Scholarlink

<p>This article examines the varied impact of transnational crises on the governance capacities of international organizations (IOs). Most scholarship assumes that crises work <i>either</i> as a constraint <i>or</i> as an opportunity for IOs. However, the example of the COVID-19 pandemic illustrates that governance opportunities and constraints vary both <i>across</i> and <i>within</i> IOs over time. Integrating insights from global governance complexity and crisis studies, we develop a theoretical framework to account for these variations. We draw attention to both IOs’ relative positioning vis-à-vis each other and crisis temporality. In the age of IOs’ politicization amidst geopolitical tensions, we argue that focal IOs are likely subjected to heightened contestation during the initial “fast-burning” phase of a crisis, reducing their ability to act. In contrast, non-focal IOs, operating under less political scrutiny, may use their leeway to expand their activities and address urgent governance needs. As a crisis transitions to the “slow-burning” phase, focal IOs tend to regain agency, while non-focal IOs scale back their extraordinary activities. Providing comparative insights on WHO, NATO, and the WFP during the pandemic, we highlight the critical, yet underappreciated, role of non-focal IOs in ensuring governance continuity and challenge binary narratives about crisis effects on multilateralism.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Accounting for variation in IO crisis responses: focality and temporality

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月7日

查看全文
  • Stephanie C. Hofmann,
  • Christian Kreuder-Sonnen

摘要

This article examines the varied impact of transnational crises on the governance capacities of international organizations (IOs). Most scholarship assumes that crises work either as a constraint or as an opportunity for IOs. However, the example of the COVID-19 pandemic illustrates that governance opportunities and constraints vary both across and within IOs over time. Integrating insights from global governance complexity and crisis studies, we develop a theoretical framework to account for these variations. We draw attention to both IOs’ relative positioning vis-à-vis each other and crisis temporality. In the age of IOs’ politicization amidst geopolitical tensions, we argue that focal IOs are likely subjected to heightened contestation during the initial “fast-burning” phase of a crisis, reducing their ability to act. In contrast, non-focal IOs, operating under less political scrutiny, may use their leeway to expand their activities and address urgent governance needs. As a crisis transitions to the “slow-burning” phase, focal IOs tend to regain agency, while non-focal IOs scale back their extraordinary activities. Providing comparative insights on WHO, NATO, and the WFP during the pandemic, we highlight the critical, yet underappreciated, role of non-focal IOs in ensuring governance continuity and challenge binary narratives about crisis effects on multilateralism.