Climate Change Regime – Centres on Kyoto Protocol • E.g. International Security Regime – Centres on UN • Key idea: Institutions generate more then just formal agreements = principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures

5. All tend to agree that regimes impact behavior, but explanations vary: “Realists”: Emphasize power and “Hegemony” • Regimes will weaken when they no longer fit the distribution of power • E.g. US Hegemony is in decline = crisis of the UN and WTO . . . “Neoliberal Institutionalists”: Emphasize game theory explanations for cooperation in creating norms. • Focus on “Public goods”: International societal benefits that can only be provided by collective action. • States want certain public goods and seek institutions that encourage cooperation “Constructivists”: Emphasize “norms” and “norm entrepreneurs”

6. Explaining the Proliferation of IO’s: Liberal approaches to regimes and institutions: “Public Goods”: Goods available to all regardless of individual contribution • E.g. Clean Air, Oceans, access to international markets . . . . • No one owns or can individually provide them – can lead to “tragedy of commons” = destruction of public goods • Key Point: International institutions needed to help states pursue collective goods that serve self interest • E.g. overcome “Prisoner’s Dilemma” • Assumes IGO’s will emerge that help regulate and provide collective goods • E.g. North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO)

7. All tend to agree that regimes impact behavior, but explanations vary: “Realists”: Emphasize power and “Hegemony” • Regimes will weaken when they no longer fit the distribution of power • E.g. US Hegemony is in decline = crisis of the UN and WTO . . . “Neoliberal Institutionalists”: Emphasize game theoretic explanation for cooperation in creating norms. • Focus on “Public goods”: International societal benefits that can only be provided by collective action. • States want certain public goods and seek institutions that encourage cooperation “Constructivists”: Emphasize “norms” and “norm entrepreneurs”

8. Key analytical points: 1) Proliferation – we live in an era of IO influence unlike any other 2) Evolution from Westphalian to Post-Westphalian notions of sovereignty -“Intergovernmentalism” to “politics” – IOs have more authority, and directly link with civil society actors, bypassing states

9. 3) Illustration - United Nations (UN) Established, 1945 by winning states of WWII . . . . • In recent decades there has been both considerable optimism about the role of the UN and increasingly . . . considerable doubts about its effectiveness. • E.g. Struggles with the steady evolution from Westphalian sovereignty to . . . ? • E.g. Struggles with the legacy of its founding organization

10. 1) Role of the UN is outlined in the “UN Charter” – a “confusing” document • Preamble: Affirms fundamental rights, “dignity of the person” and equal rights among men and women . . . . • Article 1: Purpose of UN is to promote friendly relations based on equal rights and self determination for all peoples. • Article 2: Nothing in the Charter gives the UN the right to interfere in domestic jurisdictions • Chapter 6: Promotes peaceful mechanisms for resolving disputes – apparently includes “Peacekeeping” missions, but does not mention it . . . • Chapter 7: “Peace Enforcement” – The Security Council can authorize the use of force to resolve disputes 2) The UN has a number of core bodies overseeing its activities: • General Assembly • Security Council • Secretariat • Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)

11. 3) UN is also made up of many institutions, and plays a role in may different regimes – it hosts: • Specialized Agencies: -World Health Organization (WHO) -International Labour Organization (ILO) • Special Funds: -United Nations Children's’ Fund (UNICEF) • Special Programs: -United Nations Development Program (UNDP)

13. a) “General Assembly”: 192 members – one state/one vote decision-making • Super majorities (2/3) required for resolutions on major security issues • Simple majorities for most business • More important in decolonization and Cold War period(?) • Scene of struggles over UN principles relating to functional issues • Human rights, development etc. • Less important in post cold war era . . . .

14. b) “Security Council”: 15 members (5 permanent – with “veto power”) Current elected members: • South Korea, Pakistan • Rawanda, Morocco, Togo • Argentina, Guatemala • Azerbaijan • Luxembourg • Australia(?) • Has control over Chapter 7 “peace enforcement” measures – both authorization and direction . . . . • More important post cold war – why?

15. UN Collective Security and Peace Enforcement - The Korean War Only “Security Council” can authorize use of force against aggressors • Cold War superpowers would veto any mission = marginalized UN’s role in armed conflict 1950 – North Korea invades South Korea • US and Allies (UK and France) demand UN armed intervention

16. UN Collective Security and “Peace Enforcement” - The Korean War • “Security Council”: • China? • Soviet Union? Result: UN fights North Korea and China • Other major UN Peace Enforcement Missions? • 1990-1991 Gulf War • 1999 Kosovo? • 2013 Syria? • Is the “Security Council” in touch with UN principles?

17. 3) “Secretariat”: • 45,000 UN Bureaucrats – headed by elected “Secretary General” – 5 years • Possibility of “activist” agenda E.g. Kofi Annan (2001-2006) - Major supporter of “Human Security” and more UN intervention and peace enforcement

18. 4) “ECOSOC” (Economic and Social Council): • Key economic council “overseeing” economic agencies • Sidelined by major organizations (E.g. IMF) • Developed expansive relationships with INGO’s interested in economic issues . . . .

