Organizationhood in the Light of Asian Minimalism

Abstract

Abstract Asian practice of organizationhood challenges traditionally acknowledged theoretical frameworks of international institutional law. Organizationhood is usually construed as based on a set of criteria, among which are 1) creation by an international treaty, and, 2) possession of organs are upheld by a number of scholars. Yet examining a sample of fifteen Asian international organizations proves this definition too restrictive, if not dysfunctional. The conventional criterion is directly contradicted by most of these organizations displaying the marks of an international personality despite having been created with no treaty. This, in turn, impairs the efficient operation of the organic criterion since organs of these organizations do not differ in appearance from States organs acting jointly. Asian minimalism thus suggests that the classical conception of organizationhood is too narrow to subject all entities that behave as international organizations to international law through the attribution of such a status, and that broadening this concept would allow it to better ensure the effectiveness of international law.