Special Offer!Pay less for your papers
Get 15% off your first order
|← The American Constitution||Trafficking of Burmese Women and Children →|
International institutions are central and key players to global peace and cooperation and other forms of development despite the fact that every state can work alone and improve its status quo through self-help. The power of each state alone without the convergence of force from international institutions is of no power at all if we cite the key interests of neo-liberalism policy.
Moreover, there are authority and substantial support which international institutions alone can provide. Therefore, a country could possibly not achieve a well-developed status without the aid of international institutions which would reflect to unfulfilled objectives of the state. How international organizations help in fulfilling state’s objectives especially in aid of peace and cooperation between and among states and within a state? But are there instances when international institutions proved wrong and act as a conflict and problem instead of assistance and solution to states.
There are indeed unlimited possibilities of improving the force of the world in solving peace and cooperation problems if international institutions are visible and keeping their decision for the welfare of every state. There were constraints but there is a large probability that international institutions would serve as key to resolution rather than as bureaucratic entity.
For this paper to become more fruitful and essential in discussing the issue of global peace and cooperation in the light of international institutions, it’s of utmost importance to define some terms and enumerate some additional information. These are helpful in bridging the arguments of the paper.
According to UN’s declaration of international responsibility of an international organization for an act that is wrongful under international law, “international organization” also known as international institution “means an organization established by a treaty or other instrument governed by international law and possessing its own international legal personality. International organizations may include as members, in addition to States, other entities.”
International institutions simply act as the bridge among international relations to render help in the problem-solving matter of states which is but not limited to pressing environmental concern, gender equality, poverty, degradation of land, and of course, peace and cooperation. It intends to solve rebellion, discrimination, terrorism, and the like in the scope of international law and treaty. They sometimes decide or give advice among states and other organizations.
Citing the said declaration above of UN is the statement of some of the responsibilities of international institutions which are not limited to the mentioned obligation above. It remains its constant duty (not listed accordingly) to give (1) aid or assistance in the commission of an internationally wrongful act and to avoid (2) coercion of a State or another international organization. It also aims the (3) direction and control exercised over the commission of an internationally wrongful act and the (4) decisions, authorizations and recommendations addressed to member States and international organizations. Lastly, the duty takes effect to the responsibility of an international organization member of another international organization. All of these stated in the declaration of UN with specific consideration and conditions to meet have meaning to the fulfillment of objectives of a state and the maintenance of security in all aspects of a state.
There are actually two types of international institutions that compliment each other in terms of duties and obligations: International nongovernmental organizations (INGOs) and international governmental organizations (IGOs). The INGOs include international corporations which bring unlimited taxes to the state and non-profit organizations which act as donor and helping hand of many countries. International Committee of the Red Cross is a non-profit organization aims at selfless assistance. On the other hand, IGOs are organizations that are made up primarily of sovereign states or member states. One best example is the United Nations which focuses on international law and international security. Just to give a brief background, the UN was settled after World War II in 1945 to replace the League of Nations, mainly to stop wars between countries, and to provide a platform for dialogue. Aside from that, it contains multiple subsets to carry out its eye for the world.
Tertiary to the type of international organization is the Global Public Policy Networks (GPPNs). This is a combination of states and non-state actors key to the fulfillment of nation-building and establishing a solid foundation for other state’s network.
International institutions are servers of good hope to the nation, in one way or another. They resolve conflicts that come in the way to development of states and the whole world. They serve as mediator over warring countries. If a state needs assistance, they give advice. Their opinion matters especially in worldwide issues. They actually provide platform for dialogue. These institutions instigate conversation of peace or peace talks. If one state has problems over the other state, tey act as a large body of counsel and guidance. Therefore, they establish peace in many told ways many of us know. It simply brings international claims.
On the other hand, international institutions are also a recipient, a client among nations. It is not a state because it doesn’t have the criteria to be tagged as one. It does also seek help from states in the form of cooperation in order for its tasks, projects, and duties to be fulfilled. Therefore, we can say that international institution as an entity is embraced by participating nations. Thus, it could easily promote group action and cooperation among the embracing nations. The cooperation is viral if its members lie in one single entity or group of entities. However, uncontrolled by circumstances, a state might not always take the side of international institutions which will bring us to division and scattered decision. But it is of institution’s will to create bond no matter what division is present.
We are now sure that all terms, conditions, and supporting background are laid. We will proceed to the defense of the paper’s initial statement.
International Institutions are central and key players to global peace and cooperation.
At large, many countries are part of different and varied international institutions, United Nations for one. However, it is still a fact that a state may or may not withdraw its support to an international institution if it is crossing the line of a countries policy, either local or foreign. The United States is very much critical of this because, in one way or another, they ensure its power over other nation. There were times when international institution is conflicting with its policies. They react. Therefore, international institutions create a way in which they have listened to the voice of majority.
It is for a fact that for a country to become well-developed, she must maintain systems of development. But there were occurring and recurring problems that he might not face alone. Territorial security, for instance, is a major concern of each and every state. What if there comes an internal war in a state? Who would have help and assist that certain state if she is not connected to international institution that caters the goal of resolution? Let us say there are neighboring states but it would not be a bunch of force. We could look in an old adage, “two heads are better than one. Moreover, there were beneficial projects that are for member states only. Non-members could not gain institutional provision.
