scholarly journals Klaus Dingwerth, Antonia Witt, Ina Lehmann, Ellen Reichel and Tobias Weise: International Organisations under Pressure: Legitimating Global Governance in Challenging Times

2021 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 117-123
Author(s):  
Ondřej Svoboda
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Path Dependence ◽  
Driving Forces ◽  
International Organisations ◽  
Member States ◽  
Multiple Origins ◽  
International Authority ◽  
Normative Expectations

The book reconstructs how the normative yardsticks that underpin evaluations of international organizations have changed since 1970. Based on in-depth case studies of normative change in five international organizations over a period of five decades, the authors argue that, these days, international organizations confront a longer and more heterogeneous list of normative expectations than in previous periods. Two changes are particularly noteworthy. First, international organizations need to demonstrate not only what they do for their member states, but also for the individuals in member states. Second, while international organizations continue to be evaluated in terms of what they achieve, they are increasingly also measured by how they operate. As the case studies reveal, the more pluralist patchwork of legitimacy principles today’s international organizations confront has multiple origins. It includes the politicization of expanding international authority, but also a range of other driving forces such as individual leadership or normative path dependence. Despite variation in the sources, however, the consequences of the normative shift are similar. Notably, a longer and more heterogenous list of normative expectations renders the legitimation of international organizations more complex. Strikingly, then, at a time when many feel international cooperation is needed more than ever, legitimating the forms in which such cooperation takes place has become most difficult. International organizations have come under pressure.

International Organizations under Pressure

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
International Cooperation ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Path Dependence ◽  
Driving Forces ◽  
Member States ◽  
Multiple Origins ◽  
International Authority ◽  
Normative Expectations ◽  
Normative Change

The book reconstructs how the normative yardsticks that underpin evaluations of international organizations have changed since 1970. Based on in-depth case studies of normative change in five international organizations over a period of five decades, the authors argue that, these days, international organizations confront a longer and more heterogeneous list of normative expectations than in previous periods. Two changes are particularly noteworthy. First, international organizations need to demonstrate not only what they do for their member states, but also for the individuals in member states. Second, while international organizations continue to be evaluated in terms of what they achieve, they are increasingly also measured by how they operate. As the case studies reveal, the more pluralist patchwork of legitimacy principles today’s international organizations confront has multiple origins. It includes the politicization of expanding international authority, but also a range of other driving forces such as individual leadership or normative path dependence. Despite variation in the sources, however, the consequences of the normative shift are similar. Notably, a longer and more heterogenous list of normative expectations renders the legitimation of international organizations more complex. Strikingly, then, at a time when many feel international cooperation is needed more than ever, legitimating the forms in which such cooperation takes place has become most difficult. International organizations have come under pressure.

Legitimating Global Governance in a Post-National World

2019 ◽  
pp. 232-266
Author(s):  
Klaus Dingwerth
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
The Core ◽  
Norms And Values ◽  
International Authority ◽  
Normative Change

The chapter summarizes and reflects upon the core findings of our study. Compared to the 1970s and 1980s, how have the norms and values that underpin the justification, appraisal, and critique of international organizations shifted in the post-1990 world? The chapter argues that legitimacy standards of the national constellation are increasingly complemented by the legitimacy standards of the ‘post-national constellation’. While the legitimacy standards of the national constellation emphasize state sovereignty, functional cooperation, and non-coerciveness, the legitimacy standards of the post-national constellation conceptualize individuals as rights holders and are guided by a cosmopolitan ideal of inclusive global governance. More specifically, the case studies reveal a rise of people-based legitimation norms and a rise of procedural legitimacy standards. As the study shows, the politicization of expanded international authority is one important source of normative change. Other sources include the rise of new legitimation constituencies and self-reinforcing dynamics of normative change.

