Cupać, Jelena
A icle — Published Ve sion
A e in e na ional o ganiza ions agen s in hei own igh ?
A plu al subjec pe spec i e
In e na ional Theo y
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
WZB Be lin Social Science Cen e
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Cupać, Jelena (2025) : A e in e na ional o ganiza ions agen s in hei own igh ?
A plu al subjec pe spec i e, In e na ional Theo y, ISSN 1752-9727, Camb idge Uni e si y P ess,
Camb idge, Iss. Fi s View, pp. 1-29,
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S1752971925100122
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/331737
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0
RESEARCH ARTICLE
A e in e na ional o ganiza ions agen s in hei
own igh ? A plu al subjec pe spec i e
Jelena Cupać
Global Go e nance, WZB-Be lin Social Science Cen e , Be lin, Ge many
Email: [email p o ec ed]
(Recei ed 18 Oc obe 2024; e ised 25 May 2025; accep ed 06 Augus 2025)
Abs ac
The pape ad ances a no el heo e ical pe spec i e on he agency o in e na ional o gan-
iza ions (IOs). I a gues ha exis ing accoun s–whe he ocused on in ao ganiza ional
ac o s such as bu eauc acies o on membe -domina ed IOs–o e look he ac ha IO agency
is insepa able om hei pe soni ica ion h ough he asc ip ion, in decision-making and
o icial documen s, o a ious in en ions, belie s, and emo ions. To add ess his gap, he
pape d aws on Ma ga e Gilbe ’s concep o plu al subjec s, i.e., collec i e agen s o med
h ough he join commi men o hei membe s o ac as auni ied body. Using he UN
Secu i y Council as an illus a i e case, he pape con ends ha IOs unc ion as such plu al
subjec s. In doing so, he pape depa s om he longs anding c i e ion in In e na ional
Rela ions ha IOs mus ac independen ly o s a e in e es s and p e e ences o quali y as
agen s in hei own igh . I u he a gues, also con a dominan heo ies, ha IO agency is
no ansien , bu a s able and endu ing ea u e. The pape concludes by ou lining he
heo e ical and empi ical implica ions o his pe spec i e, pa icula ly o unde s anding
ins i u ional mo al agency and IO au ho i y.
Keywo ds: in e na ional o ganiza ions; ac o ness; pe soni ica ion; plu al subjec s; Ma ga e Gilbe ; heo y
In oduc ion
We o en speak o in e na ional o ganiza ions (IOs) as hough hey possess inde-
penden agency, shaping he wo ld h ough hei own delibe a e ac ions.
1
Public
discou se abounds wi h s a emen s such as: ‘The UN b oke ed a peace ag eemen ,’
‘NATO expanded i s mili a y p esence,’o ‘The WHO issued new heal h guidelines.’
In e na ional Rela ions (IR) schola s o en echo hese linguis ic pa e ns. Some,
© The Au ho (s), 2025. Published by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess. This is an Open Access a icle, dis ibu ed unde he e ms
o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion licence (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0), which pe mi s un es ic ed
e-use, dis ibu ion and ep oduc ion, p o ided he o iginal a icle is p ope ly ci ed.
1
The pape dis inguishes be ween ac o s and agen s, de ining ac o s as en i ies such as people, s a es, o
o ganiza ions ha play a ole in a sys em, and agen s as hose ac ing on behal o o he s. Ac o ness and agency,
on he o he hand, a e used in e changeably o deno e he capaci y o collec i e ac o s o ac au onomously.
On he asc ip ion o ac o ness in lay and academic discou se, see Ho e be h 2019; B aun e al. 2019.
In e na ional Theo y (2025), 1–29
doi:10.1017/S1752971925100122
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S1752971925100122 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
howe e , go a s ep u he , seeking o g ound hem heo e ically and a guing ha
such ph ases, a he han se ing as me e me apho ical sho hand, e lec a deepe
eali y abou he ac o ness o IOs. Choosing as hei c i e ion he abili y o IOs o
in luence wo ld a ai s independen ly o membe s a es’in e es s and p e e ences,
a ional ins i u ionalis s and cons uc i is s ypically loca e IO ac o ness in delega ed
oles, speci ically wi hin bu eauc acies and diploma ic s a .
2
Mo e ecen ly, Thomas
Geh ing and Ke in U banski ha e ex ended his a gumen beyond he in e nal
appa a us o IOs, sugges ing ha e en membe -d i en bodies such as he Uni ed
Na ions Secu i y Council can exhibi a dis inc o m o ac o ness.
3
They oo, howe e ,
subsc ibe o he idea ha such ac o ness mus be oo ed in independence om
indi idual s a e in e es s and p e e ences. In hei iew, his occu s when IOs acqui e
ac ion capaci y by pooling go e nance esou ces and achie e au onomy h ough
decisions g ounded in dis inc o ganiza ional a ionales.
Ye wha exis ing schola ship o en o e looks, and hus ails o accoun o
heo e ically, is how closely he agency o IOs is ied o hei pe soni ica ion.
When IOs appea o in luence wo ld poli ics as independen ac o s, hey do so no
as abs ac o ces bu by exhibi ing p ope ies ypically associa ed wi h human
beings, such as in en ions, belie s, and e en emo ions. C ucially, his pe soni i-
ca ion is no me ely e lec ed in lay and academic discou se bu cons i u es an
in eg al componen o decision-making in many IOs, including hose domina ed
by membe s a es. Fo ins ance, he Secu i y Council –used in his a icle as an
illus a i e case –has equi ed i s membe s, since 1945, o ame decisions as
esolu ions in which he Council i sel is he subjec pe o ming a wide a ay o
human-like ac ions. These ac ions include making au ho i a i e demands when i
‘ eques s’o ‘app o es’ce ain measu es; exp essing opinions when i ‘de e -
mines’ ac s and ‘concludes’ om hem; passing judgmen s when i ‘p aises’o
‘condemns’ he ac ions o o he ac o s in wo ld poli ics; and exp essing emo ions
when i con eys ‘shock’and ‘ou age’a mass a oci ies such as genocide o e hnic
cleansing. Agains his backg ound, he aim o his pape is o accoun o
he pe soni ica ion o IOs by membe s a es while simul aneously ad ancing
a no el pe spec i e on IO ac o ness, hus ea ing he wo as undamen ally
in e connec ed.
To de elop his pe spec i e, he pape u ns o Ma ga e Gilbe ’swo konplu al
subjec s. In con as o o he philosophe s, like Philip Pe i , who ha e ex ensi ely
explo ed he p oblem o collec i e in en ionali y, Gilbe ’s con ibu ions emain
la gely o e looked in IR. Ye he con ibu ions a e pa icula ly signi ican as she is
among he ew philosophe s pu suing his line o inqui y o also gi e sus ained
a en ion o he ques ions o collec i e agency, subjec i i y, and ai s o pe son-
hood. Acco ding o Gilbe , plu al subjec s –a e m she uses o deno e collec i e
ac o s –a e o med when indi iduals join ly commi o ac as a single body.
4
He e,
‘ac ’is unde s ood b oadly; no only as doing some hing bu also as in ending,
belie ing, o eeling. The e o e, plu al subjec s can, in Gilbe ’s iew, pe o m mos
o he unc ions indi iduals can; no only o dina y ac ions bu also complex
cogni i e and emo ional ac i i ies such as eeling. This, in u n, g an s hem ai s
2
Hawkins e al. 2006; Nielson and Tie ney 2003; Ba ne and Finnemo e 1999,2004; Han iede 2015;
Baue and Ege 2016; Al e 2006.
3
Geh ing and U banski 2023.
4
Gilbe 2000,2006,2014.
2 Jelena Cupać
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S1752971925100122 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
o pe sonhood, al hough Gilbe does no claim a pe ec pa allel be ween plu al
subjec s and indi idual pe sons.
Wha , on he o he hand, ende s plu al subjec s ac o s in hei own igh is ha
hei ac ions, in en ions, belie s, and emo ions canno be educed o he indi idual
ac ions, in en ions, belie s, o emo ions o hei membe s. When, o example, John
and Alice decide o go shopping oge he , his in en ion is no me ely he sum o
John’s pe sonal in en ion o go shopping and Alice’s pe sonal in en ion o go
shopping, bu he p oduc o hei join commi men o do so as a uni ied en i y
o , in Gilbe ’s language, a body. Ano he impo an aspec o Gilbe ’s app oach o
plu al subjec s is ha , while she di e en ia es be ween join commi men and
indi idual in e es s, in en ions, p e e ences, and commi men s, she does no posi
a s ic ela ionship be ween he wo. The wo may con e ge o di e ge –i.e., John and
Alice migh pe sonally eel like hey wan o o do no wan o go shopping –bu wha
will cons i u e he plu al subjec is no wha hey pe sonally wan bu whe he hey
ha e join ly commi ed o doing so. In Gilbe ’s wo ds, only he join commi men
cons i u es he ‘ ele an men al s a e’
5
necessa y o he o ma ion o plu al subjec s
and he my iad o ac ions i can unde ake.
