organisations are criticised simultaneously for doing too little and for exceeding their .
Both criticisms are usually made by the same governments about different issues.
An organisation of states can act only where its members agree, which is a design feature rather than a fault.
Blaming it for where they disagree is blaming the mirror.
The reform debate concentrates on , which are indefensible on any current measure.
They reflect a distribution of power that existed when the institutions were founded.
Changing them requires the agreement of the states that would lose, which is why it has not happened.
The consequence is not but exit.
States that cannot obtain influence inside an institution build another one.
Regional development banks, parallel payment systems and new security arrangements have all appeared for this reason.
The result is a more crowded institutional landscape rather than a reformed one.
Overlap is expensive for small states, which must staff a delegation at each body.
It also offers them a choice of , which is a form of leverage they did not previously have.
are the part of the system that nobody defends and everybody uses.
A professional staff that drafts, records and remembers is what allows an agreement reached at three in the morning to mean something a year later.
Budget freezes have reduced that capacity in several organisations while their agendas expanded.
The predictable outcome is dependence on staff paid by individual member states.
An international civil service funded nationally is a contradiction that operates quietly in several buildings.