Taking a rationalist approach to institutions as equilibria, I develop a critical perspective on whether and when intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) promote peaceful change. I challenge the standard view that cooperation through IGOs is necessarily “peaceful” by tightening the definition of peaceful change to include not only being nonviolent and voluntary but also being noncoercive. Whether voluntary cooperation is peaceful now depends not only on the means used and end point of change but also on its starting point. Whenever prevailing institutions overly favor (previously) powerful states, seemingly cooperative change within IGOs entails implicit elements of coercion. This is especially true of formal IGOs (FIGOs) whose rules and agency are tightly tied to the interests of the powerful. By contrast, the greater flexibility of informal IGOs (IIGOs) enables them to promote change that is more inclusive of the interests of all concerned. Their greater operational capacity may give FIGOs a comparative advantage for adapting international order – and thus for peaceful change when the international order is just. But IIGOs are more effective for promoting peaceful change when larger transformational change of the international order is needed.

The focus of this chapter is the puzzle about why it has taken so long for the G20 to be taken seriously in institutionalist international relations, and whether this evolutionary pattern matters for addressing the pivotal question: “How International Organizations Promote or Detract from Peaceful Change.” Amid the shocks of the Global Financial Crisis, the G20 became the privileged institutional choice over alternative options via formal International Organizations, including the United Nations. The protracted lack of scrutiny on the G20 in institutionalist IR is puzzling given the role of this scholarship in extending the level of analysis not only with an original focus on formal IOs but also an expanded range of informal institutions. Per se, the extended neglect of the G20 is a symptom of an ingrained Western and more specially the US centrism in the literature. Even as the G20 has lost instrumental purpose, the value of the G20 as a vehicle for management of world politics must be recognized. The lack of understanding concerning the evolution of the G20 in mainstream IR is particularly noticeable with respect to the elevated role in the G20 by countries with Global South identities.

This chapter unpacks the complex relationship between international organizations and peaceful change in the international system through various perspectives on international relations. We identify three types of peaceful change associated with international organizations: institutional change within IOs, interactional change among IOs, and transitional change involving IOs and power dynamics in the international system. The latter has the potential to bring about a “maximalist peaceful change,” resulting in profound positive changes in international relations and human life. However, it also carries significant risks. As great power rivalry intensifies and challenges to the existing liberal international order grow, understanding the role of international organizations in promoting or hindering peaceful change becomes crucial. This chapter serves as an introduction to the volume, providing an overview of its content and summarizing the major findings of other chapters. The book not only diagnoses the ability of international organizations to facilitate order transitions but also offers suggestions to address their current shortcomings in promoting peaceful change.

United Nations (UN) peace missions are meant to foster peace. However, slim progress has been observed in the states in which they have been recently deployed. If peace misions are effective in alleviating the suffering of the population on many fronts, the puzzle remains: To what extent are UN peace missions powerful instruments of peaceful change, given the persistent political coups and ensuing protests and violence in the receiving countries despite their presence? In this chapter, a constructivist, multilevel analytical approach is used to discuss how peace missions factor in peaceful change. A three-fold argument is made: While it can be demonstrated that UN peace missions are powerful instruments of peaceful change at the international level all the while mitigating crises on a regional basis, they do little to prevent/alleviate the continuation of violence at the national level. Using the examples of Sudan, Mali, Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Cyprus, this chapter examines how UN peace missions are instruments of change, yet their peaceful effect depends on whether one takes into account the national, regional, or international level factors.

This chapter examines the intellectual and institutional challenges that the architects of International Relations (IR) faced during the 1930s. It first shows how the Nazi government nationalised research centres and forced scholars into exile, essentially eliminating the independent study of IR in German-speaking Europe. The second section reviews how Hitler’s rise to power was perceived by the IR community and how scholars struggled to make sense of his foreign policy agenda. The third section inspects ‘peaceful change’ as a political idea. The fourth section explores its application as a policy instrument, notably Arnold Toynbee’s quasi-diplomatic ventures to Germany. The final section traces the gradual demise of IR scholarship, from financial and political difficulties in the mid-1930s to the complete suspension of activities within the first year of the Second World War.