By ea ing join commi men and plu al subjec s as ounda ional o social
on ology and hus applicable ac oss con ex s – om o mal o in o mal se ings,
and om basic o de i ed commi men s –Gilbe places no concep ual limi s on
using hese ideas o heo ize IO ac o ness and pe sonhood. In he case o he Secu i y
Council, decision-making h ough d a and adop ed esolu ions hus displays clea
ea u es o a Gilbe ian plu al subjec . When s a es d a a esolu ion, hey al eady
ame he Council as he agen o p oposed ac ions. Ra he han nego ia ing s a e-by-
s a e p e e ences, hey implici ly ask each o he : ‘A e you eady o join ly commi o
espousing hese in en ions, ac ions, belie s, and emo ions as he Secu i y Council?’A
esolu ion is inalized when a majo i y o membe s –excluding any pe manen -
membe e o –a e p epa ed o do so. This ac o join commi men a i ms he
Council’s ac o ness, as i s exp essed posi ions canno be educed o hose o indi-
idual s a es. Mo eo e , since plu al subjec s a e no inhe en ly limi ed in he kinds o
ai s hey can embody, membe s a es ou inely a ibu e o he Council pe son-like
quali ies such as au ho i y, judgmen , opinion, and emo ion.
The pape con ibu es o he deba e on collec i e agency in IR, and mo e
speci ically on IOs, in ou key ways. Fi s , ollowing Geh ing and U banski, i a gues
ha membe -domina ed IOs can also be conside ed ac o s in hei own igh . Second,
i expands his inqui y by obse ing ha IO ac o ness is no an abs ac quali y bu a
quali y insepa able om he pe sonhood ai s asc ibed o IOs by membe s a es.
Ac o ness and pe soni ica ion a e wo sides o he same coin, and bo h equi e
accoun ing o . Thi d, he pape does so by d awing on a li le-used concep om
analy ical philosophy and, in doing so, iden i ies a mic o- ounda ional social p ocess
by which IOs’ac o ness and pe sonhood ai s come o li e –a p ocess ha is
g ounded in b oade social on ology a he han o ganiza ional speci ici ies such
as esou ce pooling. In his way, he pape seeks o add ess he c i icism o en le eled in
IR ha he ac o ness o collec i e en i ies such as IOs and s a es is mo e o en asse ed
han demons a ed in e ms o he p ocess by which i a ises.
6
Fou h, by d awing on
5
Gilbe 2000, 18.
6
Ho e be h 2019; B aun e al. 2019.
In e na ional Theo y 3
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S1752971925100122 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
Gilbe ’s di e en ia ion be ween join and indi idual commi men s, he pape ejec s a
longs anding c i e ion in IR: ha IOs can only be conside ed ac o s in hei own igh i
hey can be shown o ac independen ly om s a e in e es s and p e e ences. In so
doing, he pape con ends ha IO ac o ness is no a ansien o si ua ional phenom-
enon, bu a s able and endu ing ea u e o membe -domina ed IOs.
The pape un olds in i e s eps. I begins by closely examining Secu i y Council
esolu ions – he Council’s main decision-making ool – o show how membe s a es
pe soni y IOs, he eby highligh ing he close connec ion be ween pe soni ica ion and
ac o ness. Nex , i o e s an in-dep h e iew o he exis ing li e a u e on IO ac o ness,
alongside ela ed deba es on he s a e-as-a-pe son p oblem. I hen in oduces
Gilbe ’s no ion o plu al subjec s, ocusing on he concep s o ac ion, he body,
and join commi men . These heo e ical insigh s a e subsequen ly applied o he
Secu i y Council as he pape ’s illus a i e case. Finally, he discussion ou lines he
b oade heo e ical implica ions and iden i ies a enues o u u e esea ch, pa icu-
la ly in ela ion o wo key hemes: ins i u ional mo al agency and IO au ho i y.
Beyond ac o ness: he pe soni ica ion o in e na ional o ganiza ions.
Secu i y Council esolu ions ha e been a cen e piece o wo ld poli ics o nea ly
eigh decades. Since he es ablishmen o he UN in 1945, s a e ep esen a i es ha e
adop ed 2779 esolu ions, add essing and a ec ing almos e e y aspec o in e -
na ional ela ions, om I an’s nuclea p og am o he impac o a med con lic on
women and gi ls.
7
Gi en hei p e alence, i migh seem ha li le emains unknown
abou hese esolu ions. Howe e , as is o en he case in in e na ional ela ions –and
pe haps in social science mo e b oadly –ce ain phenomena and p ac ices become so
ou ine ha hey a e pe cei ed as a gi en and hus ail o a ac much sc u iny. In he
case o Secu i y Council esolu ions, one such aken- o -g an ed aspec is hei
o ma and he p ac ice ha shapes i .
F om he ou se , s a e ep esen a i es in he Secu i y Council ha e consis en ly
ollowed he same empla e when d a ing esolu ions. As a esul , e e y esolu ion is
composed o a se ies o pa ag aphs –some no longe han a single sen ence –each
beginning wi h a capi alized e b in ei he he p esen pa iciple o he p esen ense.
A he op o hese esolu ions, p eceding he pa ag aphs, he Secu i y Council is
lis ed as he subjec o he ac ions, s a es, and beha io s o which hese e bs e e . Fo
esolu ions o ake his o m, s a e ep esen a i es mus engage in a common bu
seldom explici ly ecognized p ac ice: hey mus c a a se ies o ac ion sen ences ha
pe soni y he Secu i y Council, a ibu ing human-like capabili ies and cha ac e is-
ics o i . As wi h s a e pe soni ica ion, some migh dismiss his cha ac e iza ion, o
e en he p ac ice i sel , as me ely an inconsequen ial play wi h me apho s. Howe e ,
i is impo an o ecognize ha we a e no discussing a schola ly p ac ice o
pe soni ica ion bu a he a p ac ice o pe soni ica ion ou inely exe cised by ep e-
sen a i es o membe s a es du ing hei decision-making. The ollowing poin
canno be emphasized enough: No o mal decision in he his o y o he Secu i y
Council could be adop ed wi hou i s being ansla ed in o language ha pe soni ies
he Secu i y Council.
To gain deepe insigh in o his phenomenon, I buil a ex co pus consis ing o
2431 Secu i y Council esolu ions adop ed be ween 1949 and 2018. Using me hods o
au oma ed ex analysis, I ex ac ed e bs loca ed a he beginning o he esolu ions’
7
Da a om May 2025.
4 Jelena Cupać
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S1752971925100122 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
pa ag aphs – e bs ha di ec ly a ibu e humanlike ac ions, s a es, and beha io s o
he Secu i y Council. This exe cise yielded 146 unique e bs, which, upon close
examina ion, e eal ha , in i s nea ly eigh decades o exis ence, he Secu i y Council
has been asc ibed a su p isingly obus ‘pe sonali y.’
8
Fi s , in line wi h i s manda e o ensu e in e na ional peace and secu i y, i has
been cons uc ed as a highly au ho i a i e ‘pe son.’Acco dingly, e bs like decide,
di ec ,decla e, eques ,au ho ize, and app o e a e among he mos equen ly used in
esolu ions. Closely ailing hese a e e bs ha a ibu e o he Secu i y Council he
capaci y o es ablish ac s and exp ess opinions. As a esul , he esolu ions a e eple e
wi h e bs such as de e mine,con i m,a i m,main ain,obse e,no e,belie e, ealize,
and conclude.
Second, he ep esen a i es o membe s a es a ibu e o he Secu i y Council he
abili y o pass judgmen on in e na ional ac o s and e en s. Ve bs ha s and ou in
his ega d include p aise, applaud, salu e, wa n, denounce, welcome, cong a ula e,
and condemn. Accompanying hese a e e alua i e e bs h ough which he Secu i y
Council appea s o assess he signi icance o a ious e en s and decisions, such as
s essing, emphasizing, unde lining, unde sco ing, eminding, e-emphasizing, and
highligh ing. The e a e also e bs by which he Secu i y Council appea s o add ess
o he ac o s du ing c ises. I mos commonly calls upon hem o ake ce ain ac ions,
bu also equen ly u ges, encou ages, suppo s, and exho s hem.
