Page 1 of 23
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 10, No. 4
Publication Date: April 25, 2023
DOI:10.14738/assrj.104.14382.
Mbah, R. E., Mbah, E. F., Hultquist, L., & Repp, R. (2023). The 2020s Global Crises: A Discussion of How International Institutions
are Responding to the Russia-Ukraine Crisis and Climate Change Crisis. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 10(4). 76-98.
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
The 2020s Global Crises: A Discussion of How International
Institutions are Responding to the Russia-Ukraine Crisis and
Climate Change Crisis
Ruth Endam Mbah
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8839-9196
Department of Business and Economics,
Bethany College, Lindsborg, KS, USA
Emmanuel Fonjindam Mbah
Catholic University of Central Africa (UCAC),
Yaounde, Cameroon
Laura Hultquist
Department of Criminal Justice,
Bethany College, KS, USA
Rande Repp
Department of Criminal Justice,
Bethany College, KS, USA
ABSTRACT
Humanity in the early 2020s has been endangered by several global crises like
poverty, geopolitical unrest, inflation, pandemics, deepening inequality, supply- chain disruptions, climate change, and the Russia-Ukraine War; just to mention a
few. The need for a social construct through the intervention of international
institutions and non-state actors than individual state actors as postulated by
Constructivists is essential. The purpose of this study is to review the response of
various international organizations (IMF, World Bank, EU, UN, OECD, and NATO) to
the global crises plaguing our world; specifically, Russia-Ukraine and Climate
Change. We review the varied responses to the global impacts of the Russia-Ukraine
war and Climate Change through the lens of Social Constructivism, an International
Relations Theory. This theory emphasizes the impact of our actions on the world we
live in and hence, the need for ‘rules’ that can guide our actions as well as reward
those who follow the rules and punish those who do not. It also postulates the
importance of international organizations/non-state actors in inducing our
behaviors by lobbying or coaxing rather than individual state actors. Borrowing
from the tenets of this theory, it is evident that our world needs the collaborative
action of states through international relations and not individual state responses
to combat these current global crises. This collaborative strategy is evident via the
various responses (sanctions, emotional, material, weaponry) from the different
international institutions listed in this study to the Russia-Ukraine war. Moreso,
there continue to be diverse progressive collaborative conferences and policy
reviews by member states of each of the international institutions listed in this
Page 2 of 23
77
Mbah, R. E., Mbah, E. F., Hultquist, L., & Repp, R. (2023). The 2020s Global Crises: A Discussion of How International Institutions are Responding to
the Russia-Ukraine Crisis and Climate Change Crisis. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 10(4). 76-98.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.104.14382
study in response to the overwhelming impact of climate change. Even though this
study focuses on international institutions' responses to just two of the global
crises, there is an avenue for further review-research on the other crises.
Keywords: Russia-Ukraine War, Climate Change, Social Constructivism, IMF, World Bank,
EU, UN, OECD, NATO
INTRODUCTION
In the 21st century, we stand at a precipice fraught with dangers that threaten the very fabric of
the world as we know it. Existential threats that currently face humanity include (but are not
limited to) climate change, social upheaval, economic fragility, geopolitical unrest, supply-chain
issues, pandemic-level health threats, rising energy costs, inequality, poverty, and hunger. The
effects are widespread and systemically affect every nation. And in the face of these threats,
humanity is far from reaching a consensus.
Climate change is truly a global phenomenon in all senses of the phrase and its effects are felt
in every aspect of our world and our lives. Increasingly incremental weather changes due to
greenhouse gas emissions have led to hotter summers, colder winters, rising sea levels, more
severe storms, longer wildfire seasons, changes to precipitation patterns, the melting of the
arctic, and rising sea levels (NASA, 2023). These changes have caused 9.4% of all deaths
globally between the years 2000 and 2019 (Millan, 2021) and are estimated to lead to an
additional 250,000 deaths per year between 2030 and 2050 (WHO, 2021). A recent study from
the National Bureau of Economic Research indicates that, if left unchecked, climate change will
overtake infectious disease as a leading cause of death globally by 2100 (Worland, 2020). In
addition to the human cost, the economic impact of these changes is estimated to cost the globe
between 2-3 billion USD by 2030 (WHO, 2021). Green movements which are geared toward
cleaner, more sustainable sources of energy and lifestyles, have sprouted up around the globe
in recent decades to combat climate change before its effects are irreversible (UN Environment
Programme, 2022).
The impact of the Russia-Ukraine conflict on the globe can not go unnoticed. Beginning in
February 2022, the invasion of Ukraine has set off a domino effect that has been felt across the
globe in the spheres of geopolitics, economics, migration, supply chain, and energy availability
and costs to name a few (Neuman and Hurt, 2023). This conflict has caused the greatest
humanitarian crisis on the European continent since WWII (Smit et al., 2022). A recent
investigation conducted jointly by the Ukrainian government, the UN, the World Bank, and the
European Commission estimates that the impact of the conflict has resulted in an estimated
9,655 civilian deaths, damage to 2 million homes, and destruction of infrastructure (AlJazeera,
2023). Current estimates for rebuilding Ukraine are at $411 billion spanning the next ten years
(AlJazeera, 2023). Spiraling out of Ukraine, the conflict has impacted global geopolitical
dynamics, the global supply chain, food production, energy costs, and migration.
