ON THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

Statement 1: International relations are driven by power and that to the extent that international institutions
matter at all, they are tools of the powerful states employed to advance their interests and perpetuate and
entrench their positions of power at the expense of other states.
Statement 2: International institutions have the potential to change the interests of states in ways that
promote mutually beneficial international cooperation and diffuse influence in the international system, and
that international institutions can produce outcomes that are quite different from what states would have
done in absence of institutions.

Response: Such generalizations about International institutions and countries cannot be made, since
IOs and behavior of states evolves over time, most often improving and rectifying themselves as well
as the world system. States tend to take on different outlooks at different points in history and the
record shows that, just like humans, states tend to change. There are multiple nations across the world
that descend from ethnic tribes and nationalities which historically tended to be have warlord politics
of attacking and plundering their neighbors, having no regard for minorities rights and human rights
in general, and today these nations are at the forefront of democratic development and peace
promotion. The main reasons for a change of national and international behavior most often changes
after either positive or negative events of great significance. In as much as positive events tend to
have an impact on the behavior of both nations and individuals, the studies of psychology and history
show that, it is negative events that cause the most dramatic changes in states behavior, by and large
altering their behavior for the better.
The 1648 Peace of Westphalia was signed in 1948 to end the Thirty Years War which, as of
the year it was ended, was the most destructive conflict Europe has ever seen, having a sobering effect
of the need to move away from the status quo in the international system allowing for liberal policies
of reforms. It is as if the Wars all of a sudden planted in the rulers of the day the seed of wisdom of
creating and forming the much more beneficial nation-state system which wisdom could have been
reached at a much earlier state only if rulers had the sufficient righteousness and will to move away
from the status quo, and the policies accepted by rulers when signing the Westphalia Peace Treaty
could have been proposed and adopted much earlier and the ideas accepted must have had been
already present somewhere in political philosophy, but rulers had never decided to implement such
ideas which appeared to be beneficial nevertheless seemingly costly to the leaders of the time, until
the ideas proved absolutely necessary after the War.
In a similar manner World War I had a sobering effect and precipitated the formation of the
League of Nations. World War II was something to be recalled with terror, shaking up everyones
conscience at the enormous numbers of human lives lost and the human rights atrocities committed
during the War. The United Nations was formed as a response, with major policy highlights on peace
promotion, human rights protection, and racism condemnation.
It is believed that the Chernobyl nuclear reactor meltdown and blast is what triggered
dovishness on behalf of the Soviets and the eventual dissolution of the Soviet Union. Even though the
Politburo made initial efforts to hide the damage caused by the disaster even at the cost of not helping
the radiation-exposed population, according to some the event allowed for the Soviets to experience
the disastrous consequences that a Cold War nuclear exchange might bear on both the Soviet Union
and the United States, making repulsive the very thought of continuing the nuclear arms race. The
Chernobyl incident happened on 26 April 1986. The Soviet Union dissolved on 26 December 1991,
followed by nuclear arms reductions on behalf of both major power poles.
1

