THE ROLE OF THE INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS IN THE INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMACY

Prepared by: Toni Tancevski / ID 9846 Mentored by: PhD Zvonimir Jankulovski

Table of Contents Introduction.2

What is international organization

Historical development3
The need of International Organizations Instituting of the United Nation Eras of the role of International Organizations and the United Nation Some of the International Organizations

The role of IOs in the international diplomacy.7

Security aspect Economic aspect Humanitarian aspect The reform of the International Organizations

Conclusion..11
The future of the International Organizations

References.14

1|Page

1.

Introduction

What is International Organization?

An international organization, as well called as intergovernmental organization is an organization of international mission and vision, scope and character. The International organizations (IOs) are intergovernmental entities that derive their legal base and establishment out of treaty and commonly the international organization within their structure prescribe permanent secretariats, plenary assemblies containing the member states, identifiable headquarters as well as executive organs with more limited participation. The International Organizations are directed and headed by the leaders whose titles can vary substantially in the likes of Secretary-General (UN), Director-General (WHO), President (World Bank), Managing Director etc. Out of great importance is the fact that nominated representatives of the member states in the international organizations, especially those that are seconded in the permanent secretariats in the international organizations do not devote their work and do not work exclusively for the interests of their country, but they actually represent a kind of instrument for cooperation among the participating states and will develop and build their own institutional awareness and procedures that will serve the interests of their state within the frames, goals and expectations of the international organizations. This system and organizational method as well as the legal framework how an international organization will be established, has nothing in common with earlier forms of institutionalized cooperation. Two types of international organizations can be distinguished, international governmental organizations with a membership of sovereign member states, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Usually when we use the term international organization, it refers to the international governmental organizations. Therefore, nation-states are fundamental elements of international organizations. Hence, in this context, we can extract the definition of international organizations. International organization is international structural components created on the basis of agreements between three or more sovereign states in order to establish regular political interactions. International organizations are permanent institutionalized forms of communication of three or more countries based on the multilateral agreements ,with a special status and permanent bodies, within which, based on its statutes and other primary documents of the International organization, commence the process of multilateral negotiations and joint decision-making of the member states in relevant areas of international cooperation The international organizations according to its mission and vision can be limited in certain ways, in terms of the composition of its membership as well as to certain geographical sphere of activities, such as the Organization of

2|Page

American States. Certain international organizations can prioritize its commitment toward the global participation, such as the International Telegraph Union, or it can commit its mission and vision to a particular project area, like OPEC or to address a wide range of topics, such as the OSCE or the United Nations. The term international organization exceeds the forms of international cooperation and also involves the forms of private organization of transnational groups and associations. In this respect we should mention a few names that often circulate in the terminology of the forms of international organizations: "Institutional internationalism", "Volunteering internationalism". These forms of transnational organized private networks are called international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs). They include those forms of international organization, which primarily are formed on the basis of an agreement between the governments. Therefore, this form of organization can be voluntary, nongovernmental, nonmilitary, non-profit and non-religious. They aspire to political, economic, social and welfare purposes, independent and without participation of the political parties and state instruments. Its scope is not committed to altruistic purposes but the INGOs efforts are focused on the specific authorities that are not obtained and with no given legitimacy by an external body. Their work is based on self-defined goals and expertise. Both forms of organization are characterized by regular meetings of its representatives, special procedures of decision-making, as well as the existence of a permanent secretariat.

2.

Historical Development

Most of the political scientists and historians elaborating the international organizations agree that the forms of gatherings with the international character started with the 19th century conferences where the lawyers from the various countries started to meet and to do various treaty making efforts. The 19th century conferences led to certain hindrances due to the fact that the states found that they are basically at the rule of the host state who decided whom to invite and what issues to put in the agenda. This hindrance was a reason for lack of continuity in respect to address the global issues which was the fundamental motive for the meetings on international level. In other words, if the host state was not eager to invite that state that didnt get along with, that state and the representatives werent there. Therefore, such deficiencies with 19th century conferences led states to think on creating viable institutions with international secretariats where over time these institutions would inspire to have universal membership. Among the first IOs was the International Labor Organization (1919) which was created as part of the Treaty of Versailles that ended World War I, to reflect the belief that universal and lasting peace can be accomplished only if it is based on social justice. One of the earliest efforts was as well the League of Nations which certainly denoted the earlier efforts to establish the international organization. Thus, that period is an era of functionalism, what the political scientists would

