BÖLGESEL ÖRGÜTLER - Deneme Sınavı - 5

International organizations’ personality, especially compared to States which are sovereign actors and subjects, is a limited one. They can only act and function within the framework of their statutes. They cannot use powers exceeding the limits drawn therein. The exact scope of this functional and limited personality, however, is interpreted differently in the literature. Some argue that organizations can only use powers explicitly given to them in their statutes, which in fact means that the discretion of any organization is limited and it is the member States that still counts. Others, therefore, argue that organizations should be allowed to use implied powers that are, or might be, necessary to accomplish the goals set forth in the statutes. Finally, some go further and suggest that any power not forbidden in the statute might naturally be used especially by global organizations such as the UN. As none of these views respectively championing explicit, implied or natural powers secured a widespread support, it might be concluded that organizations have functional and limited personalities and they can act only within the limits drawn in their statutes. As can be understood from the information given, the correct answer is B. “Organizations should be allowed to use implied powers that are, or might be, necessary to accomplish the goals set forth in the statutes.” and “Any power not forbidden in the statute might naturally be used especially by global organizations such as the UN.” might be regarded as contradictory with international organizations’ limited personality.

Although possessing an international legal personality is crucial for organizations to take part in international politics, the opposite is not necessarily true. Indeed, there are regular “summit” meetings or entities that do not hold a legal personality and yet are quite influential in international politics. The G-7/8 is indeed one of the most active and effective decision making and standard-setting global actor although it does not possess a legal personality. As can be understood from the information given, the correct answer is B.

The globalisation process may easily be labelled as an era of regional integration ambitions, for states are increasingly becoming unable of tackling and competing with global trade individually. This is also because of the fact that the ways/means of industrial production have changed dramatically in the last decades. States do not constitute “specialised industrial production units” anymore. Production process itself is fragmented and various parts of almost all sorts of goods are produced and assembled in different countries. No country is the sole producer, and thus the sole exporter, of no goods. International market is not anymore an exchange platform of final products, but rather that of intermediate goods. Exporting and importing (of different parts of a single product) are intertwined and neither can be possible and even meaningful without the other. So, cooperation is increasingly becoming a sine qua non for all States if they want to co-produce something. Moreover, since factors of production are scattered around the world and particularly cheap labour force might well be found in quite far regions, economic cooperation is not anymore limited with the neighbouring countries either. In fact, State practices do confirm this trend, as economic organizations that are increasingly becoming inevitable are not necessarily established at regional levels between States that share common borders. As can be understood from the information given, the correct answer is E. All arguments given in the answer choices be used in order to argue that no country is the sole producer, and thus the sole exporter, of no goods.

There are also major theoretical approaches that endeavour to explain regional and international organizations. It must be emphasised at the outset that theories do not determine and designate politics. International actors such as States, organizations and other emerging non-State actors do shape politics. Theories simply claim to explain politics from usually solely a certain angle.

Realism argue that organizations are a result of States’ seek of security. They, as the main if not the sole actor of international relations, simply want to maximise their interests and survive in a world of homo homini lupus.

Liberals (idealists, rationalists) think differently. They suggest that States are not (potential) enemies but (potential) partners, as they basically stand for providing welfare and peace to their respective citizens. It then means that cooperation especially in between economically coherent States is vital.

Regional organizations in particular are established to foster common interests and thus realise the win-win principle. Mutual interdependence thus fixed intensifies and deepens over time in such a fashion that war and even conflict becomes needles and even undesired. The most advanced version of this approach is represented by the functionalist integration theories. As used to explain supranational regional organizations such as the EU, it is argued that a close cooperation on non-controversial practical, technical, economic and legal issues rather than political and military ones would not only create a “common peace and welfare zone”, but also strengthen a sense of commonness and togetherness in between citizens. 

Critical theories usually emphasises the uneven and hegemonic nature of international and regional relations. They argue that organization of relations at all social and political levels has a hierarchical rather than cooperative character.

As can be understood from the information given, the correct answer is E. All statements related to theoretical approaches given are correct.

Organizations set up their bodies and organs in line with their purposes, goals, principles and even number of members. The duly take into account regional and international climate, as well. Organization have, or create in the course of time, bodies deemed necessary for the fulfilment of organizational purposes and functions. Yet they all, almost as a rule, basically have three main bodies: Secretariat, plenary assemble and specially authorised body.

Secretariat is the body that in fact both supplies and represents the legal personality of the organization. It is the only body that is not composed of the representatives of the member States but rather employs officers working for, and accountable to, the organization itself.

Plenary assemble is the sole body that contains the governmental representatives of all member States. It is usually equipped with general powers and authorities regarding the structure and operation of the organization. It approves the budget, admits new members, amends the statute and so on. It ordinarily meets sparsely, say annually or even once in two years, to discuss, consult and negotiate general issues on its agenda.

Almost all organizations have a core specially authorised body which is usually called council or board and is equipped with special powers. Unlike the assembly, it has a limited number of members. These members are either elected by the plenary assembly for a certain period of time according to certain criteria or envisaged as permanent members in the statute of the organization.

The correct answer is B. Secretariat is the body that in fact both supplies and represents the legal personality of the organization. Specially authorised body is equipped with special powers. As can be understood from the information given, specially authorised body is usually called council or board.

Membership first and foremost means holding all legal rights and privileges that stem from membership such as participating at the meetings, operations and decision-making processes of the organization on an equal footing. Organizations designate their membership criteria and application procedures in their statutes. Although founding members might have a certain degree of psychopolitical advantage, it is the full-membership that counts. Organizations, on the other hand, are also open to observer members which are sometimes called “contact States”, “dialog partners” etc..  As can be understood from the information given, the correct answer B.

In the voting method, each member casts its vote on a draft resolution and the decision is deemed to be taken if the affirmative votes exceed a certain number or ratio. In simple majority, the affirmative vote requirement is more than half of all votes cast. In qualified majority, affirmative votes should be more than half of the votes cast. Finally unanimity, contrary to the general understanding, does not require affirmative votes of all members but simply seeks that no single negative vote is cast. So absences or abstentions are ignored which in turn means that members that do not effectively want to block (“veto”) a resolution may well prefer either not participating the voting or being present but casting a blank vote. As can be understood from the information given, the correct answer is C. Consensus is a model where decisions are taken without voting. Each and every member holds the right to express its opinion on a draft resolution. Objections, suggestions, proposals and amendment requests are voiced until a compromise and consent is reached at. At a point where no party raises further issues, the resolution is assumed to be assented. In cases where the matter in question directly relates a member State, the organizations may prefer consensus minus one procedure according to which that State is denied to have its say due to the principle nemo judex in sua causa (no-one should be a judge in his own cause).

Organizations require material, physical and economic means to carry out their activities and perform their duties. This is because the expenses incurred to run and fund daily work, activities and fixed costs such as personal salaries and infrastructural expenditures are all to be met by the organization itself. That’s why organizations have their own budgets generated and set with the contributions of the members. Organizations have two basic kinds of budgets. Budgets that depend on the yearly contributions of the members as well as on other regular revenues and incomes of the organizations are mostly called regular budgets. These budgets towards planned or projected activities and expenditures of relevant bodies and organs of the organizations are in principle approved and audited by the plenary bodies. As a huge difference in between financial means and contributions of the members may cause an imbalance among members for the advantage and benefit of influential ones, organizations usually set ceiling and minimum rates so that no member disproportionally finances, and thus seeks to influence, the organization. As States that do not pay their contributions timely may pose important financial problems, organizations reserve the right to impose sanctions including the suspension of the voting right. Yet there are cases where an influential State is but only kindly requested to pay its huge amount of arrears whereas a weak State is denied its voting right due to a relatively much smaller amount of yearly contribution. Organizations may also need additional financial means for unusual or extraordinary activities and expenditures. Ad hoc budgets are raised in such cases with the contributions of willing members. There are members who contribute to ad hoc, as well as regular, budgets in order to increase their respective influences within and outside the organization. Likewise, members sometimes contribute to ad hoc budgets with very small and even symbolic amounts just to demonstrate their positions and alignments. In short, budgeting systems of organizations are too not of mere economic and financial character but also have political dimensions, repercussions and effects. All statements in the answer choices are correct, so the correct answer is E.

With regard to regionalism, Europe remains the most advanced and integrated region.

Warsaw Pact was a security- and military-oriented regional organization that ceased to exist in the post-Cold War era.

Non-Western regionalism is characterised by anti-colonialism, national liberation from colonial rule, the preservation of sovereignty and the avoidance of a great power rivalry in the Third World. European regionalism aimed at taming nationalism.

European Union is a leading example of multi-purpose regional organizations.

The implementation gap refers to the difference or vacuum between the declared goals and actual achievements of regional organizations.

NATO is an example of single-purpose regional organizations.

The purposes of full economic integration are harmonisation and unification of monetary, financial and social policies and the creation of supranational institutions.

Economic development is one of the main economic goals of regional organizations.

Regional security governance has not functioned well at all in the Middle East.

The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights was set up in 2004.

ASEAN’s decision to constitute an ASEAN free trade area in the 1990s was also partly a response to the competition from NAFTA and the EU’s single market. At this point, it is possible to speak of a ‘domino theory of regionalism’ (Baldwin, 1995).

The European experience was based on avoiding another inter-state war and economic integration while other regions concentrated on preserving their independence and gaining respect and post- independence legitimacy in the international system. Comparatively, European regionalism has ‘aimed at taming nationalism (and sovereignty in the case of the EEC) by protecting and promoting human rights, democracy and the rule of law as key prerequisites for peace and prosperity’ (Acharya, 2016: 112). In contrast, non-Western regionalism is characterised by anti- colonialism, national liberation from colonial rule, the preservation of sovereignty and the avoidance of a great power rivalry in the Third World.