Advertisement

Precedent and doctrine in organisational decision-making: the power of informal institutional rules in the United Nations Security Council’s activities on terrorism

  • Thomas GehringEmail author
  • Christian Dorsch
  • Thomas Dörfler
Article

Abstract

We examine how and under what conditions informal institutional constraints, such as precedent and doctrine, are likely to affect collective choice within international organisations even in the absence of powerful bureaucratic agents. With a particular focus on the United Nations Security Council, we first develop a theoretical account of why such informal constraints might affect collective decisions even of powerful and strategically behaving actors. We show that precedents provide focal points that allow adopting collective decisions in coordination situations despite diverging preferences. Reliance on previous cases creates tacitly evolving doctrine that may develop incrementally. Council decision-making is also likely to be facilitated by an institutional logic of escalation driven by institutional constraints following from the typically staged response to crisis situations. We explore the usefulness of our theoretical argument with evidence from the Council doctrine on terrorism that has evolved since 1985. The key decisions studied include the 1992 sanctions resolution against Libya and the 2001 Council response to the 9/11 attacks. We conclude that, even within intergovernmentally structured international organisations, member states do not operate on a clean slate, but in a highly institutionalised environment that shapes their opportunities for action.

Keywords

decision-making doctrine international organisations precedent Security Council terrorism 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the German Research Foundation (DFG) for its generous financial support for this study under Grant No. GE 1164/10-1. Further, Thomas Dörfler kindly acknowledges the financial support of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