Thi d, and pe haps mos su p isingly, he ep esen a i es o he membe s a es
egula ly a ibu e emo ions and consciousness o he Secu i y Council. These a e
a guably he mos human-like quali ies assigned o i . The Secu i y Council is hus
o en said o be conce ned, mind ul, shocked, dismayed, ou aged, dis essed, dis-
u bed, eg e ul, and g ie ing. In se e al esolu ions, i is also p esen ed as being
awa e and conscious.
Despi e consis en ly using pe soni ying language in i s decisions, he Secu i y
Council may s ill appea o be an unlikely case o pe soni ica ion as i lacks many o
he quali ies we ypically associa e wi h a uni ied ac o .
9
I s membe ship is deeply
8
Ve bs and hei equency coun s: decide (4630), eques (3585), ecall (3574), welcome (3402), ea i m
(3230), call (2809), adop (2426), exp ess (2230), ei e a e (1737), u ge (1590), s ess (1442), ecognize (1242),
encou age (1079), emphasize (904), conside (857), condemn (816), commend (756), demand (707), ac
(691), de e mine (640), unde line (591), conce n (532), no e (482), a i m (408), au ho ize (337), ake (296),
unde sco e (273), acknowledge (233), deplo e (232), in i e (231), suppo (226), endo se (190), ecommend
(180), di ec (174), examine (161), con ince (161), app o e (123), emind (120), decla e (102), appeal (89),
con i m (88), pay (86), look (77), ex end (72), eg e (71), espond (62), emain (59), echo (51), e-emphasize
(50), enew (50), ag ee (49), esol e (42), highligh (41), dis u b (38), ala m (34), p e en (27), con inue (25),
g ie e (22), unde ake (21), concu (19), equi e (19), insis (14), ins uc (14), obse e (13), awa e (12),
mind ul (12), commi (12), app ecia e (11), guide (10), dis ess (10), o wa d (10), cong a ula e (9), es ablish
(8), appoin (8), desi e (8), econ i m (8), appall (7), conscious (7), wa n (7), cla i y (7), shock (7), ela e (6),
will (6), e e (6), d aw (6), censu e (6), ind (6), bea (6), mee (6), main ain (6), seek (5), accep (5), belie e
(5), dep eca e (5), dismay (5), ask (5), pledge (4), ejec (4), applaud (4), exho (3), ealize (3), en us (3),
ansmi (3), ou age (3), conclude (3), hank (3), expec (3), iew (3), hold (3), ex ol (2), gi e (2), hono (2),
add ess (2), sa is y (2), p aise (2), emembe (2), sha e (2), eco d (2), cognizan (2), an icipa e (2), in end (2),
indica e (2), manda e (2), anxious (1), ely (1), wish (1), denounce (1), o de (1), ab oga e (1), ad ise (1),
mo i a e (1), lend (1), p opose (1), salu e (1), adap (1), deem (1), issue (1), eemphasizes (1), dissol e (1),
awai (1), assess (1), egis e (1), keep (1), send (1), es a e (1), epose (1).
9
An unlikely case is one ha alls ou side expec ed no ms o p edic ions, appea ing o de y es ablished
expec a ions. See, e.g., Geo ge and Benne 2005; Ge ing 2007.
In e na ional Theo y 5
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S1752971925100122 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
di ided, especially among he i e pe manen membe s, who o en pu sue con lic ing
na ional in e es s and can unila e ally block collec i e ac ion h ough he e o. As a
secu i y- ocused ins i u ion, he Council esponds o u gen c ises shaped by di e -
gen h ea pe cep ions, s a egic calcula ions, and geopoli ical i al ies, wi h li le
sha ed ision o s able no ma i e ounda ion. Mo eo e , unlike mo e echnoc a ic o
bu eauc a ic IOs, i lacks a consis en adminis a i e co e. Ins ead, i unc ions as a
poli ical a ena in which powe poli ics domina e. These condi ions make i di icul o
imagine he Council speaking as one. And, ye , h ough i s esolu ions, i is pe sis -
en ly desc ibed in p ecisely hose e ms: as ha ing in en ions, belie s, and emo ions.
The Secu i y Council, howe e , is no alone in i s use o pe soni ying language.
S a es in o he in e na ional secu i y o ganiza ions, such as he OSCE and NATO,
egula ly employ simila he o ic. Fo example, o icial documen s desc ibe he
OSCE as a ‘p omo e o he no ion o comp ehensi e and indi isible secu i y’and
asse ha NATO ‘will de e and de end agains any h ea o agg ession.’
10
This
endency is also e iden among IOs ope a ing in di e se policy a eas, om heal h and
ood o labo igh s. In a esolu ion ou lining i s esponse o he COVID-19 pan-
demic, he Wo ld Heal h Assembly o he Wo ld Heal h O ganiza ion (WHO) is
desc ibed as ‘deeply conce ned’abou he ongoing c isis, while simul aneously
‘exp essing solida i y’and ‘op imism.’The esolu ion u he s a es ha he Assembly
‘calls’on he Membe S a es and ‘ eques s’ he Di ec o -Gene al o ake app op ia e
public heal h measu es.
11
Simila ly, in i s 2019 cen ena y decla a ion, he In e -
na ional Labou Con e ence o he In e na ional Labou O ganiza ion (ILO) ‘ ecalls’
and ‘ ea i ms’i s ounding aims and p inciples, while ‘decla ing’i s u u e in en-
ions.
12
The Con e ence o he UN Food and Ag icul u e O ganiza ion (FAO) is
likewise a ibu ed he abili y o ‘no e,’‘emphasize,’and ‘decide.’
13
In sho , by
c a ing sen ences o his kind, s a e ep esen a i es asc ibe he ac ions, in en ions,
and judgmen s on which hey ha e collec i ely ag eed o singula o ganiza ional
en i ies. The esul o his p ac ice is a uni e se o in e nally pe soni ied IOs –bodies
ha appea o eel, e alua e, eason, decide, and ac .
The widesp ead na u e o sel -pe soni ica ion among IOs sugges s ha his
p ac ice is no p ima ily de e mined by ins i u ional cha ac e is ics such as sha ed
no ms and alues, issue a ea, le el o au ho i y, o he binding na u e o hei
decisions. Ins ead, i likely es s on a deepe unde lying mechanism. Agains his
backg ound, his pape seeks o add ess se e al key ques ions: Why is he p ac ice o
IO pe soni ica ion an in eg al pa o membe s a es’decision-making wi hin IOs?
How is i connec ed o he b oade issue o ea ing IOs as ac o s in hei own igh ?
And wha heo e ical and p ac ical consequences does i p oduce?
Be o e p oceeding, a ca ea is in o de . In he subsequen sec ions o his a icle, I
d aw on he Secu i y Council as my cen al example. Gi en he dep h o my
engagemen wi h i , he Secu i y Council ep esen s he case o IO pe soni ica ion
wi h which I am mos amilia . While IO pe soni ica ion is a widesp ead phenom-
enon –and Ma ga e Gilbe ’s no ion o plu al subjec s is a s a emen on a gene al
social on ology –I conside he a gumen s de eloped he e o be b oadly
10
Cupać2012.
11
Wo ld Heal h O ganiza ion 2020.
12
In e na ional Labou O ganiza ion 2019.
13
Food and Ag icul u e O ganiza ion 2009.
6 Jelena Cupać
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S1752971925100122 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
gene alizable. Ne e heless, a ia ions ac oss cases should be expec ed, and I hope
hese will se e as a basis o e ining and expanding he claims ad anced in his
a icle.
S a e o he a
In e na ional o ganiza ions as ac o s in hei own igh
The p ac ice and signi icance o IO pe soni ica ion by membe s a e ep esen a i es
du ing decision-making ha e la gely escaped he a en ion o IR schola s. Ins ead,
hey ha e ocused on a ela ed ye dis inc ques ion: Do IOs quali y as ac o s in hei
own igh wi hin wo ld poli ics? This line o inqui y gained p ominence du ing he
so-called neo–neo deba e o he 1980s and ea ly 1990s, in which neo ealis s and
neolibe al ins i u ionalis s examined he ela ionship be ween s a es –concei ed as
a ional u ili y-maximize s –and in e na ional ins i u ions, including IOs.
14
Nei he
camp, howe e , acknowledged IOs as au onomous ac o s. Neo ealis s dismissed
hem as me e a enas in which s a es enac powe ela ions and s a egically maneu e
in hei pu sui o ela i e gains, main aining ha IOs canno p oduce e ec s beyond
s a e in e es s and p e e ences.
15
In con as , neolibe al ins i u ionalis s –mos
no ably Robe Keohane –concei ed o IOs as in o ma ion- ich social s uc u es
ha no only cons ain he beha io o membe s a es bu also shape hei expec -
a ions by, among o he hings, lowe ing ansac ion cos s and educing unce ain y.
