Building Institutions. Building Peace.
An Analysis of International Organisations and their Influence on Global Cooperation and Coordination
Darcy Thompson
2
Abstract
Several prominent international reports have recently highlighted a disorganised international peacebuilding regime. In particular, coordination and cooperation have been emphasised as insufficient. This research paper aims to address this problem by applying neoliberal institutionalist theory to test the hypothesis that the peacebuilding regime can best be strengthened by creating an international peacebuilding organisation. According to neoliberal institutionalist theory, institutionalisation will increase cooperation and coordination in the subject field. Therefore creating an international peacebuilding organisation will increase cooperation and coordination among actors in the peacebuilding field. Using a congruence case study approach, this thesis analyses three cases of international organisations to test the validity of neoliberal intuitionalism as well as the effects institutionalisation had on the subject area. Results show neoliberal institutionalism’s claim to be valid - increased institutionalisation does foster cooperation and coordination among actors. The information gained from the case study analysis is further used in order to propose an organisational model for a future peacebuilding organization. A variety of primary and secondary sources are used for this investigation including documents, organisation publications and academic literature.
Key words: global governance, international organisation, cooperation, neoliberal institutionalism, peacebuilding
Words: 20 624
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...... 1
1.1 Examining Global Governance...... 1
1.1.1. Definition of Global Governance Terms...... 2
1.2 The Peacebuilding Regime...... 4
1.2.1 A Brief History of Peacebuilding...... 4
1.2.2 Current State of Peacebuilding...... 7
1.2.3 Defining the Problem...... 7
1.3 Aims and Objectives...... 10
1.4 Statement of Research...... 12
1.5 Delimitations...... 12
1.6 Relation to Previous Research...... 13
1.7 Structure of Thesis...... 15
2. Theoretical Framework...... 16
2.1 Liberalist Approaches to Cooperation and Coordination...... 16
2.2 Realist Approaches to Cooperation and Coordination...... 17
2.3 A Closer Examination of Neoliberal Institutionalism...... 18
2.4 Points of Divergence...... 19
2.5 The Application of Neoliberal Institutionalism to
the Case of Peacebuilding...... 20
3. Methodology...... 20
3.1 Epistemological Background...... 23
3.2 Nature of Investigation...... 24
3.3 Research Method...... 25
3.4 Case Selection...... 27
3.5 Research Material...... 29
3.6 Limitations...... 30
3.7 Quality of Research...... 31
4. Analysis...... 32
4.1 Case Study 1: The United Nations Organisation...... 32
4.2 Case Study 2: The Organisation for Security Cooperation in Europe...... 37
4.3 Case Study 3: The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons...... 43
5. Discussion of Results...... 48
5.1 Results of Analysis...... 48
5.1.1 Factors Which Contributed to Cooperation and Coordination...... 44
5.2 Crafting a Future Peacebuilding Organisation...... 52
5.2.1 A Note on the Existing United Nations Peacebuilding Commission...... 44
5.2.2 Recommendations for a Peacebuilding Organisation...... 54
6. Conclusions...... 57
7. Bibliography...... 59
Appendix 1...... 67
List of Abbreviations
CoE Council of Europe
CSCE Conference on Security Cooperation in Europe
CWC Chemical Weapons Convention
DPKO Department of Peacekeeping Operations
EU European Union
GATT General Agreement of Trade and Tariffs
IAEA International Atomic Energy Association
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation
ITU International Telecommunications Union
IMO International Maritime Organisation
IO International Organization
IR International Relation
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
OPCW Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
OSCE Organisation for Security Cooperation in Europe
OSCEPA Organisation for Security Cooperation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly
UN United Nations
UN PBC United Nations Peacebuilding Commission
WFUNA World Federation of United Nations Association
WEU Western European Union
WTO World Trade Organization
5
1 Introduction
1.1 Examining Global Governance
“To analyse world politics is to discuss international institutions: the rules that govern elements of world politics and the organisations that help implement those rules.” (Keohane, 2002: 27).
