Gisa105 Io Paper1

7/30/2019 Gisa105 Io Paper1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gisa105-io-paper1 1/3

William Kang I31025

GISA 105- International Organization

4/2/2013

Weekly Analytical Paper Assignment 1: Role of States

Many factors galvanize and shape the roles states play in global governance. When looking at the world through

the paradigmatic lens of realism or neorealism, relative power gains amongst states matters a lot. So much so

that global powers and hegemons created IGOs in order to consolidate their political dominance and exert their

soft power over others. Neorealists will argue that IGOs were created by states in order to advance their national

interests. However, neoliberals claim “States may utilize IGOs and other global governance pieces to assure

others that their own actions and commitments are credible.”1

Whatever theoretical position one locks in, global

governance through the channels of IGOs can happen when states decide to create them by formal or informal

agreements to give certain authority to the IGOs, while the complexities between states and IGOs lies in state

sovereignty.2

Different states will play different roles in global governance. The United States was the catalyst for shaping the

postwar international system structure after World War II, with the creation of UN, NATO, Bretton Woods, and

etc. U.S. helped shaped the IGOs with the promotion of democratic ideals and capitalism as universal standards.

However U.S. has spotty records with multilateralism. Due to their global hegemonic superpower status, U.S.

will multilaterally conduct with other nations in certain issues, such as the UN approved coalition against Iraq in

the early 1990s. While at times the U.S. will unilaterally go against IGOs, such as backing out of the Kyoto

Protocol and invading Iraq in 2003 with threat misperceptions. One of the main root causes for U.S.

ambivalence of multilateralism, stems from exceptionalism. Exceptionalism is the idea that there is the

“ pervasive faith in the uniqueness, immutability, and superiority of the country‟s founding liberal principles,

accompanied by a conviction that the United States has a special destiny among nations.”3

Also other factors of U.S. ambivalent multilateralism stems from the domestic makeup of „separation of powers,‟

and the fact that as a superpower, U.S. is can be skittish of multilateralism, since multilateralism “implies a

relationship based on rules rather than power, with countries agreeing that behavior in a certain sphere should begoverned by shared principles, norms, and rules, regardless of individual interests, capabilities, or

circumstances.”4

The multilateralism ideology of the elites of America that shape the outcomes of global

1 Margaret P. Karns and Karen A. Mingst, International Organizations: The Politics and Processes of Global

Governance, 2nd

Ed., (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2010), p. 257.

2 Ibid. 3

Stewart Patrick and Shepard Forman, Multilateralism and U.S. Foreign Policy: Ambivalent Engagement,

(Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2002), p. 7.

4 Ibid . p. 9.



governance are: moderate internationalists (mixed strategists of multilateralism and unilateralism), conservative

internationalists (pro unilateralists), liberal internationalists (pro multilateralists), and isolationists (can be either

conservative or liberal and they are skittish of both unilateralism and multilateralism).5

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union used its Security Council veto power as a powerful tool to blockade the

advancements of the West, while protecting its own. They undermined the West by siding with newly

independent states.6

Great Britain and France both played active roles in peace operations and contribute “key

personnel and financial resources and voting consistently with other large developed countries.”7

China has

usually rejected most non-Soviet organizations up until the 1970s. However with the acceleration of their

economic development, China has shown to comply with many IGOs and even joined regional organizations

such as APEC and complies with norms regimes such as the ratification of NPT. Middle-power states‟ roles as

bridge-builders and consensus seekers later diversified and usually pertain to providing “material and human

resources for international organizations and programs, such as staff for secretariats and military personnel and

police for peacekeeping.”8

Small states have limited resources, such that their foreign policies will reflect smart

diplomacy in which multilateralism is of high importance, so much so they choose issues that of their highest

priority.

There are different strategies that states will undertake to get most out of global governance. Certain issues are

becoming interrelated with other IGOs and so states will go “forum shopping”, or take a certain issue and use

different forums as a platform to get the best reception. States will also use global governance as a way to build

coalitions in order to mitigate the costs and to pool their resources and power multilaterally to get better

outcomes versus the cost of doing things unilaterally.9

Some of the examples of coalition building are The Non-

Aligned Movement, OIC, and NATO. So the question comes, why do states go through with these strategies?

Well systemic factors such as the ordering principle of international structure of anarchy, with the distribution of

states having different capabilities explain such strategies. Domestic factors will also drive different strategies,

authoritarian regimes will be skittish to comply with IGOs due to the interference IGOs can have on the

authoritarians‟ rule of their nation. The challenges that await multilateral diplomacy are of particular importance.

States need to be aware and sensitive to the difference of culture when negotiating. For example the West tend to

be individualistic and has the get the job done attitude, while the non-West tend to be more group oriented and

cares about harmony. Leadership is also very important to mitigate problems during consensus-building.

5 Ibid . p. 21.

6 Karns and Mingst, op. Cit ., p. 262.

7 Ibid ., p. 263.

8

Ibid ., p. 271. 9 Ibid ., p. 275.



References

Karns, Margaret P. and Mingst, Karen A. International Organizations: The Politics and Processes of Global

Governance. 2nd

Ed. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2010.

Patrick, Stewart and Forman, Shepard. Multilateralism and U.S. Foreign Policy: Ambivalent Engagement.

Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2002.

Gisa105 Io Paper1

Documents

Transcript of Gisa105 Io Paper1