Liberal institutionalism argues that international institutions provide certain benefits to member states. That the information sharing, reduced uncertainty, relative ease of cooperation make the cost of these institutions – which is primarily agreeing to their articles/requirements – worth it. Liberal institutionalism argues that states join international institutions when the benefits of those institutions (in terms of cooperation) outweigh the costs (in limits on sovereignty or a state’s ability to conduct its own affairs).
Today we are going to look more closely at this tradeoff – the costs and benefits of joining an international institution. And we will do so by looking at regional institutions – smaller groups of countries that are often more effective because they have fewer members. The benefits to global institutions (like the United Nations) are often limited, but so are the costs – states rarely give up much when joining the UN or signing a convention. Regional institutions tend to both ask and give a bit more, and so we will focus on two of the most institutionalized organizations: the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union. We discuss what benefits might make relinquishing some sovereignty worthwhile.
United Nations
I want to start with a brief review of how the United Nations works. The UN is a large bureaucracy that coordinates international action in a variety of areas. The UN system includes international organizations like the United Nations Development Program and UNICEF, but in terms of administration, we should focus on two organizations: the UN General Assembly (or UNGA) and UN Security Council (or UNSC).
UNGA consists of all member states and meets once a year in September. If you see in the news that a world leader gave a speech in New York, it was probably part of UNGA. The General Assembly’s resolutions generally have symbolic importance only. They do decide on the UN budget and admission of new states, but most resolutions are not binding.
The Security Council, by contrast, is a smaller body that meets year-round and passes binding resolutions (often abbreviated UNSCRs). This means that when the UN Security Council passes sanctions, in theory all members of the United Nations are supposed to pass legislation complying with those resolutions. The UNSC has 15 members. Five are permanent (the P5): the United States, Russia, China, UK, and France. The permanent members, which for many years were the only acknowledge nuclear powers in the world, have veto power in the UNSC – they can prevent passage of a resolution. The other ten members are elected by the General Assembly for 2 year terms. There are quotas based on geography for members. The makeup and powers of the UNSC remain an ongoing area of debate about the fairness of global distribution of power.
Regional Institutions
There are many, many regional international organizations that vary in organization and power. Some, like the Organization of American States, are best known for monitoring elections in member states, or like ECOWAS, for promoting regional trade (in this case in West Africa). Others, like ASEAN, are best known for having great annual meetings -- they rarely achieve policy consensus. In this video, I will discuss two of the most institutionalized regional organizations: the EU and NATO.
European Union
The EU is primarily designed to create a common market within Europe. This means establishing four shared freedoms: free movement of labor, goods, capital, and people. As we discussed during the unit on trade, tariffs are rarely the biggest obstacle to free trade, and so much of what the EU does is develop common economic regulations on everything from organic food standards to railroad gauges to Internet cookies so that things produced in one country can be sold in another without problem. These policies are adopted by consensus – all 27 member states must agree – which makes this process slow.
There are two related, opt-in treaties that contribute to this common market. The Schengen Treaty removed internal borders, meaning you don’t need to have your passport checked when you pass from one EU country to another and if you receive a Schengen visa, you can travel throughout Europe. The Eurozone are countries that have chosen to adopt a common currency (the Euro). The Eurozone has the fewest members of all European institutions because giving up your currency means ceding control over fiscal policy (the tools to control interest rates and inflation) to the European Central Bank.
Structurally, there are four key parts of the EU that we will talk about. The European Commission is the bureaucracy that develops regulations, while the Council makes all decisions. The European Parliament has increased in power over the years, but the EU is often criticized for its democratic deficit – decisions are more often made by bureaucrats than elected officials. Finally, as we will discuss in our conversation about human rights treaties, the European Court of Justice is one of the more effective international courts that examines human rights cases.
NATO
NATO, by contrast, is a collective defense treaty. Its first Secretary General is often cited as saying the purpose of NATO was to keep the Russians out, Americans in, and Germans down. At its core is that idea that an attack on one country is attack against all member states. This is Article 5 of the treaty and was designed to provide an American security guarantee for Europe during the Cold War. In addition to balancing the Soviet Union, it was meant to ensure member states did not feel a need to develop nuclear weapons (as the US nuclear umbrella would cover them) and that Germany would not need to develop its offensive military capabilities to ensure its security.
Article 5 has only been invoked once, after September 11. NATO came to the U.S.’ defense against terrorist attack, and this is why the mission in Afghanistan was a multinational one (called ISAF, the International Security Assistance Force). NATO has, however, engaged in other types of operations meant to promote regional security, most notably in quelling civil wars in the former Yugoslavia and less successfully in Libya. It currently patrols its border with Russia. Member states are allowed to opt out of these preventive operations through a system of “national caveats.” For example, Germany limits the offensive capabilities of its forces for historical reasons.
NATO membership overlaps with the EU, but is not identical. Most notably, it includes the U.S. and Canada as well as the UK and Turkey. NATO has had an open door policy since it was founded, meaning that any European state can apply to join. The application process is a long one, requiring states to meet security commitments and harmonize laws and interoperability of communications. States interested in this process first engage in “intensified dialogue” then can develop a Membership Action Plan. The most recent country to graduate from this process was Montenegro in 2020, although Sweden and Finland applied to join after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. As with the EU, all decisions made by NATO are made by consensus – all 30 member states must agree – and Turkey is currently holding up the membership applications of Sweden and Finland.
The last thing to note on NATO membership is the financial commitment. Everyone’s favorite complaint about NATO is burden sharing – how much each member state spends on defense. To be clear, this isn’t about the actual operational costs for NATO. It’s about how much money each country spends on their own security forces. The idea is that NATO members shouldn’t only depend on NATO for their security – they need to do their fair share and be ready to contribute to joint operations. NATO member states are supposed to spend the equivalent of 2% of their GDP on defense, although few do. I’d note that in 2022, in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Germany decided to increase its military budget to this level, an increase of $25 billion to around $75 billion/year.
Why join?
So why do states join these international organizations? EU or NATO membership entail significant costs and reforms, all of which limit state sovereignty. To join the EU, states don’t just agree to give up their independent ability to regulate their economies, they also agree to democratic and legal reforms designed to promote human rights and individual freedoms. Joining NATO means to agree to defend other countries’ security as well as your own and to change your military tactics and systems so that they work well with other NATO allies. Countries that join decide that the benefits of membership outweigh the costs. EU membership means loss of economic control, but also fiscal stability (in most cases) and access to markets. NATO’s security guarantee is highly desirable to countries that feel threatened by their neighbors. In each case, states (and often their publics) make the strategic calculus about what the value is, and choose accordingly.