International Organizations

According to Pease (2012), an international organization are conceived as formal institutions whose members are states and these are divided into two sub-groups called intergovernmental organizations (IGO) and non-governmental organizations (NGO). An IGO consists of states that voluntarily join, contribute financially, and assist in the decision making process. All of their members’ resolves, structures, and administrative protocols are clearly outlined in the treaty or charter. An example of an IGO is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). First, all IGOs comes from an established government which can be further categorized by rules of membership which qualifies NATO because it is an alliance of about 30 members from North America and Europe. Secondly, IGOs can have limited participation in membership or restricted membership which qualifies NATO because this is a security agreement and it limits its involvement by confining it to an amalgamation of specific governmental, geographical, and martial considerations. Thirdly, IGOs are categorized by their purpose meaning the member can be multi or general purpose organization and they can take on any global issue (Pease, 2012). This qualifies NATO because over the years the organization has participated in several international war related issues such as the Korean War and the Cold War. Most recently, NATO, for the first time in history had to engage Article 5 of the treaty after the 9/11 attacks in New York City and the no-fly zone in the country of Libya.

The other kind of International Organization (IO) is the NGO which are primarily non-profit private organizations that engage in a variety of international activities (Pease, 2012 p. 4). They are able to particip...

... middle of paper ...

...n order for the regime itself to be modified or separate altogether, the philosophies and standards that are the common bond between stakeholders will be modified.

There are three main arguments concerning the discussion over the amount of power regimes have in the international system. The neo-realist argument is the first one where regimes are not merely considered as inadequate, but sometimes deceptive. This perspective is regarded as conventional structural. Keohane and Stein support the second argument, which states that regimes have certain worth, but only under particular conditions. Finally, the Grotian argument perceives regimes as an essential, secondary phenomenon feature of human nature. The connection of international and domestic stakeholders, through benefits, influence, standards, societies, and knowledge lead to the likely development of regimes.