Is the Promise of International Institution False - Essay Example

Is the promise of international false? al Affiliation) Is the promise of international false? International relation is abroad study that explains relationship that exists among countries and the roles of international organizations such as non-government organization, international on-government organization among others. International affairs fall under the field of political science though there has been questions demanding to know whether it has fulfilled its promise for international institutions. Failures of institutions its promise of security There has been a constant correlation between peacekeeping and national institutions, which has resulted to several theories, which explain the relation between institutions and the sovereign states. The international institution has not conformed to its agenda maintaining world peace as it has been witnessed that institutions such as IGOs do not include its entire agenda in societal and international issues1. Some institutions relates to issues of economic while ignoring cultural, and security issues. International institutions have encountered several critiques questioning their involvement in world issue. The arguments view these institutions as a basic reflection of power distribution in the world2. They have based their self-interest on calculations of achieving great powers and not possessing independent effects on behavior of the states. This shows that the institutions might be seen to be relevant in spreading norms that are common to states but they still do not enhance interstate peace being that they still need to have complex institutional structure to reduce chances of conflicts among states. Besides, the IGOs that still do not include security issues in their agenda, but majors on fewer issues cannot pursue management of conflicts in a peaceful manner .Therefore, the institutions should avoid creation of groups based on powers of those states so that they can abandon their individual interest and be in position to reach mutual agreement. By doing this the institutions can now receive favorable arguments that they are surely decreasing conflicts among states. These issues have therefore resulted to invention of various theories that are concerned with peaceful conflict resolution among warring states3. Empirical evidences There have been several empirical evidences showing that commercial institutional peace research to have done commendable work in ensuring that the incidences of military interstate conflict reduced. This has been made possible through the following way; firstly, commercial institutions haveensured that they increase the opportunity cost of war for various states. Secondly this institution has ensured that it provide information to member countries about the overall capability of the military to other institutional participants which in turn makes bargain for peace to take place in most efficiency way4. Many commercial institutions have ensured that they bring most powerful leaders together on regular basis. This has helped tremendously in building trust to enable them overcome specific commitment tribulations in international bargaining. Besides, statistics shows that commercial institution with many organs with high-level status leader’s shows to other states a substantively strong and significant statistics effect in minimizing the outbreak of conflict that could arise among militaries. International organization has hastened resolution of conflict in many states through use of peaceful conflict management techniques. Findings show that disputes that end a well-negotiated way may have stronger possibilities to produce longer lasting peace. The organizations have also ensured that they have well equipped military and political organizations to enable them endure a lasting peace. These organizations have also made sure that they reduce hostility across time in current disputes. Minor theories of international relation The first theory under the international relation was normative theory that holds issues that could be used to make the world better place as one of its top aims. This theory addressed ethical question in international relations. It overlooked various theories and different approaches on moral theory, political theory and international relation theories. The main key division that exists in normative theory is between the cosmopolitan and communitarism. Cosmopolitanism advocated on all people in the world possessing equal moral standards .On the other hand communitarism emphasized on moral significant of various communities and how much they showed their loyalties. Another important key division in normative theory is between deontological and consequentiality forms of reasoning. Reasoning behind consequentiality entails things that are used to make moral decision based on our choices outcome. In deontological reasoning, certain acts may be wrong despite of their repercussions. Therefore normative theory gives the following insights to the study of international relation.fistly.it shows the important of norms in international relation that is, they exemplify establishment of codes that actors should refrain from doing. Normative theory also highlights the questions such as, who counts and the sites of value that affect moral inclusions when it comes to response to practical questions in international politics. It also acts as moral agents of global realm that overlooks moral responsibility of states. This is experienced in different international theories that often implicit positions of agencies of actors who should face consequences