Purpose and Criticisms of International Institutions

Institutions can be defined as a set of rules, known and shared by the relevant community, that structure interactions between the members in specific ways. Institutions vary in their mission statements, but they essentially serve to facilitate cooperation amongst their members. In the aftermath of WWII, the Americans and its allies solidified their coalition through the formation of a military alliance, NATO, and established a strongly institutionalized western economic order through the Bretton Woods System. However, these hopeful institutions when put into effect, fall short of being ironclad. This essay will argue that international institutions such as NATO and those derived from the Bretton Woods System, fail to deal with threats that come from failed states and economic crises because these institutions tend to be subservient to own state interest and lack enforcement mechanisms.

Purpose and Criticisms of International Institutions

The main purpose of international institutions is to facilitate cooperation by setting standards of behavior to reduce ambiguity, by verifying compliance (that is, to make sure that states are meeting rules and standards), by making it easier for collective decision-making and by providing the mechanisms for resolving disputes. As principles, what international institutions propose appear ideal for nurturing cooperation, however, they are not without their shortcomings. This essay will focus on two criticisms of international institutions. Firstly, states operating in an anarchic environment are assumed to behave in a self-interested manner , hence states that create and shape institutions do so in a way that the rules drawn are subservient to own state interests. Moreover, it is the most powerful states in the system that creates and shape institutions, thus allowing them to maintain their share of world power, or even increase it . Secondly, international institutions lack enforcement mechanisms; given that institutions are not a form of world government, it is up to states themselves to willingly chose to obey the rules they've created, therefore institutions call for the decentralized cooperation of individual sovereign states, without any effective mechanism of command and so states retain the incentive and possibility to defy the rules. Given these shortfalls, international institutions fail to deal with the problems that arise from failed states and economic crises.

Failed States

A state in which institutions, law and order have collapsed under the pressure and amidst the confusion of spewing violence can be referred to as a failed state. Failed states are sources, incubators, and facilitators of terrorism, weapons proliferation, organized crime, infectious diseases, environmental destruction, and violence that often spill over national borders , therefore clearly a concern for for the international community. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, is the most active and institutionalized alliance today. One of its core objectives is to contribute to effective prevention of conflict and crisis management through military and political means, in order to guarantee the security of its members . Since the U.S. intervention to eliminate terrorist safe havens in 2001, the international community has been greatly involved in efforts to bringing peace and stability to Afghanistan. Amongst actors is NATO, whose main role is to assist the Afghan Government in implementing and extending its authority and influence across the country, and to lay the foundation for reconstruction and effective governance. It does this through its International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), mandated by the United Nations Security Council . However, it is the self-interested nature of involved actors and the possibility to defect given the lack of enforcement mechanisms that limits the capability of NATO to ensure cooperation and the success of their mission in Afghanistan.

Knowing that an alliance is not a binding contract and that there is no external mechanism to compel states in obeying the rules, members of NATO are still left with the choice of not following through with promised engagements. This is a major obstacle facing the ISAF mission. The willingness and devotion of its members are constantly put into question as most members face rigid restrictions on their activities in Afghanistan. More specifically, the coalition effort has been plagued by caveats: restrictions on what coalition militaries can and cannot do . There are somewhere between fifty and eighty known restrictions that constrain NATO commanders in Afghanistan, and because the number of troops on the ground is quite small relative to the challenges they face, any military caveats hinders operational flexibility . However, this cannot technically be considered defection on the part of the states, but merely a flaw in the written rules of NATO itself. According to Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, an attack on one is an attack on all, but each member state is free to decide whether and to what extent it will respond militarily . The ambiguity of Article 5 justifies the erection of caveats, which in turn leads to a free-rider dilemma, that is, the temptation to let other members suffer the harsher costs by failing to contribute while benefiting from the efforts of the others . When contributions are voluntary, like in the case of NATO missions, the 'public good' in question, which is the success of the mission, is provided at a lower level than its potential level. It is only normal for states to impose caveats on their troops, due to the self-interested nature of states. In an anarchic world, every state must first and foremost look out for its own survival and security , thus justifying the incentive for NATO members to maximize state interest by avoiding conflict by any possible means. Countries in general do not want to be pulled into conflict, therefore NATO members avoid becoming too involved by limiting their commitments or leaving those commitments purposely ambiguous. Countries that face less of a threat may still choose to participate in a conflict to please an ally or to respect treaty obligations, but will be more likely to restrict their forces from doing anything that endangers those troops or risks drawing the state deeper into the conflict . With escalating violence in Afghanistan in the last few years, members are even more reluctant than ever to put their own troops in the midst of danger.

Although all NATO members share the same interest