HOW MANY INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS ARE THERE? THE YEARBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND ITS SHORTCOMINGS

Modules on international organisations (IOs) are staples of undergraduate and postgraduate degrees in political science and international relations. Before they get to grapple with the controversies surrounding the origin, design and role of IOs or their impact on global politics, students are confronted with more prosaic questions including ‘what is an IO?’ and ‘how many IOs are there’?

When the first of these questions is posed many students scour online sources or turn to the introductory chapters of the legion of IO textbooks. Although there is some contestation, these sources generally concur that international organisations can be defined as formal continuous structures (normally possessing a permanent headquarters and independent secretariat, plus a formal set of rules and decision making procedures) underpinned by an authoritative instrument of agreement (an international treaty, for example) between two or more sovereign states.

Armed with this, students initially appear well placed to answer the second question about the numbers of international organisations. Despite this precise and generally agreed definition, however, prominent sources give vague or very different figures for the total number of IOs.

Table 1: Numbers of International Organisations according to leading online and textbook sources

Those of a more inquisitive nature or who seek a more definitive answer will eventually locate the publications of the Union of International Associations (UIA). The UIA’s data, especially that in its annual flagship publication The Yearbook of International Organizations first published in 1910, is regularly lauded as the most comprehensive and authoritative tally of extant (and defunct) IOs. Unfortunately inconsistent application of the UIA’s methodology calls into question the reliability of its data.

The UIA’s method classifies IOs by type. Those categorised as Types A-D are “conventional international organisations”. The UIA’s definition of these IOs is broadly consistent with that offered above, although it does not explicitly mention the requirement for a permanent secretariat. Following this method the UIA identified 265 IOs in its most recent survey published in 2013. Even at this highest, level, however, UIA classifications are inconsistently applied.

When we reviewed the UIA data for our own book on International Organisations we discovered that between 2005 and 2013 four universal (Type A/B) organisations had vanished and two new ones, the International Renewable Energy Agency and “EDU Intergovernmental Organization”, were reported. While the former meets the UIA’s definition as being “composed of sovereign states established by treaty or other agreement that acts as a charter”, the latter organization appears to have no government membership, no founding charter, has an accreditation board comprised of an eclectic mix of academics and politicians and, in the UN list of UN Global Compact participants, is classified as an academic organization. Likewise at least one of the three new Type C organizations listed in since 2005 has dubious credentials. The Regions of Climate Action (R20), was established by the Governor of California and although it is trans-regional in nature, its members are sub-regional government units who can join regardless of national policies.

Table 2 UIA Statistics for “conventional intergovernmental organizations” 2005 and 2013

These inconsistencies become more pronounced in categories E-G (‘other international organisations’) which meet the basic IO criteria but whose inclusion, in the UIA’s words, “may be questioned from a number of viewpoints”. The residual ‘special’ categories likewise raise problems.

For example, the UIA records 80 UN institutions as Type E intergovernmental bodies (organizations emanating from places, persons or other bodies). In fact, most of these are operating units of the UN and should be classified as Type K (subsidiary and other bodies). Furthermore there are many other similar subsidiary units within the UN which have not been recorded in this category.

Within the UN bodies listed there several anomalies. For example, the UIA statistics include two internal units responsible for delivery of staff employment benefits– namely, the UN Joint Staff Pension Fund (Type F) and the UN (Geneva) Mutual Insurance Society against Sickness and Health (UNMIS) (Type E). In both cases the staff of these units are UN Secretariat staff and the functions they supervise are integrated into the broader UN administration. Equally many similar units which administer health benefits throughout the UN system, including the New York equivalent of UNMIS, are not recorded.

The Offices of the Special Adviser for Africa and the High Representative for Least Developed Countries are the only such office recorded in the UIA database - as Types K and G (internationally oriented national bodies) respectively - yet there are 5 other similar offices reporting to the UN Secretary-General. The UN Statistical Office is shown as a Type H (dissolved) organization but, in fact, is very much alive.

There are also duplications. The UN Information Centres are shown, correctly, as a single operating group within the UN (Type E) but, separately, there is an entry for the UN Regional Information Centre for Europe. Each of the UN Regional Commissions is correctly listed under the Type E category but their joint liaison office in New York, a purely administrative arrangement, is also listed separately.

This brief examination of the current Yearbook of International Organizations database suggests that there are some significant flaws in the way UIA applies its own methodology. Students seeking to ascertain the precise number of IOs may be as well to rely on some of the other sources listed above. Each has its own flaws, but comprehensive access does not require an annual fee in excess of $2,000!

Richard Woodward is a Senior Lecturer at Coventry Business School, University of Coventry. He tweets @R_Woodward162.

Michael Davies was an international civil servant for 33 years, working in various administrative capacities for the World Bank, the International Civil Service Commission, the Food and Agriculture Organization and latterly as Chief of the Compensation and Benefits Division of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB).​

Image: Ashitaka SanB:  CC BY NC