Is the 'Promise' of International Institutions False - Coursework Example

Is the Promise of international s false’? al Affiliation) Introduction Liberal alism Theory believe that International Institutions such as UN,EU, NATO, ASEAN can mitigate the future conflict between states and bring them together to cooperate. Institutionalism Theorists like Robert Keohane and Lisa Martin explain and use empirical example to prove that International Institutions can promote peace and stability between states. On the other hand, Realist critics like, J. Mearsheimer opposes this view. He believes that International politics is dictates by Anarchy and therefore states resort to self-help mechanism and through this, they strive to maximize their power. Realist believes, International Institutions cannot bring states together and promote peace because states do not trust each other. From the study of international relations, some arguments come from the theories themselves while others are imported from other disciples such as sociology and economics. The theories that are developed on international relations are internal or external contested and there is little belief on the scholars on one another. Realism Realism bases its argument that international system is mainly defined by anarchy, which is due to lack of central authority. Through the theory and anarchy, states are sovereign and are considered autonomous to each other. In the argument, the anarchical system, the main player is the power that a state have, which is the only variable of interest since only through the power that occur in the states the states, are able to defend them and enable their survival1. Realism theory through realists understands power in ways such as economic, military, and diplomatic way. The emphasis however is based on the distribution of coercive material capacity as the determinant of international politics2. Realism claims through its theories that the best strategy that a country should pursue is hegemony. Defensive realists argue that domain is a strategy that is not wise strategy for state survival. They think that seeking hegemony is not appropriate, as it is able to bring conflicts with the peers of the country3. Realists then emphasizes on the balance of power system where there is somewhat equal distribution of powers among states that ensures none is able to attack the other. Emphasis that is made by realists on power and anarchy leads them to a slight view international law and international institutional. There have been belief that the facets of international politics to be just epiphenomenal meaning that they reflect the balance of power but are not constraints of able to influence behavior of the state. In a system that is anarchical, realists also think that the law can only be implemented through state power. If enforcement is impossible, then there will be no agreement of cooperation through a treaty or institution in the first place. This will make a state create international law and international institution through which they enforce the laws. In the argument, they consider that it is not the rules that determine why a state is able to work and behave in a particular way but it is through the underlying interest in materials and power relations. International relation is thus considered a symptom of state behavior but not the cause. Through the theory, there is an argument based on four assumptions. In the first assumptions, realists claim that the survival of a country is the principle aim of every nation. Foreign occupation and invasion are the most pressing pressure that a state is able to face. Even if domestic interest, strategic culture or commitment to a number of national ideals may dictate more benevolent or objectives that international relations may have4. The anarchy used in the system needs that states should always ensure that they have enough power to defend themselves and enhance their material interest needed for survival. The second assumption in this matter is that realists hold states to act rationally. Through the rationalism, when they are given the aim of survival, the states are thought to act best they can in order to maximize their likelihood and to continue to exist. The third assumption in realism is that all states have military capacity and through this, no military state knows what the other neighboring states intend precisely. The fourth assumption is that in such world, there is consideration of great power where the state with economic might and mainly military might are the ones that decide on the direction to be taken5. Realists also think that in order to ensure survival in the states, states will seek to maximize their power relative to others. In the consideration, if a country has the power to threaten the other country, then the country is never safe. Institutionalism Internationalists have shared many assumptions that have been used by realists about international system. The assumptions that have been made through the theory are those on anarchy, self-interest in the states, rational actions of states and that through uncertainty there is no belief on countries. However, institutionalism is mainly based on microeconomic theory and game theory to come to a radical different conclusion that they state that there is possibility of corporation between countries. A central insight in this theory is cooperation may be a rational, self-interest strategy for countries so that they are able to pursue under given conditions that they face. In an example, when consideration is made on two countries that are involved in trade, when the countries are partners and both decide to lower their tariffs they will trade more and each will become more prosperous but none of them would like to lower barriers unless it can be sure the other will lower the tariffs too6. There is however doubt of such cooperation by realists that it is able to be sustained in the absence of coercive power since both the countries would have incentives to state they are open to trade , dump the goods that they produce onto the market of other country and not allow any imports7. Realist also believes that liberalism of institutions do not interfere with the way a 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 necessary. 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 behaviors Institutionalism argues with consideration of institutions, which contain set of rules, norms, procedures in making decisions that shape expectations and practices. Through the practices, they can be overcome through uncertainties that undermine cooperation in the countries8. In removal of barriers, the institutions extend the time horizons of interaction, enabling the creation of an interactive game rather than dealing in a single round. Countries that agree on tariffs may benefit from tricking their neighbors in a single round of negotiation9. However, countries that know they must interact with the same partners repeatedly through an institution will result to have incentives that make them comply with agreements in the short term so that they are able to obtain the benefits of co-operation in the long term. Institutionalisms also argue that there is increase in information about state behavior. Through this, it is considered that uncertainty is an important reason that realists doubt the cooperation can be continued. Institutions collect information about state behavior and always make judgment of compliance or non-compliance with the given rules. State thus knows they are will not be able to get away with it this they are made to comply with the rules10. Institutionalism argues that there is ability to increase efficiency in institutions and countries. It is costly for states to negotiate with the others on the hoc basis. Institutions are able to reduce the transaction cost involved in coordination through provisions of central forums in which states are able to meet. There is also