Debre and Dijkstra (2021) explore international organizations (IOs)’ policy response to COVID-19 in the first wave. With a six-point scale to measure the strength of such responses, it is found that IOs with more general policy scope, higher amount of COVID-19 cases in member countries, and larger size of staff employed are likely to have stronger policy responses to COVID-19 in the first wave. This paper acknowledges these findings and contributions, while extends the horizon to explore IOs' policy response to COVID-19 in relatively longer terms. It argues that in longer terms, IOs' policy responses to exogenous shocks such as COVID-19 will be affected by several factors such as the actual size of workforce. This paper suggests to re-examine IOs' policy scope and policy fields with a more sophisticated classification as they may also affect IOs' policy responses to COVID-19 in longer terms.

In the article titled ‘COVID-19 and Policy Responses by International Organizations: Crisis of Liberal International Order or Window of Opportunity?’, its authors argue that while exogenous crisis including COVID-19 becomes a challenge to liberal international order including the work of international organizations (IOs), such crisis may also become windows of opportunities to expand IOs' work scopes and policy instruments (Debre & Dijkstra, 2021). Based on the analysis of 75 IOs' policy response to COVID-19 in the first wave of the pandemic (March to June 2020), Debre and Dijkstra (2021) find that there are disparities across IOs' policy responses to COVID-19. The strength of IOs' policy response to COVID-19 is measured by a six-point scale developed by the authors, ranging from 0 (no response) to 5 (very high). Empirical results in the article demonstrate that IOs with larger staff size, more general policy scope, and higher number of COVID-19 cases in member states are more likely to have strong policy responses to COVID-19 in the first wave. However, being different from the popular belief, some other factors such as IOs' policy fields (whether an IO deals with health, economics, finance, and border management and migration) do not have statistically significant impact on IOs' policy response to COVID-19 in the first wave. In short, Debre and Dijkstra (2021) have several interesting findings and enrich scientific knowledge of IOs' responses to external shocks including COVID-19. Scientific insights and practical implications are also generated in Debre and Dijkstra's research.

With the wide-spreading of the pandemic in the subsequent waves, Debre and Dijkstra (2021) also create space for further studies on IO's responses to COVID-19. In particular, it provokes a further research question: what are IOs' policy responses to COVID-19 in relatively longer terms (e.g., one year after the first outbreak)? With the continuing spread of COVID-19 around the world after the first wave, the pandemic's impact on IOs and IOs' policy responses to COVID-19 may change. For example, the pandemic's impact on IOs specialized in education and environment may become more substantial than in the first wave, when IOs dealing with health, economics, finance, border management and migration are perceived to be most affected (Debre & Dijkstra, 2021). To explore IOs' policy responses to COVID-19 in longer terms, it is suggested to examine the timing of responses. A reconsideration of IOs' policy fields and policy scope is also suggested.

A main objective of this paper is to establish dialogues in the field of IOs' responses to exogenous crisis such as COVID-19. It is essential to emphasize that this paper is not contradictory to the findings of Debre and Dijkstra (2021), which focus on IOs' responses to COVID-19 in the first wave only. Instead this paper benefits from the foundation that was established by Debre and Dijkstra (2021), and aims to extend the analysis of IO's responses to COVID-19 in relatively longer terms.

Debre 和 Dijkstra (2021) 在第一波探索国际组织 (IO) 对 COVID-19 的政策反应。用六点量表来衡量这种反应的强度，发现政策范围更广、成员国中 COVID-19 病例数量更多、员工规模更大的 IO 可能对第一波中的 COVID-19。本文承认这些发现和贡献，同时扩展了探索 IO 在相对较长的期限内对 COVID-19 的政策反应的视野。它认为，从长远来看，IOs 对 COVID-19 等外来冲击的政策反应将受到劳动力实际规模等几个因素的影响。本文建议重新审视 IO 的

在题为“ COVID-19 和国际组织的政策反应：自由国际秩序的危机还是机会之窗？”的文章中 ，其作者认为，虽然包括 COVID-19 在内的外生危机成为对包括国际组织 (IO) 工作在内的自由国际秩序的挑战，但这种危机也可能成为扩大 IO 工作范围和政策工具的机会之窗 (Debre & Dijkstra ,  2021 年)。基于对 75 名 IO 在第一波大流行（2020 年 3 月至 2020 年 6 月）中对 COVID-19 的政策反应的分析，Debre 和 Dijkstra（2021) 发现 IO 对 COVID-19 的政策反应存在差异。IOs 对 COVID-19 的政策响应强度由作者制定的六点量表衡量，范围从 0（无响应）到 5（非常高）。文章中的实证结果表明，在成员国中员工规模更大、政策范围更广、COVID-19 病例数量更多的 IO 更有可能在第一波浪潮中对 COVID-19 做出强有力的政策反应。然而，与普遍的看法不同，其他一些因素，例如 IO 的政策领域（IO 是否涉及健康、经济、金融以及边境管理和移民）对 IO 对 COVID 的政策反应没有统计学上的显着影响。第一波19。简而言之，Debre 和 Dijkstra ( 2021) 有几个有趣的发现，并丰富了 IO 对包括 COVID-19 在内的外部冲击的反应的科学知识。Debre 和 Dijkstra 的研究也产生了科学见解和实际意义。

随着大流行在随后的浪潮中广泛传播，Debre 和 Dijkstra（2021 年）也为进一步研究 IO 对 COVID-19 的反应创造了空间。特别是，它引发了一个进一步的研究问题：在相对较长的时间内（例如，在第一次爆发后一年），IO 对 COVID-19 的政策反应是什么？随着第一波之后 COVID-19 在全球范围内的持续传播，大流行对 IO 的影响以及 IO 对 COVID-19 的政策反应可能会发生变化。例如，与第一波疫情相比，新冠疫情对专门从事教育和环境的 IO 的影响可能会变得更大，当时处理健康、经济、金融、边境管理和移民的 IO 被认为受到的影响最大（Debre & Dijkstra，  2021）。为了更长期地探索 IO 对 COVID-19 的政策响应，建议检查响应时间。还建议重新考虑 IO 的政策领域和政策范围。

本文的一个主要目的是在 IO 对 COVID-19 等外生危机的反应领域建立对话。必须强调的是，本文与 Debre 和 Dijkstra ( 2021 ) 的发现并不矛盾，后者仅关注 IO 在第一波中对 COVID-19 的反应。相反，本文受益于 Debre 和 Dijkstra（2021 年）建立的基础，旨在以相对较长的时间扩展 IO 对 COVID-19 响应的分析。