A possible pattern of future world events might be a Third World War so disastrous in nature
that it will make everyone eager to cooperate with each other in a most efficient new international
system, maybe even a single World Government, sometimes referred to as a New World Order.
As peoples behavior evolves it ultimately affects the policies states make. For instance, after
the Holocaust Germanys policies toward Israel have evolved into a beneficial relationship, especially
in the field of economic assistance, as seen in the case of Germany delivering a large economic aid
package to the newly formed countrys fragile, stumbling economy.
This and other events show the drastic positive effects on the change in state and national
behavior negative events can cause in countries and the world system, bringing about a desire of not
repeating past mistakes in the future and a greater will to act upon that desire. The first statement says
that states are only driven by their greed for power and wealth. If that were the case then all outcomes
in the international system would have been the result of this selfish drive of the most powerful states,
and that is not the case. On the opposite side of the argument we can say that states are completely
altruistic and considerate, respecting the rights of other states as much as it is humanly possible. Some
states belong to this category to a smaller or greater degree, and the modern world system is a lucky
one to be dominated by such power poles of militarily significant states that belong to this generally
more altruistic and considerate camp.
Does the domination of such considerate power poles guarantee a continuation of the
functioning of the collective security desired by the United Nations and both sides? No, it does not.
But had there been two or three purely power/wealth-greedy militarily significant states as power
poles of the world system like many of the governments that existed before World War II, there
wouldve had been a much lower likelihood of a conservation of collective security than we are
witnessing today. Even the men of most noble of character are likely to fall victims to the temptation
of stealing bread from a bakery if they lose everything and have no longer the means to satisfy their
most basic need for food. Most states, or at least the few power poles, can be regarded as more than
willing to respect the rules and precepts of international organizations and to change their behavior to
their best ability where needed, nevertheless they still avoid through various diplomatic pathways
those concessions they deem unbeneficial or unfair. States are thus likely to give up some luxury to
preserve the stability of collective security. But, in a crisis situation where they might be forced to
give up their very bread as the only food source, or where they foresee a situation wherein they deem
it absolutely necessary to act instantaneously in order to prevent much higher future losses, they
would resolve on violating the precepts of international organizations and go it alone.International
institutions act as a buffer neutralizing the international scene, preserving collective security and
promoting peace; without the presence of this buffer, states would have very few other agents to
employ as their diplomatic cushioning. However, once crises get very severe, and after every single
effort of using the cushioning to restrain ones actions and temper other states behavior has been
exploited, the collective security is likely to give way to another series or world disturbance. After this
worldwide disturbance though, collective security and international institutions would be again
reestablished with even greater resilience, steadfastness, and willingness to enforce moral behavior,
and for states to act upon their moral restraint and desire for peace.
On an International Institutions thermometer scaling from one to ten where one represents the
realist view of international institutions and ten represents the institutionalist view, my feeling and
opinion of IOs rate them at seven, whereas the first and second statements rate IOs at levels one and
ten respectively.
The first statement belongs to a the realist view of world politics where institutions are
regarded as no more than a reflection of world power politics and the distribution of power, having no
actual effect on the behavior of self-interested predetermined states apathetic at preserving
international stability. Therefore, international organizations are not an important cause to peace,
holding little promise to preserve stability in the post-Cold War world (Measheimer, 1995, page 7).
Realists insist that all institutionalist theories have flawed causal logic and are not evidenced by
historical record. Two most often cited examples realists use to support their argument are the war in
2

Bosnia, and the failure of the League of Nations to moderate German and Japanese aggression in the
1930s.
Institutionalist theory in turn claims that IOs can subtly alter states preferences and thus
change states predetermined behavior, if there is such a thing as state predetermined behavior, by for
instance discouraging states from calculating self-interest by highlighting the effect every move has
on the states relative power position (Measheimer, 1995, page 18). Institutions are needed for
sustaining cooperation and reaping its benefits, especially since cooperation provided by institutions
helps ease the prisoners dilemma fears states might have, and presenting a clear and wide choice of
cooperative outcomes (Keohane, 1995, page 42). Since each international outcome has a different
distributional value across states, different states might happen to prefer different outcomes,
nevertheless every party involved is willing to negotiate to potentially overcome disagreements as
barriers to cooperativeness, and thus avoid conflict. Not only do international institutions serve as a
buffer for states coming together to cooperate and negotiate, but they also provide a padding for many
states to come together at the same time and involve in cooperative discussion, something not made
possible by usual bilateral diplomatic institutions.
International institutions are useful to states because of two other important characteristics,
namely independence and centralization (Abbot, 1998, page 9), where independence is the authority
to act with a degree of autonomy and neutrality in certain spheres, and centralization is the
administrative apparatus built upon concrete and stable organizational structure for managing
corporate activities. In other words, in forming international organizations states grant some degree of
autonomy maybe by even giving away part of their own autonomy. States then depend upon the
organization to implement their policies at least from a bureaucratic aspect. When states wish to
cooperate under authority, international organizations make this easier by facilitating negotiation,
coordinating operational activities, aiding the enforcement and development of trust, establishing
community, and encouraging stability.
Institutions can also assist in monitoring and enforcement and inducing honest behavior by
keeping informed with evidence against violators and cheaters. Even weak institutions can have an
effect in the long-term outcome. Human rights institutions and human rights treaties signatories have
faced a huge increase in number, promising and demonstrating an increase in the respect for human
rights. Maybe some of the most influential work done by international institutions is compiling
scientific data which then gets a line with activists. Non-governmental organizations and government
institutions, as the public-opinion forming segments of society, participate in international
organizations meetings which gives IOs the chance to influence a countrys leaders, form their
opinion, and influence their beliefs. Treaties signed at IOs have the ability to increase governments
beliefs in the value of success and the likelihood of succeeding in fulfilling the treaty requirements.
However, due to differing attitudes in the constituencies in different states, treaties signed or
recommendations given can have varying outcomes across borders.