Member States’ Due Diligence Obligations to Supervise International Organisations

2020 ◽  
pp. 59-74
Author(s):  
Kristina Daugirdas
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
International Organisations ◽  
Member States ◽  
Distinct Category ◽  
Private Actors ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Law Commission

There are two reasons to consider member states’ obligations to supervise international organisations as a distinct category of due diligence obligations. First, due diligence obligations typically require states to regulate third parties in some way. But it is harder for states to regulate international organisations than other private actors because international law protects the autonomy of international organisations. Second, such due diligence obligations merit attention because they may compensate for the dearth of mechanisms to hold international organisations accountable when they cause harm. This chapter canvasses member states’ existing obligations vis-à-vis international organisations, and argues in particular that the International Law Commission (ILC) missed an opportunity to frame broader obligations when drafting the Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations (the ARIO). The chapter closes by making the normative case for establishing a due diligence obligation on member states to ensure that international organisations do not abuse their immunities.

States in international organizations: Promoting regional positions in international politics?

2020 ◽  
Vol 75 (4) ◽  
pp. 629-651
Author(s):  
Diana Panke
Keyword(s):  
Quantitative Analysis ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
International Politics ◽  
International Negotiations ◽  
Member States ◽  
Global Problems ◽  
Regional Position

States address many of today’s global problems in international organizations (IOs). At the same time, regional international organizations (RIOs) play important roles in IOs, as a series of case studies suggests. RIO member states can speak on behalf of an RIO in IO negotiations. This paper explores under what conditions states voice RIO positions instead of national ones in IOs and thereby turn into agents of regionalization. Based on a novel dataset of more than 500 international negotiations and a quantitative analysis of theory-guided International Relations hypotheses, this paper shows that states are increasingly likely to negotiate on behalf of an RIO, when they regard grouping positions into regional blocs in IO negotiations as more effective, when they have a formal role as RIO chair, and when they possess financial and staff capacities needed in order to voice a regional position in international negotiations.

scholarly journals The rise of democratic legitimation: why international organizations speak the language of democracy

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 714-741 ◽  
Author(s):  
Klaus Dingwerth ◽  
Henning Schmidtke ◽  
Tobias Weise
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Driving Forces ◽  
Dependent Manner ◽  
Two Factors ◽  
Path Dependent ◽  
Legal Expertise ◽  
Over Time ◽  
Do So

To justify their authority, international organizations (IOs) have long relied on a functional narrative that highlights effective problem-solving based on rational-legal expertise and neutrality. Today, IOs increasingly legitimize their authority in the language of democracy. Yet not all of them do so to the same extent, in the same manner, or consistently over time. In this article, we offer a comprehensive theoretical and empirical account of democratic legitimation in global governance. Our analysis builds on a new dataset, measuring the extent to which global IOs use democratic narratives in legitimizing their authority throughout the period from 1980 to 2011. The central findings are threefold. First, our data reveal a far-reaching rise of democratic legitimation in global governance. For many organizations, this increase remains relatively modest; for others, the democratic legitimation narrative becomes central. Second, this variation is mainly explained by a combination of two factors: (a) public visibility and protest constitute the driving forces of democratic legitimation and (b) IOs’ reaction to these legitimacy pressures unfolds in a path-dependent manner. Once organizations begin to take up democratic narratives, it seems to become costly to leave this path and shift to yet another set of norms. By contrast, the conventional wisdom that democratic legitimation follows in the footsteps of internationalized authority is not supported by our analysis.

scholarly journals What Scope is there for Multilateral Diplomacy as a Basis for Global Governance?

SEEU Review ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 117-133
Author(s):  
Artan Binaku
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
World Trade ◽  
Current Trend ◽  
International Organisations ◽  
Historical Aspects ◽  
Realistic Expectation ◽  
The Past ◽  
Multilateral Diplomacy

Abstract The development of multilateral diplomacy over the past decades, its importance that the process of multilateral diplomacy withholds in solving crises and global governance, this paper will try to evaluate the current trend of processes and critically evaluate is there hope and realistic expectation that multilateral diplomacy will become a basis for global governance in the future. There are many definitions given to the multilateralism, having in account that multilateralism within the global governance is becoming increasingly complex in its form and expressions. In doing the analysis on how much there is scope of multilateral diplomacy as basis for global governance, an overview on historical facts, international organizations and elements contributing to the global governance achievement will be touched upon. Impact and historical aspects of international organisations such as United Nations, European Union and World Trade organisations in setting the first pillars of global governance will be also elaborated, with an emphasis on impact and potential that these institutions have in global governance evolution.