References

  1. Abbott, Kenneth W. and Duncan Snidal (1998) ‘Why States Act through Formal International Organizations’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 42(1): 3–32.Google Scholar
  2. Adler, Emanuel and Vincent Pouliot (2011) ‘International Practices’, International Theory 3(1): 1–36.Google Scholar
  3. Adler-Nissen, Rebecca and Vincent Pouliot (2014) ‘Power in Practice: Negotiating the International Intervention in Libya’, European Journal of International Relations 20(4): 889–911.Google Scholar
  4. Alter, Karen J. (2008) ‘Agents or Trustees? International Courts in their Political Context’, European Journal of International Relations 14(1): 33–63.Google Scholar
  5. Aust, Anthony (2000) ‘Lockerbie: The Other Case’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly 49(2): 278–96.Google Scholar
  6. Barnett, Michael and Martha Finnemore (2004) Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bennis, Phyllis (1996) Calling the Shots: How Washington Dominates Today’s United Nations, New York: Olive Branch.Google Scholar
  8. Bhala, Raj (1999) ‘The Myth About Stare Decisis and International Trade Law (Part One of a Trilogy)’, American University International Law Review 14(4): 845–956.Google Scholar
  9. Bosco, David L. (2009) Five to Rule Them All: The UN Security Council and the Making of the Modern World, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bolton, John R. (2007) Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad, New York: Threshold Editions.Google Scholar
  11. Boulden, Jane (2006) ‘Double Standards, Distance and Disengagement: Collective Legitimization in the Post-Cold War Security Council’, Security Dialogue 37(3): 409–23.Google Scholar
  12. Boutros-Ghali, Boutros (1999) Unvanquished: A US-UN Saga, New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  13. Busch, Marc (2007) ‘Overlapping Institutions, Forum Shopping, and Dispute Settlement in International Trade’, International Organization 61(4): 735–61.Google Scholar
  14. Colgan, Jeff D. and Thijs Van de Graaf (2015) ‘Mechanisms of Informal Governance: Evidence from the IEA’, Journal of International Relations and Development 18(3): 455–81.Google Scholar
  15. Contessi, Nicola (2010) ‘Multilateralism, Intervention and Norm Contestation: China’s Stance on Darfur in the UN Security Council’, Security Dialogue 41(3): 323–44.Google Scholar
  16. Crawford, Sue E. und Elinor Ostrom (1995) ‘A Grammar of Institutions’, American Political Science Review 89(3): 582–99.Google Scholar
  17. Czerny, Philip G. (1997) ‘Paradoxes of the Competition State. The Dynamics of Political Globalization’, Government and Opposition 32(2): 251–74.Google Scholar
  18. Dashti-Gibson, Jaleh and Richard Conroy (2000) ‘Taming Terrorism: Sanctions Against Libya, Sudan, and Afghanistan’, in: David Cortright and GeorgeLopez, eds, The Sanctions Decade: Assessing UN Strategies in the 1990s, 107–34, Boulder: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  19. David, Paul (1994) ‘Why Are Institutions the ‘Carriers of History’? Path Dependence and the Evolution of Conventions, Organizations and Institutions’, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 5(2): 205–20.Google Scholar
  20. Dorsch, Christian (2015) ‘A New Barometer for the Evolution of Multilateral Counterterrorism: Introduction to the Materials, Methods, and Results of the UN Security Council and Terrorism Dataset (UNSC-TDS)’, Terrorism and Political Violence 27(4): 701–21.Google Scholar
  21. Fioretos, Orfeo (2011) ‘Historical Institutionalism in International Relations’, International Organization 65(2): 367–99.Google Scholar
  22. Fon, Vincy, Francesco Parisi and Ben Depoorter (2005) ‘Litigation, Judicial Path-Dependence, and Legal Change’, European Journal of Law and Economics 20(1): 43–56.Google Scholar
  23. Finnemore, Martha and Kathryn Sikkink (1998) ‘International Norm Dynamics and Political Change’, International Organization 52(4): 887–917.Google Scholar
  24. Franck, Thomas (2001) ‘Terrorism and the Right of Self-Defense’, American Journal of International Law 95(4): 839–43.Google Scholar
  25. Garrett, Geoffrey and Barry Weingast (1993) ‘Ideas, Interests, and Institutions: Constructing the European Community’s Internal Market’, in: Judith Goldstein and Robert Keohane, eds, Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change, 173–206, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Gerhardt, Michael (2005) ‘The Limited Path Dependency of Precedent’, University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 7(4): 903–1000.Google Scholar
  27. Gifkins, Jess (2016) ‘R2P in the UN Security Council: Darfur, Libya and beyond’, Cooperation and Conflict 51(2): 148–65.Google Scholar
  28. Hannay, David (2008) New World Disorder: The UN After the Cold WarAn Insider’s View, London: Tauris.Google Scholar
  29. Hanrieder, Tine (2015) ‘The Path-dependent Design of International Organizations: Federalism in the World Health Organization’, European Journal of International Relations 21(1): 215–39.Google Scholar
  30. Hathaway, Oona A. (2001) ‘Path Dependence in the Law: The Course and Pattern of Legal Change in a Common Law System, Economics, and Public Policy’, Iowa Law Review 86(2): 601–65.Google Scholar
