Are international organizations on the verge of extinction?

International bodies, designed to curb future conflicts, have struggled to fulfill their primary objective.

, and ASMedia

2025 September 30 . 6:32 PM

2 min read

Are international institutions facing extinction?

Are international organizations on the verge of extinction?

International bureaucracies, despite their underfunded status, wield significant influence in shaping domestic policymaking. This influence often shields national politicians from accountability, as dense, informal networks among bureaucrats are sustained by these organizations. These networks provide valuable information and serve as a convenient scapegoat for political leaders.

One example of an international organization that has evolved beyond its original scope is the European Union (EU). The EU, initially designed to promote economic cooperation, has expanded its reach to encompass peacekeeping, technological advancement, and more.

Interestingly, member countries are more likely to freeze or reduce funding for ineffective international organizations rather than withdrawing or dismantling them. This trend is not unique to the EU; other international bodies, like the World Bank and the G20, have strong enforcement mechanisms, while others, such as the United Nations, have weaker ones.

The inefficiencies of international organizations are often due to their formation being driven by convenience and bureaucracy rather than actual effectiveness. In cases where a dominant country supports the mission of an international organization and enforces decisions through superior military or economic power, the organization becomes an instrument of that dominant power.

However, downsizing these organizations through defunding requires national leaders with the vision, resolve, and political capital to rein in the power of global bureaucracies. In organizations without a clear dominant power, bureaucracies often take over, generating a stream of hollow projects and initiatives to justify their continued existence.

Leaving an international organization can have high costs in terms of international prestige and domestic political repercussions. For instance, the United Nations and its various agencies are built around broadly defined goals to be achieved in the future. International organizations did little to prevent conflict and instead laid the groundwork for expansive transnational regulation.

A second scenario involves transforming ineffective international bodies into lean, low-cost agencies that provide a multilateral facade for decisions driven by a small group of key players. This transition could support the transition to regional, mission-specific intergovernmental bodies. However, it is unlikely to produce the intended outcome on its own, as international bodies are inherently ineffective due to their reliance on political convenience and bureaucracy, and their tendency to lose sight of their original mission.

International organizations, designed to promote peace, aid, financial regulation, and climate change action, have largely failed in their goals over the past 30 years. Consistent leadership and coherent agendas are lacking in much of the world, leaving many issues in the hands of bureaucrats. Agreements tend to be more resilient, especially when they evolve beyond their original scope, establish new terms of cooperation, and increase the cost of withdrawal.

In conclusion, while international organizations play a crucial role in global affairs, their inefficiencies and the political convenience they often represent are causes for concern. The future of these organizations lies in the hands of visionary leaders who can navigate the complexities of global politics to ensure that these organizations remain effective and accountable.