The article by Michael N. Barnett and Martha Finnemore examines the role and behavior of international organizations (IOs) in global politics. It challenges the traditional view that IOs are merely instruments of state interests, arguing instead that they possess their own power and can act autonomously. The authors propose a constructivist approach rooted in sociological institutionalism to explain IO behavior, emphasizing the role of bureaucracy and the normative values that define it. They argue that IOs, through their bureaucratic structures, create new categories of actors, define new interests, and shape global norms and practices. This process can lead to dysfunctional or even pathological behavior, as IOs may act in ways that are unanticipated by their creators. The authors highlight that IOs are not just passive mechanisms but can become powerful actors in their own right, with their own agendas and values. They challenge the statist ontology prevalent in international relations theories, which view IOs as mere extensions of state interests. Instead, they argue that IOs can be autonomous, with their own norms and values that may conflict with those of states. This perspective is supported by examples from the UN, World Bank, and UNHCR, where IOs have demonstrated significant influence and autonomy. The article also discusses the sources of IO autonomy and authority, including the legitimacy of rational-legal authority and control over technical expertise and information. These factors enable IOs to act independently, often in ways that are not aligned with the interests of their creators. The authors argue that the same rational-legal characteristics that make IOs powerful can also lead to inefficiency and self-defeating behavior, as seen in the case of the UN's peacekeeping efforts and the World Bank's influence on development policies. The authors further explore how IOs exercise power through classification, meaning-making, and norm diffusion. They argue that IOs can shape the world by defining categories of actors, fixing meanings in the social world, and articulating and diffusing new norms and principles. This process can lead to the legitimization of certain practices and the marginalization of others, often in ways that are not aligned with the interests of states. The article concludes by emphasizing the need for a more comprehensive understanding of IO behavior, one that moves beyond the traditional state-centric frameworks and recognizes the autonomous and normative power of IOs. This approach provides a new perspective on the role of IOs in global politics, highlighting their ability to shape the world through their own structures and values.The article by Michael N. Barnett and Martha Finnemore examines the role and behavior of international organizations (IOs) in global politics. It challenges the traditional view that IOs are merely instruments of state interests, arguing instead that they possess their own power and can act autonomously. The authors propose a constructivist approach rooted in sociological institutionalism to explain IO behavior, emphasizing the role of bureaucracy and the normative values that define it. They argue that IOs, through their bureaucratic structures, create new categories of actors, define new interests, and shape global norms and practices. This process can lead to dysfunctional or even pathological behavior, as IOs may act in ways that are unanticipated by their creators. The authors highlight that IOs are not just passive mechanisms but can become powerful actors in their own right, with their own agendas and values. They challenge the statist ontology prevalent in international relations theories, which view IOs as mere extensions of state interests. Instead, they argue that IOs can be autonomous, with their own norms and values that may conflict with those of states. This perspective is supported by examples from the UN, World Bank, and UNHCR, where IOs have demonstrated significant influence and autonomy. The article also discusses the sources of IO autonomy and authority, including the legitimacy of rational-legal authority and control over technical expertise and information. These factors enable IOs to act independently, often in ways that are not aligned with the interests of their creators. The authors argue that the same rational-legal characteristics that make IOs powerful can also lead to inefficiency and self-defeating behavior, as seen in the case of the UN's peacekeeping efforts and the World Bank's influence on development policies. The authors further explore how IOs exercise power through classification, meaning-making, and norm diffusion. They argue that IOs can shape the world by defining categories of actors, fixing meanings in the social world, and articulating and diffusing new norms and principles. This process can lead to the legitimization of certain practices and the marginalization of others, often in ways that are not aligned with the interests of states. The article concludes by emphasizing the need for a more comprehensive understanding of IO behavior, one that moves beyond the traditional state-centric frameworks and recognizes the autonomous and normative power of IOs. This approach provides a new perspective on the role of IOs in global politics, highlighting their ability to shape the world through their own structures and values.