16
Ye , despi e no iewing IOs as s andalone ac o s, neo ealis s and neolibe al ins i u-
ionalis s ha e es ablished la gely uncon es ed c i e ia o ecognizing IOs unique
ac o ness: schola s who adop his posi ion mus demons a e ha hese o ganiza-
ions ope a e au onomously, a e dissocia ed om, o signi ican ly di e ge om s a e
in e es s and p e e ences, and, as such, can exe independen e ec s in wo ld poli ics.
Ra ional ins i u ionalis s and cons uc i is s we e among he i s o iden i y
scena ios in which hese c i e ia o IO ac o ness could be me . In bo h cases, he
s a egy has in ol ed shi ing a en ion away om IO membe s a es and owa d
ac o s ope a ing wi hin hese o ganiza ions. D awing on p incipal–agen heo y,
a ional ins i u ionalis s ha e hus concep ualized s a es as p incipals who delega e
speci ic asks o in a-o ganiza ional agen s –such as diploma ic s a and bu eauc a s
–au ho izing hem o ac on hei behal .
17
While p incipals ypically seek o
main ain igh con ol o e hei agen s, delega ion always in oduces he possibili y
o agency slack –a de ia ion in agen s’beha io om he p incipals’in e es s,
p e e ences, s a ed missions, o delega ed asks. Such slack may a ise when agen s
choose o pu sue hei own agendas, bu i can also esul om s uc u al complexi ies
such as collec i e p incipals (i.e., mul iple membe s a es) issuing con adic o y
manda es o ex ended chains o delega ion dis o ing hei o iginal demands.
18
And i is hese de ia ions –in en ional o inciden al – ha a ional ins i u ionalis s
14
On he neo–neo deba e, see Baldwin 1993; Keohane 1986,1989. I should be no ed ha A nold Wol e s
i s aised he ques ion o IO ac o ness in his classic 1953 essay, ‘The Ac o s in In e na ional Poli ics,’bu , a
he ime, i did no a ac much a en ion. See Wol e s 1962,3–24.
15
Fo in-dep h analysis o his posi ion, see, e.g., E ans and Wilson 1992; Gilpin 1983; G ieco 1988;
K asne 1976,1999; Mea sheime 1994/95, 2001.
16
See Keohane 1986,1988,2005.
17
Hawkins e al. 2006,5.
18
Hawkins e al. 2006,24–5; Nielson and Tie ney 2003, 242.
In e na ional Theo y 7
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S1752971925100122 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
ci e as e idence ha IOs can, a imes, exe independen in luence in wo ld poli ics.
In his iew, IO ac o ness is hus no ixed bu ansien : o ganiza ions mo e in and
ou o i depending on whe he p incipals e ain con ol o agen s asse au onomy
h ough agency slack.
In con as , cons uc i is s iew he ac o ness o IOs as a s able o ganiza ional
a ibu e. This posi ion a ises om hei exclusi e ocus on IO bu eauc acy, which
hey, d awing on Max Webe , depic as an inhe en ly independen en i y wi h a
dis inc iden i y and unique cul u e. Leading p oponen s o his iew, Ma ha
Finnemo e and Michael Ba ne , asse ha IOs a e, a hei co e, bu eauc acies.
19
While hey acknowledge ha bu eauc acy depends on membe s a es o su i al,
hey main ain ha a dis inc bu eauc a ic cul u e p edisposes i o add ess wo ld
poli ical issues in speci ic ways, g an ing i conside able au onomy om he decla ed
IO missions and membe s a es’in e es s and p e e ences.
20
Ba ne and Finnemo e
u he con end ha his cul u e and au onomy can mani es so s ongly ha i
some imes leads o dys unc ional and pa hological beha io wi hin he bu eauc acy,
causing ela ed e ec s in wo ld poli ics.
21
The e o e, om he cons uc i is s and-
poin , he inhe en cha ac e is ics o he bu eauc acy, along wi h beha io al de i-
a ions hey may lead o, conclusi ely es ablish IOs as independen ac o s on he global
s age.
Bu no e e yone is sa is ied wi h explo ing IO ac o ness by ocusing solely on
in a-o ganiza ional s a and bu eauc acy. In hei ecen con ibu ion, Thomas
Geh ing and Ke in U banski –alongside Geh ing’s ela ed wo k – ake a s ep owa d
a guing ha e en s a e-domina ed IOs can be conside ed s andalone ac o s in wo ld
poli ics.
22
Howe e , hey oo emain bound by he c i e ia es ablished du ing he
neo–neo deba e, namely, ha such ac o ness exis s only i he e is clea e idence ha
decisions and ac ions –e en hose aken by he s a es hemsel es –in some way
depa om s a e in e es s and p e e ences and, as such, p oduce independen e ec s
in global go e nance. To mee hese c i e ia, Geh ing and U banski a gue ha
membe -domina ed IOs a ain ac o ness whene e hey acquiesce o so e eign y
loss by de eloping ac ion capabili y and au onomy o an IO. D awing on James
Coleman’s wo k, hey a gue ha ac ion capabili y is es ablished when membe s a es
pool hei esou ces and empowe an IO o use hem o he o ganiza ion’s collec i e
objec i es a he han o he indi idual goals o he s a es.
23
IO au onomy, on he
o he hand, is e iden when he o ganiza ion’s policies canno be explained as a
s aigh o wa d comp omise among he in e es s and p e e ences o i s membe
s a es.
24
Geh ing and U banski a gue ha his occu s whene e ‘dis inc o ganiza-
ional a ionales’a e a wo k, such as when es ablished o ganiza ional no ms p io i-
ize claims and p oposals aligning wi h he o ganiza ion’s b oade objec i es a he
han he p e e ences o indi idual s a es, when p e ious decisions shape u u e ones,
o when expe pe spec i es gain g ea e p ominence and in luence.
25
Ci ing
19
Ba ne and Finnemo e 2004, 16. See also Ba ne and Finnemo e 1999; Han iede 2015; Baue and Ege
2016; Al e 2006.
20
Ba ne and Finnemo e 1999, 707–15.
21
Ibid., 715–25.
22
Geh ing and U banski 2023; Geh ing 2023; Geh ing and Ma x 2023.
23
Geh ing and U banski 2023, 141–4.
24
Ibid., 144–8.
25
Ibid., 144–7.
8 Jelena Cupać
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S1752971925100122 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
Gilbe ’s no ion o a body
By using he wo d ‘body’in he ph ase ‘doing as a body,’Gilbe con eys ha a join
commi men among g oup pa icipan s is a commi men o ac in uni y. She
acknowledges ha his body is no equi alen o a human body and always emains
‘in some sense plu al.’
71
Ye , his plu ali y is s ill capable o ‘emula [ing] as a as
possible a single body’
72
and becoming ‘uni ied in such a way as o coun as he
subjec o a single in en ion – he in en ion ha is ou s.’
73
Impo an ly, doing
some hing as a body is no abou each indi idual doing he same hing bu a he
abou e e yone ac ing in a way ha uni ies a body o pe o m he ac ion.
74
Gilbe
also emphasizes ha she is no wedded o he ph asing ‘doing as a body’–she me ely
p e e s i o e o he possible ways o exp essing he idea o uni ied plu ali y.
Al e na i es, she no es, may include ‘doing as a uni ,’‘doing as one,’o , pa icula ly
ele an o ou discussion, doing as a ‘pe son.’
75
Tha Gilbe allows plu al subjec s o be ep esen ed as pe sons is nei he coin-
ciden al no me apho ical. While she clea ly dis inguishes be ween plu al and
indi idual pe sons, she pe mi s a deg ee o concep ual o e lap be ween he wo. This
is because, as we will see nex , plu al subjec s can engage in mul iple ac ions ypically
associa ed wi h pe sonhood, such as o ming in en ions, holding belie s, and exp ess-
ing emo ions. Mo e undamen ally, plu al subjec s do no engage in o ms o ac ion
ha lie ou side he domain o human expe ience. On he con a y, and i is c ucial o
unde sco e his, e e y hing hey do emains i mly wi hin he ealm o human ac ion.
The e is no hing in he language o logic o join commi men ha in oduces an alien
o sup a-human mode o agency. This is p ecisely why he pe soni ica ion o plu al
subjec s (including in he case o IOs) is no me ely a he o ical de ice, bu a e lec ion
o he kinds o ac ions, esponsibili ies, and no ma i e expec a ions such collec i es
can unde ake. To echo Wend , we e pe soni ica ion me ely he o ical, i would be
possible o dispense wi h i o eplace i wi h ano he me apho .
