Interpol Key Factors of Success Essay Example

Interpol: Key Factors of Success Essay Today we are witnessing the creation of a new society, in which nation-states develop new long-lasting connections between each other. Political, economic and social interactions between the states call for development of International Organizations (IO) that can regulate and contribute to the international system. With the creation of IOs, another issue arose – how can IOs function in the world still accustomed to sovereignty of states, will they have a mostly positive effect on the global community and what makes an IO efficient.This research will primarily focus on efficacy of IOs, using INTERPOL as the subject of its study in order to demonstrate what factors make an IO efficient and under what conditions. PURPOSE STATEMET The purpose of this qualitative study is to identify a relation between the INTERPOL’s mission and the conditions that promote or impede achieving INTERPOL’s objectives. This study will contribute to a general understanding of what can make an IO efficient and under what circumstances IOs functions can be curtailed by a nation-state’s government. HYPOTHESISInternational Organizations play an effective role in the international system if the scope of cooperation is limited to issues to where mutual interest is obvious, where cooperation does not distract from the pre-existing initiatives already being undertaken within the states, but instead enhances those efforts. INTERPOL has proven to be an efficient organization because its mission of fighting crime in majority of cases goes along with already existing interests of states’ governments. RESEARCH QUESTION The proposed research will be guided by the following questions: 1.What determines whether or not an IO is efficient? 2. What is the definition of INTERPOL’s efficacy? 3. What factors contribute to INTERPOL’s success? 4. Under what circumstances INTERPOL is unable to carry out its mission? 5. What makes IOs efficient instruments in build ing the future global society? REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE â€Å"Policing World Society: Historical Foundations of International Police Cooperation† by Mathieu Deflem of Oxford University. Mathieu Deflem focused his research on uncovering factors that make international police an effective tool in fighting crime.His study is based on an array of historical data on international cooperation. He points out that existence of common interests between international law enforcement and sovereign states remains one of the most contributing variables to ensuring international cooperation. In his words, â€Å"the greater the extent to which international police institutions can rely on a common organizational interest in the fight against international crime, the greater is the chance that those institutions will participate in international police cooperation† (Deflem 2002, 22).In 1998, Mike Muth in his article â€Å"Interpol: Your Best Resource for International Investigationâ €  discussed similar issues of international police functions related to the states’ sovereignty. His analysis demonstrated that the key to Interpol’s efficiency lies in its adherence to neutrality. According to Muth, Interpol avoids interfering in local political or military activities, and in return, local governments allow Interpol to fulfill its mission of fighting global crime. John Imhoff and Stephen Cutler included a study on why certain countries cooperate with Interpol in their article â€Å"Interpol: Helping Police Around the World. Imhoff and Cutler emphasize the importance of international law enforcement system in the world of high technology. According to their study, global crime has no political borders and state law enforcement agencies are often powerless in their efforts to ensure security when criminals cannot be contained within their borders. This article contributes to a larger issue of the role and the effect IOs should have in the XXI centu ry. Along with the expansion of the international crime other issues spill over national borders and call for interference on the global level.Another article presents an interesting study on the efficiency of Interpol. Malcolm Anderson published his article â€Å"Policing the World: Interpol and the Politics of International Police Co-operation† in 1991, eight years prior to Imhoff and Cutler work and eleven years before Deflem’s article was written, but he highlights very much the same issues: what prompts states to cooperate and what Interpol can do to encourage the states’ efforts to assist Interpol in its mission. This study presents a plentiful source of cases of cooperation between states and Interpol.However, it did not focus on specific factors that in general pave the road to such cooperation. Another important contribution to the topic of what makes Interpol’s strategies efficient was made by Michael Barnett and Liv Coleman. They took a new app roach to the issue of cooperation between the state and the IO. There are a number of