Yasemin Unal
Professor Mark Shirk
GVPT200FC
11 November 2013
The efficiency of
International Organizations fulfilling their objectives are often the subject
for debate. Some realists would argue that International Organizations are not
useful in accomplishing their objectives of creation. Yet, I would argue that
if an organization has acquired global legitimacy, then it has become a significant
source of prevention. Even though there is an abundance of International
Organizations, I will be focusing on how the World Trade Organization (WTO) has
gained legitimacy through regulating commerce between states.
To begin, the purpose of the WTO,
when it was created in 1995 after the Uruguay Rounds, was to provide international
trade with some type of a regulatory policy. This would ensure that states
could not discriminate against one another and global trade would be much
easier to take part in. In the long run, this idea of "free trade"
allowed many states to develop stronger economies through globalization and
modernization. Since the WTO was successful in executing it's purpose of
removing and preventing barriers of commerce, it has gained a sense of
legitimacy among international society.
Furthermore, the WTO has a specific
department, the Dispute Settlement Body, to act as a council for trade disputes.
If one state feels discriminated against by another's trade policy or quota,
then that state can appeal to the Dispute Settlement Body. This council has the
authority to uphold the trade policies ensuring a "free" global
market. Through the Dispute Settlement Body, states recognize the legitimacy of
the WTO because it has a method for implementing repercussions when policies
are violated. Having consequences for violators is critical for the global
legitimacy of International Organizations, because states want their interests that
are guaranteed in policies to be upheld. Thus, by providing a council the WTO provides
a method for states that are being restricted to seek justice.
A fundamental trait of the council
is that it does not hold prejudice against any state. Therefore, the overall
strength or importance of a state has no effect in the outcome of the council's
decisions. This further legitimizes the purpose and rulings of the Dispute
Settlement Body and the WTO. A prime example of the unbiased council can be referenced
through the Costa Rican Underwear dispute between the USA and Costa Rica. Even
though the economy of the USA is what arguably influences the global economy,
this did not influence the ruling that the USA did have a discriminatory
trading policy against Costa Rican underwear. When states feel that an
organization is just and not based on favoritism or influence, then that institution's
decisions are more readily implemented and followed.
In the final analysis, some might disagree
against the success of International Organizations. However, I argue that the
key for success for these Organizations is to acquire a sense of authenticity
among states and the global society. When this is achieved, then the rulings of
International Organizations are implemented and obeyed. To support my argument,
I explained how the WTO gained global legitimacy and why it's rulings are
followed.
I would probably agree with you that the WTO has more legitimacy than other international organizations because of the institutions in place that you mentioned and because it is less US and Euro centric than other organizations. I think International Organizations, as a whole, hold a lot of promise but are often inefficient because they are unequal. The WTO is more efficient than most because it is in every country's interest to have a successful and functioning trade system in place while in the UN, on the other hand, it is unequal and it is not set up to facilitate meaningful change in international crises.
ReplyDeleteYeah I agree that the UN isn't a good example of an international organization that is efficient. But, I think that could be altered if there were some type of repercussions system put into place, like the WTO has. If that were to happen, then the UN's policies would be more effective because states would be punished if they were not followed. The main problem with International Organizations is that they lack the overall effective authority over states that aren't as involved in the UN and world politics.
DeleteI definitely agree with the idea that the WTO tends to be a more effective international organization, but I think its legitimacy is still a reflection of the investment of countries which possess a lot of power. While it is not necessarily a "US and Euro centric" organization, as Shiran pointed out, I think it still maintains its status as a legitimate organization because of the fact that the US and other European powers are players within the organization.
DeleteI agree with Sarah that the legitimacy of the organization depends on the participation of the US and other super powers. Regardless of the WTO's intentions to help smaller countries, those countries might not even recognize the system if the US and European powers were not part of the organization to begin with.
DeleteI agree with you that the Dispute Settlement Body is a great thing for the WTO because it gives the countries somewhere to fall back to in order to make sure that the policies would be upheld. I also agree that the WTO is one of the more legit organizations and I think this is so because there is more opportunity for it to regulate the trade system due to the fact that if it doesn't, the world's economy can be impacted.
ReplyDeleteI like how you pointed out that the WTO does not discriminate against any state or treat any states differently. The example of the US and Costa Rica proves that since clearly America is the more powerful country but Costa Rica won the case. However I don't think we can say that just because the WTO is effective so is every International Organization. Overall really good job!
ReplyDeleteI really liked your blog post especially since the WTO is a good example. It is an international organization that actually delivers and doesn't have subjective power among the countries. It has a sense of legitimacy, like you had said, and is actually able to fulfill its objectives. But why do you think this succeeds instead of the UN, because the majority of people probably have heard of the United Nations over the WTO, is it by chance or by structural ability?
ReplyDeleteI think that the WTO is more successful in carrying out their mission, because they actually have repercussions that are carried out when a state violates a trade agreement. That is not to say that the UN does not also have repercussions, but I feel that they are often too late or unsuccessful.
Delete