The Upper and Lower Bounds of the International Cooperation Process - Essay Example

? Section/# International Cooperation: the Upper and Lower Bounds of the Process One of the most dynamic aspects of international integration that has been evidenced over the past century is with regards to the seemingly increasing nature of what many scholars and political scientists have referred to as the rise in “international cooperation”. This trend, as it will be dubbed within this brief analysis, has been one that has been primarily misunderstood by both stakeholders of the international political arena as well as societal members. Rather than attributing the bounds that international cooperation operates within, a type of optimistic approach that international cooperation will exist in each and every situation and seek to further the greater good of all parties is tacitly believed. Naturally, this is a naive approach to world relations and one that cannot be reasonably expected to exist at any level as the parties that are integrating with one another are ultimately self interested and seek to maximize their own good at each and every juncture (Chandy & Kharas, 2011). Ultimately, as this analysis will argue, there are distinct limits of expectation that should be established with respect to the way in which international cooperation will be exhibited. As a means of providing relevant situational examples for this, several of the key exhibitions of the limitations and constraints to international cooperation will be elaborated upon and referenced within this brief analysis. In this way, it is the hope of this author that after integrating with a further understanding of what constitutes the bounds of international cooperation, the reader might come to a more informed understanding of how international cooperation is exhibited within the current model and how one might expect it to be exhibited within the near future in any number f different inter-state interactions that may take place. Looking back into the not so distant past, it is the understanding of this author that two distinct indicators of international cooperation can be found to exist. These are the needs and expectations/demand for sovereignty as well as the continual and a surge of need for the propagation of self interest. With regards to the latter, this is one of the terms and understandings that most closely define international relations on any particular level. Likewise, with regards to the former, this is perhaps the most fundamental aspect of state behavior as it lies at the core of almost each and every action that is state engages in (Zaum, 2010). Nonetheless, even though these two concepts are heavily leveraged with respect to international relations, they are none the less salient to a more complete understanding of international cooperation. For instance, if one takes the case of the Marshall plan, instituted by the United States at the close of World War II as a means of rebuilding a war-ravaged Europe, the self interests of this particular program was with regards to developing a resilient and robust series of economies within Western Europe that could stand up to the growing threat that the Soviet Union posed in the East (Hogan, 1989). Likewise, the cooperation that was noted between these nations and the United States was with respect to the fact that this program did not infringe upon self-interest or sovereignty to a large enough degree for the recipient nations to refuse such aid (Tinsley, 2007). In such a way, both determinants of the rubric lain out above have been met and thus international cooperation is something that can be expected to have taken place in this particular situation. Likewise, as history has proven, this is indeed the result and can be attested to in a variety of other somewhat similar situations. Similar situations to the one described above are not only relegated to history, rather the determinant of sovereignty and self interest of both parties continues to define the exhibition of international cooperation and is noted with regards to the way in which the WHO, WTO, IMF, World Bank, and a litany of other international organizations seek to integrate the needs and self interests/sovereignty of the member states in order to accomplish the goals and metrics that they have set for one another and for themselves. With regards to a further proof of the fact that the two determinants which have been listed are of the utmost importance, the reader should look to the fact that the League of Nations ultimately collapsed due to the fact that it was unable to speak to the self interests of the respective states in question. In such a way, after the Second World War, nations around the world became fully cognizant of the fact that the League of Nations failure was due primarily to this oversight. In such a way, the United Nations was founded, and continues to operate, with a profound directive that is dually cognizant and aware of the fact that sovereignty and self-interest must to represented and understood/appreciated in each and every interaction (Schlesinger, 2004). It must be understood at this particular juncture that the means of definition by which self interests in fall are one of the primary constraints to the way in which international Corporation is evidenced. What is meant by this is the fact that even a definition as seemingly straightforward and “obvious” as human rights can be interpreted a litany of different ways and leveraged as a means of promoting self interests of one region/state over the self interests/needs of another. It is partly due to this fact that there remains so little consensus with regards to an