Keohane, Robert. "International Institutions: Can Interdependence Work?". Foreign Policy, No.110 (1998): 82-96.

Keohane, Robert. "International Institutions: Can Interdependence Work?". Foreign Policy, No.110 (1998): 82-96.

• International institutions have become increasingly important, as they allow countries to moderate their conduct via general rules which simplify relations. The costs of purely bilateral negotiations would be too high, hence the need for international organizations. Contemporary organizations, however, are diverse and feature many ineffective international bodies (83).
• The Treaty of Versailles in 1919 constituted the first global international organization, but the failure of the US Senate to approve ascension meant that international conferences continued to be ad hoc activities until the creation of the United Nations in 1945, when international organizations began to be taken seriously (83).
• Although academia focused on the formal institutions of the UN until the 1960s, most observers realized that the UN did not play a central role in world politics after a few years of failed initiatives. Originally paralyzed by Cold War disputes among the Security Council [UNSC], decolonization led to further North-South divides (83-84).
• Despite the gridlock of the UN between several competing blocs, other international organizations still advanced cooperation during the 1960s and 1970s. The body created by the Non-Proliferation Treaty, NATO and the Warsaw Pact, the economic mechanisms created by GATT, and the IMF were all essential in advancing cooperation (84). 
• The joint crises of the Oil Embargo and stagflation in the early 1970s led to renewed interest in the importance of international coordination on pressing issues. The creation of the International Energy Association was a large step in resolving the oil crisis, and international institutions were paramount when Presidents Nixon and Ford destroyed the Bretton-Woods monetary system (85).
• During this same time, academic discussions of international organizations began to shift from organizational details to the concept of 'regimes', which controlled and coordinated state behavior on certain issues (85). In the 1980s, research shifted again to trying to explain what drove cooperation, in which Realist ideas of utilitarian institutions to maximize and formalize state were popular (85-86).
• Realist scholars of international institutions argued that the norms of behavior created in organizations allowed states to understand the preferences and interests of other states, which are normally private and cause uncertainty in international affairs. The transparency and repetitive interaction of international organizations creates the conditions for states to develop more trust as defection is less likely (86).
• The institutionalist arguments of the 1980s brought significant criticism from other scholars. They argued that international organizations were still powerless against states and thus insignificant in the face of actual conflict, that the preference of relative gains over absolute gains would undermine cooperation, and the bargaining nature of cooperation means that joint gains are not assured from any agreement with conflicting interests (87-89).
• The author contends that although international organizations are significantly affected by the realities of state power, these organizations do not just repeat the positions of hegemonic powers. Even the USA has to compromise to achieve results on core issues at the UN (87).
• Relative gains issues are important in certain scenarios, particularly when there are two states in direct competition, but on large multilateral issues without clear winners or losers -- like climate change or economic development -- states seem to prefer absolute gains (88).
• The end of the Cold War shattered a number of prominent beliefs about power politics and the nature of international interactions, as norms such as self-determination and identity politics had a much larger role in the collapse of the USSR and Yugoslavia than military or economic resources (90).
• Increased focuses on information, identities, and norms informed intensified research about their role in international organization. The ways in which these identities are formed structurally is a topic of contemporary research, as if how domestic politics affects behavior at the international level -- source mine here (91).
• As international organizations become more important in international relations, there are growing normative concerns of a democratic deficit at the international level, as these organizations are unaccountable and closed to the global public. The issues is especially pressing in the EU, as its governance structures are distant, important, and unaccountable (91-92).
• The normative issue behind the democratic deficit is not a problem of state sovereignty, but a feeling that the privileged and indirect relationship between international organizations and the state is undemocratic. Therefore the influence of international organizations is viewed as illegitimate (92).
• A greater organization problem affects attempts to resolve the crisis of international legitimacy of international organizations, as some would argue that the organizations cannot be effective and democratic (93).
• Some have argued that international organizations are accountable enough because they respond to governments, but the removal from direct democracy raises concerns. Another promising solution would be establishing transnational networks of experts to facilitate cooperation on a non-state level, bolstered by access to cheap and diverse forms of international communication (93).
• The creation of a transnational civil society to balance out some forms of unaccountable power in international organizations could raise problems of its own, as the members are likely to be from elite groups whose exclusivity may match that of governments and be equally unaccountable (94).
• "To be effective in the twenty-first century, modem democracy requires international institutions. And to be consistent with democratic values, these institutions must be accountable to domestic civil society. Combining global governance with effective democratic accountability will be a major challenge for scholars and policymakers alike in the years ahead" (94).