Abstract

When member states contest policymaking in international organizations, some international public administrations (IPAs) react in a conciliatory way while others are adversarial. This article argues that IPAs’ dependence on contesting states, their policymaking authority, and affectedness from contestation shape communicative responses. A Qualitative Comparative Analysis of 32 cases of contestation by the Trump administration indicates that IPAs yield when they are constrained by dependence on the United States or have no incentive to defend themselves. IPAs fend off contestation when they are unconstrained and incentivized by attacks on an international organizations’s polity, the bureaucracy, or policies in whose making they were substantially involved.

摘要

当成员国对国际组织的政策制定提出质疑时，一些国际公共行政部门 (IPA) 以和解的方式作出反应，而另一些则采取对抗的方式。本文认为，IPA 对竞争国家的依赖、它们的决策权威以及来自竞争的影响塑造了交流反应。对特朗普政府的 32 起争议案例的定性比较分析表明，当 IPA 受到对美国的依赖的限制或没有为自己辩护的动机时，它们就会取得成功。当 IPA 不受对国际组织的政体、官僚机构或与其密切相关的制定政策的攻击的约束和激励时，IPA 会避开争论。