The growing interdependence of the contemporary world has sparked a great deal of interest in global governance systems. Since the end of the Cold War the number of international organisations and institutions functioning in the international system has exploded. This reflects the international community’s growing tendency to use to global governance structures as a means for addressing collective action problems. International institutions have been identified as solutions to collective action problems in which international actors continue to face in an increasingly unified world. It seems that the international community has begun to recognise that global governance mechanisms serve crucial functional needs by providing systems of regulations (Keohane, 1988). As a result of the prominence of international organisations and institutions, world affairs are increasingly being played out through these coordinated structures. Consequently they have the effect of influencing the behaviour and actions of international actors[1] across a wide range of subject-areas[2].
Global governance is the term used to refer to rule-making and the exercise of power at the international level. It implies a set of guiding principles, mechanisms and frameworks for influencing the behaviour of actors (Rosenau and Czempiel,1992: 4). As the world has become increasingly interconnected there is a clear need for social institutions and organisations to provide a set of rules, decision-making procedures and principles to define social practices for all actors (Young, 1997:3). These frameworks - established through formal and informal arrangements, agreements and understandings - help maintain world order. They do this by linking international actors together by fostering cooperation and collaboration. International institutions are increasingly important organisational and analytical tools for sustaining global stability.
1.1.1 Definition of Global Governance Terms
The field of global governance is laced with ambiguously defined terms which are often used interchangeably by academics in existing literature. This remains one of the most significant problems when trying to describe patterns of order. Defining institution, regime and organisation is especially problematic due to the recent proliferation of their usage in academic literature. Instead of solidifying universal definitions of the terms their increase in usage has in fact done the opposite. Their meanings have been stretched, broadened and blurred according to the needs of the authors employing them. The fact that each of the terms are closely related means that a great deal of overlap exists when trying to define the terms. As a result they are often used interchangeably as synonyms for an ambiguous international governance structure (Stein, 1982). For the sake of clarity in this investigation, these terms will be defined for the reader.
In line with Stephen Krasner’s[3] definition of regime, I define a regime as a social institution consisting of agreed upon principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programs that govern the interactions of actors in a specific, well defined issue area (Krasner, 1983; Levy, Young and Zürn, 1995). According to Krasner (1983), principles are beliefs of fact and causation; norms are standards of behaviour defined in terms of rights and obligations. Rules are specific prescriptions and proscriptions for action. Decision-making procedures are prevailing practices for making and implementing collective choice (ibid, 2). Unfortunately for international relations student, institutions and regimes are very similar in nature and are constantly interchanged for one another in existing literature. This makes differentiating between institutions and regimes quite the task since they share many of the same attributes. Namely, both terms involve sets of rules, norms, principles, and expectations which govern the specific issue area in which they exist. The major difference between the two terms is that an international regime generally refers to rules, norms and principles that exist within a particular issue area. International institutions on the other hand, are broader in scope and often incorporate a number of issue-specific regimes within them (Martin and Simmons, 2001). Many scholars do not choose to recognise this seemingly minor difference and thus it has become common to use the two terms interchangeably. Organisations are easier to define than the previous two terms since they are physical entities as opposed to practices. Like regimes and institutions, organisations also establish norms, principles and rules for a given subject-area; however they also help to coordinate activities and practices. They entail personnel, budgets, and most often some form of an administrative apparatus which allows them to coordinate. Lastly the term institutionalisation is used extensively in the course of this research paper. It refers to the development and implementation of any number of governance systems or structures used to help manage a given issue area.
All governance structures, regardless of whether we are speaking about institutions, regimes or organisations, are problem-driven in the sense that they come into existence to solve or manage problems that individual actors in the international community are unable to cope with independently (Young, 1980). Incentives to form governance structures depend primarily on the existence of shared interests among a group of actors (Keohane, 1982). Global governance structures facilitate the smooth operation of an increasingly decentralised international political system and therefore perform a very important function. Governance structures can evolve to meet the changing needs of their members (Spector and Zartman: 17). In the rapidly changing world adaptability needs to be an essential feature if the structures are going to survive. The task of facilitating coordination and cooperation among actors in a given subject-field over time is no easy feat. Governance structures need to be able to respond to the needs of their members, as well as the needs of their subject-areas in order to be able to continue performing their vital organisational function.
