To what extent does membership of international organisations constraint national foreign policy decision-makers?

Résumé du document

The claim that profound structural transformations in the external environment are undermining the principle of state sovereignty has been advanced by many foreign policy analysts from quite different theoretical traditions, and the specific instance of the constraint of membership of international organisations on national foreign policy decision-makers constitutes one aspect of the controversy about the continuing importance of the state and the distinctiveness of foreign policy, the management of ‘interdependence', as well as the ideas and values which transcend governments, and governmental control. The broad concept of ‘dependence' and ‘constraint' in foreign policy decision-making has thus stimulated a great deal of scholarly controversy;

Extraits

[...] Thus, the extent to which IGOs gain access to national foreign policy decision-making bureaucracies seems to be primarily a function of the state structure. Governments have considerable leeway to enable or constrain IGOs as well as transnational actors to influence their foreign policy options. Further, many analysts posit that the constraints imposed by international law are fully compatible with the exercise of sovereignty in foreign policy, since states retain the right to enter into international engagements. The decision of the United States not to ratify the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court is in itself evidence of the persistence of sovereignty attributes on the international realm. [...]

[...] Power and Interdependence Keohane and Nye “Power politics, institutions and transnational relations”, Stephen Krasner, in Bringing Transnational Relations back in, Thomas Risse Kappen, p.257 Bringing Transnational Relations back in Thomas Risse Kappen, p.35. Frameworks for International Cooperation Groom & Taylor, p.109. The Foreign Policies of European Union Member States Edited by Ian Manner and Richard G Whitman, p.18. The Foreign Policies of the EU Member States, p.89. [...]

[...] Neo-liberal and institutionalist scholarly assessment thus assign paramount importance to IGOs and to their capacity to constrain national foreign policy decision makers. Although not entirely misplaced, this view does not adequately address the organisational insecurity and competitive pressures that characterize the transnational sector. Powerful institutional imperatives can subvert IGOs efforts; indeed, notwithstanding the dynamism of contemporary world affairs and the emergence of proliferating non-state actors and “complex interdependence”, states are reluctant to sacrifice sovereignty to IGOs, especially in the foreign policy realm. [...]

[...] These central aspects of foreign policy decision-making are highly regulated by IGOs, notably the UN. Its Security Council provides a much needed ‘legitimation' of intervention, and national foreign policy decision-makers have welcomed, and indeed sought, UNSC resolutions to support armed intervention, application of economic sanctions, as illustrated by the 1990-91 and 2003 Gulf Wars. Furthermore, the increasing internationalisation of economic activity, along with its mounting institutionalisation, narrows the range of policy options, and in the process diminishes the efficacy of state intervention and therefore the applicability of the sovereignty principle. [...]

[...] To what extent does membership of international organisations constraint national foreign policy decision-makers? he claim that profound structural transformations in the external environment are undermining the principle of state sovereignty has been advanced by many foreign policy analysts from quite different theoretical traditions, and the specific instance of the constraint of membership of international organisations on national foreign policy decision-makers constitutes one aspect of the controversy about the continuing importance of the state and the distinctiveness of foreign policy, the management of ‘interdependence', as well as the ideas and values which transcend governments, and governmental control. [...]