CAN INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS MAINTAIN PEACE IN A POST-LIBERAL ORDER? - Наукові конференції
Головна
UA RU EN

Вас вітає Інтернет конференція!

Вітаємо на нашому сайті

Рік заснування видання - 2014

CAN INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS MAINTAIN PEACE IN A POST-LIBERAL ORDER?

28.11.2022 23:23

[10. Політичні науки]

Автор: Yulia Balan, student of the Faculty of International Relations of the Ivan Franko National University of Lviv


Due to the crisis of American hegemony, security scholars doubt the role of international institutions, precisely whether influential organizations will maintain peace and perform the same functions for which they have been created. While neorealists prove that international anarchy and the security dilemma make international institutions marginal to politics, neoliberal institutionalists claim that institutions are vital in security issues explicitly because critical national interests are at stake. It is crucial to address arguments from both theoretical approaches, comparing the two sides that look at the fundamental capacity of international institutions in the post-liberal era. This paper aims to examine a collection of sources that can be used to answer the question. Given that both directions give us radically different reflections on this issue, the analysis will conclude that the possibility of maintaining peace by international institutions in a post-liberal world cannot be clearly determined.

Perhaps to thoroughly understand the issue, it is first necessary to determine what an institution is. By far an essential author in the field of neoliberal institutionalism, Robert Keohane defines institutions as "persistent and connected sets of rules (formal or informal) that prescribe behavioral roles, constrain activity, and shape expectations" [7]. In contrast, the representative of offensive realism, John Mearsheimer claims the institutions call for the "decentralized cooperation of individual sovereign states, without any effective mechanism of command" [8]. The two schools evaluate the efficacy of institutions in discrepant ways. While neorealists assert that institutions matter to the extent that they force states to behave in a way they would not otherwise behave, neoliberals argue that institutions allow states to do what they would not otherwise be able to do.

In order to develop an argument supporting the neoliberal approach, it is needless to mention the importance of creating international institutions with universal membership, which had a significant influence on the behavior of member states. Keohane and Nye clarify that because of globalization, complex relationships are now emerging, meaning that even the most powerful states are now dependent on other ones in the context of international organizations to maintain stability [6]. Similarly, David Lake's analysis concludes that "they [institutions] alter behavior and allow cooperation where it would otherwise almost certainly fail" [7]. These liberal statements can be arguably doubted in one of the most known neorealistic articles "The False Promise of International Institutions" by John Mearshmeir [8]. The author concludes that institutions have little influence on state behavior, and therefore there is a minimal promise for maintaining peace in the post-Cold War world. Eventually, he strengthens his opinion doubting the neoliberal link made between cooperation and stability as neoliberal scholars are likely to avoid military issues.

It is perhaps more appropriate to turn to specific examples of institutions, namely NATO and the UN, which, according to the literature, are experiencing a crisis in their role in maintaining peace. Starting with the UN, the main argument provided by the sources is that the organization now witnesses the crisis in peacekeeping. According to Roberts' statement [10], support for Peace at the UN is ambiguous, depends on the interests of major powers, and the general mechanism is not tailored to specific situations. Furthermore, the organization often refuses to solve the problem (thereby threatening the security of states) because of the burden on the organization if the UN mission fails. This view is shared by scholars Weiss and Kalbacher [12], who argue that in a post-liberal manner, when intrastate armed conflicts begin to gain momentum and Member States do not provide the necessary resources and delegate authority, the UN's ability to fulfill its mandate will remain very limited. Nevertheless, Roberts still notes that "a global peacekeeping system is inevitable," which means that the organization needs to reconsider its future capabilities in peacekeeping operations; therefore, they are not weakened by its inability to resolve immediate issues facing the UN [10].