provision of focal point by institutionalisms through establishment of rules and norms that allow a wide array of state to agree on a central course of action. Through this, institutionalism thus provide a reason for international cooperation based on the same theoretical assumptions that lead to realists to be doubtful of international law and institutions. A way through which international lawyers understand institutionalism a rationalist theoretical and empirical account of the way and that reason international law works. Many of the conclusions reached by international scholars will be surprising to the international most of which have understood for a long time the role played by reputation and reciprocity in boosting international legal obligations. There was however backing up by careful empirical studies of international institutions widely defined, is able to help international lawyers and those that make policies in designing more effective and a more durable institutions and regimes 11. Comparison between institutionalism and realism theory 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 issues. The collective security theory uses a similar approach; this envisions the world as a place where aggressors are confronted automatically by international society12. 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 states. 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 power13. 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 possible. 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 work14. 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 A central insight in institutionalism theory is that cooperation may be a rational, self-interest strategy for countries so that they are able to pursue under given conditions that they face. In an example, when consideration is made on two countries that are involved in trade, when the countries are partners and both decide to lower their tariffs they will trade more and each will become more prosperous but none of them would like to lower barriers unless it can be sure the other will lower the tariffs too15. There is however doubt of such cooperation by realists that it is able to be sustained in the absence of coercive power since both the countries would have incentives to state they are open to trade , dump the goods that they produce onto the market of other country and not allow any imports. Strengths of institutionalism theories Argument through Institutionalism Theory that International institutions can reduce the chance of conflicts and provide opportunity for states to communicate and build peaceful international environment is true. Therefore, broadly speaking, institutions are important because they shape or influence the behavior, power, and policy preferences of political actors. The stress here on determining and influencing suggests that institutional dynamics, at the same time as often important, do not explain everything16. The preferences and resources of political actors might be drawn from a number of sources. In addition, institutionalism is a ‘middle-range’ theory because institutions can be thought of as standing above actors but below wider ‘structural’ forces in politics. These broader structural factors include, for example, the impact of class forces or the impact of the domestic or international economy on politics. This raises the question of where to draw the boundaries of institutional factors: particularly since, it is clear that macro-level structures, such as class relations, also clearly affect behavior. Ultimately, the distinctions here are analytical in nature. It is important to distinguish between institutional and broader structural issues, mainly since the past often play an important part in determining and arbitrating the impact of the latter17. For example, class forces are important in all capitalist societies, but the actual impact of such forces will be mediated by the institutional makeup of the state, by the nature of trade union organization or by the dynamics of party competition. Another example is that the impact that international economic pressures have on national policy will be affected by a country’s economic structure and by the institutional capacities and make-up of the state18. In this respect tells an interesting story about how the impact of British financiers in shaping policy responses to the 1930s Depression in Australia was limited by our federal division of powers between State and federal governments in economics, institutionalism have been seen to have the impact on economics as there can be reduction of cost and various associated forms of market uncertainties and also there is reduction of information cost and the actions have helped to monitor and enforce contract and agreements. Institutions hence are observed to organize a process through which there is pulling back from the open market to help in internalizing certain forms of transactions to enable coping up with the problems. Institutional theory has been regarded as a means over which flow of information can reach various members states. Institutional theory has been perceptively successful in the analysis of security regimes and reduction of economic sanctions. 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 of instances of maximization. Theories by institutionalisms also focus 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 norms. 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 peace19. In an example, political institution in Britain and USA dominated political science, which ended 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 positivism. 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. Conclusion From arguments that have been analyzed on realism and institutionalism, it can be argued that institutionalism is important. Institutionalism Theory that International institutions can reduce the chance of conflicts and provide opportunity for states to communicate and build peaceful international environment. 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. Bibliography Baylis, John, and Steve Smith. The Globalization Of World Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Breuer, Joseph, and Howard F Fehr. Introduction To The Theory Of Sets. Newburyport: Dover Publications, 2012. Carlsnaes, Walter, Thomas Risse-Kappen, and Beth A Simmons. Handbook Of International Relations. London: SAGE Publications, 2013. Comfort, Alex, Alex Comfort, and Alex Comfort. Reality And Empathy. New York: Paragon, 2004. Dahlstrom, Daniel O. Realism. Washington, D.C.: National Office of the American Catholic Philosophical Association, 2005. Deutsch, Karl W. The Analysis Of International Relations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 2008. Ehrlich, Sean D. Access Points. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Grant, Damian. Realism. [London]: Methuen, 2000. Losskiĭ, N. O, and Natalie Duddington. Intuitionalism. [S.l.: s.n., 2004. Malpas, James. Realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Mandel, Tom. Realism. Providence: Burning Deck, 2001. McRobert, Jennifer. Kants Intuitionalism, n.d. Morris, Pam. Realism. London: Routledge, 2003. Morton, Peter. An Institutional Theory Of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2008. Nochlin, Linda. Realism. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 2001. Peters, B. Guy. Institutional Theory In Political Science. London: Pinter, 2009. Spiller, Pablo T. An Institutional Theory Of Public Contracts. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2008. Stremmel, Kerstin, and Uta Grosenick. Realism. Koln: Taschen, 2004. Tight, Malcolm. International Relations. Amsterdam: Elsevier JAI, 2005. Tihanyi, Laszlo, Timothy M Devinney, and Torben Pedersen. Institutional Theory In International Business And Management. Bingley, U.K.: Emerald, 2012. Vermeule, Adrian. Judging Under Uncertainty. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2006. Read More