Gilbe ’s no ion o doing (X-ing)
Agains his backg ound, Gilbe adop s a b oad unde s anding o doing, an app oach
she o malizes as ‘X-ing as a body.’She hus a gues ha people can join ly commi no
only o o dina y and ex e nally obse able ac ions bu also o complex cogni i e and
psychological s a es, such as in en ions, belie s, and emo ions.
76
To illus a e how
hese dis inc ly human cha ac e is ics ope a e a he g oup le el, Gilbe examines
how plu al subjec s can exp ess doub , guil , and emo se.
77
Con a Wend , she
main ains ha such emo ions do no equi e phenomenological mani es a ions and
he e o e do no s ic ly depend on consciousness.
78
Ins ead, hey unc ion as
cogni i e and no ma i e ca ego ies, embedded and exp essed in and made
71
Gilbe 2000, 14.
72
Gilbe 2014, 400 and 402 (ellipsis added).
73
Gilbe 2000, 14.
74
Gilbe 2014, 70.
75
Ibid., 19, 54, and 84–5. In Gilbe 2014,‘body’and ‘pe son’a e o en used in e changeably.
76
Gilbe 2000, 4, 19, Chap e s 2 and 3; Gilbe 2014, 175. See also Gilbe 2002,2009.
77
See, o doub , Gilbe 2000,4–5; o guil , Gilbe 2000, Chap e 8 and Gilbe 2002; o emo se, Gilbe
2000, Chap e 7.
78
Gilbe 2014, 232–3.
In e na ional Theo y 15
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S1752971925100122 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
meaning ul by speci ic social con ex s. As a esul , a g oup need no possess a
collec i e mind o expe ience doub , guil , o emo se –no mus any o all o i s
membe s pe sonally expe ience hese emo ions. Gilbe ’s only equi emen is ha he
membe s join ly commi o exp essing he emo ion as a body o , indeed, a pe son.
Compa ed o Wend ’s highe -o de ma ke s o pe sonhood, which ely on he no ion
o eme gence, Gilbe ’s app oach is mo e modes and supe enien in na u e, ye i
s ill expands ou unde s anding o wha g oups can do. This allows he o a oid he
c i icism Wigh le els a Wend – ha he cap u es g oup agency bu no necessa ily
he ai s o g oup pe sonhood.
A u he implica ion o Gilbe ’s b oad unde s anding o doing is ha a join
commi men o in end some hing is su icien o cons i u e a plu al subjec ; such a
commi men need no culmina e in join ac ion. In o he wo ds, a plu al subjec does
no equi e he immedia e –o e en p ac ical –possibili y o ac ing on i s in en ion.
Tha said, no ac ing on a join ly in ended goal may e en ually lead o he econsid-
e a ion o dissolu ion o he plu al subjec , bu ac ual execu ion is no a p econdi ion
o i s exis ence. Wha de ines he plu al subjec is, he e o e, no he capaci y o
ac ion (o e en ac ion capabili y) bu he capaci y o o m a join commi men . This
commi men cons i u es an ac ion in i s own igh : an ac o in ending as a body. Alice
and Sco can hus join ly commi o go shopping –and he eby o m a plu al subjec
–e en i hey a e on an island wi hou access o shops. The agency a s ake is no
educible o physical ac ion; i lies ins ead in hei sha ed capaci y o commi o doing
some hing oge he , o ecognize ha commi men , and o hold one ano he
accoun able wi hin i , whe he in he p esen o a a la e ime.
79
Fo Gilbe , his
capaci y is ounda ional o collec i e agency and unde pins he pe son-like ea u es
asc ibed no only o in o mal g oupings bu also o ins i u ional ac o s such as IOs –
e en when hey do no , o canno , ac on hei commi men s immedia ely o ,
indeed, e e .
Gilbe ’s no ion o join commi men
Now, le us u n o join commi men , he p ocess ha b ings supe ening plu al
subjec s –i.e., hei body and doing – o li e.
80
Gilbe has a i ed a join commi -
men as he ounda ion o plu al subjec s by insis ing ha agg ega ing indi idual
p e e ences, in en ions, and commi men s is un enable when indi iduals do hings
oge he . As p e iously discussed, John and Alice did no decide o go shopping
oge he me ely because John exp essed his pe sonal p e e ence, in en ion, and
commi men o shop, ollowed by Alice doing he same. No did hei decision esul
om bo h o hem exp essing hese in en ions and commi men s simul aneously.
81
Ins ead, Gilbe con ends, hei in en ion o ac oge he came abou h ough hei
exp ession o a ‘ eadiness o be join ly commi ed o espouse he ele an goal as a
body.’
82
Acco dingly, o John and Alice o go shopping oge he , John had o exp ess
o Alice his eadiness o do so join ly, and Alice had o exp ess he same eadiness
o John.
79
Ibid., 29. See also Gilbe 1990.
80
Gilbe 2003,2014.
81
Gilbe 2000, 21.
82
Gilbe 2014, 32.
16 Jelena Cupać
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S1752971925100122 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
The e o e, con a y o educ ionis s such as B a man, who a gue ha g oup
in en ions a e me ely complexes o in e locking pe sonal commi men s,
83
Gilbe
iews hem as join commi men s o he in ol ed pa ies o ac as he componen s o a
uni ied en i y wi h a pa icula goal. Impo an ly, Gilbe insis s ha join commi -
men s a e no , s ic ly speaking, disc e e componen s o a plu al subjec .
84
A join
commi men is only ac ualized when all pa ies ha e exp essed hei eadiness o be
join ly commi ed o he ele an goal as a uni ied body. Only hen can we speak o a
plu al subjec ep esen ed by he sen ence ‘We in end o go shopping’ a he han ‘We
bo h in end o go shopping.’Gilbe u he a gues ha once a join commi men o
his kind is es ablished, he pa ies become subjec s o a commi men ha depends on
hem bu o which hey a e no he sole au ho s.
85
Join commi men and he
esul ing plu al subjec , he e o e, supe ene on hei pa icipan s, he eby also
exe ing a o m o downwa d causa ion on hem. As Gilbe pu s i , hey become a
‘command cen e ,’ins uc ing he pa ies o ac acco dingly –e en i his ul ima ely
p o es un easible and becomes a eason o escind he join commi men , he eby
dissol ing he co esponding plu al subjec .
86
Join commi men and i s ela ion o indi idual in e es s, in en ions, p e e ences,
and commi men s
Fo ou analysis o IOs, i is c ucial o unde sco e ha Gilbe does no posi a
necessa y link be ween join commi men – he basis o plu al subjec s –and he
indi idual in e es s, in en ions, p e e ences, o commi men s o he ac o s
in ol ed.
87
This con as s sha ply wi h dominan IR heo ies, which, as discussed
ea lie , ypically assess IO agency based on i s de ia ion om s a e p e e ences.
Gilbe ’s amewo k esis s such logic. Fo he , wha ma e s is no he na u e o
wha is join ly commi ed o bu he ac o join commi men i sel .
88
The con en o a
join commi men (i.e., he x-ing) may align wi h indi idual p e e ences, o i may
no .
89
Fo ins ance, John and Alice migh join ly commi o go shopping because hey
bo h wan o. Bu hey could jus as easily commi o i wi hou ei he o hem
in ending o go. As she u ns away, Alice migh say, ‘I’m heading back. I ne e
in ended o go o he mall,’ o which John could espond, ‘Same he e.’Despi e lacking
co esponding indi idual in en ions o go shopping, hei ea lie join commi men
s ill o med a plu al subjec . Fu he mo e, o Gilbe , he mo i a ions o o sou ces
o join commi men , whe he pe sonal, social, cul u al, o ins i u ional, also do no
de e mine he exis ence o a plu al subjec . These ac o s may explain why ac o s
made a commi men o wha hey commi ed o, bu hey do no de e mine he
o ma ion o g oup agency. Wha ma e s is solely he ac o join ly commi ing o do
some hing as a body. This logic also ex ends o complex emo ional o psychological
s a es. A g oup may hus join ly commi o exp ess a collec i e emo ion, such as guil ,
by saying, ‘We eel guil y o he ha m we caused,’ ega dless o whe he any
83
B a man 1999.
84
Gilbe 2000, 21; 2014, 32.
85
Gilbe 2000, 21.
86
Gilbe 2014, 33.
87
Gilbe 2009.
88
Gilbe 2000, 18.
89
Gilbe 2014, 103; 2014, 176–7.
In e na ional Theo y 17
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S1752971925100122 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
indi idual membe uly eels guil y o whe he he commi men a ose om social
p essu e o cul u al and ins i u ional no ms.
90
I is always he join commi men
i sel , and no hing else, ha cons i u es he g oup as a collec i e agen .
