If you cant beat them join them

Transcription

1 If you cant beat them join them Wolf-Dieter Eberwein, Schemeil Yves To cite this version: Wolf-Dieter Eberwein, Schemeil Yves. If you cant beat them join them. World International Studies Conference, Aug 2005, Instabul, Turkey. <halshs > HAL Id: halshs Submitted on 9 May 2009 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers. L archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

2 INTERORGANIZATIONAL IF YOU CAN T BEAT THEM COOPERATION JOIN THEM: [email protected] [email protected] Wolf-Dieter Yves and Eberwein Institut F d Etudes Grenoble BP Politiques, 48 Cedex Grenoble Abstract: (First draft Comments are welcome. Not for quotation 9 kind international The ability relations inability theory. of International international organizations cooperation without has candidates long the been authors a for challenged agreement) intergovernmental more the of activity, less autonomous regimes however, organizations and specialized have institutions. long its been agents, focus. The ignored confronted The following problem by scholars, analysis the to more one what hand starts interested extent with with they their in this international the are principals, particular study actually issue functional performance. states, specialization the other with interdependent increasingly complex environment environment. enhances The the latter likelihood is problematic of failure of environment routine autonomy independence coordination from which One the way international states but to and overcome rather substituting organizations inter-organizational the problem some are loss faced induced their cooperation with by individual is the not growing just thereby ad autonomy hoc complexity gaining collaboration with greater of the or as adaptation strategies and collective IGOs have leverage. chosen. As The turns paper out analyses power, expertise greater and detail legitimacy the seem various to determine Paper Istanbul, simultaneously prepared August 24-27, for presentation the choice to at either the cooperate World International or not. Studies Conference,

3 Page 2 Eberwein / Schemeil Introduction: Theoretical issues...9 Why cooperate?...2 and Table the consequences des Matières Adaptation International Mandate Autonomy Strategies Enlargement...21 First?...23 organizations, of IGOs international The Empirical order Investigation...20 and of adaptation...13 complex interdependence Partnership From Influence Weakness vs. and Power...28 Harmonization...26 References Explanations First Cut: and Strategies Interpretations...37 to Strength...30 Table 4.2 A 1: 2: Second UN Two Coordination Political Cut: Why Cultures...45 do Offices of IGOs Adaptation cooperate?...39 and Programs...44 through Cooperation Why the cooperation Introduction: cooperate rather Why cooperate? comprehensive kind, and represent what theoretical than still scope approach compete? a of puzzle their is If available international for collaboration? international explaining actors These intergovernmental choose relations research the theorists. first questions alternative, cooperation Thus concerning what far no is states underdeveloped dominated general, world. issue between area Therefore in the intergovernmental scholarly it comes as literature. no surprise organizations In contrast, that a theory (IGOs) practitioners of cooperation particular in the between is IGO an a

4 Page world topic 3on devote the agenda a lot of that time Cox and energy and Jacobsen to address (1973) it: in call every boundary-decisions. meeting there Eberwein the For / unavoidable Schemeil agents organization s advantage them this issue mandate might or be extensions both a threat of its and own a mandate. promise: Yet either the infringements states do not take the on IGO organisations with. They themselves cooperation seem in prefer order framework to maintain minimize that their international the control. possibilities organizations of joint potentially programs provide by full the The assumptions, (i.e., more study between so, of since cooperation states) line with is rare a the matter between studies rational of available international balancing design display of cost international organizations and a strong utility. institutions tendency If is therefore collaboration to make project. a challenging rational Cooperation payoffs choice task. individuals small argument their utility compared could curve 1 be to applied the they commitments by deliver way of global analogy made, and intergovernmental to public IGOs. goods But how that cooperation could are not one divisible? asses is unlikely. the States shape The and are human cooperation rights, have rather etc. a In stake than contrast in less, the to not states preservation necessarily lagging of behind, because the environment, IGOs they seem are to security, like prefer but more the protection rather interagency as of unavoidable difficulties which expected Whereas is using neither to necessity account public zero economy (as for predicted fulfilling this tools) discrepancy their by but somewhere respective RC desired models in mandates. the of middle2. actual state Rational cooperation behaviour) choice between nor models strong IGOs have exogenous make strong these factor assumptions postulated most RC about barriers analyses the level cooperation of cooperative of support are from endogenously behaviour the electorate determined not fully or the appreciate. selectorate there is also They (as an 1 more and deepening If there flow exclusive an is of one: existing support club according interstate of for stakeholders). cooperation. to a rational choicer, and If They voters enlarging tie Michael want the it rulers to interstate Gilligan member propensity (2004), states interagency no (there contradiction cooperate is cooperation, no trade exists with off the between then ebb (a mathematicians members 2 broader to public cooperation Actually, deliver model. goods and of in it It a in deeper may multilateral nonetheless (such itself states even cooperation). (Schemeil, as be can a forums. coalition. less contributes argued gain polluted 2000). from With that Consequently, to cooperation one air) support exception, should our their as even matter hypothesis such relative if EU: newcomers less this failure than only of one course global their to are point: apportion capacity less public alleviates within cooperative good specific to deliver that ideal convincing or states than secondary world a primary and the strength IGOs founding rational global good, try of

5 Page governments reluctant 4 will comply and support more collaboration; if not, rational Eberwein rulers / Schemeil more trade the cooperative aftermath or even of opposed stance 1989 than as to more it. their Change and authoritarian more on the political part predecessors. of the regimes electorate became This seems is particularly democratic to have taken the adopting will case place be industrialists eventually issues overruled - needing a realm trade this in which old barriers. selectorate LDC s Following leaders (Milner the were fall mostly & of Kubota, the responsive Berlin 2005). wall to the As a tiny present far elite IGOs electorate of local are in a concerned, IGOs mandate. Rational extent from choice the better problem analyses adjusting with are this to firmly each analysis grounded other s is the decisions observed in economic caution because theory of they which states fear accounts to which trespass precludes specialization to their and shortcomings functional differentiation when applied are to the dominant IGO world. strategies Admittedly, of the in firms. economics to Their some their relevant enlarge are characterizes theorists, comparable its operational international market an or ideal share. environment substitutable. economic politics A necessary is consists This order. reduced condition is of According at competitors, to least for the competition in prevention to theory each axiomatic of conducive is of whom that the the belief wants loss goods to stability of to and keep power, neo-realist services which if not maintenance system prominently primarily can on indeed Waltz, or competition, its be enlargement 1979)3. conceptualized market This in conceptualization survival in these to survive and micro-economic market of in such shares. international an terms anarchic International and politics system, competition means organizations the inter-state (i.e. focusing most its governmental principals, economic scarce resources analogy the or nations nongovernmental allowing is only (Cooley valid them as & to long - Ron, do can as so. be 2002). they conceptualized But are For in service reality, these two providers, correspondingly IGOs types are of competing not actors, competitors as agents however, for the of in same their - classical theoretically sense. means Functionally that they are different independent each of each them other is active or complementary in a specific market terms of which 3 production. It is noteworthy that Waltz is primarily interested in major powers, i.e. a maximum of seven nations (historically their the maximum level ever obtained).

6 Page Even 5though it may be naïve to overlook the importance of power Eberwein international / Schemeil (List/Zangl, to states order (Leca, nevertheless 2000). are The also growing preoccupied importance with of the international creation and law4 maintenance is a clear evidence of international politics, well just contribute as international 2004:361-2). to building organizations the International desired, differ and governmental in adapt one fundamental to, the organizations existing way orders5. have firms: been This created is their why goal as states of agents is this organisation s order the at maximization any time. perspective) In addition, of gains but neither also (or power-which the the production producer might of, norms say, be the cars and case nor rules from the defining consumer a purely has sociology international to bother not of as about pollution states traffic International the as jams). well are problems externalities as international created neither by organizations production producer as deal well nor with as the consumption. consumers these externalities directly Resource (i.e. pay depletion for. air pollution In contrast, and air we information, are speaking concepts organizations, here and about justifications one a different could certainly of type their of argue, strategies production. have as to One how sell the to what intervene one they hand, produce. they political, produce But or economic actually to diffusing this say that intervening and/or they social are applying structures agents those specific in structures the of societies construction norms. based and Their on how. of primary expectations order On by the role simultaneously other is about thus hand specific normatively they creating, deliver outcomes. grounded. services specifying, That by consumers they differ behaviour6. from firms The selling normative products foundations on a market of the without economic aiming order changing are taken their for In is granted. IGO risky very failure, strategies often performance enterprise notwithstanding of badly aid because relied understood. results the from the fact structures Development then their that state-of-the-art interference empirical which aid, research for these in scientific example, politics organizations does and knowledge has not societies. been support intervene criticized which this This assessment7. are intervention turned complex being out a to total The and is be a 42003:371) 567 among We No There firm speak number others is would a of long-ongoing the orders of advertise discussion conventions order its debate by product to etc. Ram take among has into (2003) risen a account health economists and from Ovaska hazard the 2000 various which, that (2005). in should 1950 domains thus to far, therefore approximately in has which not not produced specific be bought. 55,000 IGOs any by are definite 2000 active. (List/Zangl, results. See

7 Page deficient. expounds 6In Jessica Eihorn s (2001: 30) words, for example, the World Eberwein Bank absorbs / Schemeil the These intervention destination general the huge does remarks prescriptive not produce point literature to a road the map overall on for development getting problem there. without of knowledge acknowledging constitutive that knowing for and below). logic and Olsen of This action (1998) dilemma which identified may of will any be to be an social ideal more obstacle types or political less of to, logics acute or rather actor of for action inviting (an actors issue (further interagency to as which refined a function we cooperation. by will Risse, of the come 2004:19- specific March back the 22) assumes best are example, the guarantee logic cause-effect of for consequences survival. relationships It assumes and such that logic as for cause-effect of example appropriateness. the relations belief that within The military logic a specific of strength consequences implication more or which less might independently finally lead from to the a war environment. the armament But efforts this logic were can intended lead to to arms prevent. issue races, is area One the unconditionally is the resistance might operate to be change what along and March the thus lines and a lack Olsen prescribed of adaptation8. call the by competency their knowledge trap. and That expertise. the specialists The result for The intervene consequences counterproductive be a cause logic somewhere of of a appropriateness their conflict such activities even as or the its though prolongation unconditional is might based the have. upon actors (see support the The i.e. do assumption Lischer, of not consequences victims have 2003). specific in that a given This it could is knowledge illustrates conflict moral turn or area. out the ethical as second It to may the be to point international achieve such the an made, approach the desirable that order, this should may end. kind be also Nonetheless, of supportive be logic counterproductive which of given cooperation is the constitutive acknowledged due yet to at for the the same lack creation of time complete knowledge it or could maintenance information, also as how lead of this rigid kind of conviction that expressed the imposed its strategy various is stabilisation the best. The programmes. IMF could be a good example of to which 8 What organizations, problematic: As Maslow is they the said, intervene first crucial whether at one their point point but state interventions : if which you or to non-state, have be they a derived hammer, require do are not from designed you knowledge necessarily treat these anything upon preliminary about have premises as a nail the although! complex which remarks? most are environment necessary International of them but are in

