better known as INTERPOL, is such a case. In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York, so will be argued below, INTERPOL remarkably improved institutional structures and strengthened its political scope of duties towards international terrorism. Its counter-terrorism strategies comprised technological innovation and bureaucratic efficiency with the objective of accelerating efficient crime fighting, on the one hand, as well as tightened cooperation with other (inter)national partner organisations with the aim of fostering a world-spanning anti-terrorist network, on the other. Both means go for the overall idea- and knowledge-based realignment that INTERPOL underwent in recent years under Secretary General Ronald K. Noble since his inauguration in 2000. The essay is structured as follows: Throughout the first section, the sociological institutionalist approach of Barnett and Finnemore will be presented in comparative perspective to major IR theories. The approach suggests a number of assumptions and implications to the behavioural study of international organizations that will be elaborated further. The shortcomings, which are inherent in neorealist and neoliberalist concepts, will be seen as the starting point for the theoretical and empirical gains that the international bureaucracy approach provide. Subsequently, the concept will be applied to INTERPOL as an important international security organization in the field of counter-terrorism. Structural, political and technological adaptations that the organisation deployed in the aftermath of the 9/11 events make it a remarkable example of the accuracy and applicability of Barnett¿s and Finnemore¿s approach.