Rescinding o join commi men
Gilbe ’s non-summa i e concep ion o plu al subjec s ca ies an impo an impli-
ca ion: membe s o a plu al subjec canno unila e ally escind a join commi men .
91
This con as s wi h pe sonal commi men s, such as John’s decision o go shopping
alone, whe e no such cons ain exis s. As he sole au ho o his commi men , John
can change his mind a any momen .
92
Join commi men s, howe e , wo k di e -
en ly. Imagine John and Alice on hei way o he mall when Alice suddenly s ops,
says no hing, and u ns back. Su p ised, John objec s, ‘Wha a e you doing? We
planned o go shopping. You canno jus u n back!’Mos o us would ind John’s
eac ion unde s andable, and Alice migh e en acknowledge his igh o espond his
way. John hus seems o hold a ce ain s anding due o he join commi men he and
Alice made. Since Alice is ac ing wi hin he bounds o his commi men , she would
need John’s ag eemen o change hei plans. Pa icipan s in a join commi men ,
he e o e, unde s and ha hey canno dissol e his commi men unila e ally and a
will; hey can only iola e i wi h consequences.
93
Gilbe explains his using he
language o igh s and obliga ions: each pa icipan , she main ains, has a igh o he
ele an ac ion and pe o mance by he o he s.
94
They owe each o he beha io al
con o mi y and a e obliged o pu sue he sha ed in en ion as bes hey can.
95
And, as
no ed ea lie , an inabili y o do so may p o ide g ounds o dissol ing he plu al
subjec .
In summa y, Gilbe ’s on ological concep ion o g oup agency as plu al subjec s
depa s signi ican ly om ea lie accoun s. I challenges he p edominan iew in IR
ha IOs quali y as agen s in hei own igh only when hei ac ions di e ge om
membe s a e in e es s, as well as gi ing in en ion p io i y o e ac ion. In con as o
Wend , i o e s a clea mechanism –i.e., join commi men – o how supe enien
g oup agen s ake shape and, by p i ileging cogni ion o e phenomenology, shows
ha join commi men can endow g oups wi h psychological ai s such as emo ions.
This non- educ ionis pe spec i e also p o ides a ounda ion o challenging he
ansien concep ions o IO agency p oposed by E skine and, o a deg ee, by Geh ing
and U banski. The ollowing sec ion applies hese insigh s o de elop a new accoun
o IO agency and i s associa ed pe soni ica ion.
In e na ional o ganiza ions as Gilbe ian plu al subjec s
As shown p e iously, o eigh y yea s, he language o Secu i y Council esolu ions
has consis en ly cons uc ed he Council as a uni ied, pe son-like ac o , seemingly
90
Gilbe 2000, Chap e 8; 2002.
91
Gilbe 2000, 7, 21, 25–8; 2014, 32; 2022, 404.
92
Gilbe 2014,31–2.
93
Ibid., 32; Gilbe 2000, 22.
94
Gilbe 2000,10–1; 2006;2014,34–5; 2022, 401.
95
Gilbe 2000, 83.
18 Jelena Cupać
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S1752971925100122 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
capable o ac ion, in en ion, belie , and e en emo ion. This e lec s a deeply embed-
ded diploma ic p ac ice in which s a es, e en when p ima ily mo i a ed by he
pu sui o na ional in e es s, mus ad ance hei posi ions by ansla ing hem in o
he language o a collec i e body. Gilbe ’s no ion o plu al subjec s allows us o mo e
beyond iewing his pe soni ica ion as a me e he o ical con en ion. Ins ead, i
in i es us o unde s and i as a cons i u i e p ac ice, one ha ans o ms he Secu i y
Council in o a supe enien g oup agen , b ough in o being h ough he join
commi men s o i s membe s a es.
While he e a e no de ini i e ules go e ning he d a ing o a Secu i y Council
esolu ion, es ablished p ac ices –some mo e o mal han o he s –demons a e ha
he d a ing p ocess ypically un olds h ough i e s ages, ollowed by o ing in he
Council’s chambe .
96
A he ou se , one s a e o a g oup o s a es akes he ini ia i e o
p epa e he d a esolu ion and main ains con ol o e he subsequen d a ing
p ocess. In he second s age, hese s a es engage wi h o he missions ha a e
pa icula ly in e es ed in he issue, e en i hey a e no membe s o he Secu i y
Council, o discuss he d a . In he hi d s age, he d a is sha ed wi h o he Secu i y
Council membe s, ei he bila e ally o mul ila e ally. The ou h s age in ol es
de ailed, pa ag aph-by-pa ag aph discussions by all Council membe s du ing in o -
mal consul a ions o wi hin uno icial g oups. Finally, in he i h s age, he ex o he
esolu ion is ci cula ed as an o icial Secu i y Council documen .
These i e s ages highligh se e al impo an aspec s o he esolu ion-d a ing
p ocess. F om he e y beginning, s a es s uc u e hei nego ia ions in he Secu i y
Council a ound d a esolu ions, e ec i ely posi ioning he Council as he main
ehicle o any p oposed ac ion. Wha e e p oposals hey pu o wa d o ag eemen s
hey each mus , he e o e, be amed in a way ha enables he Secu i y Council o
se e as he implemen ing agen . The e o e, he nego ia ions, bo h in p ac ice and
ou come, canno be desc ibed as a simple agg ega ion o powe -weigh ed s a e
in e es s. S a es, in o he wo ds, do no app oach one ano he by asking, ‘My s a e
plans o do such and such; wha does you s a e plan o do?’and hen base he
ag eemen on how closely hei posi ions align. Ins ead, h ough nego ia ions, hey
seek a poin a which he majo i y o in ol ed s a es is willing o join ly commi o a
cou se o ac ion as a body, he Secu i y Council. When p esen ing a d a esolu ion,
he esolu ion sponso s he e o e implici ly pose a Gilbe ian ques ion: ‘Ou s a e(s)
a e eady o make a commi men o espouse hese ac ions, in en ions, belie s, and
emo ion as a body called he Secu i y Council. Is you s a e equally eady o commi ?’
The inal d a o he esolu ion is, he e o e, he one in which a subs an ial numbe o
membe s a es exp ess such eadiness – ha is, each a join commi men . Resolu ion
d a ing is hus no me ely a p ocedu al exe cise bu also a cons i u i e ac : a p ac ice
h ough which he Secu i y Council is o med and sus ained as a plu al subjec o
agen in i s own igh . A he same ime, gi en ha e e y join commi men is a
commi men o some hing, he p ac ice o esolu ion d a ing ine i ably imbues he
Council wi h pe son-like cha ac e is ics, such as au ho i a i eness (e.g., decide,
di ec , eques ), he exp ession o opinion and es ablishmen o ac s (e.g., de e mine,
con i m, main ain), he capaci y o pass judgmen (e.g., p aise, salu e, wa n), and he
exp ession o emo ion (e.g., conce ned, ou aged, g ie ing), as discussed ea lie .
96
Benson and Tucke 2022, 476; Wood 1998,80–1; Elgebeily 2017.
In e na ional Theo y 19
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S1752971925100122 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
One impo an implica ion o Gilbe ’s heo y is ha all join commi men s –
whe he o a isible ac ion, an in en ion, a belie , o e en an emo ion –ca y equal
cons i u i e weigh in o ming and sus aining he Secu i y Council as a plu al subjec .
The e o e, while such a scena io may seem unlikely, Gilbe ’s amewo k allows, in
p inciple, o a Secu i y Council whose membe s a e solely commi ed o join ly
exp essing emo ions o quali y as an agen in i s own igh . This is because he
de ining ea u e o a plu al subjec is no i s capaci y o ac ion o ope a ional
capabili y bu i s capaci y o o m join commi men s. Pu di e en ly, wha makes
he Secu i y Council an agen is no i s abili y o ac on in en ions bu he collec i e
willingness o i s membe s o o ge and sus ain a join commi men – o adop a
common s ance, ecognize i s binding na u e, and hold one ano he accoun able o
i . E en i he Council is, o a ious easons, unable o ac on i s commi men s –as is
o en he case – his inabili y does no immedia ely nega e i s s a us as a plu al subjec .
O e ime, howe e , a pe sis en ailu e o ul ill i s join commi men s may se e as
g ounds o econside ing o e en dissol ing he Council.