Disparate responses to global threats have created the opportunity for international
organizations to influence national and multi-national agendas and thereby direct global action.
The purpose of this paper is to review the international organizational response to two of these
global crises: climate change and the Russia-Ukraine conflict to add to the limited scholarly
research on international organizations’ responses to global crises in the 2020s. This analysis
Page 3 of 23
78
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 10, Issue 4, April-2023
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
will be limited to the 2020s. Within this context, the organizational response will be examined
and critically analyzed from the perspective of social constructivism which deviates from
individual state responses to events but postulates a social collaborative response to events.
This article is divided into five sections. The first section is a brief introduction to the global
crises that have plagued the world in the last few years (the 2020s), thus, the need to review
what various international organizations are doing in response to these crises, specifically
Russia, Ukraine war and the rapid devastating impact of Climate Change. Our second section
focuses on a specific international relation theory: Social Constructivism whose tenets we
consider relevant to our study since it focuses on international or social collaboration in
response to global events than an individual-state response to global events. The third section
focuses on the response to the Russia-Ukraine war by international organizations like the IMF,
World Bank, EU, UN, OECD, and NATO. The fourth section equally focuses on responses to
Climate Change by the IMF, World Bank, EU, UN, and OECD. Our concluding section links our
theory (Social Constructivism) to our findings of the above mention international institutions’
response to both crises.
THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM
Although international relations were studied before 1919 under disciplines like law,
philosophy, economics, politics, and diplomatic history- it was not a separate discipline. The
end of the first World War saw the rise of the formal recognition of International Relations as a
distinct discipline with its introduction at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth. The new
discipline had its separate Chair of International Relations and this made way for many other
Chairs at institutions of higher education in Britain and the United States (Burchill et al., 2005).
The growing interest in this discipline has led to the establishment of several theories of
international relations like Realism, Liberalism, The English School, Marxism, Critical Theory,
Feminism, and Social Constructivism, just to name a few (Burchill et al., 2005; Schieder &
Spindler, 2014; Norwich University Online, 2017). For this article, we will focus on Social
Constructivism.
Social Constructivism, commonly called Constructivism, propagates the significance of ideas,
identity, and interaction of actors and the impact of their actions on the international stage. The
term Constructivism, which has risen rapidly and is redesigning the discussions in international
relations, was invented by Nicholas Greenwood Onuf in 1989 (Collins, 2016) and he is
considered one of the fathers of Constructivism in international relations, although no single
person has been credited for its advent (Peltonen, 2017). Onuf (2012) defines Constructivism
as “a way of studying social relations—any kind of social relations.” Even though
Constructivism can be applied to any field of social inquiry, it was primarily applied to the
discipline of international relations. The foundation of this theory is based on the ideology that
mankind is a social being and that social relations are what makes us human (social relations
make or construct who we are). However, what the world becomes is our making from the
natural resources provided by nature. In other words, we make the world through our actions.
Countries might think or say they are self-contained but there are limitations to that, but the
collaboration between countries (international relations) constitutes a “world in its own right”
(Onuf, 2012).
Page 4 of 23
79
Mbah, R. E., Mbah, E. F., Hultquist, L., & Repp, R. (2023). The 2020s Global Crises: A Discussion of How International Institutions are Responding to
the Russia-Ukraine Crisis and Climate Change Crisis. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 10(4). 76-98.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.104.14382
The introduction of Constructivism is regularly linked to the end of the Cold War. The end of
the Cold War was an event not captured by other traditional international relations theories
like Realism and Liberalism due to their focus on states as self-interested actors. Their focus on
the state did not allow the exploitation of the “agency of individuals,” and it was the actions of
individuals that ended the Cold War and not the states. Constructivism captures the role of
these individuals as it suggests that, ‘the social world is our making.’ In other words, Social
Constructivism sees the world as a social construction (McGlinchey et al., 2017). That is,
individuals, make society, and society, in turn, makes individuals- it is a “two-way process,” -
but, there is a third or middle factor called ‘rules’ or ‘social rules’ that links individuals and
society. These rules are declarations that tell individuals what they should do. There are
consequences when these rules are obeyed or disobeyed and all of the manners in which we
deal or respond to rules are called practices (Onuf, 2012). Onuf (2012) asserts that rules can
inform us about a society’s active participants -agents and “people are agents, but only to the
extent that society, through its rules, makes it possible for us to participate in the many
situations for which there are rules.” Sociological and philosophical theories have been said to
have shaped many of the tenets of constructivism. As a theory that emerged post-Cold War, it
postulates that ‘security’ can be ‘socially constructed,’ as it suggests that the world is rather
social than completely material (Collins, 2016). In other words, Constructivism goes above
material reality by adding the impact of ideas and beliefs on international politics (McGlinchey
et al., 2017).
