Abstract
Abstract Asian practice of organizationhood challenges traditionally acknowledged theoretical frameworks of international institutional law. Organizationhood is usually construed as based on a set of criteria, among which are 1) creation by an international treaty, and, 2) possession of organs are upheld by a number of scholars. Yet examining a sample of fifteen Asian international organizations proves this definition too restrictive, if not dysfunctional. The conventional criterion is directly contradicted by most of these organizations displaying the marks of an international personality despite having been created with no treaty. This, in turn, impairs the efficient operation of the organic criterion since organs of these organizations do not differ in appearance from States organs acting jointly. Asian minimalism thus suggests that the classical conception of organizationhood is too narrow to subject all entities that behave as international organizations to international law through the attribution of such a status, and that broadening this concept would allow it to better ensure the effectiveness of international law.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
