INCLUSIVENESS AND STATUS IN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS: CASES OF DEMOCRATIC NORM DEVELOPMENT AND POLICY IMPLEMENTATION IN THE ORGANIZATION FOR SECURITY AND CO-OPERATION IN EUROPE AND THE UNITED NATIONS by Catherine Anne Hecht B.A. College of the Holy Cross, 1997 M.I.A. Columbia University, 2002 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Political Science) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) October 2012 © Catherine Anne Hecht, 2012 Abstract The tension between sovereign equality and democratic status, or hierarchies based on democratic governance, is under-analyzed in scholarship of international organizations (IOs). IOs with formally inclusive compositions derive moral authority and legitimacy from their inclusiveness. Yet this inclusiveness is challenged by democratic status, with varied consequences. Scholarly explanations of democratic norm development in IOs typically credit the favorable environment at the end of the Cold War, interests of a hegemonic power, those of established democracies, interests of new democracies to “lock in” democratic systems, or the autonomy of international institutions. Existing accounts have thus under-emphasized inclusive institutions and democratic status as important (and interacting) explanatory variables. This dissertation draws on insights from literature on institutional design, constructivism, and social psychology to examine the evolution and roles of inclusive institutions and democratic status in the development of democratic norms and policy implementation in two inclusive IOs: the United Nations (UN) and the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe/Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE/OSCE) between the respective origins of the organizations in 1945 or 1973 and 2010. While inclusive institutions sometimes lead to deadlock, under certain conditions, and counter to conventional wisdom, they have occasionally proven highly supportive of democratic norm development. This study examines influential mechanisms, including relations between inclusive institutions and windows of opportunity, norm restatements and re-consideration of failed proposals, issue linkage, contributions of procedural legitimacy to norm expansion, inclusive institutions’ role in (re-)authorizing (or inhibiting) implementation policies, and vulnerability to shifts in political will. The dissertation draws on content analysis through process tracing of archival data and statements, counterfactual analysis, and semi-structured interviews. To assess the evolution and influence of democratic status, new indicators are developed. The study employs and adapts concepts from social identity theory and emphasizes additional factors (e.g. salience of democratic status, appeal of prototypical states, and prestige of IOs) that also affect states’ pursuit of strategies of social mobility, social competition, or social creativity, thus contributing to cooperation or discord for democratic norm development in inclusive IOs. Counter-intuitively, the institutionalization of a norm can, in fact, lead to regress. ii Preface The interviews conducted for this project were approved by the Behavioral Research Ethics Board (BREB) at the University of British Columbia (H07-02269) on December 17, 2007. In order to preserve confidentiality, in correspondence with the preferences indicated by interviewees, several interviews are referenced anonymously in the following text. Additional information is available in Appendix A. iii Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... ii Preface............................................................................................................................................ iii Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. viii List of Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................... ix Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... x Chapter One: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 Chapter Two: Conceptual Framework: Roles of Inclusiveness and Status in Democratic Norm Development and Policy Implementation in Inclusive IOs .......................................................... 16 2.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 16 2.2. Inclusiveness ...................................................................................................................... 17 2.2.1. Degrees of inclusiveness in inclusive IOs ................................................................... 21 2.2.2. Theoretical framework and propositions: Inclusiveness ............................................. 24 2.3. Status .................................................................................................................................. 32 2.3.1. Theoretical framework and propositions: Status ......................................................... 37 2.4. Additional theoretical insights from comparison across the cases ..................................... 50 Chapter Three: Inclusiveness, Democratic Norm Development and Policy Implementation in the CSCE/OSCE ................................................................................................................................. 54 3.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 54 3.2. Origins of inclusive institutions in the CSCE/OSCE: Helsinki 1973-1975 ....................... 55 3.3. Inclusiveness in the CSCE, 1973-1989: Human rights as the basis for future democratic norm development. Significance of issue linkage, restatements, and negotiation histories. ... 57 3.4. CSCE, 1990-1991: Inclusive institutions support the codification and development of a comprehensive set of democratic norms. .................................................................................. 66 3.5. CSCE, 1992-1994: Norms of inclusiveness and sovereign equality are qualified by democratic governance; inclusive institutions support the CSCE’s institutionalization........... 70 3.6. OSCE, 1995-1999: Inclusive institutions continue to sustain policy implementation of its mandate to support democratic governance. ............................................................................. 73 3.7. OSCE, 2000-2004: Inclusive institutions encounter a gradual increase in challenges to policy implementation for democracy support, with mixed effects. ......................................... 79 3.8. OSCE, 2005-2010: Inclusive institutions contribute to impasses on democratic norm development and policy implementation, yet issues remain on the agenda.............................. 83 3.9. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 86 Chapter Four: Status, Democratic Norm Development and Policy Implementation in the CSCE/OSCE ................................................................................................................................. 88 4.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 88 iv 4.2. CSCE, 1973-1989: Early patterns of status distinctions ................................................... 89 4.3. CSCE, 1990-1991: Codification of comprehensive democratic norm set and institutionalization of status distinctions in terms of democratic governance .......................... 92 4.4. CSCE, 1992-1994: Continued qualification of sovereign equality with democratic norms encourages states to seek democratic status and thus support institutionalization of CSCE’s democratization agenda. ............................................................................................................ 95 4.5. OSCE, 1995-1999: The high salience of democratic status enhances OSCE efforts to support democratic governance via states’ strategies of social mobility .................................. 98 4.6. OSCE, 2000-2004: Support for democratic governance is gradually affected by challenges due in part to the organization’s emphasis on democratic status ............................................ 104 4.7. OSCE, 2005-2010: Status concerns contribute to increased challenges to OSCE policies ................................................................................................................................................. 111 4.8. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 121 Chapter Five: Inclusiveness, Democratic Norm Development and Policy Implementation in the United Nations ...........................................................................................................................