  31. Hawkins, Darren G., David A.Lake, Daniel L. Nielson and Michael J. Tierney, eds (2006) Delegation and Agency in International Organizations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Holloway, Robert (2001) ‘US asks Security Council to Cut off Support for Terrorists’, Agence France Presse, 27 September, United Nations.Google Scholar
  33. Hurd, Ian (2007) After Anarchy: Legitimacy and Power in the United Nations Security Council, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hurd, Ian (2005) ‘The Strategic Use of Liberal Internationalism: Libya and the UN Sanctions, 1992–2003’, International Organization 59(3): 495–526.Google Scholar
  35. Huth, Paul, Sarah Croco and Benjamin Appel (2013) ‘Bringing Law to the Table: Legal Claims, Focal Points, and the Settlement of Territorial Disputes Sine 1945’, American Journal of Political Science 57(1): 90–103.Google Scholar
  36. Johnstone, Ian (2008) ‘Legislation and Adjudication in the Un Security Council: Bringing down the Deliberative Deficit’, American Journal of International Law, 102(2): 275–308.Google Scholar
  37. Johnstone, Ian (2003) ‘Security Council Deliberations: The Power of the Better Argument’, European Journal of International Law 14(3): 437–80.Google Scholar
  38. Keohane, Robert (1984) After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Krebs, Ronald R. and Patrick T. Jackson (2007) ‘Twisting Tongues and Twisting Arms. The Power of Political Rhetoric’, European Journal of International Relations 13(1): 35–66.Google Scholar
  40. Krisch, Nico (2008) ‘The Security Council and the Great Powers’, in Vaughan Lowe et al., eds, The United Nations Security Council and War: The Evolution of Thought and Practice since 1945, 133–53, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Lewis, David (1969) Convention: A Philosophical Study, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Luck, Edward (2006) The UN Security Council: Practice and Promise, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Luck, Edward (2004) ‘Tackling Terrorism’, in David Malone, ed., The UN Security Council: From the Cold War to the 21st Century, 85–100, Boulder: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  44. Lupu, Yonatan and Erik Voeten (2012) ‘Precedent in International Courts: A Network Analysis of Case Citations by the European Court of Human Rights’, British Journal of Political Science 42(2): 413–39.Google Scholar
  45. Lutterbeck, Derek (2009) ‘Arming Libya: Transfers of Conventional Weapons Past and Present’, Contemporary Security Policy 30(3): 505–28.Google Scholar
  46. McAdams, Richard and Janice Nadler (2008) ‘Coordinating in the Shadow of the Law: Two Contextualized Tests of the Focal Point Theory of Legal Compliance’, Law & Society Review 42(2): 865–98.Google Scholar
  47. Mahoney, James (2000) ‘Path Dependence in Historical Sociology’, Theory and Society 29(4): 507–48.Google Scholar
  48. Malone, David (2006) The International Struggle Over Iraq: Politics in the UN Security Council 19802005, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. March, James and Johan Olsen (1998) ‘The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders’, International Organization 52(4): 943–69.Google Scholar
  50. March, James and Johan Olsen (1989) Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics, New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  51. McNamara, Thomas (2007) ‘Unilateral and Multilateral Strategies Against State Sponsors of Terror: A Case Study of Libya, 1979 to 2003’, in David Cortright and George Lopez, eds, Uniting Against Terror: Cooperative Nonmilitary Responses to the Global Terrorist Threat, 83–122, Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  52. Messmer, William B. and Carlos L. Yordán (2010) ‘The Origins of the United Nation’s Global Counter-Terrorism System’, Historia Actual Online 22: 173–82.Google Scholar
  53. Monteleone, Carla (2015) ‘Coalition building in the UN Security Council’, International Relations 29(1): 45–68.Google Scholar
  54. O’Neill, Barry (1996) ‘Power and Satisfaction in the United Nations Security Council’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 40(2): 219–37.Google Scholar
  55. Pelc, Krzysztof (2014) ‘The Politics of Precedent in International Law: A Social Network Application’, American Political Science Review 108(3): 547–64.Google Scholar
  56. Peters, Anne (2012) ‘Article 24’, in: Bruno Simma, ed., The Charter of the United Nations, third edition, Vol. 1, 761–86, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Pierson, Paul (2004) Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Pollack, Mark A. (1996) ‘The New Institutionalism and EC Governance. The Promise and Limits of Institutional Analysis’, Governance 9(4): 429–58.Google Scholar
  59. Romaniuk, Peter (2010) Multilateral Counter-Terrorism: The Global Politics of Cooperation and Contestation, Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. Rosand, Eric, Alistair Millar and Jason Ipe (2007) ‘The UN Security Council’s Counterterrorism Program: What Lies Ahead?’, New York: International Peace Academy.Google Scholar
  61. Rose, Gideon (1998) ‘Libya’, in Richard N. Haass, ed., Economic Sanctions and American Diplomacy, 129–56, New York: Council on Foreign Relations.Google Scholar