8 Page considered 7as knowledge-based institutions. But, as we pointed out, one Eberwein cannot / exclude Schemeil must possibility they need be supplemented that by power pooling with to be knowledge sufficient able to intervene resources. the margin effectively. And of error thirdly, or That failure order is, can the to be mandates succeed reduced. they or Secondly, missions need the nor To precisely command what perceived extent some degree as cooperation satisfying of legitimacy. some between perceived If the agencies agent needs intervening help the intervention solve does these not might three command actually dilemmas? some fail. This support to increase glance, legitimacy cooperation the our of knowledge research their is outcomes. a question. prerequisite base, the We Functional power postulate to both and success specialization the that legitimacy inter-organizational intervention, of interdependent autonomy intervening cooperation of agents. decisions, environment can in At effect first and is enhances goods externalities may There collectively and the services, can likelihood enlarge enhanced. the of their failure protection individually Moreover, performance of one restricted universal can argue whereas power rights, that the and cooperation and joint legitimacy. the production capture between of of organizations global large public cooperation are also three plausible arguments, however, speaking in favour of the minimum scale principals be each opposed other. power to Second, between the potential because IGOs agencies. the empowerment themselves states First pursuing there individually of could IGOs diverging be that the oppose could aims desire result an in to increased different avoid from their infringement organizations dependence cooperating on on would their with of knowledge composite that experience institution rather epistemic in than a and net a capitalist gaining expertise loss. communities If in and the produced legitimacy leading free trade order and organization they world disseminated to will retain disseminating either their in a by gain autonomy. coalition other little its IGOs own of or, And, IGOs what individualistic and third, is their they also larger may possible, the values core fear and through cultural among so, both how anti-globalization and these its economic humanitarian two contradictory organizations NGOs issues and trends and demonstrators. and cooperating are security present. with alliances, Therefore, This the presupposes former agencies we must will identifying with explain loose a their good whether, credentials record causes and of in Before IGOs. positive By going doing and further, so, negative we it is will necessary factors emphasize determining to give primarily our interagency own collaboration, vision cooperation. of interagency cooperation cooperation and coordination among if

9 Page between is 8international organizations. But it is also clear, that the intra-organisational Eberwein / Schemeil Beigbeder research interdependence equally thus crucial (2003a) far from lacking. have the convincingly perspective Our core argument of argued, the process both is straightforward: of dimensions adaptation are of the IGOs. greater need As of Dijkzeul the systematic dimension adapt and complexity within and between societies and states, the greater the level need and achieve increase by coordinating the activities within and between specific functional areas order of given not the only support greater of all coherence, stakeholders, efficiency hence and increase effectiveness, the global but level also of to legitimacy maintain if for not to In for have this excluding a international formal paper, the we mandate NGOs will order ourselves accorded from its the change. discussion them international by is obvious. international intergovernmental In contrast agreement. to organizations. IGOs NGOs the therefore former The reason do have not a to They or the Federation as struggle anti-personal transnational also have to get problems access networks landmines), to as the how the governments confederations to form get of organized, coalitions both or nationally either (such federations as as strong and the consortium internationally (such transnational as for the organizations International banning influence. differs asymmetric: of comparison the Red Cross to IGOs9. and Red Finally, Crescent). the Cooperation relationship and between coordination NGO among and IGOs NGOs of independently In organizations the following NGOs from and we develop them10. firstly are review either problems some patronized of the resulting by main IGOs, shortcomings from subcontractors the functional in study differentiation of of NGOs international or and act is division approaches collaboration of labour that and explain coordination within under and among between what international conditions and organizations; to what end we help strategies then them outline of to adjust the cooperation, different 9 ever analysing growing the complexity various strategies of their environment. that international Secondly, organizations we present have our empirical developed findings either to the cultures enlarge This issue their has area been adressed of competence, by Lindenberg/Bryant to increase (2001). their Difficulties respective arise, legitimacy among others basis because through of different inter- by trends others Baddache, in of particular organizations 2005; the Igalens/Queinnec, establishment from same of family cooperative 2004). such as links Caritas, between MSF NGOs Oxfam. and the One business could also world point (cf. to among new to alternative 10 Young (2000) linkages: has partner, argued that subcontractors the relationship and possibly between adversaries. NGOs and their cooperating partners can lead to various

10 Page organizational findings 9 cooperation or refrain from cooperative activities. Finally, Eberwein will / sum Schemeil 2. Theoretical and point issues so some of the theoretical implications. up our In international his process classical relations organizations of organizing. study has Inis already are Claude representative He produced defines (1964:3) international aspects observes of the organizations; that phase [T]he that process growing as the a world process has complexity is been engaged whereas reached of a structural given time dimension, (Claude, i.e. 1964:4). the various We prefer actors to and understand the way they by international are linked or organization not. The process (IO) in their (2002:193; organizations as turn well, review can that be see in they article understood the also deserve study International Martin/ of more attention international Simmons, specifically organizations as agents relations 1998) because the argue has interactions waxed of that institutions their and the taking agenda-setting waned centrality Simmons place yet, as among of they influence. international and postulate them. Martin In addition international they Law also regimes, organization and play a a and frequent role later, has socializing been stress international least the agents. UN institutions partially system). One of subsumed the (with The problems consequence a strong under is component that is study the that term the of In structural are Nobody the international lost creation out would complexity of and sight. challenge maintenance of the the individual assumption of international organisations that IGOs order. contribute and the To specific realist (or are and interdependencies intended neo-realist to contribute) thinking among core conditions the of issue institutions anarchy. of cooperation Keohane are rooted (1984) primarily in the and interaction among the research states of power following and IGOs and suggested as their (op.cit:195). agents that cooperation under At the to is the Among five type possible analysis dimensions of research other under by scholars of Rittberger specific is institutional assuming Koremenos conditions (1990) market design showing et where failure al. which (2002) states under leading move avoid explored what into short-term the conditions variations specifics establishment interests. cooperation of across the of organizations. A institutions such good is institutions. example facilitated. along That is

11 Page The recently English 10school of international relations (see among others Bull, Wight) Eberwein as well / Schemeil leading normative More recent to the structure the Copenhagen developments, study evolving. of norms school as Simmons and (i.e Buzan the and resulting et Martin al.) postulate institutions (2002: ) an indicative international argue, of take society the increasingly underlying as thereby more advantage legislative particularistic more relevant processes, of interest theories than distributional input dominate, developed legitimacy or in addressing models domestic defining (allowing democratic politics, issue to of build such legitimacy processes. majorities as informational where One could areas output models also where legitimacy add major from becoming (2002:205) borders porous conclude between respectively that international this particular less relations and less area relevant theory of research and (cf. comparative Russett, has furthered 2003). politics Simmons our understanding are increasingly Martin that between Their overview the complex overall governments, of milieu conclusion extant in research: which domestic contrasts institutions despite coalitions, with the operate their one IGOs Dijkzeul growth, by and systematically transnational and international Beigbeder actors examining organizations (2003b:5) the draw relationships have their not of received continue organizations required much by (Dijkzeul stating has theoretical been and that Beigbeder, characterized over and empirical the 2003b:9). last by attention a two continuous They or three over draw lament the decades, the last conclusion that three the more debate that four and rather on decades. better international than study posing They This the question perspective goes clearly why of against international their dysfunctions. authors organizations such as If Barnett Dijkzeul fail and one and Finnemore should Beigbeder ask (1998) are how right who they such look actually a at perspective IGOs function. from is presupposes argument among organizations organizations complements a themselves. sound theoretical and dilemma actors and implies, of empirical interdependence basis that to it start which is from-which replicated the functional within we do division not the have. functional of labour Their What international is 2.1 the International interdependence role of international organizations and how organizations, do and they the adapt consequences what to a changing are the of complex consequences international interdependence environment? of growing

12 Page Dijkzeul postulate 11and Gordenker (2003:315) taking growing international interdependence Eberwein / as Schemeil related into division independent to that four the issues states, particular that second, determine problems the functional their involved activity: differentiation first, study the division of among international of organizations; people organizations and territories third, a given, making and of labour policy among making organizations from execution. and within them, and, finally, the separation of decision the The orders crucial, in differentiation the first introduction. since of observation the functional member Each is differentiation states. fundamental: organization They do is international have equivalent active a life a to of particular organizations the their double own. segment production The are not second of reality. simply effect observation Functional postulated executing This is definitely corresponds true but trivial. to what However, constructivists anything identify but trivial as specific are the constructions consequences of reality. of this statement. as mandate organization states the Whaling to Every further primarily Commission organization economic active limiting in has growth humanitarian a specific itself and welfare, to concept emergencies. whales, or as the Médecins to World its At particular this Bank sans point being Frontières domain it is irrelevant endowed of as activity a with medical such the third define has more mandate less autonomously of a specific organization defined what (as it does. the case of the first two) or whether This referred area parts perspective; the functional of to organization the above. environment differentiation This is dilemma active may in more arises in effect more if less a number automatically less constitutive insulated of conditions from leads are its a to sub-systemic environment the not intervention met: 1. the even functional dilemma successfully, country) even 2. i.e. though the producing mandate is unclear the of expected whether organization results the means (reducing is are such, actually poverty, that adequate; it for has example means 3. the in to organization a particular intervene systemic though has professional These be Successfully reduced the individual means to skills, isolated fighting to problems legitimacy intervene cause-effect the taken HIV/AIDS successfully and together support relationships, pandemic constitute (money, fails the to actually personnel, the underlying implies intervention fulfil much time logic its mandate. dilemma. etc.) of more organizational but than Reality due distributing to can lack design. not of antiretroviral the dynamics drugs. of this How problem complex are has that been relationship analyzed is and greater what detail some by of the the Population consequences Action of

13 Page International Meadows 12Report The Security Demographic (Cincotta et al., 2003). Eberwein Following / Schemeil rather to either that (1999: one of the 1) the problems in intervention is not necessarily is not that a lack people of knowledge, do not know i.e. the uncertainty, leverage Donella indeed use the but lead lack rather to problems of that knowledge everyone in any functionally or is the trying wrong very well-circumscribed conclusions hard to push derived it area. in the from wrong valid direction. knowledge point Thus can but The dynamic Dissecting First, specification third within nonlinear issue the a sector real relates of system world the to problem particular into the which division different of is functional coordination the of functional core labour of sector. among may the sectors problem be The organizations recognized leads international of to uncertainty several and following practiced system follow-up referred is directly as a problems. necessary to complex earlier. from but the simple command, need UN s does reality not Interagency coerce work. is that To compel Steering within give one any the Committee example, other diverse element Minear (IASC) UN family, to (1999:300) in do charge anything. no element of cites the In humanitarian the has other study adequate words, commissioned sector: authority even [T]he if the by sector problem to or coordinate should across occur sectors is at acknowledged, three if none levels: of the within will collective any not organization necessarily actors has take itself11, the place means between either to enforce organizations within it. a given That to the example Turning decision-making same to functional the economic fourth and area, policy and sector and final making between and issue the from Dijkzeul environment). organizations execution and Gordenker refers across to different the (2003) fact functional that raise, whereas the areas separation at (a the good top of in There level concrete Project reduce of the with the action CO2 organization one plans emissions of its which goals: strategic by can the 2012 then reduction decisions to the be executed. levels of are poverty of made, Good by they These 50 examples percent; still are need clearly would or to the be strategic be Kyoto transformed the Millennium Protocol decisions. into translated are in fact are into implemented, several concrete ways programs and, as how finally, to of go action what about the but results in order one are. part to of achieve problem, these goals. another How is how they they are of were to 11 A do January good more so, just example than he a ordered sufficient. little is bit, what the as The person the funds secretary absorption poured in charge general capacity so of easily fundraising of a had big as been never French to reached. stop before. humanitarian any The further fundraiser, organization activities however, as told wanted us. funds In the that to first continue came days