Considering another equally important organization, NATO, the scholars were divided into two camps: those who believe that the Alliance is unable to maintain further peace because its primary goal to defend the Members during the Cold War was achieved, and those who think that it is too early to write off NATO, as its reorganization can help resolve ongoing conflicts. Looking at globalization politically, Robertson notes that NATO can still maintain peace and play a political role as "a rule-altering institution" [1]. If NATO takes the opportunity to set its security agenda, it will meet the challenge of the anti-globalization movement. Although his argument can be reasonably questioned by Toje, who claims that although the transatlantic relationship will withstand due to military dependence on American assets and common values, the Alliance, being the only transatlantic institutional link, will remain until it is replaced by another institution that will be set up in response to pressing issues of security agenda [11]. Another important aspect, but for some reason little discussed in the selected sources, is that the crisis of the American international order can open up new opportunities for China or India to reshape the global order. Hemmer and Katzenstein, answering why there is no NATO in Asia, explain that the U.S. preference for bilateralism in Asia is due to a weak identification with Asia and the belief that Asian countries belong to a lower political community [3]. Nevertheless, according to John Mershmeier, to curb China's expansion, American policymakers must "create economic institutions such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and a military alliance in Asia that is similar to NATO during the Cold War" [9].

Yet there are weaknesses in all current research. No one thinks the rights and responsibilities of present international organizations can be reconfigured to reflect power spread in a multipolar world. One author who goes some way to addressing this is Ikenberry [4]. He believes that due to the possible decline of the unipolar world, existing international institutions need to be reorganized (for instance, by updating key post-war security pacts) to reflect the new global reality and maintain peace. Generally, the paper has provided equal and sufficient arguments for analyzing two radically different approaches, which makes it impossible to answer the question one-sidedly. On the one hand, the neoliberal scholars argue that due to the complication of relations, great powers are dependent on each other in the context of international institutions. But on the other hand, neorealists think the influence of international institutions on state interests is unfounded, based on the crisis of two major UN and NATO organizations.

References:

1. Coker С. Globalisation and Insecurity in the Twenty-first Century: NATO and the Management of Risk. Adelphi series, 42 (345), 5-103 pp., 2002.

2. Finnemore M. Legitimacy, Hypocrisy, and the Social Structure of Unipolarity. World Politics, 61 (1), 58-85 pp., 2009.

3. Hemmer C., Katzenstein P. J. Why is There No NATO in Asia? Collective Identity, Regionalism, and the Origins of Multilateralism. International Organization, 56 (3), 575-607 pp., 2002.

4. Ikenberry G. J. The end of liberal international order? International Affairs, 94 (1), 7-23 pp., 2018.

5. Ikenberry G. J. Why the Liberal World Order Will Survive. Ethics & International Affairs, 32 (1), 17–29 pp., 2018.

6. Keohane R. O., Nye J. S. Power and interdependence, 2nd ed. New York: Longman, 1997. 

7. Lake D. A. Beyond Anarchy: The Importance of Security Institutions. International Security, 26 (1), 129-160 pp., 2001.

8. Mearsheimer J. J. The False Promise of International Institutions. International Security, 19 (3), 5-49 pp., 1995.

9. Mearsheimer J. J. Bound to Fail: The Rise and Fall of the Liberal International Order. International Security, 43 (4), 7-50 pp., 2019.

10. Roberts A. The crisis in UN peacekeeping. Survival, 36 (3), 93-120 pp, 1994.

11. Toje A. The first casualty in the war against terror: the fall of NATO and Europe's reluctant coming of age. European Security, 12 (2), 63-76 pp., 2003.

12. Weiss T. G., Kalbacher D. Z. The United Nations. In: Williams, P. Security Studies: An Introduction. London: Routledge, 374-392 pp., 2013.

_____________________

Supervisor: Maria Oleksandrivna Kut, candidate of economic sciences, assoc. prof., Ivan Franko National University of Lviv



Creative Commons Attribution Ця робота ліцензується відповідно до Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
допомога Знайшли помилку? Виділіть помилковий текст мишкою і натисніть Ctrl + Enter

Інші наукові праці даної секції

Конференції

Конференції 2024

Конференції 2023

Конференції 2022

Конференції 2021

Конференції 2020

Конференції 2019

Конференції 2018

Конференції 2017

Конференції 2016

Конференції 2015

Конференції 2014

:: LEX-LINE :: Юридична лінія

Міжнародна інтернет-конференція з економіки, інформаційних систем і технологій, психології та педагогіки

Наукові конференції

Економіко-правові дискусії. Спільнота