Reviewing Y20 as part of International Organizations
I’d like to emphasize that the Y20 is one of the platforms offered under the G20 agenda. Although the G20 is a platform for international collaboration, its membership is confined to the 19 nations with the world’s largest economies, as well as the European Union. This conveys the notion that the G20 is also a collection of associated state or international organizations. Why is it visible that it is a member of international organizations? In an international organization, as defined, is a stable set of norms and rules intended to control the behavior of nations and other actors within the international system.
International organizations have become celebrities and are regarded as significant by the public, such that international relations specialists and various nations have emerged as key players. An international organization can be a group of nations that establish an alliance through different agreements, or it can be a collection of non-state organizations spread over geographical areas.
In a liberal perspective, international organizations are founded because each country recognizes its incapacity to deal with an issue on its own, hence collaboration is required for the common good, and each country is dependent on other countries. According to the liberalist perspective’s interference thesis, interdependence comes through cooperation between two or more countries. Simply defined, Robert O. Koehane and Joseph S. Nye claimed that interference is a reciprocal connection in international relations. The G20 and Y20 summits provide theoretical proof that countries are interdependent in addressing problems, fulfilling and attaining their objectives.
However, in the international system, no scenario can be fully understood from a single theoretical perspective. Although a liberal mentality recognizes the reality of collaboration and interdependence, the appropriateness of the share of interference as well as the advantages must be considered.
According to the realist viewpoint, the international situation is hierarchical. Other than the state, there is no one authority. Because it possesses the most legitimacy, power, and sovereignty, the state is the primary actor in the international arena. The emergence of international organizations as another alternative provided by a hegemonic power to fulfill its national interests. The fundamental assumption of the realism viewpoint is that a country can only rely on a ‘self-help system’ and cannot rely on other countries.
Based on this fundamental premise, realism holds that international institutions are powerless to influence state conduct. Because realism advocates believe that international relations is a battleground for gaining and retaining power, and that in order for a state to exist, it must prioritize its national interests. The fundamental goal for preserving life is the national interest, hence the state must gain power.
International organizations, according to realism, are extensions of a country’s corporation in accomplishing its goals, therefore international organizations are means to achieve their purposes by needing collaboration that may be agreed upon because other nations have their own national interests.
The balance of power, according to realism, is required for the world order to stay stable. To achieve a balance of power, the state must prioritize relative gains in order to preserve the balance of members of international organizations.
Furthermore, the country cannot get ‘absolute gains’ in order to earn larger profits as a consequence of a win-lose situation. However, a country’s tendency is still to seek absolute benefits, because the state will want to maximize profits and minimize losses. As a result, governments that continue to maximize profits frequently ignore the losses of other countries.
In short, The Y20 are regarded of as interest groups whose success or failure in influencing policy change is merely a reflection of state-based power dynamics. At the very least, the Y20 constitute a watershed moment in global politics.
The Y20 is a member-driven organization, although NGOs and IGOs are intimately involved in how it operates in practice. They play roles in generating ideas, developing and analyzing the repercussions and possibilities that result from those ideas, applying pressure in favor or against specific ideas, and ‘democratizing’ government through education, discussion, or even public inspection.
In some ways, the operations discussed here are drivers of maintaining the status quo – making the Y20 more secure by including more actors into the system. They are a way of ensuring that more excluded groups are informed on how the Y20 works, as well as the system’s underlying beliefs and logic. Inevitably, this has the effect of dampening criticism and distributing a Y20-supported perspective of the world to the intended audiences – in this case, the media, other non-governmental organizations, and developing-country governments. At the same time, this does not completely convey the engagement’s dynamism.