3|Page

like to describe as a need of the states to cooperate at a certain level. Such cooperation originates from the need for centralization from one side and independence from the other. The states wanted to centralize their efforts in respect of resources, financial and intellectual resources to engage jointly in a problem, and also the need for independence was crucial in establishing the first ties of interstate interactions. In this regard, the need for independence is commonly described through the example of impartial institutions like the International Court of Justice or the independent civil service of the UN Secretary General. In other words, that would be a third party who is relatively removed from the state interest who can for example settle a dispute, neutrally, to allocate the resources, neutrally. That desire for Centralized independence is good explanation why the international organization came into being.

The need of International Organizations

However, the process of globalization lye in the fundaments of the above mentioned thesis. The increased interdependence of states, political, economic and other interdependence as well as the need to resolve common global problems started to emerge more forcefully, more intellectual interactions among the states in the late 19th century. The flow of capital, goods and ideas cross boundaries led the states inevitably to engage each other and resolve certain differences, for example, how free trade is going to be conducted. In particularly, all of this started to happen in maritime area, as Hugo Grotius himself discovered this, but at that time it was limited by high seas, but now the stated rely to each other on every level, from culture to economics. Therefore the need in international organization as one place where the states can resolve common difficulties became inevitable. The need of International organizations originates and can be described through four circumstances 1. Creation of sovereign states 2. System of sovereign states 3. Issues of mutual importance 4. Awareness of the need to tackle these issues at the international level through international institutions - organizations

Instituting of the United Nation

The UN as a successor of the League of Nation is organization tends to be established by learning from the prior efforts, efforts to correct the past. In that light, UN charter in principle stands as a sort of backwards looking document to correct the perceived flaws of League of Nation charter. Those flaws were identified in the lack of collective security, clear binding obligations not to use force, the lack of institutional separation of power. Consequently, now in the UN there is a Security Council that is charged with primary obligations of peace and security and where the General Assembly is a talk-shop of every other issue or for example, the International Court of Justice that has its own domain. All of this along with duty to pay dues, the lack of withdrawal clause like League of Nations suffered (The Japanese delegation

4|Page

withdrew from the League of Nations Assembly after the League of Nation Assembly had adopted a report blaming Japan for events in Manchuria) is demonstration how

the UN learned from the prior mistakes. Over time, UN has learned as well from its own mistakes and dilemmas. As a challenge, UN had to undergo the colonization which was its own effort to produce more states which actually was a radical shift in for example the composition of the General Assembly which went from a body that was under the effective control by the United States and western powers into a body that now exceeds 190 states which contributed to a lack of US control over the majority in the Assembly. That was actually a big transformation. Hence, speaking about the changes that led to instituting the new form of state interdependences in the name of UN is certainly the decolonization.

Eras of the role of International Organizations and the United Nation I. Cold War era
The other era of change started in the late 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. That was the Cold War. The Cold War paralyzed a lot of the institutions, not only the United Nations but certainly the Security Council which became powerless to achieve any consensus or any kind of action which was over during the period of post-Cold War when the politics has changed.

II.

Post-Cold War era

The post-Cold War, 1990s and 2000 introduced qualitative change in the nature and the work of the organization. The immediate awakening at the end of the Cold War led to so called UN-oforia or New World Order that even the first President Bush talked about and the Secretary General, Kofi Annan stressed in his Agenda for peace. There was a sense that the things has completely changed and that UN can function now as intended and at the same time the ultimate opinion was that the UN charter can work as intended. The people believed that this model of post-Cold War can be a model for the future. The believe that in the future the aggression can be stopped because primarily there wont be exercise of the veto, peace keeping will become robust and aggressive and that the states would contribute significantly in the peace keeping operations under regular arrangements like Article 47 of the UN Charter originally intended.

III.

