Regional Organizations in International Law: Exploring the Function-Territory Divide

Regional international organizations have a problematic image among international lawyers (in contrast to IR scholars and international practitioners generally). In this paper I argue how this is due not to a systemic problem but rather to an ideological tension in international law. While according to received knowledge states are based on ‘territory’ and organizations are based on ‘function,’ it is true that the legal identity of regional organizations appears to have an uneasy combination of both. Yet, the contrasting notions of ‘territory’ and ‘function’ relate especially to the legal origin of states and organizations. The contrast does not as such ruffle the general mechanisms of international law. What is difficult, on the other hand, is to square the territorial (in truth geographical) dimension of regional organizations with the universalist aspirations of international law and with the claims of functionalist, a-political neutrality projected onto international organizations. Regional organizations challenge the vision of a universally applicable body of law as well as the vision of a world without territorial boundaries, where authority is segmented by specific issues or ‘functions.’ This ideological challenge is arguably a prime reason for the limited presence of regional organizations in international law narratives and in international (institutional) law scholarship.