Introduction The role that international organizations can play depends on the interests of their member States. States establish and develop international organizations to achieve objectives that they cannot achieve on their own. By the same token, States will not permit international organizations to do things that constitute, in the eyes of these States, interference in their internal affairs.
Introduction This section reviews the complete range of international organizations. The conventional categories used are first examined, then various ways of distinguishing between the many kinds of organization and degrees of "internationality" are considered. The problem of borderline cases is discussed, together with non-organizational substitutes for organizations and possible alternative forms of organization.
Quantitative information on the growth of international institutions and indicative data on regional organizations are also presented. A major difficulty in obtaining some understanding of international organizations is the variety of organizational forms which need to be considered.
Abstract classification schemes, particularly when simplified for convenience, tend to conceal the existence of well-developed groups of organizations with distinct features.
The approach employed here has been to use several different ways of breaking up the range of organizations and to cite several examples of organizations of any particular type.
The intent is not to put forward a new systematic classification of international organizations but rather to facilitate an appreciation of the variety of bodies which could be incorporated into any such scheme.
A comment on the three conventional categories used intergovernmental, international non-governmental non-profit, and multinational enterprises is thus a valid point of departure.
The second breakdown of international organizations is developed on the basis of the terminology used in the actual title of the body. The intent here is to show the limitations of this obvious, but somewhat superficial, approach, as well as its value in distinguishing between some kinds of organization.
The scheme developed is based on the relationship between such bodies and the meetings by which they were created. Another categorization used is based on the structural peculiarities of some kinds of organization.
Bodies are distinguished in terms of their hybrid character, dependent character, semi-autonomous character, relationship to leadership, regional orientation, functional orientation, heterogeneity of membership, structural complexity, or minimal structure. Some international organizations may also be usefully characterized by the special emphasis they give to a particular mode of action.
Others may be distinguished by the specialized nature of their preoccupation as contrasted with any more conventional classification by subject. A significant number of bodies called "international" can also be usefully distinguished in terms of peculiarities in their geographic orientation or distribution of membership.
In addition to the above rubrics, there are a number of groups of organizations with other special characteristics such as commemoration of individuals, focus on charismatic personalities, special patronage bodies, alumni associations, retrogressive bodies and hyperprogressive bodies.
Each of the dimensions mentioned brings out different aspects of the range and variety of international bodies.
Several examples of organizations in any such group are cited to give a better grasp of the kinds of bodies which exist. Most of the named bodies are described in this volume, the number in parenthesis following each name being the reference number of the description.
It should be stressed that a particular body could well exemplify several of the special characteristics discussed, although it may only have been cited because of the apparent dominant nature of a particular characteristic.
The term "apparent" is deliberately used because the characteristic in question may not necessarily be of great important in determining the actual functioning of the organization eg the Howard League for Penal Reform could perhaps just as well be called the International League for Penal Reform.
It should also be stressed that in the main the dimensions and characteristics discussed attempt to draw attention to the many exceptional cases rather than to distinguish between organizations lacking any of the characteristics noted. It could be argued that there is a central core of international organizations which can only usefully be classified in terms of aims, internal structure, control, activities and membership.
Unfortunately, it is these same bodies which tend to be multifunctional and therefore to be difficult to capture adequately and meaningfully in the schemes which have been proposed to date. Given the preponderance of organizations possessing characteristics distinguishing them, to a greater or lesser degree, from a model international organization, it is appropriate to attempt a descriptive review on this basis - in anticipation of a more adequate and comprehensive scheme.
Conventional categories It is usual to distinguish between three main types of "international organization", namely: The view of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations concerning intergovernmental organizations is implicit in its Resolution X of 27 February The terms "treaty" and "international agreement" have not been defined either in the Charter or in the regulations.
Further complications arise from: This matter was not resolved by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Vienna, ; bilateralisation of treaties when several states act together to aid another state under a "multilateral" treaty signed by all of them; agreements in which one of the parties is itself an intergovernmental organization thus "multilateralising" the agreement acting to establish an intergovernmental institute in a particular country thus "bilateralising" the agreementof which the government is one of the parties to that agreement eg many UNESCO agreements with individual developing countries to establish regional research centres ; agreements signed on behalf of national government agencies or departments which, in the case of purely technical matters, may not fully engage the state; the resulting organizations may then define themselves as "non-governmental".
In practice therefore, the editors assume that an organization is intergovernmental if it is established by signature of an agreement engendering obligations between governments, whether or not that agreement is eventually published.
If any organization declares itself to be non-governmental, it is accepted as such by the editors. All organizations established by agreements to which three states or more are parties are therefore included.
Following the adoption of Resolution XI of 20 July see Appendix 14it was agreed with the UN Secretariat in New York that bodies arising out of bilateral agreements should not be included in the Yearbook although they may be included in Type G or N.
A detailed re-examination of this matter by Singer and Wallace questioned this conventional definition. In particular they argue: There are two points to be made here: One, this objection is met by us in that mere treaties or pacts are excluded by other criteria. We only urge that an organization's bilateral character cannot of itself be grounds for exclusion.
Further, such exclusion would not only leave out such important organizations as the North American Air Defense Command NORAD but would also force us to drop such multilateral organizations as the Rhine Commission when historical circumstances temporarily reduced the membership to two.
They conclude that "it would be unreasonable to exclude organizations simply because a number of their members were not national states. They exclude treaties or agreements administered by another international organization such as the various special unions of the International Union for the Protection of Industrial Property.
Much research on these bodies is based on those described in the Yearbook of International Organizations.Video: Basic Structures & Functions of the Human Body The human body is a complex system with structures ranging from cells to organ systems and functions ranging from waste removal to protection.
The Basic Functions of International Bodies Atlantic Council, and leads NATO's staff. The current Secretary General is Anders Fogh .
The Role and Functions of International Organizations in the Field of Migrant Workers by W. R. Böhning What are the principal functions accorded to international organizations? They may be summarized under four headings: Another is the difficulty of covering this complexity with stipulations that effectively secure migrants' basic. 4 Basic Functions of Management Tynesha Sutton American Intercontinental University Abstract This paper will explain the importance of the four business functions which are planning, organizing, directing, and controlling. Planning is the process of creating the business vision; Organizing is arranging the internal structure of the organization. The main function of the World Trade Organization, or WTO, is ensuring that international trade flows as smoothly as possible in the multilateral trading system between its member countries. The WTO is the only international organization dealing with the global rules of trade between nations.
The main organs of the UN are the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, the International Court of Justice, and the UN Secretariat. All were established in when the UN was founded.
Intergovernmental Organizations, Nongovernmental Organizations, and International Law. International Law and Functions Authoritative bodies, such as the UN International Law Commission.
Courts. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has been responsible for some significant decisions, but it is a weak institution for several . Notable examples include the United Nations (UN), Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), Council of Europe (COE), International Labour Organization (ILO) and International Police Organization (INTERPOL).
The UN has used the term "intergovernmental organization" instead of "international organization" for clarity. Functions performed by conventional international bodies may also be performed by substitutes for such bodies under certain circumstances as was implied in an earlier section.
One example of how a need satisfied by a conventional organization may be satisfied by a functional equivalent is the case of a "subscribership".