Era 9/11
That UN-foria ended partially due to the second judgments of the United Stated like for example, after the Somalia Civil War. That was the period when it was declared, primarily by the US, that although the Cold War is over it is not expected that the veto will be over. So, the United States used the veto or whenever is convenient for the US politics they dont need to use veto, in other words, what suits the most individually for the US foreign politics. This led to a new mode of transition of international relations and diplomacy as well as the

5|Page

role of the International Organizations. This mode was termed as 9/11 mode which (based on the authors opinion of this essay) radically changed the role of the international organizations, vis--vis the experts opinion who claimed that it is new paradigm shift without putting a label and name of the period that denoted the post-Cold War era. The 1990s were very eventful in the international diplomacy in terms of operations as well as normative and legal evolution. The 2000s in the international diplomacy will be remembered as reactivation of responsibility to protect. An era of a new sense that the member states in the IOs have the responsibility to protect the population and UN through its immediate response instrument, the Security Council could authorize what some wouldve called a humanitarian intervention which is very suspension composure of terminology if we deepen our analysis into the economic benefits that some of the super powers will get with such intervention. Therefore there is a suspicion that the Security Council will not act consistently on that premise, the principle of humanitarian intervention. Syria crisis is in particularly supporting this thesis. To recapitulate, there is a doubt that the responsibility to protect is anything other than a politically useful tool when convenient but not a legal principle that all we expect to be consistently applied.

Some of the International Organizations

While mentioning the role of the IOs, we have to underline that the mission and vision of each IOs varies primarily from the scope of work. One of the most important IOs besides the UN in regard to the three main aspects, security, economy and human rights is certainly the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). It has comprehensive approach encompassing the politico-military, economic and environmental aspect as well as human aspect. It therefore addresses a wide range of security-related concerns, including arms control, confidence- and security-building measures, human rights, national minorities, democratization, policing strategies, counterterrorism and economic and environmental activities. Although European Union (EU) has not been considered alongside the list of IOs, EU represents the so called project of regional supra-nationalism. Project is an accurate description as the very first architects of modern EU intended with the Treaty of Rome, 1957. Nowadays EU is still the most significant project in post 1945 Europe. EU role also embraces the three components in its robust apprehending. It has been considered as the most advanced example of institutional cooperation between countries in the world today.

6|Page

3.

The Role of International Organizations in the international diplomacy

The principal functions that every IOs has to have in its catalogue is to: Analyze the relevant thematic issue or country situation on behalf of the IOs; Advise on the measures which should be taken by the government(s) concerned and other relevant actors; Alert United Nations organs and agencies and the other IOs in general to the need to address specific situations and issues. In this regard they have a role in providing early warning and encouraging preventive measures; Advocate on behalf of the victims of violations through measures such as requesting urgent action by relevant states and calling upon governments to respond to specific allegations of human rights violations and provide redress; Activate and mobilize the international and national communities to address particular human rights issues and to encourage cooperation among governments, civil society and intergovernmental organizations.

The international organizations cover the three main fields of international relations: 1. Security aspect 2. Economic aspect 3. Humanitarian aspect

Security aspect
International cooperation is essential to preserve peace and promote security, prosperity and justice throughout the world. Major issues like environmental protection, the war on drugs, gender equality, food security and curbing population growth cannot be resolved at local or regional level, but require a global approach. Speaking about the role of the international organizations after the WWII and their role in the diplomacy, the Security Council was always the starting point from where the analysis can be developed or criticized. Without being vague and imprecise, this essay will not spent the words in general info on what IOs means, their robust undertakings, how many employees they have, benefits they enjoy, and why they are inevitable in the era of globalization. Absolutely, these facts are indisputable. This essay will try to concentrate its focus in the infertility of the IOs, the selfishness of the power nations in the likes of member states as well as to point out the weaknesses and the mistakes of the IOs that will emphasize the need of change in the most vital components of one IOs, in particularly in the processes of decision making. Lets start this point with the UN Security Council. The Security Council resolutions (example: 2013 resolutions and Resolution 2095 - Libya) say that the