international human rights treaty that would be binding and enforceable by the United Nations or any other global authority (Klotz, 2002). Due to the fact that individual states interpret such determinants in different manners, it is possible, and indeed likely, that such a tool would be utilized to place the needs or interests of one particular region/state over the needs and interests of another (Sharp, 2005). Likewise, this can be seen as yet another primary example of the bounds, or limits, that international cooperation is likely to experience. Once again, the issue of sovereignty springs to prominence when one considers a situation in which a nation or group of nations might seek to enforce a particular rule of law on another. Evidence of this type of action can be noted with regards to a litany of situations over the past several decades to include, Somalia, Rwanda, Cambodia, Bosnia, Iraq (Desert Storm), Afghanistan, and a variety of others (Moravcsik, 2000). Due to the fact that firm and strict delineation of rules exist with respect to international human rights and the rule of law demand action on the part of stakeholder nations, many of these find themselves forced to act in a situation that does not promote their best interests. However, from the opposite side of the situation, the side of the nation being forced to compliance, it can be noted that the behavior that is being affected upon them directly diminishes their sovereignty and/or self determination as well as simultaneously taking away their self interest. Although it is true that many of the horrors that have been perpetrated by warlords, dictators, and democratically elected regimes over the past few years have been worthy of response by the international community, the realization for why these interventions are so hotly contested and tend to raise such ire in the hearts and minds of those individuals affected is clearly understood. Sadly, there is oftentimes a level of self interest on the part of the interveners as well (Keck, 1998). As can be clearly noted in some of the ways in which the intervention nations have benefitted monetarily from business ventures within the nations that they have engaged with to depose or “resolve” a dispute, self interest alone does not magically vaporize at the moment that a given international dispute or crisis of human rights exists (Williams, 1999). In the situation that has been elaborated upon within this brief analysis underscores the fact that nearly each and every international engagement that has taken place over the recent past is intrinsically linked to either an issue of sovereignty or an issue of self interest or perhaps both. Though not a surprising revelation, the sheer extent and level to which instances of these can be understood from the situations that have been referenced highlight the fact that these underlying influences not only impact upon certain levels of foreign policy but also intrinsically constrain the level and extent to which international behavior is evidenced (Klotz, 1995). Moreover, the importance that these interests have in defining and helping to delineate multinational behavior is an issue of extreme importance as the confluence of interests oftentimes disproportionally impacts upon the needs and rights of other nations in a way that can only be understood once the reader is aware and appreciative of the fact that both self interest and sovereignty form the backbone of international cooperation and the means by which key actions are defined and undertaken by different nations and/or groups of nations. References Chandy, L, & Kharas, H 2011, 'Why Can't We All Just Get Along? The Practical Limits to International Development Cooperation', Journal Of International Development, 23, 5, pp. 739-751, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 1 August 2013. Hogan, M. 1989. The Marshall Plan: America, Britain and the Reconstruction of Western Europe, 1947-1952 (Studies in Economic History and Policy: USA in the Twentieth Century). First Paperback Edition. Cambridge University Press. Keck, M. 1998. Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. 1 Edition. Cornell University Press. Klotz, A 2002, 'Transnational Activism and Global Transformations: The Anti-Apartheid and Abolitionist Experiences', European Journal Of International Relations, 8, 1, p. 49, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 1 August 2013. Klotz, A 1995, 'Norms reconstituting interests: Global racial equality and U.S. sanctions against South Africa', International Organization, 49, 3, pp. 451-478, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 1 August 2013. Moravcsik, A 2000, 'The Origins of Human Rights Regimes: Democratic Delegation in Postwar Europe', International Organization, 54, 2, pp. 217-252, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 1 August 2013. Schlesinger, S. 2004. Act of Creation: The Founding of the United Nations. Edition. Basic Books. Sharp, A 2005, 'The Enforcement of the Treaty of Versailles, 1919–1923', Diplomacy & Statecraft, 16, 3, pp. 423-438, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 1 August 2013. Tinsley, E 2007, 'HOW IMF, WORLD BANK FAILED AFRICA. (Cover story), New African, 458, pp. 12-16, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 1 August 2013. Williams, D 1999, 'Constructing the Economic Space: The World Bank and the Making of Homo Oeconomicus', Millennium (03058298), 28, 1, pp. 79-99, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 1 August 2013. Zaum, D 2010, 'The United Nations: a very short introduction', Cold War History, 10, 2, pp. 273-274, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 1 August 2013. Read More