International Organizations Karns.pdf
CLICK HERE ---> https://bytlly.com/2t7UuW
The balance of the volume is organized into two parts. Chapters 2 and 3 comprise the first part. Together they offer an analytical excursion into the key actors and institutions that make up the UN system. Chapter 2 introduces each of the principal UN organs. More than simply a recitation of decision-making structures and operational responsibilities, the authors open a window into the political dynamics of the various bodies. Chapter 3 complements the discussion of UN structures with an examination of the broad range of actors that operate within, and seek to influence the actions of, UN institutions. Although primary attention is given to members states, the authors also discuss the role of various non-state actors, including the UN Secretariat and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
Greg often speaks to local real estate and banking groups, and sits on the boards of several professional, trade, and nonprofit organizations, including the Asian Business League and Lambda Alpha International, an international land economics society.
The United Nations in the 21st Century provides a comprehensive yet accessible introduction to the United Nations, exploring the historical, institutional, and theoretical foundations of the UN. This popular text for courses on international organizations and international relations also discusses the political complexities facing the organization today.
This book review considers two books on international organizations: (1) Margaret P. Karns & Karen A. Mingst, International Organizations: The Politics and Processes of Global Governance, and (2) Dan Sarooshi, International Organizations and Their Exercise of Sovereign Powers.
Global governance is a product of neo-liberal paradigm shifts in international political and economic relations. The privileging of capital and market mechanisms over state authority created governance gaps that have encouraged actors from private and civil society sectors to assume authoritative roles previously considered the purview of the State. This reinforces the divergence of views about how to define the concept of global governance, issues that are of the utmost importance and priority. Some scholars argue that global governance as it is practiced is not working (Coen and Pegram, 2015: 417), while others believe that global governance is constantly adapting by readjusting strategies and approaches to solutions and developing new tools and measures to deal with issues that impact communities throughout the world (Held and Hale, 2011). Rather than judging current global governance, this contribution seeks to provide an overview of the current state of global governance by discussing its present state vis à vis the challenges that it faces and its future.
A multitude of actors define and shape the current structure of global governance. States, international organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), multinational corporations, scientific experts, civil society groups, networks, partnerships, private military and security companies, as well as transnational criminal and drug-trafficking networks provide world politics with multi-actor perspectives and take part in steering the political system (Dingwerth and Pattberg, 2006; Biermann and Pattberg, 2012; Karns and Mingst, 2015). Global governance actors broaden the scope of activities in which they are involved and they also change the patterns of interaction and cooperation in tackling current issues on a global level. Current global governance arrangements favour flexibility over rigidity, prefer voluntary measures to binding rules, choose partnerships over individual actions, and give rise to new initiatives and ideas.
Global governance is arguably inevitable for the survival of the human race in present and future generations. Although global governance sometimes appears fragile and ineffective in response to current challenges, the trend of globalization and the demand for global governance approaches have already passed the point of no return. The future of global governance will be mainly shaped by the following five factors: individual empowerment, increasing awareness of human security, institutional complexity, international power shift and liberal world political paradigm. We draw this conclusion by applying the findings and observations from different field of studies including security studies, international political economy, global governance field and communications studies.
Fourth, global governance in the future will be also be shaped by power shifts in international relations. Almost all the traditional institutions of global governance were initiated by Western countries, and their pluralistic political culture and influential civil societies have shaped the political context of global governance. States of the Global South, especially China, have improved their relative power in relation to the Global North. As a result, the voice of actors originating from the Global South is expected to become more prominent in global governance regimes and institutions traditionally dominated by a small number of the Global North states. Therefore, an increase in multilateralism will further complicate the face of global governance.
The Allies seek to contribute to the efforts of the international community in projecting stability and strengthening security outside NATO territory. One of the means to do so is through cooperation and partnerships.
World politics in the post-Cold War world has become increasingly institutionalized. However, the role of international organizations has been overlooked in much of the literature on international regimes. Now in paperback, The United States and Multilateral Institutions examines United States policy in areas ranging from international trade to human rights, and in institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), GATT and the World Health Organization.
The SAIS Review is dedicated to advancing the debate on leading contemporary issues of world affairs. The SAIS Review publishes essays that straddle the boundary between scholarly inquiry and practical experience in its search to bring a fresh and policy-focused perspective to global political, economic, and security questions. Contributors have a wide range of backgrounds, and include distinguished academics, policy analysts, leading journalists, parliamentarians, and senior officials from both government and non-governmental organizations. A book review section is featured in every issue.
Setting: Based on historical sensibility, this article heavily employs the United Nations as a test case to gain a crispy understanding of the difficulties faced by international organisations.
This section uses the UN in the main with the aid of other international organisations in order to paint a qualitatively rich picture of these actors in the international system. Archer (2001:68) finds that international organisations play the role of an instrument, arena and actor in the international system. As instruments, international organisations are used by member states to achieve their foreign and, to some extent, domestic policy objectives (Archer 1992:135). The foregoing observation should be understood within the context that foreign policy is not necessarily delinked from the macro domestic policy framework of the country that formulates and implements it (Shai 2016a). The use of international organisations as instruments for the furtherance of foreign policy is more prevalent in IGOs than in INGOs (Raphala & Shai 2016). Additionally, the utilisation of an international organisation as an instrument is likely to lead to the most powerful members fighting over it; this limits the prospects of the organisation taking independent action (and therefore being impartial) (Archer 2001:69). As an example, Archer (2001:69) recalls that in its first eight years of existence, the UN was used as an instrument of United States of America (hereafter referred to as the US) diplomacy, mainly against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), which is commonly known as the Soviet Union.
As arenas, international organisations perform the function of a forum or stage on which member states can discuss, cooperate, argue or disagree on numerous issues (Archer 1992:141; Archer 2001:73). Traditionally, international organisations have given their members an opportunity to articulate their viewpoints and suggestions in an open and public forum, hence a study of forty-one academic publications written between 1970 and 1977 found that 78 per cent presented the UN as an arena (Archer 2001:74). The use of the UN and its agencies in the 1970s by Third World countries as a platform to voice their views on a New International Economic Order (NIEO) serves as a classical example (Archer 2001:74). Equally important, the defunct Organisation of African Unity (OAU) has been very useful in granting an international stage/spot light to the pioneers of liberation in Africa who were meeting to condemn the inhume and brutal system of apartheid, imperialism and all forms of colonialism (Maleka, Vuma & Shai 2016; Shai & Molapo 2017).
Technological advancement and globalisation are some of the factors that have significantly changed global politics and contributed to the increased need for global governance (Karns et al. 2015:4). Organisations such as the UN have thus been utilised more rapidly and their scopes have been expanded, consciously or unconsciously, owing to the increased demand for their involvement in numerous phenomena throughout the world (Keskin 2002:274). These include issues relating to human rights, refugee flows and sustainable development (Keskin 2002:274). However, the increased demand has in most cases not been accompanied by increased capacity. The close assessment and scrutiny that international organisations are being subjected to can therefore be attributed to the aforementioned factors. 2b1af7f3a8