Introduction

The proliferation of international organizations (IOs) in the 20 th and 21 st centuries has led to debate among international relations scholars about how IOs affect state sovereignty and global politics. This content will provide an overview of the perspectives from major IR theories on the relationship between IO proliferation, state sovereignty, and world politics.

The realist perspective sees IOs as having little effect on state sovereignty or global politics, as they view IOs as tools of powerful states. Internationalists acknowledge states as the key actors but see IOs as providing benefits that lead states to cooperate through IOs, though state sovereignty remains intact. Neofunctionalists envision regional integration as an irreversible process where cooperation in low politics leads to spillover into other issue areas. Neoliberal institutionalists believe IOs allow states to achieve mutually beneficial cooperation not possible alone, though states weigh costs and benefits of IO membership. Rational design theory sees states as rationally designing IOs to solve problems. Universalists contend IO proliferation erodes state sovereignty by empowering IOs as autonomous actors and giving people direct access to IOs.

The various perspectives provide different assessments of how IO proliferation affects state sovereignty and global politics. Realists see minimal impact, while others see IOs as transforming state sovereignty and/or opening new avenues for cooperation and integration. The subsequent sections will elaborate on each perspective in more depth.

Realist Perspective

Realists argue that the proliferation of IOs does not erode sovereignty. IOs have no ability to tax or govern territory, so they depend entirely on states. IOs only succeed if backed by powerful states, so they simply reflect the existing balance of power. IOs are just tools in the struggle for power among states.

For realists, external sovereignty remains intact even with the rise of IOs. Powerful states retain full external sovereignty, while weak states have diminished external sovereignty. Internal sovereignty (a state’s ability to govern its territory) will vary between powerful and weak states. But the core idea of sovereignty within a country’s borders remains.

Since IOs depend on major powers, they cannot undermine the sovereign state system. IOs have no independent power - they are only tools of the strongest states. So the proliferation of IOs does not fundamentally change world politics. Sovereignty endures as long as strong states continue dominating and steering international organizations to serve their interests.

Internationalist Perspective

The internationalist perspective holds that while states are still the primary actors in global politics, they behave rationally and are willing to join and follow international organizations if it benefits their interests. Internationalists argue that international organizations provide valuable benefits to member states by facilitating collective action to solve problems.

Although states hold sovereignty as a core principle, they accept some constraints on their sovereignty in order to reap the benefits of cooperation through international institutions. By creating and joining organizations, states are actually reinforcing a new form of “multilateral sovereignty” - the ability to collectively make rules and coordinate behavior on a global scale.

So while the internal sovereignty of states remains largely intact, their external sovereignty is partially eroded and transformed by their voluntary participation in international regimes and organizations. Overall, the internationalist view holds that states are pragmatic rational actors, and they see membership in international institutions as bolstering, rather than diminishing, their sovereignty and national interests.

Neo-functionalist Perspective

The neo-functionalist perspective argues that integration starts from cooperation or accommodation in low political issues, which over time expands and requires cooperation in other more politically sensitive issues. Regional integration is seen as an ongoing process that constantly moves forward.

According to neo-functionalists, integration begins by states cooperating in economic and technical areas which have low political salience. This fosters shared interests between states and creates pressure for further integration in related areas. Spillover effects occur, leading to unintended consequences that require broader cooperation. As integration deepens across various sectors, cooperation is increasingly required on political issues as well.

Neo-functionalists see regional organizations as having an autonomous logic and regional identity that drives the integration process forward. Integration is an incremental process, but with its own internal momentum that is difficult to stop once set in motion. While states remain key actors, non-state actors like interest groups and bureaucrats in regional organizations also influence the integration process in a technocratic direction not always favored by national governments.

Overall, neo-functionalists foresee regional integration as an ongoing, self-reinforcing process. Functional spillover pressures across issues gradually shift political loyalties and expectations in a more supranational direction over time. For neo-functionalists, integration is a politically incremental but ultimately expansive process.

Neoliberal Institutionalist Perspective

Neoliberal institutionalists argue that states have an incentive to cooperate internationally if the benefits exceed the costs. Cooperation allows states to achieve outcomes that would be difficult or impossible on their own. States are willing to join international institutions and even delegate some sovereignty if they believe it will lead to deeper commitments from others.

However, cooperation is not guaranteed. States will avoid cooperation if they believe the future benefits will be low or distributed unequally. According to neoliberal institutionalism, states act rationally to maximize their own interests. They cooperate when it provides a net benefit, but are hesitant to cede sovereignty if the costs are too high or the gains too limited.

An example is Brexit, where the UK chose to leave the EU over concerns about lost sovereignty and unequal benefits relative to costs. Neoliberal institutionalism sees states as purposeful actors that delegate sovereignty only when it serves their interests. Cooperation occurs when benefits exceed costs, but states guard their sovereignty carefully against erosion.