for how action are uprightly evaluated, Liberalism is another minor theory if international relation that holds state preference more than the capability of the state, whichis a primary determinant of a given state.Liberalisms allows participation every individual in state activities. This causes different preference for individuals depending on the factors like economic, culture, or government type5. Liberalism also ensure that continuous interaction between states is not limited to politic or security alone but also economic and cultural whether it is through organization, commercial firms or by individuals. Institutional and realist theory debate Institutional theory is another important concept in international relation. For long,this theory has been regarded as a vibrant theory that has been synthesized and contrasted with various numbers of approaches. It has risen to prominence in explanation of both organization and individual actions. This theory has received a numberof critiques for its homogeneity, persistence use in explanation of different phenomena. This theory focuses on sociological development and view of situations in the way they interact, and in the way, they affect society. Realist, always believes that anarchical is the most important system of government. Here, thegeneralintentions of the state are hidden, as countries believe that it is the most important way to keep their security issues to themselves6. This is because some states do not trust the intention of other states when it comes to issues of security. Unlike the realist, theinstitutionalist does always believe in institutions as way to improve their security in their countries since they trust the member’s states. Institutional changes of these theories create an important contribution by alerting the attention to sources of institutional change, more specifically when it relates to deinstitutionalizationof existing practices and norms. Institutional theory has several sources of pressure on practices and norms, these include political, functional, and social source. Therefore, pressure that is perceived to in performance level makes the functional pressure. These were newer sociological changes accompanied in the new institutionalism theory. Political institution in Britain and USA dominated political science, whichended after the war period had ended. This old institutional majored on analyzing formal of governments and different states in relative areas. The behavioral upheaval came up with new ways of analyzing politics in various ways such as rational choice theory, behavior and positivism7. The late institutional theory now recognizes that institutional require to operate in an environment with other sectors of institution. Most research carried out within these new institutionalisms deals extensively with pervasive institution influence on several human behaviors through rules and norms. The new institutional has greatly contributed towards a much better type of cognitive influence which sums that, instead of operating under rules or obligation, individuals acts on basis of conception .The institution has drawn much of its inspirations from its several disciplines which include normative institutionalism, rational choice of institutionalism, historical institutionalism and empirical institutionalism among others. Nevertheless, this new institution faces critiques from proponents of older institution who are more salient in the way in which it currently addresses institutional changes as one o instances of maximization. Political realism is apolitical philosophical theory that attempts to explain and prescribes political relation among states. It brings out an assumption that power is the end of any political action whether it happens in domestic or either international ground. Domestic asserts that that politicians should fight to capitalize on their power, while on the other hand, international ground, the nation states are portrayed as primary agents that should maximize their power. This showsthat political realism in essence reduces ethnical politics principle that is right. Political realism creates an assumption that interest should be maintained through power exercise in that highly competing power bases characterize the current world. Internationally most political theorist emphasizes on the nation as a relevantagentsstate. Descriptive political realism holds that the internationals society is characterized by anarchy as no government in the world overrides and this therefore enforces a common rule code. This type of anarchy does not need to be chaotic, however, member state may still engage in treaties or trading patterns of that sort8. The strongest description of political realisms insists that nations are necessarily self-seeking in that they can form policy only if, the terms of what state can gain or cannot by their general nature of interest cast aside. However, if descriptive realism is brought into a closed theory, and then it can denies all counter factual evidence in its own terms. The examination of sound descriptive political realism relies on possibility of knowing motives of politics, which therefore means knowing different motives of officers in state offices or diplomats. Both prescriptive and descriptive political realism argues that nations should pursue their interest of their own however, the actual state of international relation. It therefore resolves to diverse shades, which depend on claims of national interest standards. Economic power of doctrines has long been used to give more support to political realism. Political theorist has and mercantilist maintains