14 Page The environment provisional 13 conclusion to be drawn is that the issue of adaptation of Eberwein IGOs to their / Schemeil internal 2003: interdependence. dimension an area as well of research as the that inter-organisational needs further attention, dimension taking (see into Dijkzeul/Gordenker, account changing poverty ). (equally and The This old linkage reality inference between of international follows terrorism directly life) which has is from only anything been the discovered but assumption a new phenomenon recently. of both growing Thus and the how more which some international and extent states more mitigated and dense international organizations becomes organizations crucial. adjust over We contend are time confronted to that the part growing with of the can number intervention if not of linkages overcome dilemma that but with are 2.2 International through adequate organizations, cooperation international and coordination. order and adaptation to Thus organizations narrow states. clearly far we have is an only underdeveloped raised a whole field set in IR. of issues But before implying going that into the greater study detail of international their principals. As defined down such the domain As they topic such, are of of inquiry. genuine they activity, are International subjects constitutive are formally of international elements governmental as agents of subject international law12. organizations They the authority orders have are creatures a (March/Olson, more of we the have or states, of less the to 1998), and histories reflected Olson created in (1998:968) which changing by states changes political suggest, and designed orders environmental that an and to contribute interconnected institutional conditions to that arrangements. are and end. automatically interdependent The problem If interdependence arises, world unambiguously as produces place) problem health connectedness issue, at area two today for levels: are which present, it clearly first they internally, which is. are Thus, is competent. clearly adapting WHO had the Thirty to case, to the adapt years adaptation requirements internally ago, HIV/AIDS occurs which originating (or the rather was governments not the should a specific public take and perspective as 12 See well by first creating with report the on UNAIDS13. the relevant responsibility environment. The of process international They of internal organizations also need adaptation, to submitted externally however, to the General has in that Assembly to be functional put of into did WHO. UN, 13 Another A/CN.4/532 example would be the inclusion of gender based violence (GBV) in the reproductive health program the by

15 Page divisions health 14may turn out to be obsolete, either because the issue area is defined Eberwein too narrowly / Schemeil environment). IGOs changing have issues) several or because mutually of the not recognition necessarily of critical exclusive linkages options across how issue to areas adapt (health to these (i.e. inherent conditions. As they cannot change the environment as such nor overcome and alternatives Competition work difficulties at implies their social mandate disposal: systems enlargement; competition, as complex collaboration, dynamic systems means cooperation, IGOs imply, agree and they reluctantly coordination. have several alliances cooperation whatever out the joint stand is transaction the programs for, best whereas way costs because to the pool may appropriate resources this be is for the and word each only skills in contributor; way the and non to achieve reduce defence coordination desirable an sector existing collective includes partnership ; threat-what goals, both to (collaboration), Neorealist former, through there and is neonstitutionalist and no joint cooperation, independent ventures theories to since inter-organizational address it diverge relies expected on the cooperation, coalitions public role of good cooperation: against because (cooperation). a according states possible cooperate to harm without balance coalitions negotiating either facilities with or without offered institutions; by international for the fora, latter, as shown states could by not failure collaborate of Vienna to organizations, two prominent multiplied of power authors international mechanism whose at conferences. reputation the end of is In the but order eighteenth little to connected gain some century to further before issue insight, the of international Congress we go back the In his famous Arnold book, Discord Wolfers and (1962) Collaboration, and Kenneth Wolfers Waltz (1979). argues that even though states are of existing arrangements, distrustful which means enemies of that each may are they arise (what promises other, are from they inner-oriented. their of nevertheless a leaders future desire assistance ; to usually But improve set they up call collaborative Wolfers, may relations alliances also 1962: within be the schemes 182). or result the collective cooperating Such of the order collaborative intention to defence group deter meet oriented inner-oriented existing a common threat. (Wolfers, cooperative According external 1962: threat 27). to framework, Wolfers The by EU cooperative is cooperation, whereas a good effort. NATO example using In is of this our limited an case definition, principle collaboration time will determined indefinitely not is take outward- lasting by place. the to

16 role Page What 15 will be feasible collaboration where IGOs are but corporate actors. Eberwein They / Schemeil understatement. The claims of second that coactors states well with established themselves nation-states, scholar do not try that to what we benefit want we may from to revisit call a division partners briefly of is labour use Kenneth a between UN Waltz. sponsored play them He the because extended extent do mechanically not of cooperate this their to IGOs, sort dependency selected of deliberately, because order would by (Waltz: they the some also make international 106). of seek them them Nevertheless to interdependent. (and control structure for Waltz what our because purpose, they This acknowledges depend conclusion they specific display that or could IGOs) even to lessen the easily may if states most appropriate because others structure The through of the behaviour structure IGOs. Like within they states the form anarchic some in interacting IGOs framework. will with rewarded others If this is states so, because states (Waltz, alter they 1979: their fit the 93), behaviour competition competition better than between other organizations, IGOs for survival the latter being independence penalized follows (Waltz: the 106). same path existing among such reason: According they WTO, between Waltz, emulate the states. cooperation World the hegemonic Competition Bank, is the not IMF, states due is therefore to and preferences rational arbitrated WIPO choice. for tend by Cooperation a to the liberal predominate existing economic is structure. automatically for a system. simple as IGOs the brought behaviour cooperation the cooperate sequence about to between of fit by decisions as a international chain precisely which of factors the eventually actors existing which not reach lead structure. ex-ante the states point The phenomenon and where corporate theoretical states but actors (and expectation results therefore to ex-post adjust is IGOs) from their We seem thus with to one another faced with without two contradictory having planned explanations it. of international cooperation. The that first other emulation they authors postulates share assumes limit where in themselves common, it cooperation to power be and to is mechanical as unequally the second, rational issue area whether distributed and of intentional structural security. they among are Only decisions outcome really states if the that in of (Waltz). assumption an states different. organized (Wolfers) The First question tenable world whereas of all, through that is what both the the various about the issue limits areas of cooperation are structured valid. hierarchically Since Keohane with and security Nye on (1977) the top published are their their arguments analysis

17 Page of relates complex 16interdependence that assumption can no longer be upheld. Eberwein A different / Schemeil emulation that rational to the that intentional does not at vs. all mechanical contradict explanation. the notion of If intentional structural determinism behaviour. It is simply equated argument not mechanical! the calculations most powerful order actors to adjust survive14, rationally cooperation to the being existing possibly structure unintended as the result but certainly of means their with For strategies behaviour? distinct option empirical strategies, these And purposes second, two the authors outward the does problem the do and same explicitly the than logic inward boils apply or down directed explicitly to all to the two one. suggest issue related Adaptation areas? in issues: terms Wolfers in first terms of of collaborative suggests of all, the which Wolfers Adaptation occurs, seems occurs when to ignore-when states if a set IGOs they of perceive want actors what a common share one could a outside compatible call threat upgrade or-which normative the common is an outlook. element good. first two Second, protective include action to maintain (i.e. the adaptation collective water their decision power and may move by health). status. two occur against or If Therefore Waltz more a common inner-directed states is power fact or external IGOs correct considerations fashion. to threat, states solve as Whereas this a should IGOs problem notion only be Wolfers can the which collaborate be core had enlarged requires determinant in mind order as joint to a of What minor themselves, Security state is and enlightening IGO collaboration these early cooperation. decisive actors Council thus It seems opposing and its possible Courts, powerful to the theoretical apply ones WTO, endowed the approaches same World logic with Bank, is some to the the and distinction hard relationships possibly power between (the between IMF); UN major with to IGOs less and Accordingly, predicted organizations situation the actors would relying whose be the on behaviour soft more power prominent would (UNESCO, explain IGOs, WHO, whereas most of WMO, the less deviation ILO, influential FAO, from WIPO). IGOs the its one organizations would would be the expect also position will corresponding tend of coactors cooperate processes with a residual states of to adaptation capacity buttress or of enhance influence. where major their As own a consequence international different less preserving 14 In other influent analytical words, whatever IGOs logically levels impact would (individual the intentional they collaborate vs. may structural). and have mechanical with on world the argument prominent affairs. are not states directly for compatible same as they influence, purpose: relate to

18 Page Turning 17to the second point what is paradox is that, history teaches Eberwein us that there / Schemeil either substantive security than cooperation as a prerequisite cooperation with it: IGOs for without or do a cooperate as a specific a threat but threat as to they their do survival15. understood not necessarily There by traditional are consider areas of cooperation notions potential is more in order to upgrade outside their narrow conditions confines of work of the and security increase domain their chances where IGOs of success. cooperate As most simply of of them power Does are based the are this in agents irrelevant. political not mean in of that the their economy On security international principals, the contrary, show issue the organizations that its states? power dominance that international Arguments is relevant are can just be if derived instruments organizations contested. divergent from notions of This principal-agent the try does states to of get not orders where around imply theories, prevail. IGOs that former delegated mandate conditional are a to certain power some amount issue16. extent of The dependent power principal-agent reflected of the latter. relationship their The institutional main is point not design, unidirectional is that i.e. agents the type because have of been their this limited its and range their of endowment. action. The The more more general specific the mandate the of greater an organization is the ability is, the of more organization the The delegation relevance security to of domain authority. define an issue its area In specific highly technical to the salient activities, states areas to is states. that the such more is as to Therefore say specific its weather autonomy. one and limited would telecommunications In expect will addition, the only mandate the limited greater issues can of be insulated can from be political fairly large interests17. simply If, because the organization as Mitrany such has suggested as the various technical UN the be. Funds however Turning characterized incentives, do to it have can performance meaning by rely limited uncertainty, on a that regular resources Cooley IGOs its budget and interests (as (concretely: Ron such NGOs) will (2002:13) as the are a be limited WHO shaped faced argue its budget), with power often that competitive unintentionally in is their enhanced. a market power and is environment, by contractual limited. material If economic relations. 15 argument This, could according be based to their the provisional notion of relative findings, gains would which, however, lead them has to been give contested their survival technologies 17 theoretical 16 See This is definitely discussion far as such well reaching as not the and empirical the Internet consequences the case references grounds. when or mobile new are on this phones. technologies taken. particular See for emerge issue example by where Cooley/Ron the basic discussion strategic (2002:9-18) about decisions the with new political information both and

