1. For instance, von Borzyskowski and Vabulas (2025) show that IO exit has not been increasing over time and that the reputational and cooperative costs of exit constrain its use. Arias et al. (2025) examine IMF GRAYS to show that involvement in IOs gives weak states voice; this means they may still support an IO even though they have little formal influence in it. Carnegie et al. (2024) also examine IMF GRAYS and argue that the attack on IOs by many populist governments is performative; behind the scenes, these governments still see value in these organizations and therefore would not work to eliminate them.

2. While no readers will gripe about whether these IOs matter on the world stage, the case selection strategy could be criticized because it does not include other important IOs that faced existential challenges at the same time. For example, the European Union following Brexit, the World Health Organization (WHO) following the Covid pandemic and the US announced withdrawal, and the Organization for Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) during a green energy transition all represent important cases. It would have been helpful to readers if the authors had outlined their case selection methodology in a more structured way and how their findings might generalize (or not).

The author does not have financial or non-financial interests that are directly or indirectly related to the work submitted for publication.

Authors and Affiliations

1. Pepperdine University, 24255 Pacific Coast Hwy, Malibu, CA, 90263, USA

   Felicity Vabulas

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Felicity Vabulas.

Responsible Editor: Christopher Kilby

Reprints and permissions