The Design of International Organizations. Fostering Diplomatic Deliberation?
Final Report Abstract
State constitutions, founding treaties of international organizations (IOs) and rules of procedure have in common that many of the rules dealing with interactions between actors are intended to create space for deliberation on the one hand, but limit the time available for it on the other. While the latter accelerates decision-making and adds to the efficiency of the organization in question, the quality and legitimacy of decisions can be affected. While the sub-disciplines of political theory and comparative governance have undergone a deliberative turn, there is relatively little research on deliberation and international organizations in international relations and thus many unanswered questions: How do international organizations deal with these conflicting goals? Are there differences between international organizations and if so, why does the institutional deliberative design vary? What is the nexus between deliberative institutional design in international organizations and deliberative practices in international organizations? Which international organizations are characterized by high levels of deliberative practices and why? What impact do deliberative design elements and deliberative practices have on the performance of international organizations? The project "The Institutional Design of International Organizations: Promoting or Limiting Deliberation among Member States?" addresses and answers these questions. In a first step, it creates a diplomatic deliberative design index (DDDI), applies it, and explains with the help of functionalist and institutionalist theories why some IOs are better equipped to promote deliberation between member states through their institutional design than others. Second, the project uses a survey to analyze how institutional rules are used in practice by state actors. In some IOs, such as the UNFCCC or the Council of Europe, there is much deliberation, while in other IOs, such as the UNWTO or the IWC, this is much less pronounced. Our study offers new insights into the inner workings of international organizations. In general, deliberation is most pronounced in large IOs with high-level delegates who often negotiate behind closed doors. In addition, specific institutional elements play a role in the different phases of an IO's policy cycle, such as procedural rules that promote interaction among diplomats in the negotiation phase or limited policy space in the voting phase. In a third step, we examine how and under which conditions institutional deliberative design and deliberative practice influence the ability of international organizations to produce output, as well as their problem-solving capacity and legitimacy. The output performance of international organizations is influenced by institutional factors applied to input, throughput, and feedback loop interfaces. Some factors that increase deliberation, such as a broad agenda, have a positive effect on an international organization's ability to develop outputs, while other factors, such as access by non-state actors, have a negative effect on the performance of IOs. The analysis also shows that deliberative diplomatic practices increase both the ascribed legitimacy and problem-solving capacity of international organizations, while other institutional factors only increase either problem-solving capacity (e.g., autonomous secretariats) or legitimacy (access by non-state actors).
Publications
- (2019): „The Constitutions of International Organisations. How Institutional Design Seeks to Foster Diplomatic Deliberation“. In: Global Constitutionalism, Vol. 8, No. 3, 571-604
Diana Panke, Franziska Hohlstein, and Gurur Polat
(See online at https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045381719000182) - (2021): „Designing International Organizations for Debate? A Factor Analysis“. In: International Politics, Vol. 58, 835-863
Diana Panke, Franziska Hohlstein and Gurur Polat
(See online at https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-021-00284-6) - (2021): „Satisfied or Not? Exploring the Interplay of Individual, Country and International Organization Characteristics for Negotiation Success“. In: Review of International Organizations, Vol.16, No.2, 403-429
Diana Panke, Gurur Polat and Franziska Hohlstein
(See online at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-020-09386-x) - (2022): „Why International Organizations Differ in their Output Productivity: A Comparative Study”. In: International Studies Perspectives. Vol. 23, No. 4, 398–424
Diana Panke, Franziska Hohlstein and Gurur Polat
(See online at https://doi.org/10.1093/isp/ekac005) - „Diplomatic Deliberative Practices in International Organizations: Does Institutional Design Matter?”. In: Diplomacy and Statecraft
Diana Panke, Gurur Polat and Franziska Hohlstein
(See online at https://doi.org/10.1080/09592296.2022.2143126) - „Who Performs Better? A Comparative Analysis of Problem-solving Effectiveness and Legitimacy Attributions to International Organizations“. In: Cooperation and Conflict
Diana Panke, Gurur Polat and Franziska Hohlstein
(See online at https://doi.org/10.1177/00108367211036916)
