The Two Faces of the United Nations: The Tension Between Intergovernmentalism and Transnationalism

Abstract

There is a tension within the United Nations between intergovernmentalism and transnationalism, two forces that encompass different sets of interests and reflect distinct constituencies. As an intergovernmental institution, the UN reflects the overlapping interests of its member states, particularly those on the Security Council. Major initiatives and policies are promoted by accredited delegations, all of whom represent their governments. As a transnational organization, however, the UN also often represents a common good that transcends the sum of individual state interests. Such concerns are promoted by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and by the UN's specialized agencies, affiliated organizations, bureaucracy, and office of the secretarygeneral. In many cases, transnational concerns such as human rights or humanitarian relief conflict with the more traditional intergovernmental ones such as security. When this occurs, the UN is unable to function effectively. This conflict between intergovernmentalism and transnationalism reflects a similar tension within the system itself. Intergovernmentalism is certainly the dominant force in world politics, but transnational actors have also achieved increased visibility and influence within the global organization. From this perspective, the UN not only provides a forum for states to resolve their disputes, it also serves as a medium through which state and nonstate actors promote their often competing interests. Thus, the conflict between these forces within the UN can help to illustrate their respective roles in politics. In this article I examine this tension and explore what this may mean for the future of global politics. Since this is primarily a conceptual essay, I do not present original data nor examine specific cases in any detail. Rather my purpose is to identify and explain a phenomenon and provide a framework through which one can undertake empirical studies in the future. In the first section I examine the intergovernmental and transnational foundations of the UN system. I argue that while traditional theories of organizations can explain the intergovernmental side of the UN, they have trouble accounting for the transnational aspects. In the next section I try to account for this other face of the UN by suggesting that the UN is not only a forum for interstate cooperation, but also an institutional embodiment of an international independent of the states that compose it. The benefits that are enjoyed by this broadly defined can be viewed as the common good. In the third section I examine the inherent tension between these two forces. I argue that when the interests of the states conflict with those of the broader community, the organization becomes paralyzed. In the last section I discuss the broader implications of the conflict for theories of relations. In distinguishing between intergovernmental and transnational functions, I use the following criteria: First, which constituency is being served in a particular operation or program: the member states, local populations, nongovernmental interest groups, the international community as a whole, or regional organizations? I define those programs that serve primarily nonstate actors as transnational. Second, who are the primary actors initiating the operation or program: the member states, specialists within the UN agencies, government representatives to functional bodies, NGOs, or the UN Secretariat? Those activities that require the active cooperation and participation of the states are intergovernmental. Those that rely primarily on UN agencies, NGOs, specialized agencies, or the Secretariat are considered transnational. Third, through what process are state interests defined in a particular issue: domestically, through consultation with representatives from other countries, through interaction among special ists or representatives of NGOs, or by initiation of the secretary-general? …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 64 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.