INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS – PRINCIPALS OR AGENTS? INTERPARADIGM DEBATE BETWEEN NEOLIBERALS AND REALISTS

Abstract

The role of international organizations becomes especially acute when nation-states cannot establish consensus with regard to local, regional and global issues. Considering that international organizations are made up of members with varying power dynamics, there is often criticism that they represent the interests of power players and not a true consensus-building platform that would enable solving collective issues. The schools of realism and neoliberalism in the framework of International Relations attribute various roles to international organizations (IOs); while the first regard them as mere instruments of nation-states, the latter view them as crucial international players with autonomous status. This article critically evaluates various issues related to the efficiency and design of international institutions in the framework of this interparadigm debate and with consideration of the UN as a prime example. The analysis illustrates that further research in the field of IOs is imperative for both theoretical model-building as well as practical developments in the field. Finding workable models is a vital concern for all international organizations, regardless of their purpose, size and origin.