The objective of this article is to explore the spatial and temporal dynamics of an important but often neglected space of global governance: the cities in which the headquarters of international organizations (IOs) are located. For this purpose, this article proposes a conceptualization and an empirical application of the concept of 'ecosystem'. This conceptualization builds on classic sociological ideas and organization theory to develop an innovative understanding of these cities which are more than mere hubs. We use this metaphor to describe an HQ city where one or several IOs have their seats. As a result, it is a space characterized by specific geographical and temporal features that can be qualified as spatial and temporal proximity between the elements composing the ecosystem. Based on original empirical sources, we apply this concept to the so-called International Geneva. We argue that conceptualizing headquarters as ecosystems helps to consider how HQs' location influences the daily work of IOs. Policy Implications• The geographical and temporal proximity that characterizes IO ecosystems can lead to positive outcomes for the work of IOs such as increased synergies between organizations, economies of scale, and having access to a qualified labor pool.• However, these potential gains do not happen automatically. IO ecosystems need organizational leadership and resources to foster cross-organization work, that may have a trickle-down effect on other members of the ecosystem (e.g. national authorities, diplomatic representations, NGOs, etc.

This article provides a representative bureaucracy perspective on staff composition in international organizations (IOs). Contrary to previous studies in international relations, I argue that staff composition is not only driven by power but international organizations are also concerned with bureaucratic representation. Therefore, I examine one potential barrier and one driver to passive representation, namely the available local labour pool and political representation. The empirical analysis is based on an original database of human resources statistics in the United Nations Secretariat which allows for a differentiation between staff categories. The resulting regression analyses suggest that headquarters locations, political representation and diplomacy are the main determinants of member states’ representation, but these determinants vary in strength depending on the staff categories. This article contributes to the study of staff composition in IOs by examining additional determinants and to the recent discussions on representative bureaucracy at the international level.

Picture a normal Tuesday morning, during the second day of negotiations at the Palais des Nations in Geneva. A diplomat who recently joined their country's permanent representation looks at the program of the day displayed on the entrance screen. While going through the long list of side events to identify the most useful ones to attend for their government, the young diplomat tries to remember the location of the different rooms inside the maze of the United Nations building. Next to them, a researcher is getting ready for a full day of observation, debating whether to attend side events (and which ones!), stay in the hallway in the hope of finally getting a few minutes to interview key negotiators or hang out in the cafeteria to stay upto-date on the UN staff discussions. While both are weighing their options, UN civil servants rapidly check the room for their next meeting, and quickly leave the entrance hall, heading without any doubt to the correct building.This brief immersion within the everyday of the UN reflects the complex system of interactions which characterizes international organizations (IOs). Conceptualized as both sites of international relations in the making and actors shaping global politics, IOs are made up of a diversified network of individuals. Indeed, IOs are not solely a group of member states: they are inextricably tied to both their bureaucracies and the (non-)state actors revolving around them (Weiss & Thakur, 2010). They constitute actors, fora and resources (Hurd, 2020) which participate and set

This article examines how major powers conceive the role of the United Nations (UN) in peacebuilding. We conceptualize the UN’s role along the distinction between conflict management and conflict resolution and distinguish between the types of tasks and the approach the UN can adopt. We map states’ conceptions of the UN’s role in peacebuilding by coding peace-related speeches at the UN Security Council (1991–2020) delivered by China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States as well as Brazil, South Africa, and Turkey as rising regional powers. Our findings show that states’ conceptions differ regarding the type of tasks the UN should do. However, the main fault line between the countries lie in the approach the UN should adopt to conduct peacebuilding tasks. We conclude that major powers see a role for the UN beyond mere conflict management as long as it is done with respect for national sovereignty.

No abstract