The Andean Community

This chapter analyses international parliamentarization in the Andean region. Andean integration has seen, first, the creation of the Andean Pact without an international parliamentary institution (IPI) in 1969, followed by the establishment of the Andean Parliament in 1979 and a slight IPI empowerment in conjunction with the foundation of the Andean Community in 1996. The Andean Parliament was created in the context of democratization in the region and a shift of the Andean Pact from a task-specific to a general-purpose organization. Whereas the conditions of parliamentarization continued to be favourable during the reform process leading to the Andean Community, none of them improved strongly enough to give a boost to parliamentary empowerment. Rather, institutional entrepreneurship was able to secure modest authority gains.

Introduction to the case studies

This chapter introduces the case studies. It describes the rationale for studying cases, our case selection, and the structure of the case study chapters. The case studies offer an opportunity to examine the conditions under which international organizations establish international parliamentary institutions (IPIs) in more detail, take into account alternative configurations of conditions for IPI establishment, and trace the processes of strategic democratic legitimation. In addition, the cases include some of the rare cases of empowerment, in which IPIs increase their authority over time. The case selection aims at a diverse set of cases representing positive and negative cases of IPI establishment, a variety of world regions and historical periods, and stark variation across the conditions of parliamentarization.

The Pacific Islands Forum

This chapter presents a case study of the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF). It examines why the PIF has never established an international parliamentary institution (IPI) in spite of several favourable conditions, such as an increase in authority, a large scope, predominantly democratic member states, a legitimacy crisis in regional governance, and improving conditions for international diffusion. The explanation points to the absence of and contestation about general purpose. Small and recently independent island states blocked region building and occasional IPI proposals by dominant member states (Australia and New Zealand) to protect their sovereignty. The analysis is subdivided into two cases, the 1971–2000 period of initial institutionalization and the period from 2000 onwards during which the Forum experienced deepening integration together with a severe legitimacy crisis.

The Economic Community of West African States

This chapter examines the international parliamentarization of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). ECOWAS was founded in 1975 without an international parliamentary institution (IPI). An IPI was only created in 1993 in the context of general treaty reform. In particular, the democratization process in the region, the promotion of pan-African community building and the example of other successful regional organizations motivated the initiative for an ECOWAS Parliament. Moreover, the ECOWAS Parliament represents an attempt by elites to strengthen the links between the international organization and the citizens. However, the ECOWAS Parliament took until 2001 to become operational and did not have legislative functions until 2017.

Mercosur

This chapter examines the evolution of the parliamentary dimension in Mercosur, from its modest beginnings with the Joint Parliamentary Commission to the establishment of the consultative Mercosur Parliament (Parlasur) in 2005. The context for the establishment and empowerment of an international parliamentary institution was favourable in Mercosur. Specifically, the chapter argues that the organization’s initial parliamentarization reflects the combination of international diffusion from the EU and the democratization of member states, while the transition to Parlasur is best explained by a combination of diffusion from the European Union and the financial crisis in the region that occurred around the turn of the century.

The Rise of International Parliaments

This chapter concludes the book and presents its key findings and takeaways. It reiterates the argument of strategic legitimation in international organizations: that governments establish international parliamentary institutions to pay tribute to global norms of democratic governance and legitimate international organizations that have become both more powerful and contested. It further summarizes the key empirical results of the book and highlights that the rise of international parliaments originates in the combination and interplay of two different constellations and processes: supranational regional integration (combining region-building purpose with high international authority) and international diffusion. The chapter goes on to assess the case study evidence on the legitimacy benefit of ‘recognition’ that international parliamentarization provides to states and their international organizations. Finally, it discusses the implications of the analysis for the study of institutional design, comparative regionalism, and global, cosmopolitan democracy.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations

This chapter analyses the reasons why governments rejected a formal recognition of the ASEAN Interparliamentary Organization/Assembly for a long time, but finally established an official affiliation during the Charter-making process in 2008/10. Until today, ASEAN provides a comparatively unfavourable context for parliamentarization because the organization has little authority and the membership is largely non-democratic. Yet, when the Asian financial crisis hit the region in 1997/98, a demand for re-legitimation emerged, which was supplied as a result of the combination of a subsequent change in the purpose of the organization, which created affinities with other ‘parliamentarized’ organizations and diffusion from the European Union.

The emergence of international parliamentary institutions

In this chapter, we provide statistical analyses of the establishment and empowerment of international parliamentary institutions (IPIs) in seventy-three relevant international organizations. We analyse whether IPI establishment was systematically associated with the conditions of parliamentarization and find robust and strong positive associations for general purpose and policy scope and robust but somewhat weaker positive correlations for diffusion. By contrast, neither authority nor democracy are systematically associated with the existence of IPIs. Governance failure is either insignificant or has a negative effect on IPI creation. Finally, we explore the correlation of the conditions of parliamentarization with IPI power and find a robust association of IPI authority with IPI legislative competencies.

Comparative case study analysis

This chapter presents the results of a Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) of the case studies on the establishment and empowerment of international parliamentary institutions by international organizations. The analysis looks for patterns in the necessary and sufficient conditions of international parliamentarization as well as for distinct and diverse configurations of conditions favouring, generating, and preventing international parliamentarization. The QCA suggests that there are two contexts of and pathways to IPI creation—one starting from general-purpose and high-authority international organizations (IOs), the other one driven by international diffusion of IO parliamentarization. At the same time, we find that the task-specificity of IOs is the major obstacle to IPI creation.

International parliamentary institutions

This chapter describes the universe of international parliamentary institutions (IPIs): their attributes, their historical development, their regional variation and their organizational features. It shows that, while the first IPI dates from the nineteenth century, IPIs have only emerged in larger numbers after World War II and in particular during the post-Cold War period. In addition, IPIs have become increasingly affiliated with IOs. The chapter further assesses the autonomy and authority of IPIs. Whereas IPIs have retained or gained considerable organizational autonomy, their authority and capacity to affect the constitutional and policy decisions of international organizations as well as appointments of international officials have remained weak. The descriptive analysis thus provides detailed evidence for the rise of IPIs in numbers, but not in powers, and thus motivates the research puzzle of the study.