Rational Design Perspective

Barbara Koremenos, Charles Lipson, and Duncan Snidal introduced “The Rational Design of International Institutions” in Journal International Organization in 2001. The rational design perspective examines how states deliberately design international institutions to solve specific cooperation problems. It looks at variations in institutional design in terms of membership, scope, centralization, control, and flexibility.

According to the rational design perspective, these design variations can be explained by factors such as distribution problems, enforcement problems, the number of actors involved, and uncertainties about behavior, the state of the world, and preferences of other actors. For example, restrictive membership increases as enforcement problems become more severe. Scope tends to increase with greater heterogeneity among a larger number of actors. Centralization also increases when there are a larger number of participants. The rational design perspective views states as purposeful actors who create international institutions as tools to achieve their goals. The design variations help address the underlying cooperation problems states face.

Universalist Perspective

The Universalist perspective sees human beings/people as the main focus rather than states. From the Universalist view, the proliferation of international organizations increases the ability of IOs to govern people directly and provides more access for people to participate in these IOs. This erodes the sovereignty of states, as states become less relevant and IOs gain direct governing authority over populations.

Some key aspects of the Universalist perspective:

• Sees human beings/people as the main focus rather than states
• Proliferation of IOs erodes both external and internal sovereignty of states
• IOs gain ability to directly govern people without going through the state
• IOs could be said to become autonomous actors, not just tools of states
• States become less relevant as IOs govern populations directly
• Similar to constructivism in seeing IOs as not just regulating state behavior but also constituting state identities and interests through socialization of norms and values
• Overall, IOs erode state sovereignty by bypassing states to govern and interact with populations directly

The Universalist view sees states losing relevance and sovereignty as IOs proliferate and deal directly with human beings and populations. This differs from other perspectives that still see states as primary actors even in an increasingly globalized world.

IO and Sovereignty

Realists argue that the proliferation of IO does not fundamentally change the way international politics works. They view IO as tools of powerful states that have no real power or sovereignty of their own. IOs succeed when they align with and support the interests of major powers.

Internationalists contend that while states are still the primary actors, they are willing to join and follow IOs when it provides collective benefits. IOs serve as forums for states to address issues, make rules, and regulate relations. Some compromise of external sovereignty occurs, but internal sovereignty remains intact.

Neo-functionalists see regional integration as an irreversible process, starting with cooperation in low politics and inevitably expanding into high politics over time. This requires states to sacrifice more sovereignty as integration deepens.

Universalist perspectives focus on IOs governing people more than states. The proliferation of IOs increases their ability to influence individuals and erode state sovereignty. IOs gain identities and interests separate from states. Constructivists add that IOs socialize states on shared values and norms, constituting state interests and identities.

Overall, perspectives differ on whether the growth of IOs fundamentally alters world politics and erodes state sovereignty. Realists say no, while liberal views see increasing compromise of sovereignty for mutual gain, and radical views predict the decline of state power.

IO and Democracy

Do International Organizations Promote Democracy?

International organizations’ ability to promote democracy in member states is debated among IR scholars.

Realists argue that IOs do not fundamentally increase democracy, as they view IOs merely as tools of powerful states. In the realist view, IOs have no independent ability to influence the domestic political systems of states.

Internationalists hold that IOs can encourage democracy by creating international rules and norms favoring democratic governance. By incentivizing states to adopt democratic reforms to gain material benefits and legitimacy, IOs can slowly nurture democratic change. However, internationalists stress states remain the key actors deciding whether to democratize.

Universalists contend IO proliferation expands individual access and IOs’ ability to influence domestic governance. In their view, this erosion of state sovereignty facilitates IO promotion of democracy globally. As states cede authority to IOs, universalists believe IOs gain increased tools to encourage and at times enforce democratic reforms within member states.

The empirical evidence remains mixed regarding IOs’ impact on democratization. While some scholars cite cases of regional organizations like the EU appearing to successfully encourage democracy, others argue IO democratizing effects are limited. They point to many authoritarian regimes participating in IOs without adopting meaningful democratic reforms. The debate continues among IR experts regarding if and how IOs may promote democracy in the modern world.

IO and Power

International organizations wield different types of power that allow them to influence state behavior and global outcomes. These include:

Negotiating Power

This refers to the direct use of power in managing international organizations, such as a country’s ability to influence other member states during negotiations. Powerful countries like the US and China often have more negotiating power in bodies like the UN Security Council or World Trade Organization.

Agenda-Setting Power

This is the power to decide which issues get priority on the global agenda. For example, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change has helped set the agenda on climate action.

Institutional Power

This refers to the ability of particular states to install their nationals in key leadership roles within international bureaucracies. For instance, the US has historically dominated leadership at the World Bank, while Europeans have filled top positions at the IMF.

Structural Power

Some elements inherent in the structure of international organizations give certain states more power. Examples include weighted voting structures that favor powerful members, as well as the physical location of IO headquarters in certain countries. The IMF and World Bank being based in Washington DC confers more control to the US.

International organizations derive power through other means as well, like their moral authority to shame countries into action, or their privileged access to important information. Overall, IOs have significant leverage over states, though ultimately major powers still dominate decision-making.