International organisations are a central component of modern international society. This book provides a concise account of the principles and norms of international law applicable to the intergovernmental organisation (IGO). It defines and explains inter-governmentalism and the role of law in its regulation. The book presents case studies that show how the law works within an institutional order dominated by politics. After a note on the key relationship between the IGO and its member states, it examines the basic relationship between the UN and states in terms of membership through admissions, withdrawal, expulsion, suspension, and representation. The debate about the extent of the doctrine of legal powers is addressed through case studies. Institutional lawmaking in the modern era is discussed with particular focus on at the impact of General Assembly Resolutions on outer space and the Health Regulations of the World Health Organization. Non-forcible measures adopted by the UN and similar IGOs in terms of their legality (constitutionality and conformity to international law), legitimacy and effectiveness, is covered next. The different military responses undertaken by IGOs, ranging from observation and peacekeeping, to peace enforcement and war-fighting, are discussed in terms of legality and practice. The book also considers the idea of a Responsibility to Protect and the development of secondary rules of international law to cover the wrongful acts and omissions of IGOs. It ends with a note on how the primary and secondary rules of international law are upheld in different forms and mechanisms of accountability, including courts.
’ agencies, INGOs and intergovernmental organisations. For a famine to be declared, a region needs to surpass three thresholds: 2 deaths per 10,000 people per day (crude death rate), 30 per cent of children are acutely malnourished and 20 per cent of households with extreme food gaps ( IPC Global Partners, 2019 : 9). If the region falls into the category of ‘famine’, the IPC system stresses the need for ‘immediate action’ from the international community ( IPC Global
broadly conceptualised ‘as the increasingly organized and internationalized attempt to save the lives, enhance the welfare, and reduce the suffering of the world’s most vulnerable populations’ ( Barnett, 2013 : 379). Who (mis)represents women, and who besides states and intergovernmental organisations diagnoses deficiencies in a population and proposes schemes of improvement, are open empirical questions ( Marchand and Parpart, 1995 ; Li, 2007 ; Barnett, 2013
were unavailable for the Biafrans, perceived not as a self-determination campaign, but as a secessionist threat: the opponent that was accepted as a sovereign nation-state in intergovernmental organisations was Nigeria. This was the OAU [Organisation of African Unity] stance that determined the position of the UN and the wider diplomatic world, in which Biafra’s campaign could not thrive, even though the rhetoric of the campaign itself was so similar to decolonisation
This book shows how environmentalists have shaped the world's largest multilateral development lender, investment financier and political risk insurer to take up sustainable development. It challenges an emerging consensus over international organisational change to argue that international organisations (IOs) are influenced by their social structure and may change their practices to reflect previously antithetical norms such as sustainable development. The text locates sources of organisational change with environmentalists, thus demonstrating the ways in which non-state actors can effect change within large intergovernmental organisations through socialisation. It combines an account of international organisational change with detailed empirical evidence of change in one issue area across three institutions.
exclusive, highlight the different approaches and concerns animating the two discourses. The work of the diffusion scholars, especially that of Simmons and her collaborators, tends not to view the international arena as a particularly social place and focuses on states and/or intergovernmental organisations (IOs) as the key actors of policy diffusion (Holzinger, Knill and Sommerer, 2008; Simmons, Dobbins and Garrett, 2008). Like many scholars influenced by the rational choice approach their work often begins from the starting point of (state) interests and asks why
cultural sense. The European Community Administration and Parliament, and a large array of EU development programmes, are relevant to academics as well as economists. Unlike the OECD, another intergovernmental organisation (IGO) wielding influence in the work addressed by the book, the EU spends more than a third of its budget on economic and sometimes socially oriented applied research and development (R&D) programmes. European thought has hitherto dominated most learning region discourse, especially through the organs of the EU, with its Committee for Regions, and of
problems regarding conflicting external policies and the lack of coordination of internal bureaucracies are not exclusive to EU foreign policy. Even the most centralised governments in the world are unable or unwilling to solve these problems (Allison and Zelikow, 1999 ). The same can be said of other intergovernmental organisations. For instance, problems of coherence among different UN actors and agencies led to significant
International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. By contrast, France sought innovative European solutions to co-existence with Germany. The enthusiasm for such solutions, expressed from various quarters at the Congress of Europe in May 1948, ran into the difficulty that British participation in such bodies seemed inevitably to steer them towards traditional intergovernmental organisations, where the nation state remained key. That much became clear with the resultant emergence of the Council of Europe, whose statute was agreed in London in 1949. The French response to the
Mediterranean (UfM),2 with its secretariat in Barcelona, is an ‘intergovernmental organisation bringing together the 28 European Union member states and 15 countries from the Southern and Eastern shores of the Mediterranean’.3 It was set up with a view to establishing ‘a unique forum to enhance regional cooperation and dialogue in the Euro-Mediterranean region’.4 It ‘provides a unique platform to formulate regional priorities and decide on specific cooperation initiatives to be put in place’.5 44 45 Extending the EU’s HE discourse to the rest of the Mediterranean Higher