Organising Global Stratification: How International Organisations (Re)Produce Inequalities in International Society

Fehl, Caroline; Freistein, Katja

doi:10.1080/13600826.2020.1739627

Cited by 30 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 9 publications

(9 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Recent IO scholarship debates whether IOs can flatten or increase structural inequalities within their formal membership despite the principle of sovereign equality (Viola, 2020). We do not dispute that formal membership implies institutional privileges such as the right to vote, which associated states do not have; however, as existing scholarship has shown, inequalities persist even among formal full member-states (Fehl and Freistein, 2020).…”

Section: Memberness’s Influence On Ios and Implications For Io Researchmentioning

confidence: 62%

Porous organizational boundaries and associated states: introducing memberness in international organizations

Hofmann

Andreska²,

Burai³

et al. 2023

European Journal of International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current binary understanding of membership in international organizations (IOs), especially regional organizations (ROs), creates blind spots and biases in our understanding of who matters in IOs, as well as why and how they matter. Existing scholarship primarily looks at full member-states or non-state actors to capture who influences such organizations. Associated states are often portrayed as passive receivers of IO rules instead of active contributors. We address this blind spot and resulting analytical bias by exploring what types of association relationships exist and how they impact IOs. We propose a novel conceptualization of membership that we call member ness. On the level of IOs, memberness is based on the relative openness of organizational boundaries and stratified access via material and ideational contributions. On the level of states, memberness captures associated states’ individual choices to contribute materially and/or ideationally to an IO. Memberness moves away from a purely rights-based understanding of membership (or who you are in an IO) to include a capacity-based understanding (or what you do in an IO). This shift in focus uncovers new channels of influence on IOs. Associated states’ material and ideational contributions to IOs constitute three memberness types: payroller, sponsor, and advisor. We argue that these memberness types impact IOs’ vitality, design, and performance in previously unrecognized ways. We illustrate these types with empirical examples from ROs across the globe and discuss the implications of memberness for IO research programs.

show abstract

Section: Memberness’s Influence On Ios and Implications For Io Researchmentioning

confidence: 62%

Porous organizational boundaries and associated states: introducing memberness in international organizations

Hofmann

Andreska²,

Burai³

et al. 2023

European Journal of International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Historically, the U.S. has contributed to the economic development of its allies through the Marshall Plan as well as various bilateral programs. The main role in the preservation and accumulation of wealth in the United States and its allies is played by the Washington Consensus and GATT-WTO institutions (Fehl and Freistein, 2020). However, economy and security are just the foundation-in different historical periods the United States contributed to global governance in various functional areas (for example, decolonization, global Internet governance, strategic stability, nuclear non-proliferation, the fight against climate change, etc.…”

Section: What Hegemony Stands Onmentioning

confidence: 99%

European Security Crisis and U.S. Hegemony: Reversing the Decline?

Nesmashnyi¹

2023

RGA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article investigates the impact of the 2022 European security crisis on global hegemony. The author conceptualizes international hegemony as a legitimate rule based on the provision of club and public goods, and on coercion. The more benefits a hegemon's allies get from such international order and the more they fear coercion, the more they are willing to contribute to the hegemonic project. In recent years, the academic literature has increasingly documented the United States' decline as a hegemonic power. In trying to consolidate power and optimize costs, the hegemon has shattered international regimes it helped create, thereby losing much of its international legitimacy. A comparative analysis of the European reaction to the 2014 and 2022 Ukraine crises shows how the perceived "Russian threat" to security has instantly boosted the legitimacy of NATO and the U.S. as the main security provider. As a result, the U.S. no longer faces opposition from its allies to its attempts to dismantle existing international regimes and halt the production of public goods. The threat-RUSSIA IN GLOBAL AFFAIRS 132 European Security Crisis and U.S. Hegemony: Reversing the Decline? induced consolidation effect is not perpetual, and the current crisis entails some long-term negative consequences for future hegemony. However, the U.S. has acquired a chance to use its preponderant capabilities and loyal allies to safeguard its hegemony over the period of international reordering.

show abstract

“…The recent hierarchy‐driven research interest on international organizations postulates that institutional inequality in international politics systematically privileges ‘powerful over weak states’ (Fehl, 2014, p. 508; Fehl & Freistein, 2020). The hierarchical character of the UN Security Council accords special rights to the powerful, bars some countries from membership and rights, and create exceptions for its powerful members (Fehl, 2014).…”

Section: Why Elected Members Matter and How Great Powers Get Themmentioning

confidence: 99%

Controlling International Institutions: How the US Engineered UNSC Non‐permanent Members in the Early Cold War

Balcı

2022

Global Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How did the US shape the composition of the UN Security Council during the early Cold War period? By focusing on the election of non‐permanent members to Council seats, this paper investigates what role the US played in the nomination and election of candidate countries. In doing so, the study relies heavily on US diplomatic archives since those archival materials are rich in terms of voting preferences of UN members, negotiations between the US and its allies, and Washington's intensive lobbying for candidates. Investigating contested elections from 1946 to 1964, we find that although the US had an extensive influence on determining Council's non‐permanent members, its power to influence election outcomes dramatically weakened from the late 1950s onwards. This finding has important implications for the recent literature on the UN Security Council.

show abstract

Organising Global Stratification: How International Organisations (Re)Produce Inequalities in International Society

Cited by 30 publications

References 9 publications

Porous organizational boundaries and associated states: introducing memberness in international organizations

Porous organizational boundaries and associated states: introducing memberness in international organizations

European Security Crisis and U.S. Hegemony: Reversing the Decline?

Controlling International Institutions: How the US Engineered UNSC Non‐permanent Members in the Early Cold War

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About