7|Page

member states are supposed to act only to protect civilians and yet to anticipate the use of force and also the resolutions forbids military occupation. Therefore, how we can distinguish and determine how far we can go when protecting civilians, so the resolution itself offers compromises, divisions among NATO what is meant, what kind of force will be used, the extent of force, who is responsible, when does it end, do the international community agrees the leader of the state subject of the resolution to remain on power or not. These facts, the clearness and direct determination of the Resolutions of the IOs, in this case UN is vital to achieve the fundaments of future global rule of law when talking about the role of IOs. Therefore, the citizens of the member states are expecting a lot from the people who authorize the use of force in regard of the security aspect of the IOs. Being focused on the security aspect and the decision making role of the IOs, it is worth to comment that it used to be that the states and the IOs were the only actors engaged in international law making or norm making. Nowadays the picture is much more complicated since the states are primary law makers for themselves and their own peoples, the IOs remains second the most important but now there are many more players in the arena of the international diplomacy. Multinational corporations, international judges individually belong to this group, and even individuals who bring disputes before the International Right Courts can influence the law. Not just by particular treaty but also through the impact of the arbitrational word. All of these new actors are contributing in the international diplomacy in general. International organization is interstate organization under a treaty and their role has to be more powerful in order to deal with the challenges. The role we see today is the role of IOs reaching too many approaches, and it is a mix of different and rather eclectic approaches for exercising both, law-making and policy-making. On the other hand, the global world does not need all powerful and single International Organization in regard to security aspect. There is de facto need for a universal approach in whatever form, either that would be trough universal treaty or series of such treaty, which require an international organization to preside over that treaty. But, more important is the fact that some issues are more regional in focus. For instance, international criminal problems should be resolved on regional level and the state jurisdictions have to be most closely involved in international criminal procedures and investigations. Those nations should ideally be the ones to adjudicate the processes because the closer they watch at the problem, the closer the stated have the impact over the issue. All of these perfectly blend with the global phrase, Think globally-Act locally. So, the tendency nowadays to take everything up to the international level is not a necessarily solution.

Economic aspect
Describing the role of the IOs in managing the international system, we would like to differentiate the Governance from Government. It is well known that the government is nation state that has control over law, use of force within its territory. Due to the fact that there is no world government and we will ever have, therefore when we describe the role of IOs, we have as well to describe the interrelationships among states, international organizations, hybrid institutions, businesses, NGOs and variety of non-state actors that are vastly affecting the

8|Page

foreign policy of one state. Exactly this, in the lack of another term is Governance. There is another term, coined by the political scientist as well globalists. That is Global Administrative Law. That is form of regulations that happen across the border but not only the IOs (World Bank, IMF etc.) but also the effects of business regulations, among businesses, private to private regulations that has an impact whether a particular good crosses the border, how internet is governed is something that IOs classically understood therefore besides the role of IOs we have to consider as well the role of the non-state factors, hybrid private institutions who also have governance effect. As corporations become more global in their scope and international trade continues to expand, economies are becoming more and more integrated through trade, global financial exchange, foreign investment, as well as through the movement of people. This important phenomenon requires a greater understanding of the dynamics of global economics and its characteristics. In addition, as trade continues to grow worldwide, global institutions addressing issues such as economic development and trade are also becoming increasingly more important. That is why this economic aspect is one of the three pillars while explaining the role of the international institutions. Because they play a significant role in promoting and supporting global economic development, trade, as well as global financial stability.

Humanitarian aspect
The IOs in this regard are perceived and an arena where it will develop forum for discussion where the violations and problems will be pointed and tackled through the universal and regional instruments for development and promotion of human rights, and using universal and regional tools to protect and control the Human rights. The positive aspect of the IOs is its role as protg of the Humanity Law. Luckily, we are witnessing the rise and development of this Law suggesting that the international judges in ICJ or ad hoc tribunals, human rights bodies, while engaging in cases they increasingly talk to each other in human rights terms so there are increased signs of human rights language in themes and even norms in trade, in investment disputes and in International Criminal Law. But if we deepen the analysis of the IOs in the process of its functionality, it is noticeable that the IOs suffer from the lack of normative and cultural universalities. One of the reasons for this is the so called Western creation that prioritizes the Western agenda which rests essentially on the dialogue between Europe and USA that truncates first of all the universality of the IOs. To this argument there are legitimate and less legitimate approaches. The less legitimate claims are focused on cultural relativism when it comes to basic human rights. Some Asian governments are trading out this idea in order to defend their authoritarian Asian values but on the other hand, we have to accept the fact that much of the International Law including the IOs is a western contrast. In fact, much of the post-decolonization struggle is to try to adopt structure that were formed at the time when US, Russia, France and Britain were basically drafting this instruments to a world in which those are not necessarily the dominant powers. This remains an ongoing project where EU and USA have

9|Page

the crucial role in IOs and they try to make the system of IOs more representative, but for the own interest only. In regard to the humanitarian aspects and the contribution of the IOs in bettering the overall global functionality, the rudimental approach would be to internationalize the international law. To achieve this would probably demand a lot of struggle due to language and resources constrains. The Laws that we learn and teach nowadays is not the Law which in fact exists. The international law strives to trickle down in the national law orders but in order to achieve complementary results of the IOs productivity from the humanitarian aspect, the states need to be interested and strive how to trickle up the law. In other words, each countrys adaptation of the international law will have to influence the international law itself, especially if the country is powerful enough to excerpt a view like the USA have excerpted its own views on use of force. The IOs has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the UN charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war, crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, IOs are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the charter, including chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities are manifestly failing to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.