Mechanisms of Global Governance: Economic Analysis

2013 ◽  
pp. 4-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Grigoryev ◽  
A. Kurdin
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Economic Analysis ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Economic Activity ◽  
Global Level ◽  
Narrow Sense ◽  
Key Characteristics ◽  
Global Problems

The coordination of economic activity at the global level is carried out through different mechanisms, which regulate activities of companies, states, international organizations. In spite of wide diversity of entrenched mechanisms of governance in different areas, they can be classified on the basis of key characteristics, including distribution of property rights, mechanisms of governance (in the narrow sense according to O. Williamson), mechanisms of expansion. This approach can contribute not only to classifying existing institutions but also to designing new ones. The modern aggravation of global problems may require rethinking mechanisms of global governance. The authors offer the universal framework for considering this problem and its possible solutions.

Multi-Regional

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liesbet Hooghe ◽  
Gary Mark ◽  
Tobias Lenz ◽  
Jeanine Bezuijen ◽  
Besir Ceka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
International Organizations ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Coding Scheme ◽  
International Authority ◽  
Consultative Body

This chapter presents profiles on the delegation and pooling of authority in eleven multi-regional or global international organizations (IOs). Each profile explains how the coding scheme is applied to the IO by charting a path from the primary and secondary evidence to scoring judgments. They tell the reader how the assembly, executive, secretariat, consultative body, and dispute settlement of each IO are composed, what decisions each body makes, and how they make decisions. The profiles chart these developments annually since 1950. The authors indicate four kinds of uncertainty in superscript: α‎ for thin information; β‎ for a case that falls between the intervals on a dimension; γ‎ for disagreement among sources; δ‎ for inconsistency between written rules in the IO. Each profile is followed by tables summarizing the authors’ observations. Data and codebooks for the Measure of International Authority (MIA) are available on the authors’ websites.

Legitimation Problems

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Zürn
Keyword(s):  
Global Governance ◽  
International Institutions ◽  
Governance System ◽  
Social Purpose ◽  
International Authority ◽  
Legitimacy Beliefs

Political and epistemic authorities in the global governance system often restrain the freedom of constituent members and therefore need to be justified with reference to the impartial pursuit of a shared social purpose. An international authority must therefore develop a convincing legitimation narrative and display a sense of impartiality to be seen as legitimate. The thrust of the argument in this chapter is that the legitimacy of the global governance system is structurally precarious. Two legitimation problems can be identified: a technocratic bias in the justification of authority and the lack of impartiality in the exercise of authority. International institutions often have authority, but lack sufficient legitimacy beliefs.

Accountability in Global Governance

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gisela Hirschmann
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
Austerity Policy ◽  
Comprehensive Study

How can international organizations (IOs) like the United Nations (UN) and their implementing partners be held accountable if their actions and policies violate fundamental human rights? Political scientists and legal scholars have shed a much-needed light on the limits of traditional accountability when it comes to complex global governance. However, conventional studies on IO accountability fail to systematically analyze a related, puzzling empirical trend: human rights violations that occur in the context of global governance do not go unnoticed altogether; they are investigated and sanctioned by independent third parties. This book puts forward the concept of pluralist accountability, whereby third parties hold IOs and their implementing partners accountable for human rights violations. We can expect pluralist accountability to evolve if a competitive environment stimulates third parties to enact accountability and if the implementing actors are vulnerable to human rights demands. Based on a comprehensive study of UN-mandated operations in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo, the European Union Troika’s austerity policy, and global public–private health partnerships in India, this book demonstrates how competition and human rights vulnerability shape the evolution of pluralist accountability in response to diverse human rights violations, such as human trafficking, the violation of the rights of detainees, economic rights, and the right to consent in clinical trials. While highlighting the importance of studying alternative accountability mechanisms, this book also argues that pluralist accountability should not be regarded as a panacea for IOs’ legitimacy problems, as it is often less legalized and might cause multiple accountability disorder.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document