Details

A major theme of the course so far has been the effects of the rise of many new sovereign nation-states after the collapse of the old empires. Creation of modern, sovereign, viable nation-states depends heavily upon the establishment of a national identity.

At the same time, the demands of “globalization” have (according to your authors) increased the importance of IGOs in dealing with issues.   This creates a tension between the forces of nationalism and those of the need for increased international cooperation and coordination.

Select any two IGOs and compare them in terms of how effectively they cope with the forces of nationalism and national identity. Is this less of a problem for one than the other? If so, to what might this be attributed – its structure, its operating rules, the nature of the issue it addresses? If there is no apparent difference between them in this regard, what do they have in common that accounts for the similarity?

If you were asked to advise the leaders of an IGO on how best to manage nationalist interests and impulses in the organization, what one or two pieces of specific advice would you offer, based upon your comparison?