The promise and record of international institutions
| Author | Chris Brown |
| Published date | 01 June 2019 |
| Date | 01 June 2019 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0047117819834650 |
| Subject Matter | Part One: Structure and Order |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117819834650
International Relations
2019, Vol. 33(2) 143 –156
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0047117819834650
journals.sagepub.com/home/ire
The promise and record of
international institutions
Chris Brown
The London School of Economics and Political Science
Abstract
In 1919 the attempt was made to reset the institutions governing international relations, with
new patterns of expected behaviour and new international organisations. The key organisation,
the League of Nations, effectively remains in place, albeit rebranded as the United Nations, but
in 2019 great power relations have reverted to pre-1914 modes of conduct; attempts to extend
the range of international institutions after the end of the Cold War have failed at the level of the
central system. Outside of this central system, an extensive human rights regime, new notions
of sovereignty and the development of international criminal law have produced a new set of
institutions and expectations, an embryonic ‘global polity’ based on post-1945 European political
experience and extending to democracies in Latin America and Africa. The rise of populism is
placing strains on this global polity and the relations between this mode of doing international
relations and that of the three major powers is also a source of tension – the fate of the liberal
internationalist ideas set in train in 1919 remains in the balance.
Keywords
global polity, great powers, League of Nations, liberal internationalism, United Nations,
Wilsonianism
In English at least, the term ‘institution’ is somewhat ambiguous; on the one hand, it
simply designates a pattern of behaviour that persists over time, on the other it is some-
times used as a near-synonym for ‘organisation’.1 Thus, a university course on
‘International Institutions’ might focus on international law, the balance of power or
diplomacy, all of which are institutions in the first sense, but is much more likely to
involve analysis of the UN, the World Trade Organization (WTO) or NATO, which are
institutions in the second sense. Fortunately, for the purposes of this article, an examina-
tion of the promise and record of international institutions that is oriented towards 1919
Corresponding author:
Chris Brown, The London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton St., London WC2A 2AE, UK.
Email: C.J.Brown@lse.ac.uk
834650IRE0010.1177/0047117819834650International RelationsBrown
research-article2019
Article
To continue reading
Request your trial