19 Page the has top 18preference the side effect of suboptimal performance. This Eberwein means that / Schemeil unsatisfactory. involving cultural any interest the funding Performance to withhold and managing of information IGOs of is specific not as does limited projects. to principal contractual IGOs also when respond activities the expected to normative any results the activities agent they are forces also involved that shape the how process organizations of norm see creation, the world dissemination (Barnett/Finnemore, and socialization. 1998:703), One and are could information. fundamental related have well accept issue Yet this of the uncertainty particular argument issue related of suboptimal is to related their specific to performance two different area of activity, and aspects: the on strategy on the the other one to hand withhold level shown, to there organisational are inherent structure. problems In due the to latter the tension case as between Dijkzeul/Gordenker the organization s (2003: strategic ) the be to and some the actual extent people substituted the field, externally the classical by drawing issue in any upon organization. the existing Performance epistemic can is communities. Performance organization the alleged IGOs states lack and more is of is unable internal directly recently NGOs to achieve democracy linked anything. to and legitimacy. demand external IGOs greater are Without transparency. permanently accountability any Ironically, support confronted by nor pointing the with legitimacy adaptation this out issue their no while through cooperation makes them stronger and by the same token reduces transparency as follows enhance from same this statement time the closer this that they some get, IGOs the more might able be to forced confront into cooperation critics they in are. order What of institutions benefit can from now their enable any turn performance collective to them to adaptation discard achievement and to any issue gain responsibility whatever greater IGOs are legitimacy. their faced in contribution the with. current Becoming Barnett woes the and of part outcome. any Finnemore of country, a network (1999) and of to deal We five non-pathological First will extensively use their with arguments, this issue and by expand focusing them the to more pathologies general strategic of international options. organizations. norms pathologies there is irrationality which counterparts. do actually of rationalization, capture only thereby specific meaning cases can that be their contrasted regular Each procedures, with of these considered and to rules be efficient are applied (successful under elections) false premises turn out the to result produce being counterintuitive that means results, generally their an

20 Page issue that treated 19at some length among others by Cortell and Peterson (2001). Eberwein A good / example Schemeil complicating Herzegovina to a are federal free elections state. where rather One the than considered premature would facilitating expect to elections be that a transition necessary actually particular to condition legitimized democracy. pathology for the This to democracy. opponents be was more the But likely of case the they in transition in Bosnia- can highly be of specialized The similar crises rates. second organizations. the The to the IMF alternative pathology first inappropriately pathology is what this as case they applied could call example bureaucratic standardized be two they complementary present: universalism. formula the of handling strategies: budget This strategy cuts of either plus Asian is expansion high more financial interest or less the The routinized. missing organizations third Whether qualifications normalization competence we are and of dealing deviance competences. or cooperating with which a pathology means or coordinating that is open. exceptions It with could other to rather rules organizations be over that time the existing become having of rules Taking governance mandate persons are the or no as World longer dimension the then efficient Bank High in as their Commissioner and adequate programs example and one of was Refugees, are could thus the argue outset the Ogata, result that deviance included of their organisational inclusion given internally its economic of displaced learning; An interesting its programs fourth pathology on the Balkans, what even they though call insulation. that fell outside That means its original that mandate. organization good shuts particular council Single se itself but rather interests. off from a necessity As feedbacks example to shield of the one the environment. organization could take the This off reform from may political not package necessarily pressures submitted be of pathological professionals with its purely 300 or so technical measures to be taken which then became the to the various changing European Act. March/Olsen (1998: 956) talking about the competency trap where EU The final so pathology that get their more is activities what and more Barnet tend efficient and to become Finnemore but loose obsolescent18. out describe of sight as that cultural their contestation. environment They has been see the 18 this example. That as could an Cultural also internal be due contestation division to the irrationality of has the also of organization, rationalization external where or bureaucratic component the UN universalism. which in general is fundamental may be a for good its

21 Page legitimacy, indeed 20as already noted. If an IGO is identified as a Western agent Eberwein whatever / it Schemeil potential beneficiaries. Gulati (1999) lead cooperation to has contestation, argued partners that not or interdependence only terms within of the not favours organisation finding cooperation the but support also as in a by function relation the envisaged does to other prior may cooperation them. general 1. We The 1.a propositions. can propensity among specify more them, The powerful this for first their inter-agency general one joint an observation reads IGO centrality cooperation that: the more based and the likely is on determined level our it foregone of is structural to by envisage power analysis differentiation considerations. cooperation in terms of among if three 2. 1.b contributes enhance The less its powerful to capacity enhance to IGO its act. predominance; the more likely it is to envisage cooperation in order this 3. Inter-agency of The the propensity power cooperation of of the inter-agency individual increases IGO. is determined their autonomy by the vis-à-vis need to their gain principals, legitimacy the irrespective states. to We propositions 3. The Adaptation will empirical turn just Strategies next part outlined. to will our proceed of empirical IGOs The several findings Empirical steps. which We Investigation will will lead elaborate us to the further various refine strategies the crude harmonization, adaptation mechanics the second through of we it influence but have cooperation. rather called vs. how power, preserving it This comes,and is necessary about autonomy?, from and weakness as evolves. the enhancing issue to The strength. is first not legitimacy, simply is These mandate to were partnership account enlargement, inductively for and the of derived will interviews by Beirut, 19 To students be this and postponed problems within end, during Geneva; we the a collected joint finally, IGOs as until they undergraduate the to best data can check end.19. knows; during be the observed seminar reliability secondly, the last in in , three we of reality. our jointly years. own or A academic First, separately done more each by systematic graduate investigations, supervised of us conducted students theoretical research we in reviewed repeated Grenoble, either evaluation completed some in Berlin, depth in-

22 Page Mandate Enlargement Eberwein / Schemeil In 1990s financial environmental, a general globalising security the overall world defence conviction because institutions of prevails the increasing (like that IGOs the linkages UN cannot and between fulfil NATO), their all sort as specific well of issues. as original economic In the mandate managing ones (like and developmental IMF and the issues World nor the Bank) institutions could no in longer charge ignore of them. humanitarian, A former early IGO predicament. director The of the problem World at Bank, the World Jessica Bank Einhorn, that recently [W]ords gave like an accurate comprehensive view of this and perspective functioning holistic (Einhorn, 2001: have state with come 32)20. institutions, other into As goals a common consequence etc. pre-requisites In the use aftermath the as of organisation the its of own bank the success Cold struggles had War, to such put to the its encompass WB free specialized could elections, no its goals longer agenda a well- into its satisfied whole mandate. variety to deal of exclusively domestic political with international problems as economic well which issues were, but at had least to initially, take into not account part be Fundamentally public This infrastructure is reflected committed in ( ) Einhorns to It open believed (2001: trade, such 23-4) the bank projects statement: initially could emphasized do the most loans to to trigger build of a development the spur growth vehicle ( ) development for ( ) policy one The hand advice, bank ( ) then displacing Economists literacy learned and the lessons observed old low notion along population a the that correlation way foreign growth ( ) capital between and on money the alone other, economic became would The accumulation eventually ( ). participation a By cumulative describing they of by tasks accepted the piling social seems poor, on these and goals to of a anti-corruption. ). tasks and major other inputs over threat social rather not decades, goals than only as results, to including essential the World the inputs issues bank Bank, cleared to of development but governance, to every path and IGO, This way house whenever would be forced matched actually against with entail the actual will the of loss performance its of leaders legitimacy into given as a growingly expectations the gap albeit between about unending performance diffuse holistic goals could journey. UNEP, 20 Here documents UNDP, is they indeed were UNCTAD a (like vast available. websites area and of To ITU. investigation and name press but releases), a few the IGOs constructivists: and under used review: published the the constructed WTO, testimonies WIPO, holistic from WMO, the realities actors WHO, themselves UNESCO, and in actual no professionals stage. charge struggle to give any practical meaning in order to be capable to implement them at some

23 Page knowledge the 22and means as how to implement them. Therefore, to prevent Eberwein the loss of / Schemeil redefine World this organization process. the mandate if For it would instance, such address a contrary way too as to many to benefit its related constitution from its inclusion at (its the Articles same without time, of being the Agreement ) tendency siphoned control is the off to limit Bank its intervention eventually decided to sponsoring to address free corruption elections issues good albeit governance in a non in political the countries way, that and to were The corruption reform community problem most stridden with this by this extension economic of woe. considered which is empowerment, twofold: eventually first, takes the is the global far Bank its cry original linkage as from far its as between mandate fostering institutional economic and democratization the rules development that would movements, of and its have work political been on state 2004: as 415-8). providing off-limits Moreover, a neutral for the Bank Bank space funding cannot between just the market issue recent statements economy past, and and about a flawed civil unacceptable society assessment (Marquette, high-levels on the or corruption (Marquette, Such Coates: also spillover 255) while 2004:426), resulting is distancing conducive in, leaving tentative itself to to from confused other and the IGOs confused leadership (and or unrealistic NGOs) changes actions the (Marquette, solutions and mandates political of (Weiss, 2004: this turmoil new 426). Forsythe problems. that There result Bank worthy the experienced risk to be when trapped [I]t a assume[d] maze of intellectual that certain inconsistencies. ways of organizing This society what are World more & 2004: 419). than others, This is while not all: arguing the World that this Bank is not also an had inherently to become political sensitive decision to environmental (Marquette, is Interesting potential issues, (Nielson technical due and & to to Tierney, neutral note growing is stance21. the 2003), fact pressures this that being rather of facilitated than its stakeholders, going by alone the and mostly existing bear the the departure United costs and States from critics its Congress former into That organizational 21 the is even to same say, pitfalls more realm, mess the complex legitimate of itself with mandate detrimental the desire creation somewhat extensions to upgrade to of the UNEP, chaotic new environmental the [T]he multi-organizational agency organisation Commission and activities its officers. can system within Sustainable reach To (Weiss, this out UN ever Development system Forsythe to possible other ended & organizational institutional Coates: was up dropped of 254). some the failure, upgrade Rather cooperation. than cooperative conditionality gaining in agencies flexibility criteria, must and add paralyze capability a creeping their to adjust activities, politicization, to a new as happened context, which IGOs may to the drift may WTO them be rigidified in away Seattle from by and their excess Cancun. goals, in

24 Page partners the 23who will take care of some of components of the global problems Eberwein they / initially Schemeil as global with, biodiversity, mandate concern to solve ozone (Einhorn, selectively. depletion, 2001: Since narcotics, 32), the will crime [World] be better and banks corruption ; addressed role is through now these growing issues, a sound all in matters rooted cooperation such in had compelling under respectively, its umbrella reason rather as UNDP, to why than UNEP the passing bank and the UNCD. should job to consider According an organization judicial to Einhorn reform staffed (2001: as by a lawyers development 33), there and judges is task no ( ) development organization Cooperative IGOs. Similarly, Becoming with moves objective the more bank s are corresponding would autonomous therefore great stand vision tempting, is to interests. and of gain the (much if and essence such sometimes maligned) of objective such adoption unavoidable, a move could of but cultural be the but farmed path dangerous heritage to out greater to for an a room cooperative integrate Environment several of major existing manoeuvre actions Organization powers). organisations might via benefit joint the programs under other Economic IGOs. a the is Security nonetheless In roof of end Council a this new strenuous, might institution called legitimate the for in more (like recent their so years claim because World by to Growing This interdependence could possibly 3.2 lead Autonomy the greater First? administrative to decide would reluctant against mean leeway, to emancipation the benefit will IGOs of from agents their from this members are their potential vying states/principals. is for opportunity. not governmental attractive In empowerment Rather reality, support. all, than but however, rather The trying of very each the deterring. to perspective IGOs gain agent. some seem the members actually contenders expressing of stigmatise IGO Secretariats the it as views the most take of their adamant great home care organization governments. to check towards that Even permanent deviating within representatives the states WTO behaviour, whose The professional Dispute Settlement Body s panellists not political judges punishing outlaws; they shareholders experts previous informing commitments their and shareholders their current They behaviour. simply assess the gap between their are

