JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA
Review of “The False Promise of International Institutions” By- Farhan Khan CONFLICT ANALYSIS 12/3/2016
INTRODUCTION John J Mearsheimer wrote “The false promise of International Institutions” in order to build his argument , he examines the three basic principles upon which the international institutions are based. In his article he refuted the idealist claim of International institutions being responsible for maintenance of Peace and security. He tries to establish that the International Institutions are “Marginally responsible” for the objective they claim of. The three basics principles are: 1) Liberal Institutionalism 2) Collective Security 3) Critical theory
Liberal Institutionalism Liberal Institutionalism is least ambitious. It does not directly address the question of how to prevent war but focuses on economic and environmental cooperation among states Realist argues that the idea of Liberal institutionalism is based on the belief that cheating is the main inhibitor of the international cooperation and that institutions provide the key to overcoming that problem. Realist maintains that it creates rules that constrain state but not to challenge the fundamental realist claim that states are self-interested actors. Realists maintain that institutions are basically: a) A reflection of the distribution of power in the world b) Are based on self-interested calculations of great powers and have no independent effect on state power c) Not an important cause of peace Idealists are thorough supporter of Institutions. They believe that because of the objective upon which these institutions are formed, it enables them to alter state preferences and therefore they
can alter state behavior when it comes to war. As the contemporary world is a group of sovereign nation states which put forth their national interest. Institutionalists argue that institutions discourage states from calculating self-interest on the basis of how every move affects their positions. Institutionalists refute the realists’ claims of Institutions being of marginal importance. Institutionalists contradicts this realist claims by maintaining that institutions are independent variables and they have capability to move states away from war. Institutionalists are of view that “internation institutions are created in response to state interests, and that their character is structured by the prevailing distribution of capabilities. The real empirical issue is how to distinguish the effects of underlying conditions from those of the institutions themselves.” Liberal institutionalists cite the example of NATO and European Union and how these international institutions cater to maintain peace, if not to bring about, in the Europe and world by and large. Institutionalists put forth the argument in contradiction to Realist that these two EU and NATO‘s independent contribution to hold peace in post-world war II Europe by drawing boundaries. Institutionalist divides international politics into two realms- security and political economy. Although, the institutionalists rely much on latter and pay little attention on security where war and peace are of central importance. Institutionalists put emphasis on cooperation in international system as a tool to maintain stability and do acknowledge that what hinders the cooperation is the threat of getting cheated by another nation. Keohane gave the concept of “political market failure” and says that to deal with these Institutions must deter the cheater and protect victims. To conclude their arguments Liberal institutionalists argue that institution operate on the basis of reciprocity which lays the foundation and act as component of lasting peace.
Critical Theory Critical theory is not a single theory. It is a conglomeration of theories that consists of postmodernist, constructivist, neo-Marxists, feminists and others. All these theories involves two basic claims:
Fundamental structures of international politics are social rather than strictly material.
These structures shape actors’ identities and interest rather than just their behaviour.
The latter one opposes the material ism and the former opposes the rationalism.
Some critical theories are statists and some are not ; some believe in science and some do not, some are optimist and some are pessimist . In his paper Mersheimer addresses four issues which were –assumptions, objective knowledge, explaining war and peace and policies makers’ responsibilities. In assumptions Mersheimer pointed out realist five assumptions: International politics is anarchic, and the states of offensive capabilities, cannot be 100% sure about others’ intentions, wish to survive and are rational. To give emphasis to the role of individuals in critical theory, Mersheimer obscures the fact that constructivists are structuralists. Constructivist are of view that states interests are important part constructed by systematic structures, common knots exogenous to them; these leads to a sociological rather than micro structuralism. Realist response of the critical theory is that it is latest version of liberal institutionalism and it offers a distinct and bold challenge to realism. Critical theorists make no concession to realism and make no effort to replace it with a more communitarian and peaceful discourse. Critical theorists propose no answer to criticisms leveled against them; on the other hand they focus on elaborating critical theory, and showcasing how it distinguishes itself from realism. Realist
maintains that there are no important differences between them and critical theorists as far as essentialism of critical theory and realism. Realists are of view that state behavior is largely based on material structure of the international system. For them, because of the structure of international system it is inevitable to keep a check on security competition among the great power. Whereas the social structure of the international system is in focus for critical theories. They believe that “world politics is socially constructed”. Mersheimer pointed out problems with critical theory that it says little about how change comes about and the critical theory is deeply concerned with radically changing state behavior. Critical theory fails to argue why particular discourses become dominant, and others fall by the way side. Mersheimer pointed out that critical theorists blame realist to be irresponsible and careless about the welfare of future generations. In his defense Mersheimer explains that critical theorist also cannot predict the future as they themselves are unaware that whether the discourse that ultimately replaces realism will be more benign than realism. Realist are argues that the problem with critical theory is that its proponent have offered little empirical support for their theory. Critical theorists concede that realism has been the dominant discourse in international politics from about year 1300 to 1989.
