NCJ Number
224818
Date Published
2007
Length
16 pages
Annotation
This study first examines the assertions of different theories on the role of international organizations (IOs), followed by an examination of the life-cycles of several IOs in order to determine how they survive and operate based on the differing theories.
Abstract
The “realist” theory holds a pessimistic view of international affairs and systems based on thee main assumptions. First, state sovereignty is central because there is no higher ruling body in the international system. Second, states holding the central authority in the international system seek to benefit themselves, with survival being their basic motive. Third, there is minimal trust among states, because they can never be certain about the intentions of other states. The “liberalist” theory holds a more optimistic view of international relations. It argues that even though there is no world government, there are IOs that serve some of the purposes of an international government. Through the structure and dynamics of state representatives interacting in IOs, the IOs encourage cooperation and mutual assistance in coexistence with states’ self-interest. Three major IOs are presented as case studies, and five main questions are applied to all three cases in analyzing their levels of independence from state influence in independent decisionmaking. Their level of technical capacities to intervene in conflicts is also considered as an important indicator of action that is independent of the interests of individual states. The case studies involve the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the United Nations (U.N.), and the European Union (EU). The study focuses on understanding the role of these IOs in transnational security concerns and their ability to contribute to the peace process and security by examining indicators of participation, budget, technical capacities, involvement in the “war on terrorism,” and their decisionmaking process. 3 tables and 14 references