that political power can only be kept constant or raised through reduction of imports of national and increasing annual exports. Therefore, the proposition that growth can occur at a nation at the expense of other nation is a common denominator between these two points. The characterization of political realist as common moralists should be used to maintain national interest. The poignant criticism always arises from definition of morality that has been twisted or changed to create assumptions that acting in one’s own interest is immoral. This discussion invokes impartiality of ethics on those who believe in universal system of ethics9. However if morality welcomes the acts of serving self-interest, then it can be said that political realism of politics is moral. There has been intense argument between the institutional theorist and their counterparts on the realist side. Institutional theorist like Robert Keohane and Lisa Martin who supports the international institutional as possible way in which organizations can promote peace and stability among states. On the other hand,the realist also claims that international institutions cannot bring states together in order to promote peace since most states do not trust one another more so the super power states who know they are powerful hence put less regard to the minor inferior states10. Realist, on their side of argument sees the world as anarchic place that do not accept the issue of global governance. For them they regard international institution as a dependent indication of involving state powers therefore, they are unable top to alter the behavior of some states. An independent variable tries to explain that peace and war are not institution as regarded by institutional theorist; to them they view these two as balance of power. They believe that existence of most powerful states helps create the economy as well as aids in shaping of the economy, they view these states as the main dictators of global economy therefore bringing such countries under one organization is not possible11. Besides, in a realist world, states are seen as obsessed with separate logic gains, that is these states can only cooperate only if they know that they will reap more benefits from such organizations. These self-interests of these nations has made long-term contract very difficult and thus the general cooperation of organizations cannot work. Furthermore, most realist also lay their arguments that international institution have not been able to more influence on world politics and therefore such theories of institutionalism should not be accepted within international relations. According to Mearsheimer a realist advocate, he feels that most states are always in constant fear of their national security and therefore distrust completely the individual intention and motives of states in an organization. The presence of fear among states has been a stumble block to development of institutions since the realist believes that nation might become restless with no idea of the nation plotting war or attack against them. Besides the realist, believe that these institutions are merely used by dominant states to promote their own interest Realist also believes that liberalism of institutions do not interfere with the waya state is governed or rationalizes. Liberal institutionalism comes to terms with realist that nature of various systems is anarchical. This witnessed when they collectively promote security and to the other extent, they do not accept the use of force to resolve disputes. This shows that liberal institutional theory puts a lot of its focus on environment and economic matters and pay less consideration to major concerns of security. This indicates that this theory might not be considered by state that are much concerned with power and general security as they will intend to undermine this type of theory if necessary12. On the other hand, liberal institutionalism argues that institutions plays important role in maintaining stability and peace among various states. Even though they agree that some states would deceive if they were not punished, they strain that institutions creates powerful systems that would convince states to go for long-term contracts, and not short-term contracts. Therefore, the effectiveness of institution can only be determined by its ability to coerce the member states to cooperate and to shun unworthy behaviors13. In contrast to the beliefs of realists, institutions have become independent factor that can affect state behavior. According to liberal institutionalism, relative logic gains is not that much important as realist claim it to be. Besides, institution may deliberately address the distributive justice issues14. The collective security theory uses a similarapproach; this envisions the world as a place where aggressors are confronted automatically by international society15. Hence, states should not consider their national interest so narrowly but ensure they match it wider to the interest of the global society. Realists arguments on what is really required to indicate that liberal institutionalism have appoint is through the historical issues of cooperation that took place between states thereby resulting to stability that could have not taken place without existence of international institutions. In addition, institutions can help prevent conflict from occurring at the start. Therefore, it is unpredictable to say when exactly the stability is prevented. Critical theory also focuses on how to create peace in the world of politics, by entirely changing the mindset of realist. Coming up with ideas of international relations