studies on the state’s behavior in this equation, but Barnett’s and Coleman’s article focuses on what strategies IOs can choose from in order to act â€Å"in response to changing environmental pressures and constraints that potentially threaten their relevance and resource base† (Barnett and Coleman 2005, 593).Barnett and Coleman propose six different approaches that IOs can undertake – â€Å"acquiescence, compromise, avoidance, defiance, manipulation, and strategic social construction† (Barnett and Coleman 2005, 599). This study presents a valuable analysis on how IOs, Interpol in particular, can ensure the safety of their mission. This study however left some room for researching convergence of interests between IOs and state-actors, and how building on states’ needs and existing institutional design can enhance Interpol’s efficiency.Victor Cha in his article â€Å"Globalization and the Study of International Security† puts two salient issues together: globalization and security. The article was written in 2000, before global security became and obvious priority as a result of the 9/11 attacks. Cha pointed out the â€Å"unprecedented† need for cooperation between states and international players. In his words, â€Å"globalization puts unprecedented bureaucratic innovation pressures on governments in their search for security, and created multilateralist pressures to cooperate with substate and transnational partners rather than traditional allies† (Cha 2000, 397).This study supports the hypothesis of this research in its suggestion that common interests promote cooperation between states and IOs. Global security and fighting transnational crime are the examples used in this article as existing common interests. The article â€Å"Political Groups, Leader Change, and the Pattern of International Coo peration† by Alastair Smith, published by the Journal of Conflict Resolution in 2009, takes on a wider subject of international cooperation. This thorough mixed study looks into factors and patterns affecting states’ decision to favor one or the other group.Smith pointed out how domestic politics can play a major role in international cooperation by stating that â€Å"a nation can selectively withhold cooperation from one group to influence the domestic political competition between groups in another nation† (Smith 2009, 855). The article provids much needed insight on general patterns of international cooperation and contributed to shaping the framework of the given research on international organizations and the efficiency of Interpol. It allows room for a closer look at what makes IOs and Interpol in particular effective in carrying out their missions.In conclusion, there have been numerous studies about the significance and conditions of international coopera tion, specifically between the state-actors and international organizations. Several articles looking into this issue have built their arguments on the example of the Interpol. The scope of these articles appears to be broad, with their purpose to depict a bigger picture of what factors contribute to the efficiency of the Interpol and IOs in general. Further research is necessary in order to study the effect of one important factor – existing interests of the state and the mission of the IO.METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH STRATEGY The independent variable in this study is the INTERPOL’s efficiency in carrying out its mission. It is therefore important to define the term efficiency in given setting. Efficiency in general is the degree to which the purpose of the organization is fulfilled. In order to understand what makes an IO efficient, it is critical to understand the nature of its mission. Interpol’s main objective is â€Å"preventing and fighting crime through enh anced international police cooperation† (Rohn 2001, 270).Cooperation is the key word in this statement, therefore, the degree of the INTERPOL’s efficiency can be judged by the level of cooperation between states and INTERPOL. The dependent variables are states’ willingness to cooperate on INTERPOL’s efforts to fight crime, states’ own political interests, and INTERPOL’s methods of fulfilling its mission. This qualitative research is based on data collected from several studies on INTERPOL and on international cooperation between states and IOs and on historical examples f the state’s cooperation with INTERPOL on specific issues. This analysis will be built on reasons for state’s cooperation, which will tie the conclusion to the hypothesis. Possible counterpoints will be identified. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Since the very first International Criminal Police Congress was held in Monaco in 1914, INTERPOL has repeatedly demonstrated it s skill to assist crime fighting efforts around the globe and has shown that it is indeed one of the most efficient international organizations.Working under its banner â€Å"Connecting police for a safer world† (About INTERPOL 2013), this organization â€Å"offers a wide range of services, including forensic analyses, offers means to exchange and generate regional data, and coordinates joint operational activities among member countries† (Benyon 1994, 499). By constructing this combined framework, INTERPOL assists local police in identifying crime trends, conducting data analysis and operations and, ultimately, INTERPOL helps countries to â€Å"arrest as many criminals as possible† (About INTERPOL 2013).As we can see, INTERPOL’s mission to â€Å"arrest as many criminal as possible† is an apolitical one and almost always goes along with the states’ own interests to fight crime. In addition, INTERPOL emphasizes its neutrality. The organizatio n strives to facilitate international police cooperation even in the countries where diplomatic relations do not exist between certain states. As it is stated on the INTERPOL’s website, â€Å"action is taken within the limits of existing laws in different countries and in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights† (About INTERPOL 2013).INTERPOL’s Constitution also â€Å"prohibits ‘any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character† (Ibid). Neutrality is a vital variable in search for factors that make IOs effective in their work. Neutral stance eliminates risk of IOs being perceived as a threat by the states’ governments. In respect of sovereignty, INTERPOL generally steers away from interfering with domestic affairs. Mike Muth pointed out that â€Å"INTERPOL was never designed to be an international police force† (Muth 1998, 5). John Imhoff and Stephen Cutler also highlighted theINTERP OL’s role as a universal tool for the police of its members-states and not an international law-enforcement agency. As a result of such policies on non-involvement, INTERPOL can boast many instances of international cooperation. The INTERPOL’s directorate admits that cooperation is vital to the mission’s success. The website states that â€Å"transnational crime cannot be tackled in isolation; its reach is wider than traditional law enforcement. Partnerships with other organizations and the private and public sectors are essential to tackle challenges in common areas† (About INTERPOL 2013).Another study from Crime Control Digest concurs that â€Å"the global fight against international crime and terrorism will be most efficient if international police information can be shared at local, regional and international levels† (Anonymous 2004, 3). Indeed, INTERPOL has over 60 agreements with other IOs; it finds support from the UN and receives external f unding from the members of G8 and its help with development of the International Child Sex Exploitation Image Database (About INTERPOL 2013). Such wide support can be attributed to shared goals – fighting international crime.Besides other international organizations, INTERPOL has secured cooperation from many countries that could be called â€Å"difficult† when it comes to diplomatic relationship. One of such examples is INTERPOL’s and Russia’s joined efforts in comprehending suspects. According to Timur Lakhonin, the head of the Russian National Central Bureau of INTERPOL, â€Å"as many as 1,385 people are currently on the INTERPOL’s database at Russian law enforcement agencies’ initiative† (â€Å"Russia Searching 1385 People Through INTERPOL† 2009).Among these defendants and convicts, 329 people were wanted for murder (Ibid). Morocco is another case of INTERPOL’s successful efforts to cooperate with local law enforceme nt. Marrakesh became a host to the first INTERPOL â€Å"Trafficking in Illicit Goods Seminar for Middle East and North Africa Region† (â€Å"Morocco Hosts†¦Ã¢â‚¬  2013). The seminar was intended for senior police and law enforcement officials. The event was co-hosted with Morocco’s General Directorate for National Safety, â€Å"the three-day seminar (2-4 April) rought together some 75 police, customs and prosecutors from 15 countries across the region: Algeria, Comoros, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, UAE and Yemen† (Ibid). Among other motives for cooperation, fighting cyber-crime became the highlight of the visit of the Serbian Ministry of Interior, Vladimir Bozovic, to the INTERPOL Global Complex for Innovation (IGCI). At Serbia’s initiative, â€Å"as cybercrime is a growing problem in Serbia and throughout the region, meetings with INTERPOL Secretary General Ronald K.Noble reviewed the Organization’s current and future activities in this area, including the creation of a Digital Crime Centre within the IGCI to offer support for cybercrime investigations† (â€Å"Serbia Visit to INTERPOL†¦Ã¢â‚¬  2013). In another demonstration of cooperation between INTERPOL and nation-states, â€Å"INTERPOL and a consortium of five European partners have created a prototype system to assist with the quick identification of victims or missing persons following a natural or man-made disaster or in daily policing† (â€Å"INTERPOL and European Partners†¦Ã¢â‚¬  2013).The FASTID project (the FAST and efficient international disaster victim identification) was developed with help of â€Å"the German Federal