Nego ia ions on Secu i y Council d a esolu ions –bo h ega ding he issues
add essed and he mo i es d i ing s a es o exp ess o wi hhold hei eadiness o
commi –can and do hinge on a wide ange o conside a ions. No ma i e, cul u al,
ins i u ional, and geopoli ical logic can in luence which issues make i on o he
agenda and shape he inal o m o he esolu ion. Also, in join ly commi ing o
hese esolu ions, s a es may be guided by na ional in e es s and p e e ences, as well
as by poli ical p essu e, powe asymme ies, issue linkages, and o he s a egic o
con ex ual ac o s. Ye , ega dless o hese ac o s, and ollowing Gilbe , wha
ul ima ely gi es ise o he Secu i y Council as a plu al subjec wi h agency and ai s
o pe sonhood is no why s a es commi o a esolu ion, wha hey commi ed o, o
how closely i aligns wi h s a e in e es s and p e e ences, bu a he he e y ac o
join ly commi ing o do some hing as a body called he Secu i y Council. Some s a es
may suppo a esolu ion because i e lec s hei in e es s; o he s may ag ee despi e
ese a ions, d i en by p essu e o he need o comp omise. Nei he o hese
mo i es, howe e , unde mines he alidi y o hei join commi men o cons i u ing
he Secu i y Council as a plu al subjec .
97
Gilbe ’s in e p e a ion o collec i e agency
hus ma ks a signi ican depa u e om dominan hinking in IR, which, as indica ed
h oughou he pape , ypically de ines he agency o IOs in e ms o ac s and
decisions ha di e ge om s a e in e es s, whe he h ough bu eauc a ic independ-
ence o ins i u ional logics o e iding indi idual s a e p e e ences.
This poin can be u he ein o ced by applying Gilbe ’s pe spec i e o he
Secu i y Council’s o ing p ocedu e – he momen when d a esolu ions ei he
become adop ed esolu ions o ail o do so, and, by ex ension, when ce ain
in en ions, ac ions, belie s, and emo ions a e ei he a ibu ed o he Secu i y Council
o no . Vo ing, he e o e, ep esen s a inal exp ession o join commi men . A
esolu ion is adop ed when i ecei es nine o es in a o , including he cases when
a pe manen membe chooses o abs ain. As wi h acquiescing o o ejec ing he d a
e sion o a esolu ion o i s pa s, a o e on he inal d a need no e lec s a e
in e es s and p e e ences. Ins ead, i is me ely an ins i u ional mechanism by which
s a es join ly commi o espousing ce ain in en ions, ac ions, belie s, and emo ions as
a body called he Secu i y Council. Bu , o ing also has ano he impo an peculia i y.
97
Gilbe 2014, 169.
20 Jelena Cupać
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S1752971925100122 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
While he o ing ules a e designed o de e mine join commi men , hey a e
hemsel es he p oduc o a basic join commi men made by s a es when he Secu i y
Council was o med: he commi men o accep as he Council’s in en ions, ac ions,
belie s, o emo ions hose ha eme ge h ough his o ing p ocedu e. This means ha
once a majo i y is achie ed, e en s a es ha o ed agains he esolu ion o abs ained
a e join ly commi ed o i by i ue o hei accep ing he o ing p ocess. In o he
wo ds, when a majo i y is achie ed, bo h posi i e and nega i e o es ep esen an
exp ession o join commi men .
Once a esolu ion is adop ed, ano he cha ac e is ic o plu al subjec s comes in o
play: membe s a es canno unila e ally escind he commi men s hey made o undo
he plu al subjec s ha esul ed om hem. By join ly commi ing o espousing
speci ic ac ion as a body called he Secu i y Council, hey ha e co-c ea ed a complex
o igh s and obliga ions ha hey can only iola e bu no dissol e indi idually. An
example could illus a e his poin . When he Uni ed S a es, along wi h i s Coali ion
o he Willing, in aded I aq, i did no claim he igh o do so when accused o
iola ing Resolu ion 1441, no did i emain silen on he ma e . The U.S. leade ship
a he ime unde s ood ha i was en angled in a web o in e na ional igh s and
obliga ions, ex ending beyond Resolu ion 1441 o in e na ional law mo e b oadly,
none o which could be unila e ally escinded. Consequen ly, he U.S. adminis a ion
p o ided a de ailed jus i ica ion, asse ing ha i s ac ions we e, in ac , consis en wi h
Resolu ion 1441 and ha , h ough an in ica e sys em o e e ences be ween esolu-
ions, hey could also jus i y he in asion o I aq based on he ea lie Resolu ion 678.
The key poin he e is ha , ega dless o i s in en ions, he Uni ed S a es acknowledged
i s en anglemen in he web o igh s and obliga ions es ablished h ough p e ious
join commi men s. This si ua ion is analogous o ou example in which Alice was
expec ed o jus i y he sel o John be o e u ning and lea ing.
Gi en hese conside a ions, i is c ucial o unde sco e wo u he dimensions o he
Secu i y Council’s s a us as a plu al subjec . Fi s , since Gilbe ’sconcep iono plu al
subjec s is on ological, he Council should no be iewed as a special ins ance o
collec i e agency. Ra he , i ep esen s a pa icula ins an ia ion o a plu al subjec .
Fo his eason, he example o John and Alice is no me ely a didac ic simpli ica ion bu
an on ological equi alen o he Secu i y Council, albei one ha is as ly less complex.
98
On his basis, he no ion o join commi men and plu al subjec s should apply no only
o o he IOs, bu also, impo an ly, o o he o ms o s a e coope a ion, such as bila e al
and mul ila e al ea ies and con en ions. A he same ime, cau ion is wa an ed: he
concep o plu al subjec s should no be ex ended o encompass s uc u es such as
in e na ional no ms, cus oma y o codi ied law, o ins i u ional egimes. None heless, i
can be easonably a gued ha many o hese s uc u es – hough no all –a e he
p oduc o ac ions and join commi men s unde aken by plu al subjec s.
Wha di e en ia es an IO om o he o ms o s a e coope a ion is hus no he
possession o collec i e agency bu he pa icula ins i u ional o m i assumes. Fo
ins ance, beyond di e ences in o ganiza ional complexi y, such as he p esence o
o mal bodies and decision-making p ocedu es, a key dis inc ion be ween an IO and
a bila e al ea y lies in he singula ized ins i u ional name. In an IO, all join
commi men s a e a ibu ed o he named en i y –in ou case, he Secu i y Council
– a he han o a collec i e ‘we.’
99
This p ac ice ein o ces he o ganiza ion’s
98
Gilbe 2014, 347–9; 2006.
99
Ibid.
In e na ional Theo y 21
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S1752971925100122 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
con inui y and con ibu es o he o ma ion o i s dis inc social iden i y. Gilbe ’s
no ion o he plu al subjec hus in i es a clea dis inc ion be ween he p ocess ha
cons i u es he agency o an IO –i.e., join commi men –and he ins i u ional o m
ha such commi men akes, and h ough which u he ac s o join commi men
a e enabled. This dis inc ion is o en o e looked by schola s o in e na ional ela-
ions, who, as p e iously no ed, end o ea o ganiza ional ea u es such as o ing
p ocedu es and esou ce pooling as hemsel es cons i u i e o IO ac o ness, a he
han as one o many social o ms h ough which join commi men can be ealized.
Second, no wi hs anding his dis inc ion, he ins i u ional complexi y wi hin
which he Secu i y Council and o he IOs a e embedded should no be glossed o e .
The Uni ed Na ions, o which he Council is a pa , comp ises mul iple dis inc
bodies and agencies, each pe o ming speci ic unc ions and pu suing i s own agenda.
The UN, in o he wo ds, is a si e o complex in e play among a ious o ms o
collec i e agency: au ho ized componen s such as he bu eauc acy, which manage
adminis a i e and policy esponsibili ies, and membe s a es, which engage in
delibe a i e and execu i e oles. Gilbe add esses his complexi y by posi ing ha
social uni s ounded on join commi men s can exis wi hin o he such uni s.
Consequen ly, plu al subjec s can be nes ed wi hin one ano he , o ming an in ica e
ne wo k o wha Gilbe e ms basic and de i ed join commi men s.
100
A basic join
commi men hus gi es ise o a de i ed one when i leads o he appoin men o a
new au ho i y esponsible o ad ancing goals ha , while di e en , emain closely
ied o he o iginal ag eemen .
101
The UN Cha e can be unde s ood as a collec ion o basic join commi men s –an
exp ession o he pa icipa ing s a es’1945 ag eemen o es ablish a body named he
Uni ed Na ions, asked wi h main aining in e na ional peace and secu i y and p o-
mo ing social p og ess. Among hese commi men s a e he c ea ion o he Secu i y
Council and he speci ica ion o i s composi ion and mode o ope a ion. The join
commi men s exe cised wi hin he Council a e hus de i ed om his basic commi -
men , equi ing membe s a es o con inually espouse ac ions, in en ions, belie s, and
emo ions collec i ely, as a body named he Secu i y Council, in pu sui o i s manda e.