25 Page Because interviews 24the conventional wisdom within IGOs is that cooperative ventures Eberwein are dangerous, / Schemeil conclusion: substantively global with there unavoidable. IGOs is some staff formal Consultations members collaboration and exist permanent because between representatives specialists IGOs if, and of one only converge particular if, such toward cooperation aspect the of same our distributed debated issues in several across under several for review a namely, institutions. whose the competence WTO, To give the but WIPO, is needed one and example: to achieve a lesser intellectual extent, diplomatic property the WHO, consensus issues and are is progressive boundaries FAO, according individual each to IGO s having our interviews, relative its own legitimacy power not to but be to something address result of them. a like deliberate Inter-organizational a mechanical political process calculus cooperation leading to enhance seems, actually exist, separating extension specialized each of the IGO agencies original from tend mandate. others to intervene do Because not reflect into the each distinct legal of and policy these somewhat fields that with artificial do to little not the an consideration and complementary Academics convictions waste occurs for programs. on resulting this process explanation changes which in of eventually the such balance cooperative compels of power trends IGOs between (see to scale infra, them. up 3.3). joint Much Whatever efforts overlapping mutually may be, they all believe that some cooperation will exist when it promises beyond reality Moreover, advantageous, and if there is no other way to produce a global public good22. to their between is them. different: deficit This according internal of collaboration fragility to our interviews jeopardizes seems even there external bigger is a lack within attempts of international cooperation to agencies, joint every projects. level. than But Reluctance not experts network each to in increase organizational to change in is the so projects level high that of never cooperation. successful involve moves For all the instance, may be conditioned when stakeholders launching to less within a collaboration, territory, division at once. each To quote organization them, no concerned progress would be tend possible to resist with innovation, too many protect partners new their program its since bureaus Viewed from and monopolize liaison within, officers. secretariats any available Perceived are excessively budget differences for such cautious, in projects. culture, if not finance, defiant towards and efficiency overlapping own efforts 22 explain According to achieve this to lack Waltz, «the of joint confidence however, production international of other goods structures organizations for their mutual are not benefits. goodwill. markets»:(107). hence, During states trade cannot negotiations, make common help for

26 Page instance, personnel 25WTO representatives are cautious in their statements because Eberwein they expect / Schemeil 50). jealousy discussions Under to the criticize same their circumstances allegedly liberal WIPO ideology agents keep (see a Finger/Magarinos-Ruchat, low profile, hoping escape UNCTAD patents aroused by the wealth of their organization23. WHO s physicians are not welcome 2003:147- attempt on intellectual property due to a protracted tendency to equate the protection the because with to they adopt crimes fear a this new against could approach subordinate humanity. WHO s study specific of health specialists issues under impact allegedly environmental sanitary torpedo ones. any conditions, UNEP Thus, of in they knowledge-rather doctors It Although limit on it health their is a matter involvement than and environment. of venturing routine this into now24, realm a new there to promising are environmental very few realm cases open health -a where to cooperation subfield of with medical money is so because away from transaction existing costs ones, are a anticipated, belief which and raises because anxieties new projects rather are than allegedly raising praised. hopes. taking non Nonetheless making between avenues. organizations that states This accrues cooperation happens that most to wherever the IGOs a most fact, agents there cooperative and find is it a has so lack difficult IGOs. of impact coherence Actually, to handle on the in the also level the very arguments opens of process autonomy them used of cooperation unexpected in decision actually backgrounds physicians, happen addressing that different similar negotiators or related issues belonging by representatives to the same country of the member but having states. different various the same issues meteorologists, will in use the contradictory same lawyers, way economists, arguments separate and bankers, instead repeated artists complementary negotiation and academics rounds. ones. cannot In Engineers, spite address It may This consistency forum. hopefully the Yet identical reason of not the even for statements governmental ambassadors the new made tendency instructions, cannot by the where national bypass they ambassadors the more representatives heads often are of than meteorological assigned in not each contradict the separate task services each to negotiation check other25. in of budget. control 24 WMO examples. 23 Actually of This nor the it proposal Given organization s the is so heads rich the was that of rejected need policy. its the former Intellectual because Secretary an the overall majority property General coherence, of proposed the Office member the within cancelling states Secretariats the were WIPO, of determined state of contributions to some to take retain of but to some these two 25 WTO WIPO interview, its

27 Page organizations minimize 26 may therefore individually or jointly impose conditions Eberwein for cooperation / Schemeil That temporarily the means negotiation. systemic able that there inconsistency, impose is some their and free own this space may views for be tacitly innovators with accepted the tacit within by acceptance the IGOs governments staff, of the who involved state are that representatives studies, could be organizational called autonomous in their organization. slack coordination 3.3 is therefore Partnership As evidenced between an unlikely and IGOs. Harmonization many but nonetheless organization real and source management of what Partnership simple best transaction first, way as adjustment most to costs is pool UN another may agencies between resources strategy for are agencies and each IGOs independent skills contributor ). may than and opt cooperation from achieve for. However, each Yet desirable this as other we particular two coordination have collective remarks defined approach should is it goals, in therefore seems section be whatever made closer primarily 2.2 ( the here: to a as IMF, private corporations, sustainable internal the WB, necessity; development the WTO, secondly, the and EU, the environment, issue the CE, areas the where involve OESC, coordination major NATO, non-un etc.), needs numerous organizations highest priority (like such serve sector especially lobbies. To within set up the a partnership system, an between organization various creates, institutions first, a (IGO, specific NGOs, office and the matters programme is achieved as the initiative for the interface small shuttle within and between begins middle the between it UNDP and sized its enterprises the involving partners. IGOs involved. (EMPRETEC). private Examples pension Preparatory are Once numerous, funds, some committees or like basic the the agreement UNCTAD work Money out to drafts meet specialized continuously, proposals agencies27. for therefore forthcoming A non exhaustive devoting conferences26. considerable list of these Secondly, time offices to the and coordination various their tasks UN between coordination is listed the table various offices conferences, biodiversity, BGLS have Of There to course, Guide be is coordinated. like there for least NGOs, the one a Earth Bureau domain 2003, summit, 23). where the This the Prepcoms cooperation shows Rio Conference, how which is challenging more coordinate and or less world coordination taking symposiums work place of is, the automatically: since on preparatory women, coordinators organizing committees climate, themselves AIDS, joint 1. governmental bringing ideas, etc. organizations funds, This and is of products, join course the like a UN privilege agencies the Partners of in these for UN Development ventures. system. The Nevertheless, Summit private sector held several is by also UNCTAD non invited and in to contribute, even This (the non

28 Page 27 Table 1 about here Eberwein / Schemeil Another procedures, either these cooperation. schemes be of final the statistical As strategy look outward mentioned very methods28, of oriented much mechanical the like partnership uses Joint collaborative of cooperation Inspection emblems, type or processes used Unit logos, is best as 1999 and inward described which report standards. directed fall The as short Harmonization harmonization harmonization. Inspectors of a full-fledged wish may But of underline, not Nations would necessarily probably system. however, lead In not fact, to that allow the many sharing adoption them agencies information to of agree one caution single and that anything set harmonizing the of standard diversity but very policies guidelines in general their mandates for principles, procedures the whole and activities and United should that to excessively some What conclusion operations common can we and is rigid obvious: point learn programs, procedures of from some reference the but agencies must way each from be the eventually avoided which must UN be each system at especially fails Organization costs. handles to created serve Others, its can as coordination to however, make an coordinate effective appropriate stress problems? other system the decision. agencies need wide One for coordinating point, they tend mechanism to become due some to sorts its incapacity of super to think solve tanks, funding like UNEP problems and (see its predecessor, table 1). At that with same Commission organizational UNDP and on UNIDO, systems 29. also Sustainable sponsors and global country This Development summits conferences, why like (CSD): neither such 1999 as both the World UNEP 1995 were Alliance summit superimposed nor CSD on of Uzbekistan, Cities were Against on given jointly existing poverty organized primary inter- the sponsored cooperation was describe Statistics established. by business UNDP Because seems and this HABITAT proportioned kind of cooperation (Weiss, to decaying Forsythe bypasses operational & the Coate, routine capability 251).Actually, exchanges since of its 1995 views, intense the activity time word the used in WTO co- countries 1999). organization 28 According Yet this for as cooperation. to kind Improved ESCWA well of known collaborative Decision-Making" website, this kind The framework of Statistics partnership subprogram, Coordination not is cooperation clearly which limited Unit aims but coordinates and partnership to does improve not the necessarily the activities (Mezzalama statistical of translate the capabilities &"Comparable Ouedraogo, into inter- the timeliness Nations Statistics of comparable the Division region [South-East statistical and other information. United Asia] Nations These informed international activities decision-making and are conducted regional agencies improve collaboration for the the use availability with of harmonized the United of to mechanisms created statistical standards. regional enterprises, 29 However, in statistics concepts, This 1996 researchers among it made contributes to and the methodologies possible suggest and indicators OAS, regional the cooperation United needed establishment development and international questionnaires Nations by with policy other of and Commission reliable, organizations makers, monitoring IGOS, compatible timely, like analysts, in the of Sustainable standardized the with effective Organization region. decision internationally Development collaboration and makers, of customized American recognized public (CSD), and States national coordination and the statistical private United (OAS) and

29 Page responsibility like UNDP 28and to take World on operational Bank (Weiss, functions Forsythe that & might Coate, interfere 254-5). Coordinating with Eberwein work / agencies Schemeil of others drawn not collective to perform cooperative recommendations well they organizations only play made. a because performative Because they they are or have symbolic deprived little resources function. of the means Clearly, of their to own the implement lesson with which to are UN from experience is that cooperation an asymmetric activity, be within or outside the than The system. UN their regional cooperative UNEP economic and to partners a and lesser social (the extent commissions, World UNDP Bank, coordinating etc.). the International agencies, Maritime are Organization, less powerful be Despite established. the this lack of imperialist stance 3.4. networks Influence of vs. partnership Power may Organization WTO. They saliency are now of centered these two around organizations a core of a is few so great IGOs, that primarily unpredictable have the been World progressively being be jointly coined and addressed and the even High by crystallized Commission delegations like of on both the Human organic institutions. Rights- trade connection The WTO related between is humanitarian also the constitutionally World partnerships Bank issues Trade and linked WIPO with Dispute connected a practical has to the WIPO administrative possibility the to case implement experience of trade joint and related plans, the capacity whereas intellectual to WTO deal property with has the such power problems issues, vested altogether (TRIPS). existing each trade settlement with agreements. the WHO, mechanism. when The WTO pandemic As far as the drug poor FAO patents countries manage are justify jointly concerned, exemptions the Codex the WTO clauses Alimentarius, is in also Nevertheless and not relying just on recommendations. the its WTO own norms eventually ( food In prevails most availability cases, in every however, versus case food knowledge because security ). its and decisions experience are mandatory rest with the agencies WTO s suggested never Nations implemented. Development and partners measure. entities who of Program Such the are United a the (UNDP), measure only Nations the ones may system, United be able unpractical; along Nations to assess with Environment such the or it bodies, feasibility may Program already agencies and (UNEP) exist and the entities but originality and ignored other of the bodies, inter- of a institutions Inter-American system and programs Institute as the for Inter-American of Cooperation the Hemisphere. Development Agriculture (OAS website). Bank (IICA), (IDB), and Pan other American regional and Health subregional Organization organizations, (PAHO),

