Workplace Equality in International Organizations: A Way Forward

In this contribution, I am interested in how discrimination issues are manifested in employment relations in the United Nations (UN), a public forum to all states political leaders to advance their concerns, the World Bank, a financial organization that promotes economic development, mainly in developing countries, and the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), the eldest and largest global public program of the World Bank with a strategic network of diverse stakeholders that harnesses the best in science to produce more and better food, reduce poverty and sustain environments. Considering the immunity and privileges granted to international organizations, what are the current available legal procedures, at the national or international level, for workplace equality? How accountable and transparent are they, based on the practice of these organizations? Can discrimination biases that go beyond the known individual-based discrimination claims be identified? If so, how can they be challenged and changed? Based of the special position of international civil servants in international organizations and the duty to protect their fundamental rights, I claim that the limitation of opportunity by discriminatory biases and the psychic burden on the individual staff member, on daily basis, qualify for a workplace wrong and call for independent and impartial legal procedures that would ensure due process and fair treatment.

The ‘Public Interest’ Agency of International Organizations? The case of the OECD Principles of Corporate Governance

This article seeks to outline and explore some of the conditions necessary for International Organizations (IOs) to perform in a public interest fashion through a case study of the Principles of corporate governance formulated by the OECD. Rather than the more commonly documented pathological and dysfunctional behavioural forms of IOs, the case of the Principles, both in their formulation by the OECD, and in their assessment by the World Bank through the ROSC process, represent an episode of IO agency protecting and promoting a wider public interest. In exercising their agency, IO staff, have made the Principles more agreeable to a wider range of interested parties, giving them a general interest orientation, in accordance with a proceduralist definition of public interest. This case should therefore encourage IPE scholars to consider carefully and systematically the sets of circumstances and conditions, which might be required for IO agency to take more socially useful forms. In the final section, three indicators are identified which might be evaluated in future research into the positive public interest agency of IOs across a range of cases.

International Organizations: Fostering Democracy “at Home”: From Silent Players to Salient Players?

The international dimension of democratisation is a major concern in the study of contemporary political systems. The analysis of domestic political transformations in which International Organisations (IOs) may be salient actors compromises the traditional inward-looking approach of comparative politics that holds democracy to be a domestic affair par excellence. Nevertheless, the maturity of any process of democratisation relies upon the establishment and sustainability of institutions that genuinely reflect the interests and socio-political identity of the citizens of that polity. The role of external influence, whether progressive or abrupt, is clearly limited in constructing and sustaining this process. However, the relevance of international variables in influencing the renaissance or enhancement of democracy has not been overlooked by either scholars or politicians over the past fifteen years. As a number of political systems went through what became known as the third wave of democratization, the role of IOs in breaking down undemocratic strongholds and in neutralising possible reversals began to gain momentum. Contending approaches and controversial case studies alike appear to elicit very different conclusions concerning the legitimacy and the effectiveness of international actors in this field. This analysis addresses the rationale underpinning the deployment of multilateral external actors as agents of democratisation. Drawing on an integrative theoretical approach and a comparative case study involving the democratisation agendas of the Organization of American States (OAS) and the United Nations (UN) in Latin America (LA), contrasting international models of deployment are assessed. It is argued that IOs’ democratisation strategies are based on institutional roadmaps leading towards the attainment of targets which vary according to three key ´guidelines’: how democracy is conceptualised, what cooperative strategies are used, and what frameworks for democratisation are adopted.-----La dimensión internacional de la democratización representa un fenómeno importante de los sistemas políticos contemporáneos. El hecho de que la transformación política interna sea incluida bajo el título de organizaciones internacionales (OI) indica un rompimiento con el enfoque tradicional de observación interna de la política comparativa, si se parte de la suposición de que la “democracia” es un asunto interno por excelencia. Hay procesos complejos que limitan la viabilidad de la fortuna democrática en la política interior, los cuales dependen de las estructuras representativas del poder que fluye de la legitimidad nacional y la identidad política. No obstante, los estímulos internacionales que sostienen a los sistemas nacionales de gobierno, estructurados alrededor de la construcción y la consolidación de la democracia, están en el centro de la política comparativa contemporánea. Cuando varios sistemas políticos atravesaban la tercera ola de democratización, las OI asumieron rápidamente una posición significativa como agentes que neutralizaban los miedos a la inversión de políticas, rompiendo lazos con formas antidemocráticas de gobierno y eliminando las normas informales de los juegos democráticos. Las dinámicas mencionadas dan fundamento para abordar el debate sobre los modelos externos de apoyo. Mediante un enfoque teórico integrador y un estudio comparativo de casos de las agendas de democratización de la Organización de Estados Americanos y las Naciones Unidas dirigidas a la problemática democrática latinoamericana, se aclaran modelos internacionales “ocultos” de despliegue. Se argumenta que las estrategias de las OI para democratizar se fundamentan en que los planes de desarrollo institucionales para la democratización lleguen a los objetivos democráticos a través de tres “guías” multilaterales: conceptualización de la democracia, estrategias de cooperación y marcos de referencia especiales para la democratización.

Norm diffusion within international organizations: a case study of the World Bank

Constructivists often argue that International Organizations (IOs) diffuse norms throughout the international system. This article asks the question: if IOs promote and diffuse specific norms within world politics, where do these norms come from? In particular, this analysis seeks to formulate how IOs' identities emerge in issue areas where rationalist theories give limited explanation, such as the environment. This article posits that IOs interact with and consume norms from non-state actors such as transnational advocacy networks, a process overlooked by the constructivist analysis of institutions. This is examined through a case study of the World Bank's environmental identity where transnational advocacy networks played an important role in the Bank's shift towards sustainable development, through processes characterized here as direct and indirect socialization. This article demonstrates that the Bank's shift was more than instrumental as a result of this interaction, and that constructivists therefore need to examine the role of IOs as norm consumers as well as norm diffusers.

Theorizing norm diffusion within international organizations

International Organizations (IOs) promote and diffuse norms within world politics. This prompts the question: where do these norms come from? This inquiry analyses how IOs have been perceived within the emerging norms literature where IOs are 'norm diffusers' within the international system, and finds that the way in which IOs themselves internalize norms has not been taken into account. This poses a potentially fruitful new avenue of inquiry into why and when IOs behave as norm diffusers. An interpretation of when and why IOs internalize norms is offered by positing that IO identities are not fixed and that they are 'norm consumers' socialized by state and non-state actors.