International Organizations: More Than Reflections of Narrow “National Interests” of Their Member States

2018 ◽  
pp. 117-122
Author(s):  
Thomas Nowotny
Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 112-129
Author(s):  
A. O. Chetverikov

In recent years, Russia has invested significant assets in unique scientific facility of the “Megascience” class that are being built or are already operating on the territory of foreign countries, mainly member states of the European Union: the International Thermonuclear Research Reactor-ITER (France), the European X-ray Free Electron Laser-European XFEL, the Large Hadron Collider (Switzerland and France), etc.How reliable and safe are such investments in the context of the sanctions policy of the West, including the EU, against our country? To what extent are they protected by the principle of immunity of states and international organizations, which is generally recognized, but is not interpreted and applied in different legal systems? The paper considers these issues in the context of the development of the judicial practice of the supranational institution of the judicial power of the EU, namely the Court of Justice of the European Union and the concept of relative immunity (immunité relative) formulated herein.Having conducted a comparative legal review of the current state of the sources of law and doctrine on the issues of immunity of states and international organizations, the author analyses and evaluates the decisions of the EU Court of Justice and the legal positions of its attorneys General: — Mahamdia v. Algeria, 2012: for the first time ECJ formulates the concept of relative immunity in relation to states;— "Rina" and "Suprim" cases, 2020: EU Court clarifies the interpretation of the concept of acta iure imperii (acts of public authority), in respect of which states retain immunity in the EU, and extends its concept of relative immunity to international intergovernmental organizations.The final section deals with legal issues that yet to get a clear answer in the practice of the EU Court of Justice. In this regard, the author highlights possible directions of its evolution, and studies other recent decisions of the EU Court of Justice that may affect Russia’s national interests in the context of cooperation with EU member states in the scientific and technical sphere, including megascience, and in other areas.


2020 ◽  
pp. 004711782097032
Author(s):  
Diana Panke

Cooperation in regional international organizations (RIOs) can help member states to work toward and perhaps achieve policy goals that would not be feasible unilaterally. Thus, RIOs might be used as a means of states to compensate for domestic shortcomings in output performance. Do states equip RIOs with policy competencies in order to compensate corresponding domestic performance shortcomings? The analysis of a novel database on policy competencies of 76 RIOs between 1945 and 2015 reveals that usually RIOs are not usually used as window-dressing devices by which states disguise limited domestic output performance. Instead, governments tend to equip RIOs with policy competencies in order to further strengthen their already good output performance in most policy areas. However, in the policy area, ‘energy’ states tend to confer more competencies to their respective RIOs, the worse they perform domestically, indicating that output-related compensation dynamics might be at play in this field.


2021 ◽  
pp. 002085232098451
Author(s):  
Steven Van Hecke ◽  
Harald Fuhr ◽  
Wouter Wolfs

Despite new challenges like climate change and digitalization, global and regional organizations recently went through turbulent times due to a lack of support from several of their member states. Next to this crisis of multilateralism, the COVID-19 pandemic now seems to question the added value of international organizations for addressing global governance issues more specifically. This article analyses this double challenge that several organizations are facing and compares their ways of managing the crisis by looking at their institutional and political context, their governance structure, and their behaviour during the pandemic until June 2020. More specifically, it will explain the different and fragmented responses of the World Health Organization, the European Union and the International Monetary Fund/World Bank. With the aim of understanding the old and new problems that these international organizations are trying to solve, this article argues that the level of autonomy vis-a-vis the member states is crucial for understanding the politics of crisis management. Points for practitioners As intergovernmental bodies, international organizations require authorization by their member states. Since they also need funding for their operations, different degrees of autonomy also matter for reacting to emerging challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The potential for international organizations is limited, though through proactive and bold initiatives, they can seize the opportunity of the crisis and partly overcome institutional and political constraints.


2011 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 291-347 ◽  
Author(s):  
Odette Murray

AbstractThis paper applies two manifestations of the principle of good faith – pacta sunt servanda and the doctrine of abuse of rights – to the complex relationship between member states and international organizations. The paper argues that these existing doctrines operate as a legal limit on the conduct of states when creating, controlling and functioning within international organizations. The paper begins by exploring an innovative provision in the International Law Commission's recently finalised Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organisations – Draft Article 61 – according to which a member state will bear international responsibility for the act of an international organization where the member state uses the organization to circumvent its own international obligations. Examining the development of Draft Article 61 and the jurisprudence upon which it is based, this paper argues that the principle which the Commission in fact seeks to articulate in Draft Article 61 is that of good faith in the performance of treaties. As such, being based on a primary rule of international law, this paper queries whether Draft Article 61 belongs in a set of secondary rules. The paper then considers the role of states in the decision-making organs of international organizations and argues that the widely held presumption against member state responsibility for participation in decision-making organs can and should be displaced in certain cases, in recognition of the various voting mechanisms in international organizations and the varied power which certain states may wield. The paper argues that the doctrine of abuse of rights operates as a fundamental legal limit on the exercise of a member state's voting discretion, and thereby forms a complementary primary obligation placed on states in the context of their participation in international organizations.


