Overlap and interplay between international organisations: theories and approaches

Abstract

This article aims to make a contribution to existing building blocks for a theory on the organisational interplay of international organisations. Thereby, the article first provides for a review of existing approaches on regime interaction which have contributed much to our understanding of organisational interplay by promoting concepts such as overlap and nestedness. Second, the article advances the idea of rational interplay based on resource dependencies. It is argued that interplay presupposes mutual resource dependencies to emerge and that resource exchange is governed by the principle of equitable exchange. Third, the consequences of organisational interplay are examined and an explanation is sought for the tendency of IOs to either develop niche capabilities or imitate other institutions. In this context the importance of institutional variance is highlighted.

Keywords:

• African international organisations
• organisational interplay
• theory building

Notes

1. Cilliers J The African Standby Force An Update on Progress, ISS Paper 160. Pretoria: Pretoria Institute for Security Studies, March 2008.

2. Gehring T & S Oberthür ‘Institutional Interaction in Global Environmental Governance: The Case of the Cartagena Protocol and the World Trade Organization’ Global Environmental Politics, 6, 2, 2006, pp. 1–31. Gehring T & S Oberthür ‘The causal mechanisms of interaction between international institutions’, European Journal of International Relations, 15, 1, 2009, pp. 125–56. Raustiala K & DG Victor ‘The regime complex for plant genetic resources’, International Organization, 59, Spring, 2004, pp. 277–309. Rosendahl GK ‘Impacts of overlapping international regimes: The case of biodiversity’, Global Governance, 7, 1, 2001, pp. 95–117.

3. Galaskiewicz J ‘Interorganizational relations’, Annual Review of Sociology, 11, 1985, p. 282.

4. Stein AA ‘Coordination and collaboration: Regimes in an anarchic world’, International Organization, 36, 2, 1982, pp. 299–324. Tallberg J ‘Delegation to supranational institutions: Why, how, and with what consequences?’, West European Politics, 25, 1, 2002, pp. 23–46.

5. Barnett M & M Finnemore ‘The politics, power, and pathologies of international organizations’, International Organization, 53, 4, 1999, pp. 699–732.

6. Gehring T & S Oberthür ‘Institutional interaction in global environmental governance: The case of the Cartagena Protocol and the World Trade Organization’, Global Environmental Politics, 6, 2, 2006, p. 3.

7. Raustiala K & DG Victor ‘The regime complex for plant genetic resources’, International Organization, 59, 2, 2004, pp. 277–78.

8. Raustiala K & DG Victor ‘The regime complex for plant genetic resources’, International Organization, 59, 2, 2004., p. 280.

9. Alter KJ & S Meunier ‘The politics of international regime complexity’, Perspectives on Politics, 7, 1, 2009, p. 17.

10. See note 2.

11. Krasner S ‘Structural causes and regime consequences: regimes as intervening variables’, International Organization, 36, 2, 1982, p. 186.

12. Rittberger V & B Zangl International Organization Polity, Politics and Policies. Houndmills and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006, pp. 6–8.

13. Young O ‘Institutional linkages in international society: Polar perspectives’, Global Governance, 2, 1996, pp. 1–24.

14. Alter KJ & S Meunier ‘Nested and overlapping regimes in the transatlantic banana trade dispute’, Journal of European Public Policy, 13, 3, 2006, pp. 362–82.

15. Young O ‘Institutional linkages in international society: Polar perspectives’, Global Governance, 2, 1996, p. 3.

16. The Democratic Republic of Congo is a member of the Southern African Development Community, the Economic Community of Central African States, the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa and Economic Community of the Great Lakes Countries.

17. Alter KJ & S Meunier ‘The politics of international regime complexity’, Perspectives on Politics, 7, 1, 2009, p. 14.

18. Author, personal communication SADC Ambassador to the AU, 19 April 2011.

19. Young O ‘Institutional linkages in international society: Polar perspectives’, Global Governance, 2, 1996, p. 6.

20. Raustiala K & DG Victor ‘The regime complex for plant genetic resources’, International Organization, 59, Spring, 2004, p. 279.

21. Stokke OS The Interplay of International Regimes: Putting Effectiveness Theory to Work, FNI Report, 14/2001.

22. Gehring T & S Oberthür ‘The causal mechanisms of interaction between international institutions’, European Journal of International Relations, 15, 1, 2009, pp. 125–56.

23. Young O The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay and Scale. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2002, p. 111.

24. Brosig M ‘The interplay of international institutions in Kosovo between convergence, confusion and niche capabilities’, European Security, 20, 2, 2011.

25. Gehring T & S Oberthür ‘The causal mechanisms of interaction between international institutions’, European Journal of International Relations, 15, 1, 2009, pp. 132–35. Stokke OS The Interplay of International Regimes: Putting Effectiveness Theory to Work, FNI Report, 14/2001.

26. Young O ‘Institutional linkages in international society: Polar perspectives’, Global Governance, 2, 1996, pp. 1–24.

27. Hasenclever A, P Mayer & V Rittberger ‘Interests, power, knowledge: The study of international regimes’, Mershon International Studies Review, 40, 2, 1996, pp. 177–228.

28. Van de Ven A ‘On the nature, formation, and maintenance of relations among organizations’, Academy of Management Review, 1, 4, 1976, p. 31.

