Why International Organizations Matter: A Review

In order to even attempt to explain the interactions of states in the global interstate system we typically have to look towards two words, international relations. International relations also try’s to explain the interactions of others whose actions manifests from one country and then is steered towards people of another country. While each state is exploited as ‘sovereign’, specified international groups and organizations are needed as state and non-state actors. These actors include the United Nations (UN), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and Amnesty International. International Relations involve the study of foreign policy, negotiation, war, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, international conflict, trade, and economics. Each of those foreign affairs essentially makes up the relation between countries. A very important issue going on in international relations today is global warming and climate change. Unfortunately this matter receives very little attention. The reason it is so serious, is it could eventually destroy our world, as we know it today. Global warming is already having severe effects on communities, health, and climate. Our sea levels are rising; heat waves are more frequent, wild fires are growing, were experiencing severe droughts, and also increased storms.

The struggle between capitalism, national sovereignity, human rights, and environmental protectionism is a constant struggle. International Nongovernment Organzations (INGO) serve an important role in watching the process unfold. Unfortunately, the history of the world is filled with conflict and no one person or group has the answer as to the outcome.

The end of superpower contention had liberated the UN and other territorial security establishments from their past Cold War mind-set, and made new open doors for them to play a more dynamic, aggregate part. Regardless of global standards of state power and non-mediation, the thought that the universal group ought to intercede in a nation for the benefit of its own kin increased more prominent authenticity. Universal associations, for example, the UN and provincial security, for example, NATO, the OAS, and the OAU would assume a part in offering authenticity on the operations and in sorting out an aggregate reaction. Locally be that as it may, these new advancements at the global

Art and Jarvis bring up the idea that there is a state of anarchy when it comes to international affairs. I will argue that there actually is quite a lot of government in international organization that prevents it from being this anarchic. I will start by giving the reasons why Art and Jarvis believe that international politics features of state of anarchy. The following paragraphs will start to explain why I believe they are wrong in their interpretation of international politics, using Jackson and Rosenberg’s “Concept of Statehood”. I will conclude by summarizing previous thoughts and prove my thesis.

From the late 1990s, international organisations such as United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and USAID were key agents on the public health track. Through partnerships with national government and women’s NGOs, these organizations provided services for married adolescents through UN-FPA’s National Country Strategies and through innovative USAID Nigeria wide projects, such as AWARE I-RH (2003–8) and AWARE II-RH (2009–11) (Walker, 2013). International organisations such as UNFPA, ActionAid International, Grand Challenges Canada, the Institute of International Education, World Learning, USAID Nigeria, UNICEF, UNESO, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, Family Health International, the World Bank, the Ford Foundation,

IGOs are voluntary associations of sovereign states established to pursue many objectives for which states want to cooperate through sort of formal structure and to which states are unable to realize by themselves (Miller, 1994). There are hundreds of IGOs in today's world which are significant in their respective fields. They are created by treaties and negotiations which mainly reflect preferences of stronger states. Especially stronger states create IGOs because they need them to protect their interests. By and large, decisions made by IGOs are the product of negotiations among the governmental representatives assigned to them. In general, it is not idealism, but the need of states which tend them to cooperate with other states in the context of IGOs. Therefore, they are part of the Westphalia state system in which IGOs are instruments of nation-states (Miller, 1994: 67). Regarding to the function and the purpose of IGOs, the influence of state as an actor in international relation still remains strong but in a different way, IGOs replace the original ideas of individual states but to identify states which have the same normative behavior and same ambitions to form a cooperate with each other so as to achieve the same goal. Even said so, powerful states are less constrained by the principle of IGOs than those who are relatively weak (Ataman, 2000: 152-167). This suggests that state is the key element in

The argument that there is a tradeoff existing between membership and effectiveness in international organizations is empirically correct. Larger international organizations tend to have lower levels of cooperation between member states, because of member states more focusing on their own sovereignty than work with other states. Examples of this problem happening in the international system can be seen with the European Union, The United Nations, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. These three IGOs all suffer from the same issue, they have over expanded and this created an issue of compliance from member states of these IGOs.

On December 12 of 2015, 195 countries made history by committing to the first truly global international climate change agreement (Paris Agreement, 2015). This agreement took place in Paris and was adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The outcome of the Paris Conference on Climate Change was described as “revolutionary” (Venezuela) “marvelous act” (China) and as “a tremendous collective achievement” (European Union) that introduced a “new era of global climate governance” (Egypt) while “restoring the global community’s faith of accomplishing things multilaterally” (USA) (Paris Agreement, 2015).

