Rafael Biermann

Resource Dependence Theory

This chapter aims to make resource dependence theory (RDT) more accessible for scholars of international organizations. It first outlines RDT’s origins and evolution, introduces its core assumptions, and discusses the theory’s shortcomings. RDT is currently experiencing a phase of theory revival, refinement, and empirical application. Secondly the chapter explores whether RDT can be applied to international organizations and considers works by International Relations (IR) scholars who have employed a resource dependence perspective. Increasing empirical evidence indicates that RDT has the potential to improve our understanding of cooperation among international organizations. Open questions remain about RDT’s scope and its compatibility with other organizational and IR theories. The chapter concludes by suggesting several avenues for future research.

NATO’s Troubled Relations with Partner Organizations: A Resource-Dependence Explanation

This chapter investigates NATO’s interactions with other international organizations (IOs) since 1990.1 During the Cold War, the Alliance was a stand-alone organization with only minor ad hoc relations to other organizations (Kaplan 2010). Today, NATO not only entertains structured relations with an abundance of partner states (see Matlary, this volume), but also its ties with other IOs have multiplied.

Coercive Europeanization: the EU's struggle to contain secessionism in the Balkans

Secessionism is still the predominant conflict type in Europe. Even though the European Union (EU) extended the enlargement perspective to the Balkans 15 years ago, secessionist ambition remains pervasive, especially in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia and Serbia. How does secessionism affect Europeanization and how does Europeanization affect secessionism? It is argued here that in cases of unattained statehood domestic power struggles among deeply divided elites over status and territorial control undermine the consensus needed for Europeanization. In cases of attained de facto statehood the conflict focuses on recognition, which likewise polarizes societies and marginalizes reform. In such high-resistance scenarios, where the inclusionary EU norms clash with the exclusionary norms of the secessionists, the EU vigorously works to marginalize the secessionists by relying mainly on denial, punishment and imposition. Still, the EUs leverage is often insufficient in moving the conflicting parties towards within-state solutions and reform. A study of Bosnias transformation since Dayton reveals, however, that the EUs leverage varies over time and that the EU at times itself inadvertently fans secessionism.

Legitimizing Inter-Organizational Relations

This chapter tries to understand legitimation processes among international organizations. After conceptualizing legitimacy and legitimation in general and the legitimation of international organizations in particular, it focuses on processes of (de-)legitimation among organizations. Organizations constantly engage in activities to gain, maintain, and repair their own legitimacy. However, environmental constraints shape their legitimacy. Within their environment, struggles over legitimacy based on disputed legitimacy criteria and assessments abound. Other organizations are part of this environment. They hold resources deemed essential for task accomplishment and compete for the same mandates and tasks in dense institutional spaces. Thus, both their very activities and the cooperation with them impact an organization’s legitimacy. The chapter argues that legitimacy concerns are therefore a major factor driving the willingness to cooperate among organizations. Organizations strive to connect to legitimate others and disconnect from illegitimate others, which impacts partner selection, tie strength, and resource exchange. The chapter concludes with substantial and methodological recommendations for future research.

Studying Relations Among International Organizations in World Politics: Core Concepts and Challenges

This introductory chapter provides an overview of the main definitions, dimensions, and processes of inter-organizational relations and outlines major concepts required for understanding and analyzing inter-organizational relations in world politics. The chapter is divided into seven sections. After a general introduction, Section 2 clarifies major definitions of the concept (both our understanding of ‘inter-organizational relations’ and of ‘international organizations’), contrasting this with the prevalent ‘regime interaction’ approach; the section also explores different dimensions of inter-organizational relations, such as degrees of formalization or Secretariat and field perspectives. Section 3 explains the growth of interaction among international organizations since 1945, pointing in particular to the proliferation of international organizations, their task expansion, issue-linkage, and political shocks as causal factors; the section also elucidates major stimuli for individual organizations to cooperate. Section 4 focuses on cooperation and competition among organizations, adding some considerations about the management of relations. Section 5 is supposed to open the door for analyses investigating systematically the effectiveness of inter-organizational relations, while Section 6 flags up major theoretical and methodological challenges for students of inter-organizational relations. Finally, Section 7 introduces the approach and structure of this Handbook.

Türkei ante portas. Zur Finalität des europäischen Erweiterungsprozesses

Ein Exzerpt aus dem ‚Oxford Concise History of Europe‘, datiert auf das Jahr 2040: „Die große Frage für Europa im Januar 2023 war Irak: Sollte es Mitglied der Europäischen Union werden? Die Türkei, selbst seit mehr als einer Dekade EU-Mitglied, drängte stark auf eine irakische Mitgliedschaft. Immerhin war Irak so etwas wie eine Demokratie seit fast 20 Jahren. ... Einige rückwärtsgewandte europäische Christdemokraten wandten ein, der Irak sei kein europäisches Land. ,Die Idee ist völlig lächerlich‘, so der 84-jährige frühere Präsident der Europäischen Kommission, Romano Prodi. Aber die EU hatte die traditionellen geographischen, historischen und kulturellen Grenzen Europas ... schon überschritten, als sie entschied, die Türkei aufzunehmen.“ 1