airstrike in 2007. The Agency had no prior knowledge of the facility and only collected evidence
after Israel's attack. In 2011, Syria was found in violation of its obligations based on information
provided, mainly by the US and other non-independent sources. Many countries abstained from
voting in the Board of Governors, arguing that no country should be accused without fully
independent technical evidence. They feared that such intelligence could be politically
manipulated. Therefore, political contestation over inspections and the reliability of information
poses a threat to the Agency’s credibility and consensus on its performance.
Some countries, particularly in the Middle East, accuse the IAEA of applying double standards
and discriminatory approaches. For instance, they argue that the Agency monitors the nuclear
programs of countries like Iraq, North Korea, and Iran with greater intensity, while others such as
India, Pakistan, and Israel—despite not being members of the NPT—are not subject to the same
level of scrutiny. Others believe the IAEA is influenced by major powers, especially the US, and
that its monitoring policies are aligned with their national interests. Because some countries are
not obliged to implement the IAEA’s Additional Protocols, they can limit inspector access and
thus exercise greater control over international monitoring. A common criticism of the Agency is
its failure to reduce the nuclear arsenals of nuclear-armed states. Despite its non-proliferation
efforts, the US and Russia continue to develop advanced nuclear weapons systems. Some members
also argue that the Agency's inspections are exploited as tools for political pressure by global
powers, especially when cases are referred to the Security Council. It is also argued that despite
9
advancements in the IAEA’s monitoring technologies, there is still the risk that some countries
maintain undeclared and clandestine nuclear programs undetected by the Agency (Bunn, 2003).
Conclusion
The IAEA is one of the most specialized IOs. It was established in response to the shared concerns
and needs of global powers and the international community, aimed at controlling the proliferation
of nuclear weapons and promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy. According to Liberal
Institutionalism, the Agency has contributed to increasing international cooperation and
interaction, enhancing transparency, reducing the costs of collaboration, and fostering trust in
highly sensitive areas such as nuclear technology. As mentioned earlier, during the critical years
of the Cold War—when the international environment was dominated by the rivalry and mutual
distrust of the superpowers—the establishment of the IAEA facilitated global cooperation.
On the other hand, in line with Neorealism, it becomes clear that the conflicting interests of major
powers within the anarchic international system have created a suitable environment for disputes
and challenges facing the Agency. Multiple factors, such as geopolitical rivalries, differing
interpretations of the Agency’s mission, its reliance on information provided by member states,
and the unequal distribution of power within decision-making structures, have all contributed to
these contestations. As a result, the efficiency and legitimacy of the IAEA have been consistently
called into question.
Ultimately, the IAEA, despite being the product of international cooperation aimed at managing
nuclear challenges, has simultaneously functioned as an arena for the continuation of political
rivalries and disputes. Analysing this reality through the lenses of Liberal Institutionalism and
Neorealism provides a comprehensive understanding of the reasons behind the Agency’s
establishment and the controversies surrounding it. The Agency remains at the centre of
10
international tensions, and its future depends on global developments and how the great powers
choose to engage with it.
@Human_rights_for_world