19. Modern UN Challenges: 1) “Peacekeeping”: Informal response to lack of Chapter 7 enforcement missions = “Third party” demarcation between warring forces – usually interstate conflict • E.g. Cypress • More successful? 2) Complex Peacekeeping: Intervention between factions in civil wars in situations where peacekeepers may not have been invited – Sovereignty????? • Somalia • East Timor • Messy – has led to a number of failures . . . . 3) “Post-Conflict Peacebuilding”: Development of social, economic and political infrastructure necessary to prevent further violence = consolidate peace. =Expensive, messy and unproductive (?) • E.g. Afghanistan

20. The UN and International Law of War: • Un generates international law that regulates the conduct of war. • When is war “justifiable”? – “Jus ad bellum” • What is legal conduct during war? – “Jus in bello” • Sources - “Just War Tradition”: Defines criteria that must be met to make war ethical or moral. • Also suggest conduct of war should be guided by moral rules. • Grotius & Micheal Waltzer

21. Conditions that legally justify war and use of force: (“Jus ad bellum”) • Cause: • Self defense (!) • Defense of others under attack – E.g. UN Security Council approved “Peace Enforcement” operation • Major human rights crisis occurring (?) • Pre-emptive self defense?

22. Rules for legal conduct during war: (“Jus in bello”) • Originate in the “Geneva Conventions”, but now overseen by UN agencies – E.g. the “International Criminal Court”  Combatants & Non-Combatants must be treated differently • Non-combatants should be protected from harm – deliberate targeting of civilians is illegal(!) . . . Strategic bombing(?)  Violence should be proportionate to end goals and “undue” violence must be avoided • Use of indiscriminate weapons?  Many, many, many legal conventions surrounding the use of prohibited weapons • E.g. Gas, chemical weans, land mines . . .

23. Legal or “Just” Wars? • NATO’s war with Serbia (Kosovo) 1999? • US led invasion of Iraq 2003? • NATO occupation of Afghanistan 2001?

24. Modern UN Challenges: 4) Security Council Reform: • Not representative - Permanent members????? • Some states out of touch with UN values? • Should Russia and China have veto’s?????

25. Possible reforms: • New permanent members? • Japan, Germany or Brazil and India . . . ? • Removal of some permanent members? • France? • Election of all members? • Who would be elected? No agreement . . . But failure to reform hurting legitimacy of UN . . .

26. Question – Can reforming the Security Council make the UN more relevant? • Context – Refusal of Security Council to approve US intervention in Iraq (2003) Argument - Iraq debate highlighted current Security Council’s inability to act – for selfish reasons – was a “referendum” on how members felt about US power, not a good assessment of what the UN should do . . . . Argument - Formal reform will not work: 1) Permanent members have “Veto Power” over reform and some are clinging to the status quo as last hold on major global role – E.g. France and U.K. 2) Adding more permanent members will only make it harder to do anything (effectiveness is more important than process) 3) Deciding who to add is problematic . . . . Thomas Weiss – “The Illusion of UN Security Council Reform”

27. Argument - Formal reform will not work: 4) The shadow of the “League of Nations” – The Security Council can only work if it reflects the will of the powerful! • E.g. Blocking Iraq resolution was foolish – it increased the gap between UN procedure and the US military power – power necessary to make any major mission effective. Solutions - ????? • Fudge it . . . . His idea is that the Security Council should informally agree to stop using their “Veto Power” in relation to anything but full blown Chapter 7 “Peace Enforcement” missions. • E.g. On most issues, follow emerging international law . . . . • E.g. Kosovo – human rights violations warranted some sort of action – vetoing that is wrong . . . It makes the UN irrelevant. Is his solution a likely outcome? Thomas Weiss – “The Illusion of UN Security Council Reform”

28. 2) International Organisations – INGO’s: “International Nongovernmental Organisations” (INGO’s): Private organizations involved in cross border political activity • Important in Liberal and Constructivist approaches • Similar to IGO’s – Number of NGO’s has grown exponentially • Few historical examples: • Antislavery campaign • Church organizations • Red Cross • Linked to growth of post-Westphalian IO’s E.g. INGO’s now formally network with UN institutions directly – debases role of states

29. Two Principle types: • Business and industry groups – E.g. World Economic Forum • Civil society advocacy groups - most linked to single identifiable cause • Amnesty International & Human Rights Watch = human rights • Greenpeace = Protection of endangered species Power and influence? • Rely on the value of their information, expertise and moral authority to influence state and IGO decision makers = “Norm Entrepreneurs” • However, many lack economic resources and political access to wield much power . . . .

30. INGO’s in Action: International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) • Umbrella org supported by many NGO’s • Jody Williams • Princess Dianna • Wanted international law banning the production and use of landmines • Why? Practical and legal problems . . . • Initially, little support outside of a few countries

31. INGO’s in Action: International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) • Public campaign results in 156 countries ratifying treaty – few non members – most of them “bad” • www.icbl.org • Result: • 34 million mines destroyed in 61 states • $1.4 Billion in assistance to mine removal • International law?

32. INGO’s in Action: International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) • Implications? • Shows power of international INGO’s???? • Or, their weakness????

33. Are INGOs increasing role “legitimate”? • Business groups have argued that many INGO’s are not representative of the public – that role should be left to states • E.G. “Anti-globalization/Global Social Justice” movement • Many “Social Movement” INGO activists worry about formal INGO relationships with IGO’s • To cooperate with the UN an INGO among other things, must: • Support the goals of the UN • Be democratic • Not advocate violence • E.g. “International Red Cross” • In theory, more critical groups are excluded

34. 4) Conclusion: • General view: • IGO’s, INGO’s and International law restrain anarchy at the very least . . . . Maybe more . . . maybe increasingly important sites of politics • However, room for a great deal of theoretical debate about their role • Realists& Radicals– power is more important then rules and institutions • Liberals & Constructivists . . . ? • Rules make us more secure – we should design rules that meet our needs • E.g. Transition from sovereignty to human rights

35. 5) For Next Time . . . • October 29: Mid-term Exam