private enterprises and persons within states. The other, less integrated organiza-
tions only have jurisdiction over such sub-state actors through the member
states themselves.
2.2.2 Function or Policy Area
The function or policy area are where IOs become agents for a particular course of
action. Some—like the UN and the EU—are multifunctional in nature. Others—
for example the World Health Organisation or the ILO—are purpose speciWc. Yet
others—the ILO, WHO, and UNCTAD—exercise promotional functions. Some,
such as the Bretton Woods institutions, are agents for the delivery of public goods
although, along with the WTO, they also play regulatory roles.
Some organizations are purely consultative and/or conWdence building in
nature, for example the Non Aligned Movement (NAM) that attempted to secure
a common developing world position on a range of foreign policy issues during the
cold war era or, more recently, the ASEAN Regional Forum that advances a
conWdence building cooperative dialogue on regional security issues between the
states of Southeast Asia and the major Asia-PaciWc powers. The largely ritualistic
and aspirational nature of such bodies does not mean that they are without the
potential to engender meaning and identity as important precursors of deeper
organizational cooperation, as seen in Europe (Rosamond 2000 ) and even, some
argue, in Southeast Asia (Acharya 2000 .)
2.2.3 By Structure and Formal Legal Powers
Two ways to distinguish international organizations from the more general notion
of international institutions is by their legal standing and by the degree of central-
ization and independence they possess. International organizations, reXecting the
notional sovereign equality of states, are institutionalized by treaties. But, in
practice, many IOs have little more than discursive power with no facility for
legal, as opposed to moral, sanction. The evolution of international law invites only
limited comparison with the development of national legal systems. The develop-
ment of international organization is a reXection of the practical limitations on the
emergence of a pattern of systematized rules at the international level.
But it is the presence of formal structures of administration (a bureaucracy and
all that is implied by its presence) that distinguishes an international organization
from the general understanding of an institution. Established organizations usually
have a degree of managerial autonomy from their constituent membership; even if
only of a technical nature pertaining to policy implementation. Notwithstanding
that member states zealously guard their dominion over policy-making and policy
ratiWcation, the powers possessed by IOs are not as insigniWcant as might
be assumed. To a greater or lesser extent, the power to mold understandings,
international political institutions 615