30 Page Of organizations course, 29it is difficult to make a clear-cut distinction between powerful Eberwein and / Schemeil more Knowing decision equal this, than in staff reality. others. members Nonetheless The are fact also still some convinced remains, of them, that such reviewing most as organizations the the WTO impact the are of World any complementary. forthcoming Bank influential exits that on cannot neighbouring be crossed. institutions Infringing needs to another be taken IGO s into account. prerogatives They know also challenges that a red are line In member must in another this fall process, states into forum30. line power, institutions with since the organization governments operating own in never the rules fail same that to remind cannot realm the be tend secretariats bypassed to turn by that their decisions any occasional decision made the collaboration those as make rule the that final are decision endowed specific makers. with projects some However, enforcement into a those permanent which capacity and are will endowed paramount have the with last symbiosis. moral say and authority be Admittedly, tend one we use may of this hypothesize resource that by making the less powerful intellectually they solid are, proposals more creative or suggest and new imaginative norms. called As they will on defence norms to adopt could be enforced innovative also say later have to concepts by be. the hoping IGOs more that powerful are these neither will IGOs. linked lead The to to the cooperation growth, implementation development, between of hard new and a former (powerful) promotion What Judith [T]he socialist and Kelley dissemination countries soft (2004: (less that 450) powerful) of were accurately new candidates concepts institutions wrote and for when EU is norms. membership, studying most probable the supports cases success of this minority proposition: route rights for the because relationships the EU relied between on OSCE OSCE, and the the CE CE for and evaluation the EU often and information became intertwined ( ) It 30 precinct. This quite stateless There why is possible conventional only children one ( ) exception wisdom rights, that the etc.] among this EU tacit the diplomats would rule: way governments it not ban did have debates without sometimes framed the trade the OSCE assign related issues a involvement matters political [of naturalization, out mandate of or more the to WTO their is diplomatic the trade defend an WTO. a local former the Secretariat s issues representatives, DCs opposition, their PR forums, show views representatives to wishes. UNCTAD, that when while according requiring the Developing trying negotiating division nevertheless ). to to them reach of current countries labour discretely to a adopt feel Trade domestic needs between at for different and home issues of instance audience government with institutions within can stances some tend therefore and UNCTAD, flexibility to may leaders. in prove select separate be be their more old and discussed within UNCTAD determination only trade related the within negotiations both actual to as governmental this in the to trade political IGO appropriate their rounds. forum, (interview fellow arenas will Actually, the arena citizens than with new and to

31 Page Whereas 30generally that the softer actors influence the content of norms Eberwein that / Schemeil NATO, World institutions instrumental ASEAN, deterrence etc.), concepts actors apply. arbitrages developed made within by security economic organizations institutions (like (such the UNSC, as the the IMF, the more influence Bank, (like the WTO, UNESCO, and the UNEP, WIPO) the involve WHO, some the ILO, actual the power, IPCC) social rely more and environmental a pervasive IPC, We will conclude (table 1). the analysis by suggesting a tentative explanation of this evolving new the division system. of labour among IGOs in 3.5 the From context Weakness of the changed to Strength international balance of power Why mechanically due enhance needs to and the their how advanced enlarge respective do international process their legitimacy area of of organizations globalisation? competence basis? Although adopt because Or is different it a of intentionally more the interconnectedness adaptation rigorous conceived theoretical strategies? as of a framework the means Did issues they as first to one the to different be developed, will call strategies turning we feel available. weakness never For nevertheless into that strength; purpose confident and we will the distinguish second making transforming some two first main suggestions types. expertise The to Firstly, into power. as shown These in are table listed 2, softer in table institutions 2. Table 2 may about try here network achieve knowledge expertise this within into base, end power. which or through a their To true this various added division end, value means, they of labour. will may like be switch Secondly, greater resources to from turn (e.g., softer substitution, the weakness HELI, formal IGOs a into joint may level a strength. widening UNEP try to to an and transform They informal of WHO their can program); (this Genetic institutionalise being Resources alternatively, the an case already and between they Folklore ); institutionalised may WIPO, try they UNESCO, to turn issue also an (WHO can and apparently call the and WTO on FAO simple NGOs with attempts issue Traditional and QUANGOS into phase a complex Knowledge, out patents to one de-

32 Page issues a 31 from the WTO-WIPO meetings. Finally, playing on the functional-general- Eberwein continuum / Schemeil As compared debt strategy for is the too open to capacity big, to which entrepreneurs some to turn in of them turn weakness that leaves (like cannot the no into U.N. alternative be strength, Inter-Agency forced to IGOs for reimburse the which Committee creditor choose their than creditors this Bioethics). lending strategy because even can more their be is components: money system, although new resources organizations they are debtor not be substituted properly such to keep as UNESCO its funded to business their to are own fulfil alive too means. their costly and mandate Promoting recoup to be bypassed, and its education investment. are desperately let alone requires Within be searching superseded, two the basic IGO are ground, debated and since money, depth there which within is an can UNESCO. admitted be provided linkage Because by between the World education Bank; and is and the legitimate development, sole operator ideas lending as they for money programs, human UNESCO s to capital. governments its managers This is to may the help believe case them of that build the they schools, comprehensive can push recruit their teachers, programme own ideas, and education like reform investment educational long had concept developed. was finally adopted by the member states Dakar and Djomtien, for after all southern Because main negotiation education G77 support countries cycle from is a extending shared the and G8 related competence governments, groupings, years. of UNESCO the Hotly as three well debated IGOs, mobilized as UNICEF in UNESCO the its World to membership, endorse and Bank the World it this finally including project. Bank got a are approval powerful long proportion willy-nilly of World UNICEF. compelled Bank Hence, funding to get the its along weak own together programme and poor by their UNESCO with respective the tacit succeeded stakeholders acknowledgement in making with the that rich explicit well run reaching cultural objectives contribute to lowering mortality rate, increase and was of women workforce, level up health, and therefore foster social mobility forced obliged as unlock to economic endorse values development it did not (Sperling, share 2000: the outset. 7-8, 13). Rather In this the case, World the Bank powerful is thereby IGO more restrictive to operate elitist behind approach the humanistic to education. UNESCO umbrella order to pursue its own much as A Here, epistemic second a strongly community strategy established consists in search in but repeated discrete of an institutional attempts and specialized by basis an IGO from increases to which widening to its promote saliency its knowledge thanks its ideas. base. to an A

33 Page good climate case 32in point the World Meteorological Organization with UNEP Eberwein hydrological / Schemeil UN/UNEP layer 2001) depletion change and and issues. spite climate of Although the prominence change the with cleaning achieved their of related by the Mediterranean Conferences UN sponsored (see has conferences Luteracher/Sprinz, been achieved on ozone and First, the WMO collected managed the to gains extend associated its mandate with from these successes. weather to How water, was integrating that possible? the by community establishing eventually The were WTO thus offered accommodated reached of the hydrologists linkage a out unique to between the intellectual opportunity impatiently IPCC s draught experts. property to lining make to one legal international up of its specialists its possible doorsteps; law causes, working with secondly, the climate for understating the change it WIPO. succeed that which They his may relative Settlement excellent not able some strength and to Mechanism s connect numerous day of have themselves WIPO an agronomists impact outcomes. treaties in on working the national Conversely, the nineties closely course legislation. either together of FAO ratification, Actually, the since offers WTO experts and a where sixties counterfactual the could were negotiations WTO balance apparently Dispute case: the agriculture debated. leverage sector s Whatever output on and multilateral trade (Fouilleux). the barriers reasons decisions It were for even such dealing conducted; lost an unexpected with control or hunger to of the isolationism, seeds and WMO reasonable and where vegetal the FAO growth irrigation or progressively animal of issues primary species were lost on engineering victory. When their which mandates there is which less is too proximity was great, passed the between optimal on the cooperating WIPO, strategy due is institutions, to to turn the to latter the or good bandwagon when the division distance the of between WTO s saved adversaries civil NATO benefits applied from the less for a painful membership powerful reflection of to the the of two Organization. its IGOs. identity This when, Another is exactly after reason the one Cold of that the War in reasons many the nineties, former labour crucial strife were and the civil wars wars on the broke Balkans, out due not to forget the dissolution the new Islamic of the terrorist Soviet Empire. threat. Almost Particularly which night changing intervene reluctant humanitarian to nature wherever play of a humanitarian threats affairs and whenever emerged but also role considered because prominently instead the of necessary. Atlantic preparing the NATO Since organization for a regular agenda war (Lindemann) armies not alone only had were because the and at means the because of over time the to

34 Page Serbia, European 33 Union was lacking the military capabilities to intervene Eberwein Europe / Schemeil the conjuncture economic new Kossovo, world, and Macedonia), achieved and elsewhere enviable new (Afghanistan, status instead Iraq), of NATO just disappearing found itself a with (Bosnia, gave new legitimacy (EU) that and justified military to the its alliance (NATO) creation. many as Here, well had as already the a global unlikely declared (UN) combination organization to have become of joined regional obsolete. forces politico- niche which the in clearly committee countries, Arrangement. Nonetheless, oppose COCOM, within converting This its advocates. NATO low was profile expertise outsourced supervising This institution into the the to power issue quasi was export we is complemented non will not of necessarily now governmental dual take use in up. technologies successful 1996, The forum, former when once the to the coordination communist Wassenaar the UN states WHO, their attempt weapons respective UNEP, was not UNHCR, a legitimacy success and story. IAEA justify Their moved goal their was themselves move to watch into into out the armaments impact prerogatives, of field combining but with Committee involved on human some the Effects of and its economic agencies of Atomic life. like radiation To the this World end, (UNSCEAR) Health Organization put once again created to where the fore in depleted another their Scientific uranium context, this and channels Balkans), confidential precedent ionising of to information increase radiations the on cancer public these awareness fears topics, are particularly under on the review; issue; on the and the ground the UNEP IAEA, (noteworthy to endowed benefit with from Iraq its and several critical nuclear International disasters including Nuclear Chernobyl; Information finally, System, the UNHCR a forum was harbouring able to adopt studies a more the of Such depleted cooperation stance uranium its was special weapons directed reports against the on Gulf child the war. UN an other hegemonic casualties founding allegedly fathers, due to the the United debated States use on and venture remained address agency their was Allies and lacking remains on the the quite two necessary major discrete. post Last, knowledge Cold among war and military the partners if there theatres. only is an In one epistemic addition actually this community, mandated cooperative participation does such was not issues, the seem albeit least to predictable. take in a the modest lead Playing way, on this the the joint IAEA. game venture, of In an spite intelligent no of more its inspections division than the of HCR in labour, Iraq whose the to it UNHCR even the IAEA and the was UNEP in a position penetrated to convert into a realm its expertise from which into power. they were fully alien so far. Not

