Talk:International organization
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
What about a comparison chart as seen over at South American Community of Nations?—Tokek 06:10, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] International organization v. Intergovermental organization
The acronym IGO stands for, as far as I know, Intergovermental organization and not International organization. Would anyone disagree if it was moved? NisseSthlm 10:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Certainly that is so, but it seems the conceit of the article-writers is that "international organization" is an acceptable layman's substitute for "intergovernmental organization", which is a term rarely encountered by non-experts. Perhaps this should be clearer in the article.--Pharos 04:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
International organization IS NOT an acceptable layman's term for IGO. An International organization can be a corportation like Coca-Cola or something, or an NGO like the Red Cross. I think this should be made clearer. An IGO is specificially associated with world governments working together. By the way it's goverNmental, not goverment. Arthurian Legend 19:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Why is this not on the disambiguation page for IGO?
check it out: IGO
[edit] Do more countries spell it as Organization or Organisation?
Organization / Organisation?
CaribDigita 04:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- There's no clear primary usage here, as international organisation is neither primarily American nor primarily British, so it's at where the first user (or the first creator of actual content) created it. —Nightstallion (?) 18:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] IFRC and ICRC are International Organizations as well
I disagree with the definition of an International Organization being the same as an Intergovernmental Organization. Take the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and the International Committee of the Red Cross for example. These are not NGOs. Information about the legal status of the ICRC can be found here and regarding the IFRC here (PDF)
To quote from the latter:
Because of their unique mandates and composition, the international components of the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement – namely the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (Federation) – are also considered to have an international legal personality, entailing privileges and immunities similar to those of UN agencies. The national legal personality of the ICRC and the Federation is normally stipulated in bilateral status agreements concluded with governments.
(Timoluege 14:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC))
- Well I think you have a good point. An international organization is really an organization which is a subject of public international law, i.e. possessing international legal personality. Now, there are two ways that an organization can acquire such personality: (1) creation by treaty; (2) creation by other means (e.g. as a private organization under national law), followed by having its international legal personality recognized by other entities already possessing such personality, whether by means of formal agreements or custom. I would say that the ICRC falls into category (2), as even though it was established as a private organization, its reference in the Geneva Conventions, and in agreements with individual states, and in the customary law created by the manner in which states and other international organizations have interacted with it. I suppose the IFRC would fall into a similar category. This might also explain the unique state of SMOM -- an international organization (albeit one not formed by the usual means, i.e. (2)) seems a more reasonably analysis than "a state without a territory" which would contradict the Montevideo definition of state. --SJK (talk) 06:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Differentiation between legal, usage and conventional definition
There are some problems which could be at any time causing to flag this article for dispute regarding the definitions in use:
The article starts with: "An international organisation, or more formally intergovernmental organisation (IGO)" . This is either not accurate or must have a [citation needed] showing who and where have arrived to such consensus, otherwise is incorrect, International Organizations are not IGOs necessarily. International may describe either membership, scope or presence and not necessarily governments participation.
This could be solved with something as: " An international organisation is by definition any organization with international membership, scope or presence, however, in common usage, is a term commonly reserved for intergovernmental organisations (IGO) such as the European Community or World Trade Organization, with sovereign states or other IGOs as members." unless of course it can be cited a couple of solid sources justifying that only IGOs can be called IOs, otherwise it is incorrect even from a legal point of view.
If desiring a more precise distinction, it could also be made a distinction between private IOs and public interest IOs which themselves may be subdivided in humanitarian, educational or with other purposes for example.
The problem extends as well to: "Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are private organizations that can also be international in scope. Generally and correctly used, however, the term "international organization" is reserved for intergovernmental organizations only." Unless there is a citation very solid justifying the "correctly used" and the "reserved" these are completely incorrect, common usage is not "correctly used" and "reserved" must be specified in some international convention, agreement or a decision sustained by international law at least. Daoken 15:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems quite reasonable and well grounded argument, the definition should be much better as proposed Librarian2 16:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Panegyric to France
The section praising France as having started so many international institutions is, I think, tangential at best. If anything it belongs in a misc. section, not under one of the main subheadings of the article. If no comments within a couple days I will move it somewhere/delete it. Dmhaglund 13:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Come to think of it the article could use a 'history' section, where this bit on France would fit. Still it needs to be toned down and made a little more neutral; I'll start by removing the pretentious latin phrase, which the layman doesn't know, as well as a reference to the 'crusading revolutionary nature' of the third republic, which is bound to make 4 of 5 people irate. Dmhaglund 13:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Need for Expert Attention
After looking more closely at this article and comparing it with some parallel language versions (particularly the German one), it seems this article definitely can use improvement. Unfortunately I am no international lawyer so won't try to tackle the issue myself.Dmhaglund 14:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- I am. Do you refer to the International Organization article or to the one you were talking above ? Daoken 15:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- The article in general has many errors. First of all cannot be redirected from IGO. The first thing to do is to at least create a stub at IGO while building an article and remove the redirection code. If you go making that I get busy on this one Daoken 15:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- I made a first revision draft only down to the beginning of Membership, see what you think. I must go now. Also disregards what I said above about the redirection from IGO, it is OK, but may be later we must make an article "International Organizations (other)" Daoken 15:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Confederation vs International organization
Whats the difference?--88.82.47.98 (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
