|WikiProject International relations||(Rated Stub-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Politics||(Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Organizations||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the International organization article.|
"International organization" not the same as "Intergovernmental organization" 
inter-parliamentary organizations 
The non-governmental vs. governmental divide seems clear at first glance. Some special cases like sports associations, red cross associations, industry associations (like International Road Transport Union, etc.) can be "placed" in the NGO part of the spectrum (but they are "special", because their members have the "approval"/"accreditation" of national governments or are explicitly selected by national governments), OK.
But what about inter-parliamentary organizations? These are clearly inter-state, not NGO, and not supranational. But the states are "represented" by their parliaments (or individuals appointed by the parliaments) - instead of governments (or institutions appointed by the governments). Should we regard all "state" actions as "approved by the government" (e.g. how decides on a particular state membership in those organizations - the head-of-government - President/Prime Minister - or the national legislature?) or we should regard them as separate - as per "separation of powers: executive/government, judical, legislative". And if we separate the judical - maybe some international courts should be considered also as separate type of organization - separate from intergovernmental, but still international (e.g. inter-judical) - for example  the ICC is listed by the UN as "observer entity" and not as "observer intergovernmental organization". Alinor (talk) 08:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Unclear Text 
I just removed the following content from the article. It need a thorough editing at the very least before it's ready for primetime.
However, UN as a symbol is composed of international organizations . Despite of politics as a completely separate category of concern, as there is no such appropriate international organization to coerce or act upon the stealthy political agenda only, that international organizations are characterized by the founding purpose on the organizational structure to be present and functional to serve, from the organizational nature for the inclusion of the activities covered by members that customarily and voluntarily accept to participate for meaningful accomplishments and well being for the general welfare, for more, see .
—Neil 02:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi my suggestion is about two sections : 1. International organization is different from international politics and for intergovernmental organizations there are many special considerations such as Taiwan, some former European colonies, Special Administrative Regions of People's Republic of China, Switzerland (tends to be neutral politically), Palestine, Vatican City, Sovereign Military Order of Malta (with no defined territory), and Kosovo. These more or less autonomous polities would have a chance to participate in international organization to a certain degree depending on the circumstances awaited. 2. International organizations often serve for specific purposes and always contribute to the better livelihood for human beings so the emphasis is on the nature and content of international organizations (and the formation of UN by many international organizations) not the politics between participating members in the international organizations. (220.127.116.11 (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC))
- Oh, okay. Thanks for taking the time to explain!
- You have a good point about the problem of deciding who can be a member of intergovernmental organizations. I think that the best place to add that point would be on the intergovernmental organization article, not this one. I checked that page and it doesn't include what you're talking about yet. However, I think first you should try to find a source that specifically supports what you said about Palestine, the Vatican City, Malta, and so on. Both of the papers you listed are good reliable sources, so you can definitely use them in Wikipedia. But I looked at them and I couldn't find anything specific about the problems of membership in either one (although I might have missed it).
- I'm still not sure what you mean by this.
- —Neil 03:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi politics is about power and in the western world it is always talking about balance of power, but politics is increasingly irrelevant in international organizations (IO) whether it is IGO or NGO because doing what is good for the IO is what makes IO contributive and sustaining and there are many defunct IO because too much politics between members in those IO, for example, the dispute between developing economies and developed economies on agricultural trade in the World Trade Organization. (18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC))
- Okay, I see. I think politics would be inherent in any large organization, particularly an organization of national governments. In which organizations are politics irrelevant? The World Trade Organization, as you say, is filled with politics but it's very much not defunct. Do you have sources for your claim? —Neil 17:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Split into two? 
I wonder if this article should be split into two? ie:
- the existing page that covers the noun-phrase "international organization" (as in "x, the int. org") ie: dealing with actual entities or bodies;
- another page covering the verb-phrase "international organization" (as in "the study of int. org.") ie: the political science/theory term that covers int. org. aspects of international affairs, global governance, international integration, international law, etc. as covered by the Int. Studies Association IO Section.