29. Galaskiewicz J ‘Interorganizational relations’, Annual Review of Sociology, 11, 1985, pp. 281–304. Oliver C ‘Determinants of interorganizational relationships: Integration and future directions’, Academy of Management Review, 15, 2, 1990, pp. 241–65. Van de Ven A & G Walker ‘The dynamics of interorganizational coordination’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 1984, pp. 598–621. Van de Ven A ‘On the nature, formation, and maintenance of relations among organizations’, Academy of Management Review 1, 4, 1976, pp. 24–36.

30. Galaskiewicz J ‘Interorganizational relations’, Annual Review of Sociology, 11, 1985, p. 281.

31. Derblom M, E Hagstrøm & J Schmidt ‘UN–EU–AU coordination in peace operations in Africa’, report, Swedish Defence Research Agency, Stockholm, 2008. Haugevik K New Partners, New Possibilities The Evolution of Inter-organizational Security Cooperation in International Peace Operations. Oslo: Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, 2007.

32. Van de Ven A & G Walker ‘The dynamics of interorganizational coordination’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 1984, p. 604.

33. Van de Ven A & G Walker ‘The dynamics of interorganizational coordination’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 1984, p. 604.

34. Gest N and A Grigorescu ‘Interactions among intergovernmental organizations in the anti-corruption realm’, Review of International Organizations, 5, 1, 2010, pp. 53–72.

35. Gest N and A Grigorescu ‘Interactions among intergovernmental organizations in the anti-corruption realm’, Review of International Organizations, 5, 1, 2010, pp. 53–72.

36. Kelley J ‘The more the merrier? The effects of having multiple international election monitoring organizations’, Perspectives on Politics, 7, 1, 2009, pp. 59–64.

37. Brosig M ‘The multi-actor game of peacekeeping in Africa’, International Peacekeeping, 17, 3, 2010, pp. 335–37.

38. Brosig M ‘The African Union a partner for the EU in security?’, in S Biscop & R Whitman (eds), The Routledge Handbook on European Security. Abingdon: Routledge, forthcoming.

39. Barnett M & M Finnemore ‘The politics, power, and pathologies of international organizations’, International Organization, 53, 4, 1999.

40. Brosig M ‘The multi-actor game of peacekeeping in Africa’, International Peacekeeping, 17, 3, 2010, pp. 327–42.

41. Gehring T & S Oberthür ‘The causal mechanisms of interaction between international institutions’, European Journal of International Relations, 15, 1, 2009.

42. Brosig M ‘The EU's role in the emerging peace and security regime in Africa’, European Foreign Affairs Review, 16, 1, 2011, pp. 107–22.

43. For a review of the application of network analysis in international relations see: Hafner-Burton EM, M Kahler & AH Montgomery ‘Network analysis for international relations’, International Organization, 63, 4, 2009, pp. 559–92.

44. Börzel T ‘Organising Babylon. On the different conceptions of policy networks’, Public Administration, 76, 2, 1998, p. 254.

45. Burton EM, M Kahler & AH Montgomery ‘Network analysis for international relations’, International Organization, 63, 4, 2009, p. 562.

46. Biermann R ‘Towards a theory of inter-organizational networking: The Euro-Atlantic security institutions interacting’, Review of International Organizations, 3, 2, 2008, p. 153.

47. Burton EM, M Kahler & AH Montgomery ‘Network analysis for international relations’, International Organization, 63, 4, 2009, p. 561.

48. Biermann R ‘Towards a theory of inter-organizational networking: The Euro-Atlantic security institutions interacting’, Review of International Organizations, 3, 2, 2008, p. 169.

49. Hannan M and J Freemen ‘The population ecology of organizations’, American Journal of Sociology, 82, 5, 1977, p. 941.

50. Hannan M and J Freemen ‘The population ecology of organizations’, American Journal of Sociology, 82, 5, 1977., p. 947.

51. Brosig M ‘The interplay of international institutions in Kosovo between convergence, confusion and niche capabilities’, European Security, 20, 2, 2011. Brosig M ‘Governance between international institutions: Analysing interaction modes between the EU, the Council of Europe and the OSCE’, in Galbreath D & C Gebhardt (eds), Cooperation or Conflict? Problematizing Overlap in Europe. London: Ashgate, 2010, pp. 48–52. Gehring T & B Faude ‘Division of labor within institutional complexes and the evolution of interlocking structures of international governance: The complex of trade and the environment’, paper for the REPI-Workshop on Issue-Linkages and Regime-Complexes’, Brussels, 21/22 May 2010.

52. ‘A secure Europe in a better world’, European Union Security Strategy, Brussels 12 December 2003, p. 9.

53. Brosig M ‘The emerging peace and security regime in Africa: The role of the EU’, European Foreign Affairs Review, 16, 1, 2011, pp. 111–15.

54. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/showPage.aspx?id=605> (accessed 29 April 2011).

55. Biermann R ‘Towards a theory of inter-organizational networking: The Euro-Atlantic security institutions interacting’, Review of International Organizations, 3, 2008.

56. Konstantinos D M & GJ Naldi ‘The African Union: A new dawn for Africa?’, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 51, 2, 2002, pp. 415–25.

57. These three institutions are primarily similar in the preference they are giving to intergovernmental decision-making. Their rules for voting and composition deviate but largely favour high thresholds for adopting decisions (ibid.).

58. Brosig M ‘The multi-actor game of peacekeeping in Africa’, International Peacekeeping, 17, 3, 2010, pp. 327–42.