The reform of the International Organizations

The debates on the reform of the international system of the international institutions are relatively narrow. For instance, there are loud and long lasting debates on reforming the UN Security Council for many years. There are many states that hope on deep reform of this Council or even a slight reform whereas the debates can be more expansive about what kind of collective security do the states really want, what should be the relationship between the Security Council and the regional organizations or notions about the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) where some thinks will invariably lead to intervention by the Security Council. Most of the conversations about the reform of the IOs are not taking place with its full significance. The IOs that underpin their relations that are without any doubt, globally oriented, originate from another time and a place when the economic gravity was overwhelmingly located in the West. As is obvious to all, this center has been shifting both east and south. This not only means that emerging countries are getting richer, but that they are also becoming more powerful in political and military terms. Not surprisingly, these countries are demanding more of a say in international politics and economics. In particular, they want to correct what they see as continued Western dominance in organizations such as the IMF, the World Bank, the G20, and in forums like the UN Security Council. If we start to examine the most important challenges IOs face today, as well as the reforms and opportunities for change they need to pursue, we have to start by asking how rising powers especially China perceive existing IOs and

10 | P a g e

whether they are willing to integrate into the current order (or create a new one). We then move on to question whether IOs, as currently constituted, are indeed bound to fail in a world of shifting power dynamics. Finally, the remainder of the dossier looks at case studies; specifically, the studies look at how the UN, the WTO, and NATO are coping with (or not) a changing political and economic international landscape. The challenge to security and peace is the concept of human security itself. The last decade has seen all types of debates. These are best described as questions, for example, Should the international system be based on states or on nations? Should security come first or should development come first? Are the poor a problem to security? Should individuals or states be the centre for international action? Should territorial integrity and sovereignty prime over the security of individuals? What is the legitimacy of international action in favor of individuals?

The debate can almost be reduced to one simple proposition looking at people from the orbit of Human Rights or looking at people from the orbit of peace, security and stability? This is a debate that has not been concluded nor, in many cases, adequately defined. Yet the reach of this challenge is such that it can affect the most basic of agreed international principles, such as the Charter of the United Nations itself. No state has the power nor the willingness to force the debate to its natural conclusions, and yet until this is defined and agreed upon, almost all issues affecting international peace and security are subject to being high-jacked by it or be held hostage to it. Similarly, no long term sustainable action that will transform our societies to improve the lot of the common man and his/her ability to prosper in peace can be found.

4.

Conclusion

The study in IOs should not be confused with its celebration. The honest scholars have to look in the phenomenon of the IOs without blinkers and to try to appreciate the pros and cons, because only then, you are credible and in position to provide prescriptions. When pointing out the critiques of the International organization, they derive from three layers: 1. Horizontal critiques 2. Vertical critiques 3. Ideological critiques 1. Horizontal critiques. On the horizontal level the accusations say that although the IOs are premised on sovereign and equality, they really dont respect it. One fact and example supporting this claim is particularly the UN Security Council where all UN member states are not given equal chance to decide on vital issues. Even in the