The three major international economic institutions are the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the World Trade Organization; this book mainly focuses on the IMF and the World Bank, due to the author’s first-hand experience with both institutions. The IMF, a public institution built as a guiding hand for economic stability around the world, has brought false

In the analysis of the theories that will be used in analyzing whether the United Nations Security Council is beyond reform from the perspective of Small nation states. It is observed firstly that International relations theory do in fact points out several positions of disagreement that in fact questions either the capacity of international organizations to impact changes in the international system, or their ability to facilitate anything else but the interests of their most powerful members. Thus at the centre of this contention is the realist theory, which states that despite claims of common interests and cooperation, the way international organizations functions reflects the power differences between states. In other words, this means that the interests of powerful states directly influences the actions of international institutions, which become less of a stage for multilateral cooperation than the so called “clubs of the privileged”, where small nation states surrender to the rules of the more powerful states . Questionably, though is the vibrant “club of the privileged” or otherwise called the Permanent Members (P5) which is especially evident base on the structure of the UNSC and the United Nations Charter. Which clearly composes that of a privilege body of the most powerful states, comprising that of the Permanent P5 Members. In actuality, based on literatures other scholars would endorse this, and given also that the UNSC more or less resembles a

The book states that nation-states have a challenge to conduct global political process because of international organizations. Today, the states have to follow many international regulations and laws, which are enforced by international organizations. This does not mean that nation-states have lost their authorities completely. However, with the globalization process, nation-states significantly lost their control. Global governing is a concept that offers an alternative or a supplement to solve the problems of the international system. Since, the international system has a anarchical order, the nation-states should develop a global governance in order to diminish anarchy among states.

Intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) are defined by Kegley (2009) as institutions created and joined by states’ governments, which give them authority to make collective decisions to manage particular problems on the global agenda (p. 163). The purpose of IGOs is to solve shared problems on the basis of involving states’ interests. In other words, states utilize community of interest to balance the international situation between neighborhoods. According to Kegley (2009), a global trend in world politics is the spectacular growth of IGOs. The European Union, as an example of IGOs, is the globe’s best success story among the other regional IGOs playing global roles (Kegley, 2009).

The concept of an International System or International Relations represents the notion that the world extends far beyond the borders of a particular country and that the world itself is more than just a sum of its parts, such as states existing in isolation from the rest. And still, international relations is more than just the sum of individual interactions among these parts. The idea of international system is thus based on the belief that there are general patterns of actions among the system’s actors. In most cases, the actors are allowed, each to make its own decisions and guidelines or set of rules that guide its actions on the international centre stage in a bid to get what it wants from the other actors. This is what

Worldwide organizations are alluded as multinational organizations that are worked in more than one nation. It is one that has proprietor from two or more nations which officials from an assortment of nationalities. Worldwide organizations offer the same item with altered changes to suit the neighborhood taste of every nation it serves Global organizations are associated with various business association which huge assortments of items to the purchaser. Some individuals asserts that worldwide organizations ought to be in charge of the general public whether they affect the general public like environment corruption. They ought to likewise concentrate on the work security, their wages and compensation. They ought to be in charge of the work

The generalised concept of society in opposition to that of a state is that there is an absence of structural authority, and the culture in relation to the society is, in fact, opened to perversion. Theoretically speaking, international society was crafted on the basis of sovereign states, in an attempt to form a network of international relations, but in terms of society, and the admitted concept of reality, the authority, and cohesion is limited to a sense of dominion over another because of the social concomitants of the states themselves are limited to the national and ethnic dissidents of the sovereign (Bull 75-76). There is an absenteeism and narrowness in the terms of the sociological viewpoint of the hypothetical excursion that is international society, because understanding it, would mean delving into the breadth and depth of the security issue, which is greatly reserved on the grounds of global governance, and cohesive societies in general. It is from this that international theologists deny the existence of global governance, and antagonise the relevance of international security as it perverts the ontological system made relevant by international relations between sovereign states (Dunne 367 – 389). Subsequently, the international system has become a firm reality, because of the structures instilled after such world-changing events as the September Eleven terror attacks in the United States of America, and therefore, the authority of the sovereign states has