International organizations (IOs) constitute key arenas in which states discuss common issues. Such debates are central prerequisites for taking qualitatively good decisions. Yet researchers have not examined how IOs foster discussion through their institutional provisions. We conduct a factor analysis of institutional rules of 114 IOs which reveals that two ideal types how IOs seek to induce discussion exist: The first type creates room for debate in the negotiation stage of the policy cycle. In contrast, the second type gives member states a strong say in the agenda-setting, thereby facilitating debate. Why do IOs opt for either strategy? A limited policy scope, heterogeneity among actors, and diplomatic socialization increase the probability that IOs place emphasis on debate during negotiations, while a high number of members is the main reason for IOs to promote debate during agenda-setting. These choices reflect the strive of IOs to balance extensive debate with speedy decision-making.

国际组织（IOs）构成了各州讨论共同问题的关键领域。此类辩论是做出质量上好的决定的主要前提。然而，研究人员尚未研究IO如何通过其机构规定促进讨论。我们对114个IO的制度规则进行了因子分析，结果表明存在两种理想的IO如何寻求引发讨论的类型：第一种类型为政策周期谈判阶段的辩论提供了空间。相反，第二种类型使成员国在议程设置中拥有强大的发言权，从而促进了辩论。IO为什么选择这两种策略？有限的政策范围，行为者之间的异质性以及外交社会化，增加了IO在谈判期间将重点放在辩论上的可能性，而大量成员是IO在议程制定过程中促进辩论的主要原因。这些选择反映了IO在平衡广泛的辩论与快速决策之间所做的努力。