Social Constructivism has three ontological postulations (1) the importance of ideational
structures over material structures, (2) the significance of identity (includes interests and
cations), (3) structures and states are jointly constituted (the agency is influenced by the
structures and thus, the agency influences the structures) (Collins, 2016; McGlinchey et al.,
2017). The structure represents the international system that is made up of both material and
ideational elements while the agency is simply the ability to act (McGlinchey et al., 2017).
Norwich University Online (2017) summarizes Social Constructivism as a theory that (...) rests
on the notion that rather than the outright pursuit of material interests, it is a nation’s belief
systems—historical, cultural, and social —that explain its foreign policy efforts and behavior...
Constructivists also argue that states are not the most important actors in international
relations, but that international institutions and other non-state actors are valuable in
influencing behavior through lobbying and acts of persuasion. For this reason, constructivism
has become a popular and important theory in recent decades as non-state actors like
international organizations.
The fact that Constructivism postulates the importance of international institutions and non- state actors (agents) as vital influencers of our actions over states is the reason, we chose this
theory over the other theories of international relations. Onuf 2012 states that “Agents act in
society to achieve goals. These goals reflect people’s needs and wish in light of their material
circumstances. Every society has rules telling agents which goals are the appropriate ones for
them to pursue.” Hence, the correlation between the social constructivism theory and our
study, which is focused on how various international institutions respond to the global crisis
affecting society.
Page 5 of 23
80
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 10, Issue 4, April-2023
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS RESPONSE TO RUSSIA-UKRAINE WAR
Preceding the invasion of Ukraine by Russia on February 24, 2022, the relationship between
both countries since the collapse of the Soviet Union has been unstable and conflicted (Mbah &
Wasum 2022). President Zelensky's demand to join NATO as the immediate cause of the 2022
invasion by Russia led to several international responses, especially from Ukraine's Western
allies who imposed huge financial sanctions on Russia (Aloisi & Daniel, 2022; Mbah & Wasum,
2022). The impact of this war has been devasting to not just Ukraine but to the international
community which was already dealing with global supply chain shortages due to the Covid-19
pandemic. A recent study by Mbah, Hultquist, and Repp (2023) on the impact of the 2022
inflation in North America suggests that the Russia-Ukraine War was a significant contributor
to the abnormal inflation rates in Canada, the USA, and Mexico due to the constraints it caused
on the global supply of vital global commodities like crude oil and grain products. Given the
magnitude of the global impact that the Russian-Ukraine war on the international scene, it is,
therefore, significant to review the response that major international institutions like the IMF,
World Bank, EU, UN, OECD, and NATO have had to this global crisis.
The IMF Response to Russia-Ukraine War
An IMF article at the earlier start of the 2022 Russia-Ukraine suggests that the war was a huge
“blow” to the international economy, specifically affecting three major channels: (1) rise in
prices for commodity goods like food and energy leading to high inflation; (2) negative impact
on bordering country economies like supply chain/trade disruptions, remittances and a
historic inflow of refugees; (3) increase in business uncertainty and fall in business poise
leading to tight financial conditions and possible capital outflows from emerging economies
(Kammer et al., 2022). Due to the forecasted global impact that the war was going to have on
the global economy, the IMF began its response strategies as early as February 2022 when the
war just began. On February 25, 2022, the IMF managing director, Kristal Georgieva, met with
IMF’s Executive Board to brief Executive Directors for a preliminary assessment of the crisis.
During this meeting, the IMF resolved to work in close collaborations with the World Bank
Group and other collaborators to support Ukraine as they explored every option to financially
support Ukraine in addition to the already available ‘Stand-By Arrangement’ of an outstanding
sum of US$2.2 billion as well as demanding an IFM emergency finance (IMF, 2022a). On March
1, 2022, the IMF managing Director alongside the World Bank Group President, David Malpass,
issued a statement that suggest that at the level of the World Bank, they were concocting a
package of about $3 billion to further support Ukraine (IMF, 2022b). March 9, 2022, under the
Rapid Financing Instrument (RFI), the IMF Executive Board approved a disbursement of US$1.4
billion (SDR 1,005.9 million) to alleviate the economic impact of the Russia-Ukraine war (IMF,
2022c).
On March 17, 2022, the heads of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
(EBRD), European Investment Bank (EIB), and Council of Europe Development Bank (CEB)
joined the Managing Director of IMF and the World Bank Group president to lend their support
to Ukraine. The EBRD approved a preliminary package of about EUR 2 billion as instant aid to
those directly affected by the war. The EIB at this time was putting in place an emergency
assistance package of EUR 2 billion and speeding up a future commitment of EUR 1.3 billion for
infrastructural reconstruction. The CEB provided grants to Ukraine’s bordering countries to
alleviate the burden resulting from refugees' expenses (IMF, 2022d). On October 7, 2022, under
the ‘new food shock window of the Rapid Financing Instrument,’ the IMF Executive Board