Criminal Police Bundeskriminalant (BKA), the IOSB and IGD Institutes of the Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft in Germany, Danish company PlassData, the University of Dundee and Crabbe Consulting Ltd, with co-funding from the European Union’s Seventh framework programme (FP7)† (Ibid). Once the program is fully implemented, the provided database will become as the first centralized, global database for identifying and linking missing persons.The recent arrest in Kiev ‘s international airport of two fugitives wanted in the UAE for a substantial jewelry theft is another example of international police cooperation. The two suspects, one from Turkey and the other from Azerbaijan, were â€Å"the subject of a global alert known as an INTERPOL diffusion issued by INTERPOL’s National Central Bureau (NCB) in Abu Dhabi† (â€Å"INTERPOL Commend Arrest†¦Ã¢â‚¬  2013). Theft is a criminal activity condemned in all countries, and apprehension of the suspects became the shared interest of several states: Ukraine, UAE, Turkey and Azerbaijan.Their efforts were effectively coordinated by INTERPOL. INTERPOL also successfully demonstrated its ability to cooperate with â€Å"trouble† states. Libya, still not ful ly recovered after recent major political shifts and not yet certain on its stance regarding its future policies, allowed INTERPOL to assist in â€Å"the recovery of assets stolen during the Gaddafi regime and help enhance national and regional security† (â€Å"Libya Mission to Advance Recovery†¦Ã¢â‚¬  2013). INTERPOL has offered its help with an issue serving Libya’s interests: recovering assets and enhancing security.Such tactics provided INTERPOL with the cooperation of the Libyan government and its law enforcement forces, fulfilling INTERPOL’s goal and deeming it an efficient international organization. Examples of cooperation between INTERPOL and the states’ governments are endless. One could mention such widely publicized instances of teamwork as INTERPOL’s involvement in solving Russian airport bombing, assisting countries of South America in tracking counterfeit goods and coordinating efforts of Italian and Singapore police in appreh ension of an international match-fixer red-listed by INTERPOL.All these examples share one common thread – INTERPOL was acting along the preexisting interests of the state’s government. It therefore becomes apparent that building on mutual interests can provide the IO with the state’s support and increase the IO’s efficiency. Two counter-points arise within analysis. First of all, mutual interests can seem obvious but when parties engage in such cooperation, sometimes this mutual interest is lost in the nuance. Additionally, some pre-existing initiatives can be interrupted by shifts within domestic politics or incompatibilities arise between states’ initiatives.The nuance in political atmosphere that impedes INTERPOL’s activities can be illustrated through how the investigation of the Mumbai attack of 2008 was handled. According to the INTERPOL’s news release, the Indian government refused to share any valuable information on the expl osions in Mumbai (â€Å"India Refuses to Share†¦Ã¢â‚¬  2013). Following the attack, the Indian government pointed fingers toward Pakistan, which served their political interests. Releasing more facts on the bombing to INTERPOL would serve ndermine such an accusation. In this way, INTERPOL failed its mission of international police cooperation not due to the diversion of interests of the country to apprehend the suspects, but because of subtle political atmosphere between India and Pakistan. However, when fighting crime, these factors become rather infrequent. INTERPOL’s mission correlates with most states’ interests, and therefore, today, INTERPOL remains one of the most efficient international organizations. CONCLUSIONAs it was demonstrated on the example of INTERPOL, International Organizations play an effective role in the international system if the scope of cooperation is limited to issues to where mutual interest is obvious. In the case of INTERPOL, such o bvious mutual interest is â€Å"arresting as many criminal as possible† (About INTERPOL 2013). IO’s efficiency increases where cooperation does not distract from the pre-existing initiatives already being undertaken within the states, but instead enhances those efforts.The example of the Mumbai attack has shown that even such clear objectives as finding those who were responsible for the bombing can be undermined under effect of political forces. Overall, INTERPOL has proven to be an efficient organization because its mission of fighting crime in majority of cases goes along with already existing interests of the state’s government. In addition, the findings of this study can be applied to other IOs in order to enhance the efficiency of their role in the international community.Understanding the pre-existing conditions in the state and being mindful of the domestic interests can pave the road towards a closer and more effective international cooperation in the f uture.