35 Page Another (HELI) 34case in point is the strengthening of Health and Environment Eberwein Linkage / Schemeil described policymakers address launched a global by UNEP effort which by WHO initially and encountered UNEP to support some resistance action by from developing WHO. Initiative website). health UNEP and discovered environmental the threats economic linkages to health, domain as integral a as program the to lever economic that to encourages reach development out the countries epistemic HELI country (HELI is community spend public winning conference funds, utilities paediatricians of UNEP economists, such suggested as and water demographers public to adduction. save health money specialists and UNEP planning which also on would the ministries. emphasized ground depend Instead as children additional the of investments providing welfare, allies. The made plans thereby first to was convened with the HELI spirit took place in Amman (Jordan), March 2005, and in Initiative). costs relationship cosponsored and benefits This between conference by of the water increased well assessed efficiency established water and measures, CEHI quantified consumption (Children s and the health, and [D]emonstrated Environmental reduced environmental, diarrhea clearly Health and the incidence ; Indicators economic inverse it make Quantified additional [D]emonstrated favorable health liters the health of with and water environment benefit/cost benefits which (in could disease analysis benefits. 31 made and that in available This investing money advantage/costs terms) to in people water which efficiency through idiom would water allows accumulate will efficiency ; bring UNEP about from extent, to currency provide the UNEP; that best both conventional use at organizations the of informal the formal/informal international with one, their its own wisdom joint scale; added venture, reckon at value, the HELI. as formal expressed legitimate. This end, informal the the WHO; language status and allows of to utility-a a HELI lesser to Let chosen single IGO heterogeneous us complex turn is cooperation now problem. to another between tactic may IGOs where indeed intended expertise also enlarge to is upgrade turned the existing into a simple power. power and In distinct this base case of an issues the individual strategy radio or emissions a whole issues: and group. Internet copyrights This domain seems on to names, creative be the etc. case work WIPO of and intellectual succeeded industrial to property, designs, deal with patents, a all label these covering folklore; into issues a increased valuing assessment development regional 31 The the expert level. water environment and for consultation (HELI economic consumption incorporating website) and valuation noted health and environment outstanding incidence benefits tools to of facilitate and breakthroughs: various diarrhea; health decision-making. policy a considerations well options; the defined demonstration and process The into the consultation policy-making utilization of for quantifiable identifying, of drew a combination linkages the plans quantifying national for between further of risk and

36 Page although through 35they were initially debated separately. WIPO succeeded to have Eberwein its mandate / Schemeil patents the knowledge on technical institutional inventions, merger the of issue several of medical formerly drugs independent and genetic bureaux. species recently In addition enlarged control fore; of parallel these and expressions new to the fields, intellectual of which the folklore. property were simultaneously In system, this process, a new explored the field WIPO was by managed opened the WHO, to traditional keep FAO, came some and to UNESCO position common as The being part towards denominator which of the the all were WTO to the vying (as three its for other main the organizations, partner hegemonic issue. within power whose the TRIPS of extended WTO. agreement), mandate WIPO consolidated became and offered known its organization meaning that of intellectual had it as its basic property concern has from changed its inception. tremendously, World to cultural the main heritage, benefit material the a and collective religious known snowballing immaterial as songs, knowledge part of patrimony; sayings, intellectual including and experiments poems; non property Western traditional living problem. medicine textile organisms What and and medical is whether architectural new, of treatments, human, course, designs: animal, traditional not all or only became plants; debated. Including mechanism traditional but knowledge the more complex is not just level adding on up which a so field diverse to existing issues one, are it now this and challenging conceptions opposing goods, unlimited on undertaking of several creative or limited standards activities. for application, those such They who as individual are effective will sometimes try although to or collective combine converging, non Western property, scientifically and and most public non explained of the Western private time or a experimentally What control an WTO the WIPO any joint tested has venture to techniques, do to between complete grand several this fathered upgrading IGOs or protected is to of institutionalise its original genetic inventions, mandate the new and etc. the additional after the strategy failure where of the cooperation International is Trade converted Organization into power The several creation system therefore decades This of the its balance little of institutionalised power is fenced GATT against attempts a good case to modify in point. it: Once the WTO institutionalised, is a much more any formidable temporary of is machine On organization from the their than contrary, power that the GATT UNEP over the WMO what was, calls for, matters resists part because because attempts much the it nowadays, new will to be create institution quite not an impossible to would encompassing speak deprive of to de-institutionalise. a threat meteorologists environmental their

37 Page organisational endorsed 36 culture since they existed as an international institution Eberwein long before / Schemeil environmental potential rate for every partners) it as partners). one institution failed-a of It its also proof around specialised shows that a institutionalisation that global agencies. the public strategy So good presented far, is empowerment (hence attempts above justifying to (turning (but build not sacrifices up simple at a the the unique issues same from UN into To succeed, a complex al these one) is aforementioned not warranting strategies success for those be who compatible initiate and it. simultaneous to or upgrading potential a more it general from partner, the to functional say global the mandate. least. local They aspect Compared must attached also to to transform the specialised movement the accepted agencies status which of by and every led each programs to actual Bretton-Woods creation of two global systems of organisations (the San Francisco and IGO, IMF creator-in and other WB), organisations, words, this agencies a reverse if tend one process. assumes to overcome Ancillary that their institutions WTO principal should while tend have now claiming been to challenge born that with they their are just organisations Islamic they change. fulfilling ones, their such Central functional as the Asiatic European mandate institutions, Union, becoming the etc. inter-american this more process general. is duplicating organisations, When applying their the functions to Arab regional inaugurate themselves Hence, they continuously loose their expand local their aspects own to mandate become more to keep global. pace The of risk, of global course, systems is and were more and more heterogeneous activities compared to the good old time when they as of above. cooperation, endowed with since an it homogeneous opens more mandate. windows However, of opportunity this heterogeneity for every strategies per se is described a source to To website, specialized coordination governmental illustrate [I]n agencies this and groups March last cooperation established point, 2003, that deal take representatives among with the the UN U.N. themselves field sponsored Inter-Agency of of a bioethics, number and Committee other Committee of including United regional Nations Bioethics. its and human international organizations rights As to told promote aspects inter- and its and issues sets animals), seems other of difficult problems are trafficking related understood is issues. handle. dramatically human as intellectual (our One organs, emphasis). thing complex attributing property is clear, This in itself;: and however: intellectual is quite trade cloning, an the enlargement, services property IGOs experimenting that issues, rights are indeed: to each associated on inventors, of foetuses once these related three (and this etc.

38 Page enterprise renewed 37take the opportunity of an emerging global problem to progress Eberwein their / search Schemeil UNHCR, organizations although legitimacy possible UNESCO, are participating associate and WIPO, to give members and as a WHO, new Associate like impulse with the Members, an WTO, to interesting their INTERPOL, mandate. a way precision: to The the give text OESC, [O]ther them lists a the minor international FAO, Council status ILO, of of a Europe, 4. Before Explanations concluding the World and we Interpretations Islamic want to Organization briefly review could the play different a major explanations role in that that matter. analysis thus far. 4.1 A First Cut: Strategies of Adaptation through Cooperation emerged from our To combined. to gain resolve more organisations spill There the autonomy cooperation over are that several or instead percolating operate dilemma reasons of losing a IGOs for unified effect: control the may underlying realm changes adopt over compel its various willingly rationale protected other strategies, made organisations to domain opt for whether of agreement a activity: risky in in neighbouring cooperation isolation between or realms specialists before (international) imitation adapt use in to to other say), new sectors. and rules centrifugal This because is quite since change mechanical it starts in one at sector the (or periphery functional initiates either of as high turbulence to migrating from one sector to the next until reaches the core European the polity. Examples are trade and intellectual property issues, once politics investment, an producer exchange and and of eventually goods inventor, (although the now lowest expanded this custom is not as right yet far achieved) and as to with include maximum the political trade protection in culture services, limited of of the for world there country snowballing is is a (via permanent source movies, or structural of organisational education, reshuffle effect: of vocational the the overload division growing training, and of connectivity labour overlapping administrative between between activities. IGOs, cooperation, issues each In this in having a process, etc.). global no choice legitimate but actor justify in the its very place activity in the for system, which it and was then created. advertise It also to a be concatenation known as a A a

39 Page 38effect, new since institutions never die: when they come short of fulfilling Eberwein their / mandate, Schemeil the UNESCO s case initiative with efforts is UNICEF taken to substitute same Girl s direction. Education them without Initiative replacing which them. did This not was put for example end to a and warming, the education construction to find global allies of new in initiative, these issues, ventures. or human learning They security ), effect. compete IGOs and for are labelling phrasing rivalling the to issues statements create (like new made global fields communities, again global (i.e., within and UN) a future level decade ). (like generations ). all They poor call children They on admit new would past stakeholders have failures, access to and (like quality pledge traditional primary to try at conception, specialisation (Sperling, review, 2000: effect and 7). under operation, various or along guises the (such lines as each division of the of several work aspects between of the provides of confidential, and their same pandemics products IGOs issue; IGOs with forecasts; or like (this at a brand each the being The WMO, stage name, a WIPO new and of version and the is the emerging gives production WHO of them can on innovate market a of the greater a regulating common weather, or impact perish good). climate, the iron Internet the law). This draughts, market Once trend fighting normalization coalitions multiplicity the elaborate digital (or politically divide and propagate scene correct ) with ideas an that effect. increasingly migrate Epistemic from known communities one brand field name (say, and of gender) its advocacy own. to and to thereby women s education accommodating of for others girls such and communitarian as boys); guarantying allowing children demands women universal a because combat rights a role world (e.g., in the an enriched military equal access with etc. a linguistic, pleading to protect for contributions their and biodiversity village cultural culture in diversity. every and in even manufacturing sector From sociodiversity will there also one and be can trading (an enriched move Indian textiles, to with invention any etc.). religious, issue This at the such but ethnic, WTO one as example diffused trace its origins. and of scattered structural among power so many advocated stakeholders by Susan that Strange it is more (Strange, and more ), a difficult power so to a

40 Page The various 39IGOs are, one could 4.2 A generally Second Cut: infer, Why obviously do IGOs respond cooperate? through Eberwein collaboration / Schemeil coordination activities. within Yet the and consequences That across to the will specific growing actually are not issue interdependence increase areas. terms the In of that perceived which sense strategies represents the need original of for adaptation a coordination permanent proposition chosen. challenge is and almost It cooperation seems to trivial. their that and complex these one are not lack finds three excessive of calculations that factors power they is tend power, terms not on to the the substitute of competence, only part autonomy, decisive of each the and resources IGOs other s factor legitimacy come facilitating comparative delay simultaneously - and dominates. cooperation. expertise. advantages In into the One Legitimacy play but case can only where of even cooperation if based the none see costs that on of knowledge They global IGOs states as is also principals a tradable seem currency. their tend to keep them constrained be much within less the inclined limits of that their original IGOs to mandate. accept coordination. and original addressing compact mandate related they call issues. spite at the of Conversely, technical same time difficulties IGOs for cooperation do their to adopt best if to new not act a ideas, within real dictate symbiosis the framework new But of norms, those the are pay therefore implement pushing decisions into on the their same own direction a realm of of more shared cooperation, competencies. the latter Both more states inclined and IGOs of Ultimately, between place lip under service governments states to shadow the have cause permanent the of of power. last states say, representatives The pre-eminence and truth whatever of the within and interagency matter agencies these is institutions) that cooperation specialization. globalisation (and possible, cooperation subtly it takes but to firmly change cooperation indirect One depriving in their rather environment, both than states any and other IGOs theoretical strategy? of their question The autonomy. subsidiary being: Both why question must choose adapt is: adaptation why to this states dramatic individual possible cooperation answer, via the IGOs one rather we propose, than a direct that dialogue cooperation with other is the states? aggregate outcome through cooperative strategies adopted by different actors with diverging motivations. The strength prefer converge each state towards and trend each cooperative IGO have rationally found and interdependent does is just assess this: its even networks. own contradictory utilities, There before is and no adjusting need independent to to assume the moves of set that the of of

