The need and future of international institutions
Regional, Analysis, 1/15/2000

In previous articles, we addressed issues related to the United Nations and its shortcomings, while at the same time, we wrote about the need for international institutions. We also warned against these institutions becoming monsters in their accumulation of power and practice.

The so-called "liberal" and "internationalists" individuals tend to favor such institutions, while "conservatives" and "nationalists" individuals tend to oppose such institutions.

It seemed as though our articles were not consistent with each other. But we hinted at solutions, in our article on development and promised a follow up for detail.

The world is no-doubt in need of institutions to settle conflict, as the alternative is lawlessness and rule of the jungle. However, the opposition to an international dispute mechanism similar to that present domestically (court system etc..), is based on fears that super national structures usurp sovereign rights of countries. That is a true observation, and the fears are justified and well founded. These institutions seem accountable to no one, and are inaccessible except for the very few, and are not transparent in their function. The citizens have no way to effect and shape these institutions except through "indirection", a process where the citizens are several layers removed from deciding who runs these institutions and how they are run. And as these institutions will have, through treaty power, powers that supersede national rights, the citizens' concerns are very well justified in that there is an automatic loss of direct democracy, a matter that should not be tolerated by those who care about democracy and liberty, and hard one rights for the individual.

But the proponents of international institutions say that international institutions are a must if we were to have a world where the rule of law prevails. And they add, that since citizens elect representatives and leaders, it is those same representatives and leaders that make decisions on international institutions, and the citizens, thus, have control of these international institutions.

The opponents and proponents views seem irreconcilable, when in fact they are simply incomplete. Both needs can be met, but what is needed is dealing with the legitimate concerns.

We start with the following premise: The more power an institutions has, the more it should be subject to transparency and direct control of citizens.

So this tells us that one way to deal with current concerns would be to make sure that representatives to international institutions are elected directly, and are subject to reelection in very short period of times. The effect is to make the representatives extremely accountable to the citizens. Also, these institutions, would have to be completely transparent. There is no greater assurance that the people's wishes will always be conveyed under such circumstance.

But the aforementioned solution poses one serious concern. Specifically, that a country with very deep tradition of democracy will be outvoted by countries that have no practice in democracy. Thus, the countries internal laws are nullified by these international institutions. There are two solutions to this problem. First, that a super majority is required, that is , a majority of (let us say) 80% is required on each vote. Second, that these institutions must be built on membership that is conditioned on certain standards that meet the demands of citizens. So for example, a country may not be able to join if it does not meet certain internal political practices. Additional conditions can be added. There are additional solutions (such as the use of referendums), but we are touching on the essential component of dealing with the problem of lack of confidence in those institutions and the ability to control them so that they can gain legitimacy that makes them effective.

The concept of local representation and control is a great invention, and this principle should be preserved. So, these international bodies must be also restricted to very limited functions that are needed at the international level. Strictly speaking, these are issues of disputes between nations. Other international institutions can exist for dealing with providing and helping in aid programs such as health, education and environment and other issues. But these institutions should not have super national powers, and merely act in the form of an "educational role." It is important to separate international institutions into two clear categories, institutions that effect national laws and can override them (as in treaties, and are well defined), and institutions that are humanitarian and educational in nature. We would not want the role of one to merge into the role of the other. The UN for example has a dual role, by its Security Council "enforcement" mechanism, and its humanitarian and educational role, while the International Court of Justice, or the World Trade Organization have a limited and well defined roles and power in dealing with disputes. We are not commenting here on the transparency of International Court of Justice, or the World Trade Organization.

In the above outlined concepts, citizens are assured that such institutions are within their control, i.e. accountable to them, making the formation and strong support for such institution possible at the grass root level were it should be.

Those who believe strongly in the need and inevitability of such institutions should understand clearly the valid concerns of those who oppose these institutions, and why they oppose them. It is only then that strong consensus can be achieved so that these institutions can be built and have strong foundations in practices that we know work and desire. Turning a blind eye to these concerns will not make the creation of such institutions come true, but will have the opposite effect. If we are to have a peaceful world where problems are solved in a court of law, and decisions have legitimacy and are binding and implementable, we should want strong institutions that are respected by the citizens of the countries involved. This route is more difficult than going about this issue in a top down matter, as it requires education and engagement, but any alternative is worse and undesirable.

Effective international institutions are badly needed to solve intra-national conflicts. These institutions should themselves be democratic, and supported by democratic principles. It would be great, if tomorrow, these institutions reformed themselves to acquire these needed characteristics, but we are not sure how likely that is to happen. So hiding away from dealing with the heart of the matter will not help.

With this kind of vision, the world would be able to solve problems with the effectiveness and means of domestic courts. This would certainly be a new level of development for the world.

Previous Stories:
  The foundation for tomorrow's international politics   (10/18/1999)
  The foundation of good development: rule of law and transparancy   (9/16/1999)
  India - Pakistan nuclear tests: the positive aspects   (6/1/1998)

Please add a link on your webiste pointing to ArabicNews.com and bookmark ArabicNews.com & subscribe to our daily email news bulletin.

Search