1.2 The Peacebuilding Regime
Post-conflict peacebuilding is a broad catchphrase which refers to various methods and strategies aimed at preventing violent conflicts from reigniting after initial fighting has stopped. In contrast to peacekeeping where the emphasis is placed on achieving peace through military deployment, peacebuilding has more to do with building peace via political and social change in the volatile society. There is no strong consensus on the definition of peacebuilding, let alone best practices for achieving it. In his Agenda for Peace, former UN Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali (1992) defined peacebuilding expansively as “action to identify and support structures which will tend to strengthen and solidify peace in order to avoid a relapse into conflict”. However the operational meaning of peacebuilding varies significantly across multilateral, regional and national agencies (Barnett, Kim, O’Donnell and Sitea, 2007). Essentially peacebuilding is whatever needs to be done in the context of emerging, current or post-conflict situations with the explicit purpose of promoting lasting and sustainable peace (Johnson, 2003). In other words peacebuilding is defined by its context and purpose. On the one hand this degree of definitional ambiguity suits the current nature of peacebuilding. On the other hand, the looseness of the term has caused a great deal of coordination problems. The confusion surrounding the term combined with the fact that there is currently no independent peacebuilding organisation with authority to coordinate and enforce peacebuilding activities. Nonetheless contemporary peacebuilding has developed into a complex, multidimensional field of work which encompasses different institutions and actors across a wide range of areas (Knight, 2003: 241).
1.2.1. A Brief History of Peacebuilding
The end of the Cold War marked a pivotal changing point in the history of global peace and security. The twentieth century was an era of unprecedented war and violence; two World Wars, and several regional and civil conflicts had culminated in the loss of hundreds of millions of lives. However, the affirmation of democracy at the end of the Cold War brought with it the promise of peace. Unfortunately this initial post Cold-War optimism was short-lived. In the early 1990s global security and human welfare was once again being challenged, and this time by conflict on a smaller scale than what the world had grown accustomed. The threat of conflict on an international scale had decreased but regional and civil conflicts had proliferated. This remains the case today. These ‘smaller-scale’ conflicts, often termed ‘new wars’ in contemporary literature, are not based on traditional power politics as was the case in past conflicts. Instead of wars occurring between nation states, ‘new wars’ occur within nation states and involve sub-regional actors battling over issues of identity, culture or religion (Hideo, 2003). This internal violence is played out in the form of civil wars within the confines of a single country. Civil wars accounted for 94 percent of all armed conflicts in the 1990s (Wallensteen and Sollenberg, 2001: 632). On an even broader scope, of the 111 conflicts fought between 1989 and 2000, 104 of them were civil conflicts (ibid, 632).
Despite the promise of stability ushered in by the end of the Cold-War, the post Cold-War political landscape continues to be wrought with collapsing states and internal conflicts (Paris, 2004). These conflicts, left uncontrolled and uncontained, represent a real threat to regional as well as global stability. The risk of civil conflicts spreading into neighbouring states, the effects of fleeing refugees on both the home and receiving states, and the growth of terrorist and criminal networks all contribute to a volatile post-conflict environment in war-shattered states. Thus civil conflicts endanger the political stability of an entire geographical region. In addition, the potential for war to recur in states emerging from civil war is quite high.
Post-conflict states are especially vulnerable environments. It is a widely cited fact that almost 50 percent of the time countries revert back to warfare within the first five years of a peace settlement (Collier et al, 2003: 83). Deep rooted resentment and fear often lingers among the local population even after the initial fighting has stopped. In addition, general economic distress, weak or non-existent governmental institutions and severely damaged physical infrastructure often exacerbates the already volatile situation in these states. This creates a need for immediate post-conflict peacebuilding by international actors with the means and the capacity to assist easing the tense situation. The management of civil conflicts has become a growing concern of the international community who is interested in preventing conflicts from escalating into larger regional or even global problems.
In the initial post Cold-War period, the task of global crisis management was handled primarily by the United Nations. Its main focus was stopping the initial violent conflict, via peacekeeping. This entailed the deployment of United Nations military forces in conflict zones used to monitor activity ‘in the field’ and reinforce cease fire agreements (McAskie, 2007: 3). Despite some peacekeeping success in the 1990s and early 2000’s it became increasingly apparent that the UN was unable to meet the growing demand for conflict management around the world. As a result of this shortcoming, a need developed for external actors working outside the scope of the United Nations to partake in global peace efforts. Although the United Nations continues to be the primary provider of peacekeeping efforts, several major governmental and nongovernmental organisations have become involved in the challenge of managing civil conflicts.