Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2



According to this book, at the very first part, we can see they stressed out that International Organizations is an inclusive intergovernmental organizations which is organizations created by agreement among states rather than by private individuals. The opposing is NonGovernmental Organization (NGO), this NGO and TransNational Corporations (TNCs) are integral parts of the international political systems, but they are not IO. We can make a conclusion that IO by the definition of this book is meaning that an organization created by treaties signed by states and are thus intergovernmental institutions, such as UN, World Bank, and NAFO. Inclusive Organizations: All parties can join, for the example is UN. Rather than defending states in the UN from outside, UN is designed to protect its members from other members who break the rules. Exclusive Organizations: Designed specifically to exclude some countries. And protecting from outside member.

Speaking about IO, of course we will talk about Sovereignty vs Globalization. A key implication of glovalization is that the state is losing its autonomy as the central locus of decision-making in international relations. There are two key parts to sovereignty, Internal Sovereignty refers to autonomy, the ability of the state to make and enforce its own rules domestically. External Sovereignty refers to the acceptance of the state by the international community. Globalization can undermine external sovereignty by loosening the monopoly of the sovereign state system on international political activity. Meaning that the more decisionmaking autonomy that IOs get, the more scope private actors such as NGOs have to participate in International policy-making, and the weaker the traditional state systems. What IOs had done that make them matter? 1. IOs enable technical cooperation among states in a range of areas that are vital to modern societies and economies. 2. IOs encourage dialogue and communication among states as a first response to disagreement, they foster rule-based rather than power-based 3. IOs represent International Community (agent) in expressing some issues that might been ignored by government

4. IOs doesnt dependent entirely on states. But some certain states dependent on IOs. And had structural power and ideology (two primary sources of independent power for IOs: Moral Authority, and control over, ability to create information) 5. IOs changing the basic expectations of states and foreign policy makers about how International Relations work by make it in multilateral model. BUT, IOs also have limitations because IOs DOESNT have traditional power resources states: IOs cannot tax IOs doesnt have independent means of force or the right to regulate actors authoritatively IOs be holden to the states that formed them and are constrained by the interests and preferences of those states. Interntional Organizations play an active role in but they do so largerly as agents of states, not as replacements for states