1. WHEN ARE INTERNATIONAL
ORGANISATIONS EFFECTIVE
IN INTERNATIONAL
POLITICS?
Amougou Aristide Agbor
Abstract
For international organisations to be effective, their leadership must be able to
consolidate the trust of member states and secure sufficient resources from them
to fulfil assigned mandates and objectives. As entities devoid of autonomous
enforcement capabilities, international institutions are effective when they build
credibility, strengthen appropriate agency relationships and avoid mission
creep.

2. 1
Introduction
Despite the increase in the number of international organisations that have been
created by states to promote cooperation and improve the welfare of people, international
politics has continued to be marked by some unfortunate events with daunting consequences
on humanity. The demise of the League of Nations and the advent of the second world war,
the prevailing poverty in the global south reflecting the inadequacies of the Bretton Woods
institutions’ structural adjustment programs as well as America’s pre-emptive war in Iraq in
2003 without a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) mandate are just a few amongst
many other controversial situations which have put to question the very essence of
multilateral diplomacy and shed light on its limits.
However, the painting isn’t solely bleak as huge amount of empirical evidence attest
to some noble achievements on the part of international organisations (Lundgren, 2017).
These include for example the resolution of the Cameroon-Nigeria territorial dispute over
Bakassi in 2002 by the International Court of Justice and the United Nations General
Secretariat, the advancement of the decolonisation agenda through the United Nations
Trusteeship Council and the consolidation of peace and integration in Europe through the
European Union’s institutional architecture.
From a holistic perspective, the above dichotomy raises questions about the
conditions under which international organisations can be effective at preserving the values
and principles enshrined in their constitutive documents, even when this entails challenging
the very states that founded them or voluntarily adhered to their instances. From an empirical
perspective, one could question for example if the UN could have done anything to prevent
America’s war in Iraq in 2003 and if anything can be done to prevent its current
administration as well as Israel from compromising the UNSC mandated deal on Iran’s
nuclear program.
To appropriately address this academic endeavour, a vital contextual recall is worth
underlining in that although the contemporary Westphalia based world order confers states
with primacy over sovereign legitimacy, international organisations, albeit being created by
the latter, possess autonomous judicial personality. This implies that the resources (means)
and legitimacy on which multilateral entities rely for their operations are derived primarily
from their member states. As a result, this paper is articulated on the main argument that: “for
international organisations to be effective, their leadership must be able to consolidate the

3. 2
trust of member states and secure sufficient resources from them to fulfil its mandate and
objectives”.
I. Consolidating States’ trust as a sine qua non for International Organisations’
effectiveness
Tactfully sustaining political commitment to the values of the organisation
If international organisations are to succeed in fulfilling the objectives for which they
are created, they must sustain member states’ political commitment to the values and
principles which lie at the heart of their existence. Considering the numerous political
dilemmas which these organisations are usually confronted with, this task is undoubtedly
challenging. Indeed, the cleavages on global political agenda are the fine lines on which they
must tactfully operate to build compromise. For instance, it requires task and persuasion to
keep warring parties committed to the relevance of the negotiating table as it is the case with
issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which polarises the UNSC across extremes.
Even when the bullets are shot, and the bombs detonate, multilateral diplomacy must ensure
that parties do not walk out of the avenue for cooperation that it offers as was the case with
the exit of Japan and Germany from the League of Nations and the subsequent fatalities
which ensued.
Curtailing Frankenstein syndrome
To sustain states’ political commitment and trust in the mechanisms of international
organisations, the latter’s leadership must understand that from a realist perspective, states do
not have permanent friends or enemies, what really matters are their interests. Therefore,
multilateral diplomacy which represents an arena for balance between power struggles and
cooperation could be quitted by a state if it perceives the international organisation’s
mechanisms as been sustainably counterproductive to its interests.
This phenomenon is known in the political literature as Frankenstein syndrome
wherein states, while creating an international organisation, create an institution with a life of
its own and so in doing risk the institution becoming a monster and acting contrary to their
interests (Guzman, 2013). For this reason, and as argued by Andrew Guzman, “though there
is a trade-off between the preservation of state control over the international system and the
creation of effective and productive international organisations, states have placed far too

