Russian Federation
32
The aim of this study is to identify the role of international organizations in the modern system of international relations and to determine the factors that influence their ability to act as fully-fledged subjects of world politics. To achieve this goal, a comprehensive methodological approach was applied, involving a combination of theoretical-comparative analysis (neorealism, liberalism, constructivism, Marxism) and examination of specific institutions. The research also draws on neo-institutional and sociological institutional perspectives, which make it possible to take into account not only the formal rules and interests of states but also bureaucratic culture, normative practices, and mechanisms of social influence within international organizations. As a result of the study, it was established that a high level of bureaucratic professionalism and the availability of their own resources enable some international organizations to push beyond the boundaries set by nation-states, thereby acquiring significant freedom of action. However, when subject to overwhelming control by member states, these organizations lose their actual independence, turning into instruments for pursuing narrow national goals. Practical findings indicate that even with the formal enshrinement of the subjectivity of international organizations, their real autonomy remains in question and largely depends on the balance of interests among states, bureaucratic structures, and transnational actors. A «neutrality threshold» was also identified: organizations maintain their impartiality and the trust of the international community only if they possess sufficient institutional resilience and resource independence. Finally, delegating authority to international organizations can enhance their subjectivity; however, states often limit this freedom through mechanisms of political and financial control. The theoretical significance of the work lies in refining the concept of the «autonomy of international organizations» within different paradigms, while the practical significance lies in the possibility of taking into account the identified factors that constrain the sovereign space of organizations when developing and reforming mechanisms of global governance.
international organizations, system of international relations, bureaucracy, neutrality, subjectivity.
1. Vel'm I.M. Sovremennye aktory mirovoy politiki i mezhdunarodnyh otnosheniy // Vestnik Udmurtskogo universiteta. Sociologiya. Politologiya. Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. – 2024. – T. 8. – № 3. – S. 67-73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35634/2587-9030-2024-8-3-384-388; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/MZGAWS
2. Konyshev V.N. Neoklassicheskiy realizm v teorii mezhdunarodnyh otnosheniy // Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya. – 2020. – № 4. – S. 94–111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2020.04.07; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/TNGUDV
3. Abbott K., Snidal D. Why states act through formal international organizations // Journal of Conflict Resolution. - 1998. - Vol. 42. - P. 3–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002798042001001; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/JNGKVF
4. Alter K.J., Meunier S. The Politics of International Regime Complexity // Perspectives on Politics. - 2009. - Vol. 7. № 1. - P. 13–24.
5. Barkin J.S. When institutions can hurt you: Transparency, domestic politics, and international cooperation // International Politics. - 2015. - Vol. 52. - P. 349–369.
6. Barnett M., Finnemore M. Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics. – Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2004. 226 r.
7. Beaucillon C. Strategic Autonomy: A New Identity for the EU as a Global Actor // European Papers. - 2023. - Vol. 8, № 2. - P. 417–428.
8. Bendor J., Glazer A., Hammond T. Spatial Models of Delegation // American Political Science Association. - 2004. - Vol. 98, № 2. - P. 293–310.
9. Bendor J., Glazer A., Hammond T. Theories of delegation // Annual Review of Political Science. - 2001. - Vol. 4. - P. 235–269.
10. Dahl R.A. Dilemmas of Pluralist Democracy: Autonomy vs. Control. – New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982. 229 r.
11. Drainville A.C. International political economy in the age of open Marxism // Review of International Political Economy. - 1994. - Vol. 1, № 1. - P. 105–132.
12. Eckhard S., Jankauskas V., Leuschner E. Institutional design and biases in evaluation reports by international organizations // Public Administration Review. - 2023. - Vol. 84, № 3. - P. 560–573.
13. Hawkins D.G., Lake D.A., Nielson D.L., Tierney M. J. Delegation and Agency in International Organizations (Political Economy of Institutions and Decisions). 1st ed. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. 426 s.
14. Keohane R., Moravcsik A., Slaughter A.-M. Legalized dispute resolution: Interstate and transnational // International Organization. - 2000. - Vol. 54. - P. 457–488. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/DHCNQN
15. Keohane R.O. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. – Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984. 290 r.
16. MacKay J., Levin J., de Carvalho G., Cavoukian K., Cuthbert R. Before and after borders: The nomadic challenge to sovereign territoriality // International Politics. - 2014. - Vol. 51. - P. 101–123.
17. Majone G. Two logics of delegation: Agency and fiduciary relations in EU governance // European Union Politics. - 2001. - Vol. 2. - P. 103–121.
18. Nielson D., Tierney M. Delegation to international organizations: Agency theory and World Bank environmental reform // International Organization. - 2003. - Vol. 57. - P. 241–276. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/DZWJCB
19. Pollack M.A. The Engines of European Integration: Delegation, Agency, and Agenda Setting in the EU. – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. 496 r.
20. Snidal D., Hale T., Jones E., Mertens C., Milewicz K. The power of the «weak» and international organizations // The Review of International Organizations. - 2024. - Vol. 19. - P. 385–409.
21. Vaubel R. Bureaucracy at the IMF and the World Bank: A comparison of the evidence // The World Economy. - 1996. - Vol. 19. - P. 185–210.
22. Wendt A. Social Theory of International Politics. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. 429 r.
