Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
International organizations represent one of the most significant developments in global governance since 1945, and they're a cornerstone of Unit 7: Global Conflict and Unit 8: Cold War and Decolonization. You're being tested on how these institutions emerged from the devastation of two world wars, how they reflected Cold War tensions between superpowers, and how they shaped the experiences of newly independent states navigating decolonization, economic development, and sovereignty. The AP exam loves to ask about the tension between national sovereignty and international cooperation—and these organizations sit right at the center of that debate.
Understanding these organizations means grasping the broader patterns of post-1945 global governance: why nations chose collective action over isolationism, how economic institutions reinforced or challenged existing power structures, and how non-state actors emerged to address issues governments couldn't—or wouldn't—tackle alone. Don't just memorize founding dates and member counts. Know what problem each organization was designed to solve, whose interests it served, and how it connects to themes like economic imperialism, human rights discourse, and Cold War proxy conflicts.
The catastrophic destruction of World War II convinced global leaders that international cooperation wasn't optional—it was essential for survival. The principle of collective security replaced the failed isolationism of the interwar period, creating institutions designed to prevent another global conflict through diplomacy, deterrence, and mutual defense.
Compare: UN vs. NATO—both emerged from WWII, but the UN aimed for universal membership and diplomacy while NATO represented bloc-based military alliance. If an FRQ asks about Cold War institutions, NATO illustrates division while the UN illustrates (often frustrated) attempts at cooperation.
The Bretton Woods system (1944) created institutions to prevent the economic nationalism and instability that contributed to the Great Depression and WWII. These organizations reflected Western—particularly American—economic priorities and became tools for both development and, critics argue, neo-colonial influence over newly independent states.
Compare: IMF vs. World Bank—both Bretton Woods institutions, but the IMF focuses on short-term financial stability and currency issues while the World Bank funds long-term development projects. Both faced criticism from leaders like Julius Nyerere for imposing Western economic models on African nations.
Some nations pursued deeper cooperation through regional organizations that went beyond military alliances or economic agreements. The European model of integration represented the most ambitious attempt to pool sovereignty and prevent the nationalist conflicts that had devastated the continent.
Compare: EU vs. NATO—both represent European cooperation but serve different purposes. NATO provides military security under American leadership, while the EU pursues economic and political integration with shared sovereignty. The EU emerged from the desire to prevent intra-European conflict; NATO addressed external Soviet threats.
International cooperation extended beyond security and economics to address human welfare directly. These organizations operationalized the post-war commitment to human rights and dignity, though debates persist about whose definitions of "health" and "humanitarian need" drive their agendas.
Compare: WHO vs. Red Cross—WHO is a governmental UN agency focused on public health systems and disease prevention, while the Red Cross is a non-governmental organization focused on emergency humanitarian response. Both illustrate how health became an international concern, but through different mechanisms.
The post-1945 period saw the rise of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that operated outside state control to advocate for causes governments ignored or actively opposed. These organizations challenged the state-centric model of international relations and gave voice to civil society concerns about human rights and environmental protection.
Compare: Amnesty International vs. Greenpeace—both are NGOs using research and public pressure rather than state power, but Amnesty focuses on human rights and political prisoners while Greenpeace targets environmental destruction. Both illustrate how non-state actors became significant players in international affairs after 1945.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Post-WWII collective security | UN, NATO |
| Bretton Woods economic system | IMF, World Bank |
| Cold War bloc politics | NATO (Western), UN Security Council vetoes |
| Decolonization support/challenge | UN, World Bank, IMF structural adjustment |
| Regional integration | EU |
| Global health governance | WHO, Red Cross |
| Non-state actors in international relations | Amnesty International, Greenpeace, Red Cross |
| Human rights advocacy | Amnesty International, UN |
Which two organizations emerged from the Bretton Woods Conference, and how did their missions differ in addressing post-WWII economic challenges?
How did the UN Security Council's structure reflect Cold War power dynamics, and why did this often limit the organization's effectiveness?
Compare NATO and the EU as forms of European cooperation—what different problems was each designed to solve, and how did they relate to Cold War divisions?
If an FRQ asked you to evaluate how international organizations affected newly independent states during decolonization, which organizations would you discuss and what tensions would you highlight?
What distinguishes governmental international organizations (like the UN and WHO) from non-governmental organizations (like Amnesty International and Greenpeace) in terms of their sources of authority and methods of influence?