4. 3
much weight on the former and nearly not enough on the latter.” If international
organisations’ leadership curtail this ‘fear’ by emitting positive signals of cooperation,
equality and justice to the actors of international relations, they can be attributed more
legitimacy and be more effective in international politics.
Credible persuasion considering minimum enforcement mechanisms
As highlighted by Irene Couzigou, “international organisations, unlike states, have
limited means at their disposal. They do not have staff to perform large-scale operations”.
This therefore implies that these entities have by themselves reduced enforcement
mechanisms which makes credible persuasion one of the most efficient means of achieving
their objectives (Tallberg, et al., 2016). According to Songung Fang and Rendal Stone, “the
effectiveness of international institutions as policy advisors depends on trust. Successful
warnings are possible only when the international organisation is credible” (Fang & Stone
W., 2012). To back this argument, these authors provided three empirical cases in which
international organisations relied only on expert persuasion to encourage states to take
appropriate action in crucial situations. The first concerns the 4th
report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published in 2007, which indicated
based on new research that climate change was progressing more rapidly than previously
believed and called for dramatic reductions in carbon emissions. The second example
highlighted was the WHO’s warning of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Health risk
calling on the Chinese government to take remedial action. Finally, the IMF’s warning to
Brazil and Argentina in 1999 and 2000 respectively that their exchange rate policies were
unsustainable in the absence of painful budget cuts. In all these situations, the international
organisations had no enforcement powers and could only rely on persuading the governments
concerned based on credible facts.
II. Securing sufficient resources in view of mandate fulfilment
Building efficient Agency relationships with States
According to Irene Couzigou, “one pragmatic solution to the limited resources of
international organisations is that these can commission states to act on their behalf. For
instance, states can place troops at the disposal of the UN so that it can deploy a
peacekeeping operation. States could also put at the disposal of WHO, their public health
service in order to provide it with efficient means to deal with a threatened epidemic, such as

5. 4
Ebola” (Couzigou, 2014). Known in the political literature as Agency relationships
(Couzigou, 2014), this approach is crucial to the effectiveness of international institutions,
considered to be the principals, on whom behalf states, considered as agents, provide a
service in view of fulfilling a mandate. Effective international organisations secure vital
resources through important agency relationships and putting them to use in achieving their
objectives. On the flipside, in the absence of leadership in building and fostering fruitful
agency relationships, international institutions fail to secure the necessary resources for their
mission. For example, in the years leading up to 1994, the US drastically diminished its
contributions to the UN as a retaliation to then Secretary General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali
vehement criticism of US policy. Given the reduced financial resources, the UN was
compelled to reduce its peacekeeping contingents in Rwanda and when the democide broke
out in July 1994, the UN was unable to halt the massacre.
Sustaining mission legitimacy and avoiding mission creep
According to Robert Lawrence, in addition to having the means (resources) to
accomplish its mission, an international organisation’ effectiveness equally depends on the
degree of legitimacy that it possesses in addressing challenges in a given sector (Lawrence,
2008). The preponderant dynamism and metamorphism of contemporary international
politics presents international organisations with the salient challenge of defining with great
exactitude the issues that fall within their scope of competence. While this may seem
somewhat obvious, it isn’t really the case. Indeed, there is an inherent tendency for many
international organisations to experience mission creep and this often leads to failures of one
of two types: either having inadequate means to carry out the mission or problems of
legitimacy (Lawrence, 2008). Institutions such as the WTO have witnessed accrued
interconnectedness to the core issues of trade by other aspects such as the environment,
labour norms and other ethical issues which stricto sensu do not fall within their scope of
competence. However, neglecting these issues will diminish the efficiency of these
organisations. A solution would be to reinforce interorganisational cooperation in view of
effectively solving multi-layered issues.

6. 5
Conclusion
In the contemporary Westphalia based system, international organisations’
effectiveness relies considerably on their ability to gain and consolidate the trust of states
which are not only their founders but also their major funders. However, their ability to
understand and work with other important actors (stakeholders) of international relations such
as influential individuals, multinational corporations, Non-Governmental organisations as
well as civil society organisations is equally important.
As entities devoid of autonomous enforcement credentials, achieving their goals
entails international institutions build credibility, strengthen appropriate agency relationships
and avoid mission creep without which their resources could be depleted, and their
effectiveness eroded.
On another note, conciliating divergent interests along the fine lines of multilateralism
is a daunting task which sometimes seems impossible when confronted with some of the
toughest impasses. Examples abound in this regard; the armistice along the 37th
parallel in the
Korean peninsula opposing North and South Korea, as well as the conflict over Kashmir
opposing India and Pakistan. Although the UN’s effort towards the resolution of these
conflict hotspots since 1947 and 1953 respectively hasn’t resulted in a positive peace, the
organisation can’t be deemed ineffective in as much as it continues to provide an avenue for
dialogue and cooperation.

7. 6
References
Couzigou, I., 2014. Internationl Organisations and States Within an Agency Relationship: The
Distribution of Responsibility. Netherlands International Law Review, 61(3), pp. 335-364.
Fang, S. & Stone W., R., 2012. International Organizations as Policy Advisors. International
Organization, 66(4), pp. 537-569.
Guzman, A., 2013. International Organizations and the Frankenstein Problem. European Journal of
International Law, 24(4), pp. 999-1025.
Lawrence, R., 2008. International Organisations: The Challenge of Aligning Mission, Means and
Legitimacy. The World Economy, 31(11), pp. 1455-1470.
Lundgren, M., 2017. Which types of International Organizations Can Settle Civil Wars?. The Review of
International Organizations, 12(4), pp. 613-641.
Tallberg, J., Sommerer, T., Squatrito, T. & Lundgren, M., 2016. The performance of Interntional
Organizations: A policy Output Approach. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(7), pp. 1077-1096.