2017 ◽  
Vol 71 (2) ◽  
pp. 245-280 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ranjit Lall

AbstractInternational organizations (IOs) have long been a central focus of scholarship in international relations, yet we know remarkably little about their performance. This article offers an explanation for differences in the performance of IOs and tests it using the first quantitative data set on the topic. I argue that the primary obstacle to effective institutional performance is not deviant behavior by IO officials—as conventional “rogue-agency” analyses suggest—but the propensity of states to use IOs to promote narrow national interests rather than broader organizational objectives. IOs that enjoy policy autonomy vis-à-vis states will thus exhibit higher levels of performance. However, in the international context policy autonomy cannot be guaranteed by institutional design. Instead, it is a function of (1) the existence of (certain types of) institutionalized alliances between IOs and actors above and below the state; and (2) the technical complexity of IO activities. I provide empirical evidence for the argument by constructing and analyzing a cross-sectional data set on IO performance—based in part on a new wave of official government evaluations of IOs and in part on an original survey of IO staff—and conducting a comparative case study in the realm of global food security.


2014 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 391-419 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhida CHEN

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has, on various occasions, concluded treaties on behalf of its Member States. This raises some interesting questions: is ASEAN entitled to enter into treaties on behalf of its Member States; and if so, what should be the status of ASEAN and its Member States vis-à-vis the other party to the treaty? The issue is not one of whether the ASEAN Member States have consented to such a practice—it must be assumed that they have. Instead, the real issue is whether such treaty-making practice can and should be valid under international law, even if the Member States have consented for ASEAN to conclude these treaties on their behalf. This paper will argue that, under international law, ASEAN is entitled to conclude treaties on behalf of its Member States.


2021 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 21-25
Author(s):  
Valeriy F. Lapshin ◽  
◽  
Nadezhda V. Kuznetsova ◽  

Тhe subject of this research is the international normative acts concluded in connection with the creation of interstate unions and associations in the post-Soviet space. Attention is drawn to the active development of regulatory legislation on the specifics of economic relations between representatives of the union states, in the complete absence of any processes of unification of national criminal law in the field of foreign economic activity. The emerging situation can significantly complicate the implementation of international foreign economic cooperation, despite the membership of states in the Eurasian Economic Union (hereinafter — the EAEU). In this regard, it is concluded that it is necessary to develop a unified EAEU normative act that defines the specifics of establishing and implementing responsibility for committing foreign economic crimes, as well as the appropriate unification of the national criminal laws of the EAEU member states.


Author(s):  
M. O. Ryazanova

The article studies one of the key spheres of BRICS framework - energy security. Given the recent decline of economic growth rates in BRICS countries, highlighting of such areas as infrastructural funding and establishing of effective international financial regulatory institutions, beneficial cooperation in energy sector despite its importance for the national interests of member states, nowadays perspectives of BRICS cooperation in energy security seem to be unclear for the leading researchers and analysts. The article contemplates the evolution of energy cooperation issue in the context of BRICS summits. Besides,proceeding from the classification of energy resources into two groups - traditional ones and eco-fuels - the analysis helps to determine potential ways of interaction within the member states taking into account bothmotivating and constraining factors. However, notwithstanding the possibility of the intergroup multilateralrelations in this sphere and overall strengthening of economic ties among the members, the BRICS energy cooperation iscurrently of bilateral and unequally developed nature, which is determined by a number of historically formed circumstances and national interests.


Author(s):  
Olga Shpakovych ◽  
Sofia Penkovska

The article presents the result of theoretical and practical study of the relationship between state sovereignty and supranationalityof international organizations. In particular, it is determined that the phenomenon of supranationality of international organizations isderived from state sovereignty and acts as its external law. It has been shown that, in view of this, supranationality is limited becauseit arises through the exercise of sovereignty by states, and, accordingly, is limited by the amount of state sovereignty exercised by states.The relevant mechanism has also been studied on the example of the functioning of the European Union.Regarding the theoretical results, the following should be noted. First, it was proved that despite the different approaches of scho -lars to the understanding of supranationality, definitions of this concept and the separation of its features (properties), in each case,supranationality is a direct realization of state sovereignty. At the same time, the realization of state sovereignty in relation to such pro -perties of international organizations as supranational is primary, and supranationality in this case is derivative. In addition, the phenomenonof supranationality of international organizations due to the fact that it is derived is limited, because supranationality arisesthrough the exercise of sovereignty by states, and, accordingly, is limited by the amount of state sovereignty exercised by states. Thatis why when analyzing the relationship between the supranationality of international organizations and state sovereignty, one cannotconsider the priority of one of the two, because supranationality is in essence a manifestation of state sovereignty.Regarding the practical results, the author considers it appropriate to emphasize that both the regional international organization –the EU was studied, and, at the same time, it was proved that all theoretical provisions were reflected in practice, in particular, envisagedfunctions, goals and the tasks of the studied international organizations are limited in scope by the manifestation of sovereignty shownby states, similar to the regulations issued by organizations. Another indication that the state can exercise its sovereignty in any case isthat there is an effective and transparent procedure for leaving these organizations


2021 ◽  
pp. 337-353
Author(s):  
François Foret

This contribution analyses the diplomacy of religion carried out by the European External Action Service (EEAS), and questions its autonomy and distinctiveness vis-à-vis other diplomacies. Several dimensions are studied: how foreign policy is dealing with the ‘return’ of religion in international affairs; the practices of the EEAS regarding religion against the general background of what Member States, third countries, and international organizations do in this respect; how the EEAS balances the interests of Member States, the requirements of the geopolitical contexts and field realities; the EEAS’s advocacy for specific causes such as the freedom of religion and belief (FoRB) and the establishment of religion as a standard diplomatic issue. The conclusion characterizes the EU’s external strategy on religion as the outcome of both its political and institutional logic and Europe’s societal secularization in a world that is still highly religious.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document