Resilience in the face of crisis: How IOs survive member state contestation

The rise of new revision powers presents a challenge to the rules, norms, and practices underpinning many current IOs, created and hitherto dominated by liberal western states. Contestation also emanates from within liberal democracies due to growing suspicion of globalization and the rise of populism. As a result, deadlocked negotiations, membership withdrawals, boycotts, and budget cuts or freezes are common challenges for many contemporary IOs. How can IOs respond to such challenges? To explore this question, it is instructive to consider how IOs have been affected by, and reacted to, global power shifts and growing nationalism and populism in the past. The last period of hyper-nationalism, deglobalisation, and IO membership flight began in the late-1920s and lasted until the end of WWII. Protectionism rose, authoritarian populism spread in Europe and beyond, and many states withdrew from League of Nations and other multilateral organizations. Many IOs terminated during this period or saw their memberships, mandates and budgets significantly reduced. Yet others survived and continued to thrive. My paper will use archival research to explore how IO secretariats and supportive policymakers sought to mobilize institutional resources to withstand populist-nationalist challenges and reinforce institutional legitimacy during the first era of deglobalization. My preliminary research points to a set of successful ‘coping strategies’ which IOs have utilized in the past, including withdrawing from highly politicized issues, adopting a more intergovernmental decision-making approach on contentious matters, seeking new bases of support among ‘neutral’ governments and transnational communities, and drawing on resources from private actors. By further exploring these strategies I hope to advance our understanding of contestation management in IOs, and thus their resilience in times of pressure.