41 Page other does not 40 actors stem preferences, from orderly particularly system those of mutually of the adjusting hegemonic wills, power it is the Eberwein the result time. of / Cooperation the Schemeil Consequently, and found heterogeneous we are doubtful there mechanism that no further single that explanation research is produced will of find by the the nature consistency many and interactions degree and directivity of between cooperation where world achieved, we chaotic change so far tactical moves and minor changes routine activities all conducive to a systemic actors. appear than easier, in the global or at the level very of least cooperation. less complicated Learning than also usually important claimed, because and cooperation more rewarding have fully actors expected the strategies. reality in of a world international where politics balance is of allegedly power concept the core although determinant it never of international really fitted may illusion however, Inter-organisational the than daily their life is principals due that of to they international cooperation fact still that caught have they organisations. some in whether cannot veto-power illusion intended unilaterally And of to it their block or seems impose unintended centrality IGOs that their from these in has will international better agents become upon performance. are others, a learning central politics. the reality, fact faster This

42 Page References 41 Eberwein / Schemeil Baddache, Barnett, coopération. F., Entreprises Enbtreprises Paris : L Harmattan,2005; et et ONG face au développement durable: L innovation par Cincotta, Organizations. Michael Richard N./Finnemore, P./Engelman, In: International Martha, Robert/Anastasion, Organization The Politics, 53(4) Daniele, Power, 1999, and The Pathologies Security Demographics of International la Cooley, Claude, International, Population 2002, political Innis, James/Ron, Swords economy and 2003 Civil into Alexander, of Plowshares. transnational Conflict The after New NGOs action, the York: Cold scramble. In: War. Random International Washingtron Organizational House, Security D. C.: (2002), insecurity Population Vol. and 27 Action (1), the Cortell, Cox, change. Richard Andrew In: W. ccomparative P./Peterson, & Jacobson Susan, Political (Harold Limiting Studies K., The the 34 Anatomy (7), unintended 2001: of Influence. consequences (2001) Decision of institutional International York/Oxford: 2000b: Dennis/Beigbeder, Organization, In: Berhahn Dijkzeul/Beigbeder, Books, Yves: New 2003a: (eds.): Introduction: Haven, 2003a Rethinking Yale University Rethinking international press, International organizations. Organization, Making New Dijkzeul, Einhorn, Finger, 2003: , Matthias/Magarinos-Ruchat, Jessica, Dennis/Gordenker, The World Bank Leon: Mission Cures Bérangère, Creep, and Conclusions. The Foreign Transformation Affairs, In: Dijkzeul/Beigbeder, 80 of (5) International September-October 2003a, Gulati, Fouilleux Gilligan, Agreements? Organisazations Ranjay,Where Michael J. IO Is Do 58 : The There Interorganizational (3) Case 2004, a of Broader-Deeper UNCTAD. Networks In: Dijkzeul/Beigbeder, Trade-off Come in From International? 2003a, American Multilateral 2003: Journal Public Haftendorn, Igalens, of Institutions J./Queinnec, Sociology, H., Keohane, over 1999 E. Time (coor.), (coord.), 104 R. and (5), Les Space, Wallander, Les ONG Oxford: et et le C. le (eds) management. Oxford (1999) University Imperfect Paris : Press. : Vuibert, Vuibert. Unions: 2004 Security

43 Kelley, Page Socialization 42Judith, International by International Actors Institutions, the Domestic IO 58 Scene: (3) 2004, Membership Eberwein Conditionality / Schemeil Keohane, Princeton Bosdton, Robert Little University O./Nye, O., After Brown, Joseph Hegemony Press S., Power Cooperation and Interdependence: and Discord World in World Politics Politics. in Transition. Princeton: and Koremenos, Leca, Lindemann, International entre Jean, identités Conflict Thomas, Barbara/Lipson, Organization bureaucratiques and Faire Order, la guerre Charles/Duncan, 55 International (4). et mais préférences laquelle? Political Snidal, stratégiques Les Science institutions Rational», Review, Revue militaires International Française 2000 des Etats-Unis de Institutions. Lischer, Lindenberg, Politique, Developmental Marc/Bryant, 53 (5) NGOs. octobre Bloomfield: Coralie: 2003, p (eds.), Kumarian Going Press. Global Transforming relief Science List, International Sarah Kenyon, Security Collateral 28 (1), damage. 2003, Humanitarian Assistance as a cause of conflict, and Martin/ Wolf, 2004, pp. M. Zangl, Zürn Bernhard, (Hgb.) Die Verrechtlichung neuen Internationalen internationaler Beziehungen. Politik. In Baden-Baden: : G. Hellmann, Nomos, K. In: Luterbacher, Change. Urs, Cambridge, and Detlef MA: F. F. Sprinz, The MIT eds. Press International Relations and and Global Climate D. March, Marquette, Martin, In: Political International James Lisa International Heather, L./Simmons, G./ Studies, Olsen, Organization The Organization, 52, Johan Beth Creeping 2004, A., P: The Theories (4), Politicisation 52 (4) institutional 1998: 1998, and Empirical pp. of dynamics the World Studies of bank: international of The International Case political of Corruption, Institutions. orders. Mezzalama, Milner, Meadows, cooperation (JIU/REP/99/6). Helen, Donella, Francesco with with Leverage Kubota, the & Ouedraogo, United Points: Keiko, Nations Places Louis Why System, Dominique, to the Intervene Move Geneva, Private in free a Joint System. Trade? sector Inspection (1999 involvement Democracy Unit, 1999 and Ram, Ovaska, Nielson, Policy Theory Rati, Tomi, Daniel in Roles and More the L. World Developing & of Aid, Tierney, Bilateral Bank Less Environmental Growth. Countries, Michael and Multilateral Globalization J., IO, Delegation Reforms, 59 (1) Aid 2005: Institute, to in IO, International Economic 57 Research (2) 2003, Growth Organizations: Monograph, of Developing and 2005 Agency Trade Countries. In: Kyklos 56 (1) 2003,

44 Reinalda, Page Organizations, 43Bob, Verbeek, London, Bertjan, Routledge, eds., eds., Decision 1998, Autonomous 254 making p. Decision Within International Making Eberwein by Organizations, International / Schemeil Risse, Rittberger, London, Thomas, Routledge, Konstruktivismus, 2004, 254 Rationalismus p. Russet, In: Normeinhaltung. Internationalen Die Wirkung internationaler : G. Hellmann, Institutionen: K. und D. Theorien Wolf, Von M. internationaler der Zürn Normanerkennung (Hgb.) Beziehungen. In: Publishers; Bruce International Volker, M., Reintegrating International Beziehungen. Studies Review Regimes the Baden-Baden: Subdisciplines 5 (4), in 2003, East-West Nomos, of International Politics. 2004: London and and Comparative New York: Die Politics. Pinter neuen zur française «La», politique «Revue Expertise Française and fait-elle Political de Gestion, à la Competence corbeille 28 (19-39)?», James 2002, in B. March Reinalda p et & la B. science Verbeek, politique Simmons, Schemeil, Constantin, Decision-Making Yves, ed., «Les Les Within biens International publics mondiaux, premiers organizations, : Paris, Babel, l Harmattan, London, côté cour Routledge, p et côté 2004, jardin p.77-89», in eds., Sperling, Carlsnaes/Th. London Foreign Gene Beth 2002, Affairs, B.), A./ Providing pp. Risse, Martin, (5) and September-October Lisa Universal B. A. L., Simmons International Education: 2001, (eds.): Making Organizations Handbook a Promise, of and International and Institutions. Keeping Relations, It, In: W. F. Young, Weiss, (1), and World Thomas. Dennis International Politics, R, G., Alternative Forsythe, Boulder, Perspectives. Models Westview David In: of P., Government-Nonprofit Press, Coate, 2004, Roger and 392 Voluntary A., p. The Sector United Sector Relations: Nations Quarterly and Theoretical., 2000 Changing 29

45 Page 44Administrative Committee TABLE on 1: Coordination UN Coordination (now Chief Offices Executive and Board Programs for Coordination Eberwein (CEB))32 / Schemeil Health Inter-Agency and Committee Inter-Agency Environment for Programme Linkages and Initiative Coordination Inter-Agency Committee Committee Standing on Women on Committee and Bioethics Gender (UNEP Equality & WHO) Office Information for the Office International Coordination Systems for Inter-Agency Coordination Trade of Humanitarian Centre Affairs Committee Inter-Agency Committee Inter-Agency on Women Technical Task and Force Cooperation for African among Economic Developing Recovery Countries Affairs Inter-Agency Gender Equality (later known as the and Inter-Agency Development Humanitarian Statistics Gender Steering Cooperation Coordinator Equality) Committees33 Unit for Iraq Meeting on Women and Source: Francesco Mezzalama, Inter-Agency Khalil Issa Support Othman Unit & Louis-Dominique & UN Resident Coordinator Ouedraogo, Review System of (UNEP) Conference coordination 32 According and to its Environment its machinery, website, Geneva, IACSD and Development--UNCED) JIU, was 1999 established (JIU/99/1). by UN, the UN which ACC agencies, following was and held other IGOs Rio Earth the websites. in administrative Summit (United The committee IACSD Nations Interagency implementation 33 of mandated Examples addressing to Steering identify are them of Agenda ISCORS major Committee so as 21. policy to (Interagency for ensure issues the Decade relating effective Steering of to Education the co-operation Committee follow-up for on Sustainable of and radiation UNCED coordination Development Statndards) and advise of ACC the and ( ) the UN on Asia-Pacific ways system and in means UN the is

46 Page 45 Table 2: Two Political Cultures Eberwein / Schemeil Labour Trade Area Powerful/instrumental* Social (WTO, laws agreements Free NAFTA, undermine trade EU) trade IGOs cultural Influential/softer* exemptions UNESCO) Fair trade, (UNCTAD, IGOs Intellectual property Protection of (WTO, business (WTO) rights WIPO) and individual Basic Social needs, ban rights health (ILO) child are rights universal, work Education Investment in human capital (WB) gender cultural equality education & Education world in heritage Primary (UNESCO) for all; (UNESCO) & secondary (WHO); Environment, and Economy Weather Climate Growth OECD); poverty (WB); without best debt practices; inflation relief (UN)(IMF, alleviating G8, Sustainable centred public (UNDP) goods development and good (UNEP); governance and people- elements Energy (IEA, OPEP); shortage of Intellectual protected Weather as property as biggest forecasts concern (WIPO) are Mitigating Climate Change global Health Universal food vaccination, availability HACCP (WTO)(UN); goal to Precautionary national (IPCC); weather security Free principle and (FAO) forecasts reciprocal (EU), the (WMO) food access main Human rights Minority (EU rights = conditionality admission as a condition *) for and Minority an economic rights persuasion ) asset a moral (OSCE, imperative CE =