Collective Security Institutionalists argue that Mearsheimer employ narrow definition of collective security, also he misinterprets how collective security acts to promote stability by portraying it as based on moralistic principles that violate the logic of power balancing. Third point where Mearshemier misses out is that he ignores the extent to which domestic politics, beliefs, and norms shape behavior. By explaning war and peace solely in terms of power balancing in an anarchic world, Mearsheimer mounts an attack that is at once ahistorical and internally contradictory. In defense of collective security, institutionalist argues that under collective security, states agree to abide by certain norms and rules to maintain stability and, when necessary, band together to stop aggression. Collective security is preferable to balancing under anarchy, not that collective is a panacea or the ultimate answer to preventing war. Institutionalist points out that
Mearsheimer only focus on ideal collective security and explicitly exclude from consideration other institutional formulations, such as concerts, that rely on looser and more informal regulation of balancing, arguing that they do not constitute collective security. By this critique he fails to engage the core conceptual issue at stake: whether some form of regulated, institutionalized balancing is preferable to unregulated balancing under anarchy. Collective security addresses head-on the central concern of realists with the competitive nature of international environment and its propensity to trigger spirals of hostility. Collective security seeks to provide a more effective mechanism for balancing against aggressors when emerge, as well as to make aggression less likely by meliorating the competitive nature of international relations. It provides for more effective balancing against aggressors with preponderant as opposed to merely equal force. Under collective security states are likely to join the opposing coalition, both because they have made either explicit or implicit commitments to do so and because they have interest in protecting an international order that they see as beneficial to their individual security. Mearsheimer argued that the logic of collective security is flawed and it is unworkable in practice. Mearsheimer says the attempt of Kupchans to marry collective security and realism to formulate a new theory which is fatal flaw. Both the theories cannot be mixed together to produce a coherent theory which talks about the behavior of states. States are heavily influenced by balance of power consideration are by definition going to be mainly concerned about balance of power not about maintaining peace. Institutionalists defend NIFs and concert but didn’t defend standard collective security. States are going to initiate war for security reasons. Other times they will be content to remain on the sidelines and let two or more rivals fight a war. Yet institutionalist claim that states can act in the spirit of standard collective security, and abide by certain norms and rules to maintain stability, and that when an aggressor appears on the scene, all of the other states are supposed to band together to stop aggression. There is no reason to assume that a collective security system will fail long before a state is attacked, rather than at the moment of attack.
CONCLUSION When we go through the entire debate put forth by
Mersheimer between realists and
institutionalists , upon the significance of international institutions for keeping international peace and security it emerges that institutionalists tries to focus primarily how these international institutions function in order to bring about an ordered and peaceful society. In support of their arguments they put emphasis on the objectives and principles of these international institutions and they ignore the way these institution function. Also by the defense position of the institutionalists, it emerges that they ignore the nature of the nation states as an independent, sovereign bodies. They perceive states to be idealist which will second its national interest for the communitarian benefits, which is flawed assumption. Realist tries to give blatant yet practical arguments to defend their point when they say about how these international institutions are tools at the hands of great global power which uses these institutions to advance their vested interests. Henceforth, these institutions are rendered with marginal significance. The entire debate is spread across defense and offence of international institutions in which both the opponent and proponent were overwhelmingly trying to justify their points. In my opinion I find, provided the literature, the realist line of arguments more logical than institutionalists because what I grasp is that institutionalist instead of giving arguments in favor of the debate they were trying to nullify realist arguments which gave upper hand to the realist.
