International Relations: IGOs and Regimes

Analysing International Relations - The Design of International Organizations

• Intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) are international organizations whose members are states. They manage global governance by overseeing issues like trade and the environment.
• IGOs differ in terms of membership, functions, formality, and decision-making procedures.
• International regimes are sets of rules, decision-making procedures, and organizations that govern behavior in a region or issue area. They often involve a formal treaty and/or a formal IGO.
• IGOs can act as forums for states to meet and negotiate, as instruments for states to achieve their interests, or as actors with their own interests, preferences, and ability to act.
•  Examples of international regimes include the Antarctic regime and the Ozone regime.
• A single IGO can be active in multiple regimes, and a single regime may include multiple IGOs. For example, the UN is active in several regimes, and many IGOs are involved in the nuclear non-proliferation regime.

Different Forms of IGOs

• IGOs differ in various ways, including membership, function, formality, and decision-making.
• Membership can be limited (e.g., European Union, OPEC) or universal (e.g., United Nations).
• Functions can be to govern an issue area (e.g., WTO for trade), a geographic area (e.g., African Union), or promote a particular culture or set of values (e.g., Organization of Islamic Cooperation).
• Formality varies, with some IGOs being formal with written principles and members, and some informal with shared expectations.

Decision-Making in IGOs

• Decision-making can be supranational (made by an independent body) or intergovernmental (made collectively by member states).
• Intergovernmental decision-making processes can include consensus (unanimity or consensus-minus-one), majority, or supermajority votes, and some mixed approaches.

Factors Shaping IGO Design

• Power: Strong states design and promote IGOs to maximize their self-interests, whereas weak states accept them if rejection is costly. New great powers create and impose new IGOs.
• Shared interests: Interdependence exposes states to external risks, and international institutions help states manage this through mutually beneficial agreements.
• Shared normative aims: The shared normative aims of states that create them influence IGO design. Post-WWII, this involved social welfare, while post-Cold War aims included maximizing economic growth.
• Past choices: Past decisions on IGO design influence current options and decision-making. This includes situations where a minority of members block changes.

Informal IGOs

• Felicity Vabulas and Duncan Snidal (2013) detail types of IGOs without strict delegation or legal frameworks but sharing expectations.
• Examples of informal IGOs, like the Proliferation Security Initiative, highlight their flexibility and adaptability.

Differences between Formal and Informal IGOs

• Formal IGOs tend to have low flexibility but legally binding rules and commitment.
• Formal IGOs usually have high policy continuity and central oversight.
• Informal IGOs have high flexibility, non-binding rules, but uncertain policy continuity and decentralized oversight.

What Determines IGO Type Preference

• Functional efficiency: States often favor informal IGOs for their lower negotiation costs and speed, but formal IGOs are preferred when rules and enforcement are needed.
• Relative power: Status quo states generally prefer formal IGOs to lock in their power and policy preferences. Rising states often favour informal IGOs to avoid committing to stronger, longer-term rules.

IGO Autonomy

• The next topic of discussion examines how independent IGOs are from the interests of member states.

Explore the design and function of intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and international regimes in global governance. Understand their roles in managing trade, environment, and diplomacy. Learn how these entities influence decision-making and international cooperation.