This may appea o in oduce a ension in he Council’s on ological s a us. On he one
hand, he Secu i y Council is cons i u ed on an ongoing basis h ough membe s a es’
join commi men s, o malized in i s esolu ions. On he o he hand, i de i es om a
basic join commi men es ablished in he UN Cha e . Ye hese claims a e no
con adic o y. Ra he , he Cha e unc ions as a basic join commi men ha c ea es
he ins i u ional space – he named body –wi hin which u he , de i ed commi men s
a e made. Each esolu ion sus ains he Council as a plu al subjec , while he Cha e
emains he ounda ional sou ce o i s au ho i y and iden i y. In his way, he Council’s
agency is bo h his o ically oo ed and ac i ely main ained.
Theo e ical and empi ical implica ions o ea ing in e na ional
o ganiza ions as Gilbe ian plu al subjec s
While aming he Secu i y Council as a Gilbe ian plu al subjec –an au onomous
agen possessing a ibu es o pe sonhood –is concep ually meaning ul in i sel , i s
ull signi icance eme ges when we conside i s heo e ical and empi ical implica ions.
100
Ibid., 352–3.
101
Gilbe 2014, 352.
22 Jelena Cupać
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S1752971925100122 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
These a e pa icula ly salien in wo domains cen al o he s udy o IOs: ins i u ional
mo al agency and au ho i y.
E skine has al eady a gued ha he Secu i y Council can be conside ed an
ins i u ional mo al agen , subjec o p aise o blame o wha i does o ails o
do.
102
Howe e , as indica ed ea lie , she ea s his s a us as ansien a he han
pe manen . I depends on se e al c i e ia o ins i u ional ac o ness, mos impo -
an ly, he Council possessing a dis inc iden i y and he capaci y o ac independen ly
o i s membe s a es.
103
Fo E skine, decisions eached h ough majo i a ian p o-
cedu es demons a e such independence and, by ex ension, suppo he claim o
ins i u ional mo al agency. Howe e , when a pe manen membe exe cises i s e o,
she con ends ha he Council’s capaci y o mo al delibe a ion –and hus i s
independen agency –is comp omised. In such cases, he Council can no longe be
said o ac as a mo al agen .
104
In con as , iewing he Secu i y Council as a plu al subjec allows us o mo e
beyond he idea o ins i u ional mo al agency as ansien , and ins ead unde s and i
as an endu ing ea u e. Gilbe ’s dis inc ion be ween basic and de i ed join com-
mi men s is key he e. I shows ha esolu ions a e no a p econdi ion o he
Council’s exis ence, bu a he con ex -speci ic exp essions ha sus ain, in speci ic
con ex s, a plu al subjec al eady es ablished h ough he basic join commi men
embodied in he UN Cha e . I s mo al agency, he e o e, does no depend on
cons an e-a icula ion h ough esolu ions. When a esolu ion is ejec ed o
blocked, his does no dissol e he unde lying basic commi men ; i simply e lec s
a ailu e o ac on i and o sus ain he plu al subjec in a gi en con ex . In Gilbe ’s
e ms, he basic join commi men is iola ed when i ails o ma e ialize in o a
de i ed one, ye he igh s and obliga ions i es ablishes –and which con e i s mo al
weigh – emain in ac . Inac ion esul ing om a pe manen membe ’s use o he e o
is hus a mo ally signi ican e en , a he han, as E skine sugges s, a momen in
which he Secu i y Council’s agency dissol es. Such inac ion may ende he Council
i sel –no jus he s a es exe cising he e o –subjec o mo al blame. The Secu i y
Council’s mo al agency also pe sis s ega dless o whe he esolu ions a e adop ed by
majo i y o unanimous o e. This is because a basic join commi men always
unde lies i s exis ence, and because, in Gilbe ’s amewo k, o ing p ocedu es a e
no a p econdi ion o agency, bu me ely one o he many ways join commi men
can be exp essed.
Wi h he mo al agency o he Secu i y Council unde s ood as an endu ing ea u e
o i s s a us as a plu al subjec , we can shi he ocus om ques ioning whe he i
possesses his agency o analyzing how i exe cises i , he eby opening new a enues
o bo h heo e ical and empi ical esea ch. Fo ins ance, he na u e o he Secu i y
Council’s pe soni ica ion can be explo ed by examining he language h ough which
i con eys mo al judgmen , and ice e sa. My analysis, o example, shows ha e bs
pe soni ying he Council a e o en accompanied by modi ie s ha in ensi y he e ec
o mo al judgmen . The ph ase ‘is conce ned’is equen ly pai ed wi h modi ie s such
as deeply, g a ely, o s ongly. Simila ly, when he Council ‘calls,’i o en does so
solemnly, and when i ‘ eques s,’i does so u gen ly. These linguis ic pa e ns may
102
E skine 2004.
103
Ibid., 29, 32.
104
Ibid., 36.
In e na ional Theo y 23
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S1752971925100122 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
o e u he insigh in o ins i u ional lea ning and change. Acco ding o Gilbe ,
blamewo hiness, p aisewo hiness, and mo al judgmen s –bo h in e nal and ex e -
nal –can p omp e lexi i y, encou aging he plu al subjec o ealign i s alues and
ac ions. Shi s in he e bs used in esolu ions e lec his dynamic. Fo example, he
Council became ‘conce ned’in he 1950s bu was mos ‘conce ned’in he mid-1990s,
du ing a su ge in e hnic con lic s. ‘Reques s’ ollowed a simila end, while ‘calls’
ha e s eadily inc eased since he mid-1980s. These de elopmen s may help us ace
how he Secu i y Council’s mo al judgmen s shi wi h poli ical con ex and e ol e in
esponse o he p e ailing alues o hei ime.
The au ho i y o IOs –ano he ins i u ional ea u e o which he plu al subjec
app oach has impo an implica ions –is o en de ined by examining hei ole as
go e no s o speci ic social domains o issue a eas. Michael Zü n and colleagues hus
de ine IO au ho i y as he abili y o pe o m egula o y unc ions, consis ing o ule-
making, en o cemen , and compliance moni o ing.
105
O he s, such as Coope and
colleagues, a e mo e explici abou wha his au ho i y means o s a es. They a gue
ha IOs possess poli ical au ho i y when s a es acknowledge hese o ganiza ions’
abili y o make binding decisions on ma e s wi hin s a es’domes ic ju isdic ions.
106
In his in e p e a ion, IO au ho i y ep esen s a o ce ha con adic s s a e so e -
eign y. I can be a gued ha iewing IOs om a Gilbe ian plu al subjec pe spec i e
in oduces an addi ional laye , o a he e y leas , a new pe spec i e on IO au ho i y.
When membe s a es join ly commi o Secu i y Council esolu ions, encompassing
sha ed in en ions, ac ions, belie s, and emo ions, hey a e expec ed o align hei beha io
wi h hese commi men s and uphold he collec i e goal o he bes o hei abili y. The
au ho i y o he plu al subjec a ises om his binding commi men , compelling
membe s o ac in acco dance wi h he g oup’s objec i es, hus e ec i ely g an ing he
collec i e en i y’s in luence o e indi idual beha io . Membe s canno unila e ally
wi hd aw om hese commi men s and a e mu ually accoun able o ul illing hei
oles, u he ein o cing he g oup’s au ho i y h ough sha ed esponsibili y.
Acco dingly, as no ed by Gilbe , membe s o a plu al subjec ope a e wi hin a
amewo k o igh s and obliga ions, whe e au ho i y unc ions mo e like a social
no m, shaping beha io h ough accep ed p inciples a he han h ough o mal
go e nance o binding decisions on domes ic ma e s. The example o he Uni ed
S a es and i s Coali ion o he Willing a emp ing o jus i y he in asion o I aq
h ough a complex web o mu ually e e encing esolu ions illus a es he powe ul
in luence ha igh s and obliga ions es ablished h ough join commi men s can
exe , including on he mos dominan s a es. Fu u e esea ch could, he e o e,
examine how IOs, as plu al subjec s, shape membe s a es’beha io e en when hey
do no enc oach on s a e so e eign y o engage in no m c ea ion, compliance
moni o ing, o en o cemen .
Conclusion
The independen ac o ness o IOs, hough no uni e sally accep ed, has ga ne ed
subs an ial heo e ical suppo . Ra ional ins i u ionalis s and cons uc i is s explain
i by ocusing on in e -o ganiza ional s a and he a ious a ional and cul u al
105
Zü n e al. 2012, 70; Cupaćand Zü n 2021.
106
Coope e al. 2008, 505.
24 Jelena Cupać
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S1752971925100122 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
