|
How to Classify International Organizations |
Written by stefano sandano
Tuesday, 29 April 2008
|
Elements to distinguish international organizations International organizations may be classified in numerous ways, depending on the purpose for which the classification is being made. Four primary distinctions may be made as being relevant to the structure and functioning of international organizations: (i) the distinction between public, governmental (or inter-state) organizations and private organizations; (ii) the distinction between universal (open) and closed organizations; (iii) the distinction between supra-national organizations and those that are not supranational; (iv) the distinction between general organizations and functional or technical organizations. These are clearly useful distinctions. There are other distinctions that have been made16 such as that between temporary and permanent organizations or that between judicial and non judicial organizations, but these are not particularly helpful for the present purposes.International organizations range from the inter state body created by multilateral treaty or convention with potential and openings for universal membership and a very broad range of interests, such as the United Nations, to the specialized agencies of the UN with potential and openings for universal membership but with a narrow focus (e.g., the FAO, the IBRD and the UNESCO), to organizations with select or closed membership but relatively wide interests to agencies which are restricted both as to membership and as to subject matter (e.g., the international river commissions), to organizations which are composed entirely of non-governmental entities (NGOs).The first distinction of relevance for the present purpose is that between public international organizations and private international organizations. A variety of definitions or identifications of the public international organization has been given.A formal definition is not necessary for the present purpose. Suffice it to identify the basic characteristics which distinguish the public international organization from other organizations, particularly private international organizations. These are: (i) establishment by some kind of international agreement among states; (ii) possession of what may be called a constitution; (iii) possession of organs separate from its members; (iv) establishment under international law; and (v) generally but not always an exclusive membership of states or governments, but at any rate predominant membership of states or governments. Private international organizations do not have all these characteristics. Usually what is lacking is creation by international agreement, establishment under international law and an exclusive or predominant membership of states or governments. Sometimes one or the other of these may be lacking. For example, clearly NGOs are not established under international law, nor have exclusive or predominant state or governmental membership and are not public international organizations.Two further elements are sometimes mentioned in connection with public international organizations. These are: international personality (distinct from that of their member states) and treaty-making capacity.Though these characteristics are generally shared by all public international organizations, it is doubtful whether they are intrinsic to the definition of a public international organization. Rather they are to be regarded as consequences of being a public international organization. This is not a problem for the present purpose, since, as will be seen, public international organizations generally have these characteristics, which private international organizations do not share.The basic characteristics referred to above are sufficient to distinguish public international organizations from private international organizations.The distinction between ‘open' or ‘universal' public international organizations and ‘closed' organizations has also been made. A universal organization is one which includes in its membership all the States of the world. This is not the case of any past or present international organization yet. Thus, it may be more accurate to use the terms ‘universalist' suggested by Schwarzenberger or ‘of potentially universal character' used in the treatise of Oppenheim. The French term ‘à avocation universelle' conveys the same meaning as these two terms, which is that while the organization is not completely universal, it tends towards that direction. Article Source: http://www.ArticleBlast.com |
You are welcome to publish this article free of charge on your website, newsletter, or e-zine, provided:
- You don't change the article in any way
- You include the entire article, including the "about the author" box
- All hyperlinks must remain intact, including email addresses, and the link to ArticleBlast.com at the bottom
- In doing so you agree to indemnify the article's author, and ArticleBlast.com and its directors, officers, employees and agents from and against all losses, claims, damages and liabilities which arise out of its use
- It is also recommended that you provide a courtesy copy of your publication to the author of the article
