Are institutions helping or hurting international relations?

 Blake Burchill

Reading from Keohane and Martin


Why Institutions Have More Negatives Than Generally Perceived

International institutions have been around for quite some time in our history. Examples of these institutions are NATO and the UN. There are plenty of reasons why they were put in place but the most notable reason is for maintaining peace and security. Having institutions in place leads to peace amongst the states in the institution and having allies would make it hard for other states to want to go to war with them. While as we have seen in the past, wars still happen, however it is said that institutions stopped WWIII and ended the Cold War. The states in these institutions are also benefited economically through the trust that has been established with fair logical trade. Though it would seem that institutions are nothing but beneficial for the world, the question is if institutions are even necessary for peace, security and fair trade. Many people who see institutions as beneficial have a view of the world as crueler and more chaotic than it may actually be. These people view every state as wanting to become the “most formidable military power” and also wanting to be able to dominate the trading world. They see institutions as a way to stop every state from trying to rise up against each other. While institutions can be beneficial and seem to be the best option when considering realism, they are not necessary for positive international relations. 

The idea that states are at constant odds with each other creates a false sense in why institutions are needed. In a realist view, the world is a place that is in constant odds with each other, whether that is in regard to constant threats of war or unfair trade practices. In reality however, the threat of aggressive war is very low and it is hard to argue that institutions should be in place strictly for that reason. It would seem that most institutions in place are there to help prevent the alleged inevitable next world war. There are very few states however that have the absolute goal of becoming the most formidable military power. Even if a state would try and gain absolute military power, others would not have to be in an institution to get together to shut down that one state. Another argument for institutions is that states involved provide information to each other that allows for less tension and mutual understandings. This would be a benefit if like said before, there were constant pushes to be the greatest military power. This is based on a realist argument that countries should expect the worst from each other. Regardless of whether institutions are in place or not, having this mindset is terrible for international relations.

Institutional power can have a very negative effect on smaller less powerful states in the institution. Because the institutions work together to try and create terms that everyone agrees with, it will not always benefit all the states involved, especially the ones with less economic power. When some arrangements are made through an institution, one state will indirectly start to have influence over another which then creates conflict that would never have occurred had the institution not been there. Especially when institutions are so worried about the supposed imminent war, they tend to forget about the real needs of every state and why those states are there in the first place. While Institutions are positive when all needs of all states are addressed, they have a very hard time being anywhere near perfect which will inevitably lead to problems. It is one thing to have a separate country be aggressive which is easy to solve but it is an almost worse situation when there is tension in the institution.


Comments

  1. IngridFebruary 8, 2022 at 7:19 AM

    I definitely agree with your argument that some institutions have more power than necessary, but my question is what specific institutions does this apply to in your opinion? And which ones does this not apply to?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jack CahalaneFebruary 8, 2022 at 8:56 PM

    I think your point relative to institutions is an interesting one. After reading this, I was left wondering: if institutions have negative implications what can states do to replace institutions? To put it in another way, how can states, especially democratic states, function properly without institutions?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cassie LawlerFebruary 9, 2022 at 12:28 PM

    I agree that institutions and the power they hold can have polarizing effects on society and politics. There is a lot of gray area as far as this topic goes but something tangible you mentioned was the inevitability of fighting and conflict, which begs the question of what is necessary to suppress uproar.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Blog 4

                                                                        Paris climate accords The Paris Agreement, which required the United States to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions, was a horrible deal for American taxpayers, energy corporations, and every single American who relies on inexpensive, reliable energy. It was also not ideal for any of the countries involved, therefore Trump made the correct decision by pulling out of it. The first reason it was a bad deal was its economic impact it would have on the United States. If the Obama administration's Paris energy restrictions were implemented, they result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, harm to American industry, and a loss of $2.5 trillion in GDP by 2035. The United States was also paying ...
Read more

Diplomatic Risk: Global Powers and the Shortcomings of Realism

Jack Cahalane Professor Shirk POLS 170 May 4, 2022 Diplomatic Risk For our last week of classes, our class played Diplomatic Risk in order to visualize International Relations firsthand. From my point of view, I perceived that the game portrayed the historical or future hypothetical interactions of major powers in the world through the lens of conflict. In turn, I believe that it can be argued that the Diplomatic Risk simulation played in class (at least how it was played in our class simulation without extensive bargaining or diplomatic incentives other than to go to war) relates to the idea of the international relations school of Realism. As a result of the simplified nature of Diplomatic Risk, I believe this notion coincides with the shortcomings of Realism: the simplicity and perception which ignores incentives which do not promote morality or coalition building.      The game was prepared using a world map board from the actual game of Risk and consisted of five ...
Read more

The Unintended Consequences of NGOs

  Cassie Lawler International Politics: POLS 170-03 Professor Shirk Due: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 Blog Post #4 The Unintended Consequences of NGOs Non-governmental organizations are non-profit that operate outside of the government, are independently organized and run to further a political motive, whether that motive be in the realm of humanitarianism, labor protections, or environmental, among many other things. Although the overwhelming majority of the time, these entities are well-meaning with aspirations to pick up where the government leaves off and serve a purpose for the greater good, they are typically not as advantageous for those they seek to help as they intend. The major caveat among NGOs in modern society is that they reap unintended consequences upon creation at whatever community, national, or international level they require mainly due to the fact that they crowd out government services and impede the existing and future efforts for the cause. Unfortunately, this ...
Read more