  62. Rostow, Nicholas (2002) ‘Before and after: The Changed UN Response to Terrorism Since September 11th’, Cornell International Law Journal 35(3): 475–90.Google Scholar
  63. Sandholtz, Wayne and Alec Stone Sweet (2004) ‘Law, Politics, and International Governance’, in Christian Reus-Smit, ed., The Politics of International Law, 238–71, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Sandholtz, Wayne (2008) ‘Dynamics of International Norm Change: Rules against Wartime Plunder’, European Journal of International Relations 14(1): 101–31.Google Scholar
  65. Schachter, Oscar (1964) ‘The Quasi-judicial Role of the Security Council and the General Assembly’, American Journal of International Law 58(4): 960–65.Google Scholar
  66. Schauer, Frederick (1991) Playing by the Rules, Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  67. Schelling, Thomas (1960) The Strategy of Conflict, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Schimmelfennig, Frank (2001) ‘The Community Trap. Liberal Norms, Rhetorical Action, and the Eastern Enlargement of the European Union’, International Organization 55(1): 47–80.Google Scholar
  69. Schwartz, Jonathan (2007) ‘Dealing With a ‘Rogue State’: The Libya Precedent’, American Journal of International Law 101(3): 553–80.Google Scholar
  70. Shahabuddeen, Mohamed (2007) Precedent in the World Court, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Slapin, Jonathan B. (2011) Veto Power. Institutional Design in the European Union, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  72. Snidal, Duncan (1985) ‘Coordination Versus Prisoners’ Dilemma: Implications for International Cooperation and Regimes’, American Political Science Review 79(4): 932–42.Google Scholar
  73. Stiles, Kendall (2006) ‘The Power of Procedure and the Procedures of the Powerful: Anti-Terror Law in the United Nations’, Journal of Peace Research 43(1): 37–54.Google Scholar
  74. Stone, Randall (2013) ‘Informal Governance in International Organizations: Introduction to the Special Issue’, Review of International Organizations 8(2): 121–36.Google Scholar
  75. Stone Sweet, Alec (2000) Governing with Judges: Constitutional Politics in Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Sugden, Robert (1995) ‘A Theory of Focal Points’, Economic Journal 105(430): 533–50.Google Scholar
  77. Sugden, Robert (1989) ‘Spontaneous Order’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 3(4): 85–97.Google Scholar
  78. Sugden, Robert and Ignacio Zamarrón (2006) ‘Finding the Key: The Riddle of Focal Points’, Journal of Economic Psychology 27(5): 609–21.Google Scholar
  79. Szasz, Paul C. (2002) ‘The Security Council Starts Legislating’, American Journal of International Law 96(4): 901–905.Google Scholar
  80. Talmon, Stefan (2005) ‘The Security Council as World Legislature’, American Journal of International Law 99(1): 175–93.Google Scholar
  81. Thorhallsson, Baldur (2012) ‘Small States in the UN Security Council: Means of Influence?’, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 7(2): 135–60.Google Scholar
  82. Tiller, Emerson and Frank Cross (2006) ‘What Is Legal Doctrine?’, Northwestern University Law Review 100(1): 517–33.Google Scholar
  83. Thatcher, Margaret (1993) The Downing Street Years, London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  84. Thompson, Alexander (2006a) ‘Coercion through IOs: The Security Council and The Logic of Information Transmission’, International Organization 60(1): 1–34.Google Scholar
  85. Thompson, Alexander (2006b) ‘Screening Power: International Organizations as Informative Agents’ in Darren Hawkins et al., eds, Delegation and Agency in International Organizations, 229–54, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Voeten, Erik (2005) ‘The Political Origins of the UN Security Council’s Ability to Legitimize the Use of Force’, International Organization 59(3): 527–57.Google Scholar
  87. Voeten, Erik (2001) ‘Outside Options and the Logic of Security Council Action’, American Political Science Review 95(4): 845–58.Google Scholar
  88. Vreeland, James and Axel Dreher (2014) The Political Economy of the United Nations Security Council: Money and Influence, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Westra, Joel H. (2010) ‘Cumulative Legitimation, Prudential Restraint, and the Maintenance of International Order: A Re-examination of the UN Charter System’, International Studies Quarterly 54(2): 513–33.Google Scholar
  90. Yee, Albert (1997) ‘Thick Rationality and the Missing “Brute Fact”: The Limits of Rationalist Incorporations of Norms and Ideas’, Journal of Politics 59(4): 1001–39.Google Scholar

List of interviews

  1. Interview 1 with UN diplomat of a Council member state, 27 March 2012, New York (NY), United States.Google Scholar
  2. Interview 2 with UN diplomat of a Council member state, 30 March 2012, New York (NY), United States.Google Scholar
  3. Interview 3 with UN diplomat of a Council member state, 4 April 2012, New York (NY), United States.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Gehring
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christian Dorsch
    • 2
  • Thomas Dörfler
    • 3
  1. 1.Otto-Friedrich-University BambergBambergGermany
  2. 2.University Koblenz-LandauMainzGermany
  3. 3.Center for Policy ResearchUnited Nations UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations