Fifteen Eighty Four

The role of international organizations (IOs) in global politics is as complex as it is critical. Today, they are arenas of contestation among established and rising states as well as domestic politics of major states in particular, the US. With nearly 8,000 formal and informal IOs operating across various domains, their capacity to influence world affairs is undeniable. Yet, their ability to foster “peaceful change”—defined broadly as nonviolent transformation in global and regional politics—remains a subject of intense debate.

At their best, IOs promote dialogue, resolve disputes, and establish norms that prevent conflict. At their worst, they can perpetuate inequality, lock in existing power dynamics, and exacerbate tensions. Whether IOs act as architects of a more peaceful order or as instruments of hegemony depends largely on how they are wielded in a world increasingly shaped by great power rivalry.

The Promise of IOs: Fostering Cooperation

IOs have long been heralded as instruments of peace, particularly by liberal and constructivist schools of thought. These perspectives argue that IOs reduce transaction costs, promote trust, and provide platforms for states to collaborate on shared challenges. For example, the European Union (EU) emerged from the ashes of World War II as a model of how institutionalized cooperation can transform adversaries into allies. Similarly, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly has empowered smaller states to influence global policies through multilateral negotiations.

In Southeast Asia, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has fostered regional stability through quiet diplomacy and incremental confidence-building measures, demonstrating how IOs can create “negative peace” by avoiding conflict. Even informal organizations, such as the G20, have played a pivotal role in addressing economic crises and setting global policy agendas. These are also arenas where the established and rising power negotiate their way for order transition and collection action problem solutions.

The Critics: Skepticism Toward IOs

Despite these successes, IOs face significant criticisms. Realists often view them as tools for great powers to advance their interests, rather than as independent agents of change. The UN Security Council demonstrates how the politics of great powers can hinder collective action, especially with its permanent members holding veto power. Meanwhile, critical theorists argue that economic IOs, like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, entrench global inequalities by prioritizing the interests of wealthy nations. They also believe institutions  such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) promote neoliberal economic agendas without fostering equal prosperity or justice.

IOs have also been accused of inefficiency and bureaucratic inertia. Critics highlight instances where sanctions regimes or delayed interventions have worsened crises rather than alleviated them. For example, UN-imposed sanctions on Iraq during the 1990s arguably caused more civilian suffering and deaths than they resolved political disputes.

The Scope of This Volume: A Rich Exploration of IOs

This edited volume brings together leading scholars to critically examine how IOs influence peaceful change across theoretical and empirical dimensions. We are also mindful of the negative roles IOs can play in world politics. Organized into four sections, the book begins by unpacking key definitions and conceptual frameworks surrounding peaceful change and IOs. The second section explores various theoretical perspectives: the English School, Liberalism, Realism, Constructivism, and Rationalism, highlighting their unique insights and limitations in explaining the role of IOs as agents of peace.

In its third section, the volume shifts to empirical analyses, examining the historical and contemporary impact of key IOs, including the UN General Assembly, UN Peacekeeping Operations, UN Environment Program, WHO, WTO, and G20. These chapters provide detailed case studies on how IOs have facilitated or obstructed peaceful transitions in areas such as decolonization, global health, and trade. The concluding section synthesizes these insights, offering a critical reflection on the broader implications for the liberal international order and its future resilience in the face of rising geopolitical tensions.

Challenges and Opportunities

IOs are at a crossroads today. As the global order transitions from unipolarity to multipolarity, their role in fostering peaceful change faces heightened expectations and growing challenges. To remain effective, IOs should address several key issues:

• Legitimacy and Inclusivity: It is critical to enhance the legitimacy of IOs through greater inclusivity and representation. Reforms to institutions like the IMF, World Bank, and WTO as well as the empowerment of Global South voices, can help address systemic inequalities.
• Adaptation to Multipolarity: As power dynamics shift, IOs must balance the interests of established and rising powers. Successfully navigating these changes can prevent conflicts and facilitate cooperative solutions to shared challenges.
• Learning from History: Past successes, such as the UN’s decolonization efforts, and failures, such as the League of Nations’ collapse, offer valuable lessons for designing more resilient institutions.
• Leveraging Informal Institutions: The flexibility of informal IOs, like the G20, provides an avenue for addressing emerging issues that formal institutions may struggle to tackle. They are also arenas where the status aspirations of rising powers can be met, as established institutions are often reluctant to change in response to material and ideational changes among states.

Reinventing the Role of IOs in Peaceful Change

International organizations are neither panaceas nor inherently flawed constructs. They are dynamic entities whose impact depends on the context of their operation and the intentions of their stakeholders. As the liberal international order faces mounting challenges today, some from within liberal states themselves, IOs must adapt to the realities of great power competition, systemic inequalities, and global crises.

In order for IOs to succeed in making a real and positive impact on peaceful change in an international environment characterized by increasing competition and contestation, they must remain important sites for the negotiation and renegotiation of international norms and rules. This requires inclusivity based on the realization that robust peaceful change must be co-created by many different types of actors, not only one or two great powers or a small group of privileged states, while acknowledging the special role played by great powers in safeguarding compliance and securing implementation.

The return of Donald Trump to the White House in 2025 is likely to create strategic uncertainties and strain the liberal international order, particularly affecting prominent IOs. However, rising powers such as China, India, and Brazil are keen on maintaining institutions or developing new ones, such as the G-20, in order to achieve their status goals peacefully. This is a welcome sign as historically rising powers attempted to destroy existing institutions. By embracing reform, fostering inclusivity, and leveraging their unique strengths, IOs can remain essential instruments of peaceful change, even amid the turbulence of heightened U.S.-China strategic competition. While the stakes are high, the pursuit of a more stable, just, and prosperous world makes these efforts indispensable.