1
Introduction
1
Multilateral surveillance as a tool for international organizations (IOs) to shape and scrutinize
the policies of its member states has attracted increasing attention in recent years. In particular
since its introduction into the EU context as Open Method of Coordination (OMC) resulting
from the Amsterdam treaty, multilateral surveillance is seen as an innovative tool to spread
policy across states. At the same time it contains hopes for flexible and creative soft govern-
ance. However, such technique is not new and existed before the EU recognized it as a tool to
coordinate national policies – other international organizations have long applied this method
within their frameworks. Most intensely, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) has developed and applied multilateral surveillance, namely as ‘peer
reviewing’ since its own foundation in 1961.
Multilateral surveillance refers to the technique of discussing and evaluating the poli-
cies of one member state of an international organization in the committees of an international
organization by representatives of other member states of that organization (Schäfer 2004a).
Scholars of international organizations and international relations have widely explored, theo-
retically and empirically, why states are willing to join an international organization. Captured
by the notion of ‘delegating to IOs’, such examination has recently (re)gained in attention by
many scholars. Based on principal agent theory, the main line of argument is that states (prin-
cipals) delegate to agents (IOs) to facilitate international cooperation between states. The aim
of this paper, however, is to explore domestically motivated reasons why states delegate to
IOs.
The paper proceeds as follows: in the first section, I deal with theoretical issues. Cur-
rent approaches to international organizations and their role in international politics are ex-
plored, and recent literature on delegating to international organizations with reference to why
states approach IOs is summarized. In this context, I focus on dominant lines of the argument
1
The research presented in this paper is part of a research project on International Education Politics
conducted at the University of Bremen, Germany. The aim of the project is to explore new international
dynamics in educational politics and their effects on states and individuals. Research for the project is
conducted under the framework of the Collaborative Research Centre Transformations of the State.
Consisting of 15 projects, the Centre is presently the largest German research group examining current
dimensions of change in statehood in different policy fields and from diverse perspectives. The centre is
funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG). Heads of the project are Reinhold Sackmann and
Ansgar Weymann. For comments and assistance in preparing this paper, I would like to thank Celia En-
ders and Anja Jakobi.
Convention