Many international organizations (IOs) are currently under pressure and the demise of the liberal international order is the talk of town. We theorize that institutional characteristics help to explain why some IOs survive external pressures where others fail. We test this argument through a survival analysis of 150 IOs (1815–2014). We find that the only significant variable explaining the death of IOs is the size of the secretariat: IOs with large bureaucracies are good at coping with external pressures. In addition, IOs with diverging preferences among members and those that are less institutionalized are more likely to be replaced with successor organizations. We find that institutional flexibility included in the treaties does not have an effect on survival. This is surprising because the purpose of flexibility clauses is precisely to deal with external shocks. Finally, we also find that systemic and domestic factors do not explain IO failure. In conclusion, we should not write off the liberal international order all too quickly: large IOs with significant bureaucratic resources are here to stay.

当前，许多国际组织（IOs）承受着压力，自由国际秩序的消亡是城市谈论的话题。我们认为体制特征有助于解释为什么某些IO在其他方面失败的情况下仍能承受外部压力。我们通过对150个IO的生存期分析（1815年至2014年）测试了这一论点。我们发现，解释IO死亡的唯一重要变量是秘书处的规模：具有庞大官僚机构的IO善于应对外部压力。此外，成员之间偏好不同的IO和制度化程度较低的IO更有可能被后续组织取代。我们发现，条约中包括的机构灵活性对生存没有影响。这是令人惊讶的，因为灵活性条款的目的正是为了应对外部冲击。最后，我们还发现系统因素和家庭因素不能解释IO故障。总而言之，我们不应该过快地取消自由国际秩序：拥有大量官僚资源的大型IO将留在这里。