Game of States: An 'Internationalisation' of Power?

The emergence and exponential rise of international organizations in the global scenario leads to a fundamental question: Do states still remain the main actors and power-holders? The different theoretical strands of the discipline provide different perspectives, all having their own strengths and weaknesses. Nonetheless, it will be hereto upheld that despite the best approach being an incorporation of different aspects of each paradigm, when taken separately, it is arguably realism that most effectively depicts the nature and role of international institutions. Simply put, liberalism assumes that states pursue absolute gains, and therefore that the aim of international organizations is to foster cooperation. Contrastingly, realism argues that international organizations are arenas where states act out power relationships due to the fact that they seek relative gains, not absolute ones. What then, tilts the scale towards realism?

It is undeniable that international organizations have allowed cooperation on a global scale, with this being exemplified through a range of facts. Firstly, their exponential rise: There are more than 400 international institutions today. This figure highlights the ever increasing role of international organizations, where there seems to have emerged a new international legitimacy based on international consensus and ‘pooled sovereignty’. Nonetheless, the importance of international bodies does not stop with their expansion and growth; but rather it resides in achievements and changes. International organizations have tackled global issues and crises, for example: climate change, gender inequality or natural disasters. In no way can we overlook the importance of improvements in these areas or can we deny that they are examples of states cooperating - in so far it seems that liberals are right on track. Nonetheless, one must question the motivation behind this cooperation.

It is clear that states pursue their own interests, history shows this, contemporary events show this. Take war and conflict; the issues that provoked the very birth of international organizations, first with the Congress of Vienna, then the League of Nations, and finally the UN. The causes of war and conflict in general are conflicting interests. This is a fact. Interest may take many different forms: economic, ideological, cultural.., but it is ultimately what drives states, and it is only logical that states act internationally according to their own interests. In this narrative, interest and power are intrinsically linked, whereby when claiming that states seek to maximize their interests, they thereby seek to maximize their power. One might question what this has to do with international organizations, and yet, the answer is relatively simple. International organizations are formed by states. The question then is why states decide to form such institutions that are apparently capable of exercising more power than themselves. The answer is that these organizations are not more powerful than states. Not only is there very existence conditioned to the will of states, but they are vessels for the use of state power. States want power, but it is also in their interest to avoid war and conflict. Thus, the result: International Organizations. International organizations provide arenas for states to set out certain norms as to avoid war. Moreover, they arguably serve the interests of the hegemonic states, enabling them to extend their influence and to set out rules that enable them to maintain their power and maximize their relative gains. This can be seen through the division – or rather ‘undivision’ – of power in extremely important organizations such as the UN of IMF. In the UN, the 5 permanent members of the security council hold a veto, whereby if one opposes a resolution, it will not be passed. In the IMF, 85% of the votes are required in order to pass an issue, the US hold 17% of the voting rights, which means that they have the ability to halt anything they don’t agree with. Does this not reflect states shaping the agendas of international organizations? Just in case, another figure that portrays the limited power and capacity of international institutions is the following one: Solely 2% of the whole world’s annual military expenditure is invested in the UN. 

The argument here is not that international organizations are useless, but that they are ultimately comprised by states and controlled by states. The power of the state has definitely not been eroded, regardless of globalization and international institutions, rather the way in which states exercise their power has changed. This is where critical theory comes in to mingle with realism. Critical theory points at the importance of ideas, claiming that International Organizations are part of a larger structure that reflects a dominant set of ideas of how the world works. Definitely, the emergence and growth of international mechanisms depict a change in the way international relations are acted out, nonetheless, the fundamentals remain the same. We live in a world where the state is still the utmost power-holder, the change is that power is now exercised and sought through the legitimacy provided by international organizations.