11 | P a g e

International Courts, where there is proposition of equality, the richer states are likely to be better legally advised. There is North-South perception of the role of the IOs. In the global South there is perception that the IOs and their inspire to universal participation in the IOs is still a toll for hegemonic power 2. Vertical critiques. The vertical critiques are becoming louder due to the fact that the IOs are vertically disconnected. What we have is the Law imposed from above that is very different in terms of democratic legitimacy of law imposed from states themselves that grow out of the democratic process. So, there is a perception that what happens in the IOs stays in the IOs (What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas), what in other words means that the IOs dont pervade domestically like they should, because from one reason or other the Law of IOs are not regarded as legitimate laws of the national legislators decide that they have to change something within the state law because that is their right. Therefore, these allegations say that there is a vertical disconnect from the top-down. 3. Ideological critiques. These critiques say that the IOs are pursuing ideology whether is cultural, economic or other ideology that some states prefer over others. The most evident example that supports this thesis is from the 1990s when the IMF was pursuing the Washington consensus approach to how the States should govern themselves, especially economically. There was a notion that what all of these IOs are pursuing deregulation, protection of property and that the Governments would do better by doing less and letting the market to rule. This consensus approach created some controversial disputes which accused this approach as completely wrong, that there is no single model for economic development to rely on, but there are many ways to get economically developed. Hence, the IOs intention for pushing the Washington consensus approach to structurally adjust the economies of the states and one model was completely wrong. One of the characteristics of this era of the International Organizations is the accountability era. We all now live in the second generations questions and doubts about the IOs. Now we enter in the era of criticism of these organizations and how do we engage in try to fix them. One of them is to open them up, beyond states.

The future of the International Organizations

Although the future of the IOs is a complex issue to discuss and the future is vague, there are some indications that there are some changes that will probably happen in near future. This comes from the fact that the IOs have created a kind of world that is too much demanding from the states by a way of international regulation overload. For example, the IOs are demanding so many reports from so many different bodies of a single state and then overburden the state with resources. Hence, the information overload, the information demand will lead at some point to consolidation, of some subparts of the organizations, including certainly the human rights components will come to the surface at the IOs arena. As well, the future of the IOs might bring to the surface at the IOs

12 | P a g e

scene some delegations of regional groups or regional entities will necessarily be expected to take on more things. This claim is going back to the thesis that the regions should have more control over regional affairs. This would be a result and response to trans-civilizational perspectives and this would be the result of the idea that the Law looks different in the different parts of the world. The future of the IOs has to be focused on the consolidation, delegation and abovementioned diversification since the world are in continuous mode of international adjudication. Therefore the scientists engaged in the structures of the IOs are entering the phase in experimentation with different form of this international adjudication. For instance, if we look at the international criminal law system we will see that more experimentation will come overtime. As a result of that experimentation, ad-hoc tribunals were created, then experiments with hybrid tribunals that look different from one another, then the Lebanon tribunals although it was not the same as the previous ones, because it consisted a lot of national law in it. Then the Truth Commissions appeared as a good idea, because it was realized that the Courts have not capacity to do everything. The South Africa reconciliation approach as well was a good idea in this sense, and at the end, the International Criminal Court for which it is increasingly clear that can handle every issue of mass atrocities on the planet. To that extend, we can expect consolidation in some areas but in the area of global justice we might have continued proliferation. From the other side, we cannot expect consolidation between the trade and investment regime, so the fragmentation will continue in trade and in the investment regime where we might have a regional body (particularly in the region of Balkan) resolving regional investment disputes. So, in the near future we will witness more of experimentation affecting the structures of IOs with the risk/benefits of fragmentation witch becomes more and more supported by some state actors who would preferably express their notions through fragmented structures rather than sending it to the robust core of the IOs structure. To sum-up, the future of the IOs lies in the regional organizations under the umbrella of the globalization trends and globalism in general. It can be achieved through truncating the power of the centralized and robust headquarters of the international organizations and their fragmenting in the regions based on the previously assessed politico-military, economical or human right needs. Then, launching regional satellites-organizations that will derive from the particular IOs, again based on the nature of the issue. These regional organizations will provide more effective activities and first hand analysis, advices, early-warning, alerting, advocating and activation. The regional approach as a future of the IOs will provide and improve the regional concept of human right protection, it will offer much clearer pictures about the overall situation that will be easier to understand the needs that will effectuate faster reaction.

13 | P a g e

References:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. http://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/history/lang--en/index.htm http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/265375/high-seas http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/ http://www.johndclare.net/league_of_nations6_news.htm http://tgrule.com/new-world-order/kofi-annan/ http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_nwo72.htm http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_Civil_War http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2095(2013) http://www.iilj.org/gal/GALworkingdefinition.asp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus http://www.amnesty.org/en/international-justice/issues/truth-commissions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_and_Reconciliation_Commission_(South_Africa) http://www.stl-tsl.org/ http://www.government.nl/issues/international-organisations http://www.loc.gov/rr/business/BERA/issue7/organizations.html

14 | P a g e