Stephen Walt mentioned these lines in his article about international security:
“The overriding goal of U.S. foreign policy is, of course, to protect U.S. citizens and promote U.S. prosperity. Our primary strategic objective has long been to prevent challenges to our dominant position. No presidential candidates ever run for office saying they want to make the United States number two. Realism in foreign policy begins by dealing with the world as it really is.”
Realism in this case is a way of seeing things as it is which is valid. International institutions are springboard for maintaining peace and cooperation. It is wrong to note that the centralization of power should be in a single entity. Nevertheless, power should be shared among states through the guide of international institutions.
The convergence of force from international institutions
It is also essential to ask the question “Does international institutions gain favor in the United States?”
A report from World Public Opinion (.org) states that “Americans strongly support the US putting greater emphasis on actively participating in multilateral efforts to solve international problems.” As a matter of fact, when they were surveyed on their view about the participation of US in dealing with international problems like terrorism and the environment, Americans insisted that if US would partake to such problem, it would be necessary to work through international institutions, especially United Nations. This is because they look at international institution as a huge force toward attaining worldwide security. Only a few, though there are people who viewed international institutions as slow and bureaucratic. Some believe that these institutions employ action that is obstructed by insistence on unnecessary procedures.
A relatively important point of the survey shows that “Americans also show a readiness for the US to abide by the decisions of international institutions, even when they go against the US.” We should not take a look at self-serving decisions rather we should take into consideration the welfare of the many. We are one world after all. One decision would somehow proportionate enough to affect the other. We will not let one state governs and others suffer.
It is very reflective that there were decisions that only international institution like United Nation can solely decide upon. Taking a look at the authority and the legitimacy of using military force, U.S. needs approval in the utilization the military.
Just as another point from the survey paper, “Americans show strong support for strengthening international institutions.” These international institutions include World Health Organization, the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and the World Court. But there is still a contradicting note; the act of strengthening the said international government organizations is “something that could create greater pressures and constraints on US action.” We could not turn away to such possibility if we are to take into account each and every possibility, either positive or negative. But we could end up to a better thinking that if a decree is for the world’s welfare, US’ uncontrollable dispute should not a matter, nor a concern of talk. But before we could go to such decision, we should always consider a platform for dialogue that US still and will always have say on the issues.
As what the survey does, it gives chance to the US’ dispute to be clarified. As a matter of fact, it was asked to none other than the people of America. Are International organizations taking away too much power from the American government? No and Yes. Based on the paper, “Only 34% agreed with the statement, while 31% disagreed and 30% neither agreed nor disagreed.” No because the ones who agreed took an advantage of 3% over those who disagreed. Yes because if we will combine the percentage of votes from the ones who disagreed and neutral, it would certainly outweigh the ones who agreed.
Now, we could say that it is so much for the accounts of US regarding the usage of international organizations in both foreign and local policy. These facts are somehow reflective to the account of other states, that aside from US, only few are subject to dispute when we say that power should also lie on the hand of international institutions.
The key interests of neo-liberalism policy and the international institutions
For the liberalist, they question how to create an international system that encourages cooperation. Could international institution be the answer, there will be no problem with the system. Neo-liberalism policy acknowledges the plurality system meaning sovereign or member state, corporations, international organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), law and protocol are hand-in-hand in taking security of the issue or problem. Being the state at the center, which is suggestible and favorable to U.S, other stakeholders such as corporations and international institution can take part in the system.
The sad note is that because the power remains central to the state, they might take it for personal interest. The other stakeholders must keep abreast to the changing will of the state. Still, there is no international enforcement mechanism. This will not ensure that the states will follow through on agreements. Therefore, cheating becomes the central concern. But in the matter of cooperation, common interests create cohesive alliances between government and international organization.
While in terms of security and survival, the Realists placed it as its key interest. Unlike for liberalists, they may have preferred interests based on the state’s will.
An international institution, like for example United Nations, defend a member country to non-member country over terrorism attacks. It is the so-called “collective security” that rules. So, it will be a member country supported by the pool of countries under United Nations. This is aside from other organizations like North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). We can’t argue the fact that international institutions might also contribute to the wrongness of a state but it can be avoided. Like in the issue of cooperation, they might create collective war against a nation.
There were also evident contradictions to the power of international institutions because of forces like United States. Some Americans think that it will be a constraint to the pursuant of their local and foreign policy. But others argue that it is just a personal interest for the United States. On these scopes, international institutions emerge as a bridge to resolution rather than conflict and a way to vesting welfare’s interest not only the interest of few.
The international institutions in the world are truly of great help in states. But in order for it to become efficient, there is a need for the participation of each and every country. They have unique and defined roles to contribute to the international institutions. The result of the participative roles of countries is for institution’s empowerment. If every member state will participate to the mission of the international organizations, government and non-government, these institutions will become more powerful. A collected effort taking aside personal interest will create an endless opportunities for peace and cooperation among states. These international institutions are entities that take charge in scope incapable to handle by single state only.
It is but fitting to reiterate that there are indeed unlimited possibilities of improving the force of the world in solving peace and cooperation problems if international institutions are visible and keeping their decision for the welfare of every state. What matters most is the end-state of the system, the country, and the world.