No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Scholarship on intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) has mushroomed, especially studies involving quantitative analyses of state involvement in IGOs and the effects of IGOs on the behavior of state members. Yet, little of that literature enumerates IGOs using conceptually based definitions of what are formal intergovernmental organizations. Here, the authors develop a new database on IGOs, based on a definition focusing on three dimensions: formal organizations that demonstrate ongoing decisionmaking and oversight by states; evidence bureaucratic organization; and demonstrate organizational autonomy. The authors conceptualize these organizations as FIGOs. Using these dimensions, they identify the population of FIGOs at three points in time: 1975, 1989, and 2004. In addition, they generate data on state membership in FIGOs, offering not only a simple frequency of number of organizations in which a state participates, but also another measure of state involvement through the creation of a denominator of `opportunity', allowing for an analysis of the number of organizations joined versus the number of organizations a state is capable of joining. Finally, the authors compare the results from their efforts with the IGO COW database and suggest some advantages to using their data for a number of theoretical questions.

Extant work on status attribution has largely focused on major powers or state capabilities as key explanatory factors driving these social processes, and suggest that status considerations increase conflicts between states. We argue for a more comprehensive approach to status attribution which considers international norms as another major factor which is weighed in the attribution process. We contend that states (policymakers) evaluate one another not only on the basis of economic and military capabilities, but also on the extent to which there is behavioral Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 01:55 11 October 2015A c c e p t e d M a n u s c r i p t 2 conformance with normative expectations, and reward one another dependent upon whether these expectations are met. However, this attribution of status is dependent upon the level of contestation pertaining to that norm. Using a dataset which assesses consistency with six different norms (resource transference, multilateralism, economic liberalism, democratic governance, respect for human rights, and peaceful dispute resolution), we find that status attribution is associated with norm-consistent behavior but only when these norms are uncontested at the global level.There is little doubt that, for myriad reasons, 1 foreign policymakers care about their state's status and its position relative to other states in the international pecking order. Such concerns have led states to engage in a variety of highly conflictual status-seeking strategies: fighting wars (Wallace 1971; Wohlforth 2009), disassociating from ideologically compatible allies (Badie 2011), deploying aircraft carriers (Shadbolt 2013) and nuclear submarines (Li and Weuve 2010), or developing nuclear weapons (O'Neill 2006). 1 Motivations behind status concerns appear to range from material through ideational interests. The extant literature is in agreement about both the complex range of motives and the difficulties involved in disentangling them (for example, Dafoe, Renshon, and Huth 2014).Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 01:55 11 October 2015 A c c e p t e d M a n u s c r i p t 3 If status concerns lead states to invest substantial resources and engage in status pursuits that may have substantial interstate consequences, they become a worthy focus of attention. A number of critical puzzles need further focus, including whether or not the pursuit of status necessarily exacerbates interstate conflicts. As the examples in the previous paragraph suggest, status-seeking by states, particularly so-called "realist" strategies of enhancing military capabilities or abruptly changing security relationships, are closely tied to conditions that increase conflicts and wars (Lebow 2008; Senese and Vasquez 2008; Wohlforth 2009). Pursuing status especially through the acquisition of military capabilities can quickly agitate other states to the point of conflict, and especially when the strategy involves nuclear weapons development.Israel has bombed both Syrian and Iraqi targets in order to thwart attempts in t...