International Organizations (I.O.s) and Debates

What are epistemic communities?

Communities of experts (e.g., scientists, economists) who specialize in specific fields. They de-politicize issues by providing objective, technical, or academic perspectives.

How do I.O.s de-politicize issues?

By using expertise and data to frame issues as technical or scientific rather than political (e.g., WHO on health policies, FAO on food security).

How do I.O.s establish facts?

Through data and reports (e.g., World Bank on trade balances, IMF on economic policies) that are accepted as authoritative due to the expertise of their staff.

How do I.O.s influence social science?

By advancing norms and behaviors (e.g., Universal Declaration of Human Rights, WHO’s rejection of race science) that become accepted as facts.

How do Louis and Maertens describe I.O. staff?

As specialized employees who view their work as technical rather than political (e.g., ILO researchers focusing on labor issues).

How do states generally view I.O.s?

As neutral, multilateral organizations that transcend political divisions. However, they are also seen as suspicious, non-democratic, and unaccountable.

How do I.O.s maintain objectivity while influencing politics?

By framing decisions as based on expertise and academic standards, rather than explicit political agendas.

How do I.O.s function as arenas of debate?

They host academic-style debates among specialists, focusing on empirical evidence and technical solutions rather than electoral politics.

What do Early Functionalists argue about I.O.s?

That I.O.s exist to serve specific purposes and reduce operational costs, leading to de-politicization of issues.

What is the Critical Theorists’ view of I.O.s?

They argue that I.O.s practice politics under the guise of neutrality, often serving the interests of powerful states (e.g., Robert Cox’s Gramscian approach).

How do Realists view I.O.s?

As tools of powerful states, serving their strategic interests rather than promoting true multilateralism.

What is the Constructivist perspective on I.O.s?

That I.O.s shape norms, culture, and state behavior through their expertise and ability to de-politicize issues (e.g., Barnett and Finnemore).

What is the “myth of de-politicization” in I.O.s?

The belief that I.O.s are neutral and objective, even though their decisions often have political implications (e.g., IMF’s neoliberal policies).

What is compartmentalization in I.O.s?

The tendency to address issues in segmented ways, often overlooking broader systemic causes (e.g., blaming poverty for environmental damage without considering corporate influence).

What is Mearsheimer’s argument about I.O.s?

That states, not I.O.s, are the primary actors in international relations. I.O.s serve state interests, especially in security and sovereignty.

How does the Security Dilemma apply to I.O.s?

States may use I.O.s to enhance their security, but this can trigger fear and competition among other states, reinforcing the Security Dilemma.

How do Neo-Realists view cooperation in I.O.s?

As a tool for states to achieve relative gains and serve their strategic interests, rather than promoting global governance.

Why do Neo-Realists prioritize the state over I.O.s?

Because states are the primary units of analysis in international relations, and their main concern is national security and sovereignty.

How do I.O.s relate to globalization?

They facilitate global trade, finance, and cooperation, but their decisions often reflect the interests of powerful states.

Why are I.O.s often seen as unaccountable?

Because they lack democratic mechanisms (e.g., elections) and judicial oversight, making it difficult to hold them accountable for their actions.