could be one of the successful ways of creating a pace system where the state begin to trust one another as they are led by peaceful norms16. The advocates of this theory also believes that if states can talk in terms of peace and general security, then there is high probability of changing the international system. This theory also states that self-help thinking nations should shun that idea and a global; society must be created to enhance world peace. Strengths of realism Realism as a theory possess both positive and negative advantages, therefore the possible strengths of this theory is that several state are concerned with their relative gain and liberal institutionalism is not considered during the calculation of the state’s outcome. This is because they assume the self-interest of these countries to be anarchic. Weaknesses The critics of the liberal institutional give the reader an indication that the writer of the article is realist and has fixed mindset on the issue. Strengths of institutional theory Institutional theory has been regarded as a means over which flow of information can reach various member states. Institutional theory has been perceptively successful in the analysis of security regimes and reduction of economic sanctions. Weaknesses It was argued that institutionalism only applied to non-security issues. It was realized that institution only provides information over security issues. Core assumption of realism Many contemporary forms of realism lack both coherence and distinctiveness, thus to be able to understand thisassumptions, there has to be clear demonstration of possibility of realist paradigm. The least controversial assumption of realism is the concerns in nature of various social actors; it creates an assumption of unitary actor of politics that achieve different goal in anarchic system. It explains the unit action that an actor within a sovereign unit can undertake. In addition, they also assume that the conflicting groups within a state are rational17. It also assumes the state preference and existence of fixed and uniform conflictual goals within the system of the state. The assumption is based on interstate politics which are bargaining games over which exist the distribution of resources Finally, there is an assumptions related to primacy of material capabilities, this implies realist is apprehended primarily with distributive bargaining determinants among states. Conclusion Various policy makers as well as academic scholars do believe in institutional theories to hold greater future of ensuring international peace to continue to exist. Even though, some of the theories under international institutional are flawed. Institutional theory has been regarded as the most efficient way of ensuring their mutual relationship among states. Besides the limited impacts of institutions, any individual could consider skeptics as major force for peace. Therefore international institutions are likely to be war less, however we cannot tell the extent to which the organizations affect the relations among various states. Total words 3251 References Baker, D., & Wiseman, A. (2006).The impact of comparative education research on institutional theory. Amsterdam: Elsevier JAI. Baylis, J., & Smith, S. (2001). The globalization of world politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Carlsnaes, W., Risse-Kappen, T., & Simmons, B. (2013).Handbook of international relations. London: SAGE Publications. Ehrlich, S. (2011). Access points. New York: Oxford University Press. Morton, P. (2008). An institutional theory of law. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Spiller, P. (2008).An institutional theory of public contracts. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Tight, M. (2005).International relations. Amsterdam: Elsevier JAI. Tihanyi, L., Devinney, T., & Pedersen, T. (2012).Institutional theory in international business and management. Bingley, U.K.: Emerald. Vermeule, A. (2006). Judging under uncertainty. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Aggarwal, Vinod K. [ed.] (2008) Institutional Designs for a Complex World: Bargaining, Linkages, and Nesting (Ithaca, NY: Cornell UniversityPress). Agnew, John (2004) “The Territorial Trap: The Geographical Assumptionsof International Relations Theory,” Review of International Political Economy1: 53-80. Alter, Karen J. (2oo8) “Who Are the ‘Masters of the Treaty’? European Governments are the European Court of Justice,” International Organization52: 121-47.23 Anderson, M.S. (2003) The Rise of Modern Diplomacy 1450-1919. London/New York: Longman. Armstrong, Kenneth, and Simon Bulmer (2008) The Governance of the Single European Market (Manchester: Manchester University Press). Barkin, Samuel J. and Cronin, Bruce (2004) “The State and the Nation: Changing Norms and the Rules of Sovereignty in International Relations,” International Organization 48: 107-30. Bartelson, Jens (2005) A Genealogy of Sovereignty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bierstecker, Thomas J. and Cynthia Weber (2006) ”The Social Construction Of State Sovereignty,” in Thomas J. Bierstecker and Cynthia Weber(eds), State Sovereignty as Social Construct. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown Weiss, Edith and Harold K. Jacobson [Eds] (2008) Engaging Countries: Strengthening Compliance with International Environmental Accords. Cambridge: MIT Press. Bull, Hedley (2007) The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics(London: Macmillan). Bulmer, Simon J. (2008) “New Institutionalism and the Governance of the Single European Market,” Journal of European Public Policy 5:365-86. Read More