Why Do States Often Cooperate with Each Other in International Institutions?

4287961

Why do states often cooperate with each other in international institutions?

After the end of WWII, there was a consensus from states that cooperation was better than conflict. Thus, in the post 45’ era there was an increase in the number of international institutions created. President at the time, Harry Truman, who was seen as the focal figure of this new liberal agenda, said that the UN (the most well-known international institution) was designed to make possible lasting freedom and independence for all its members (Truman 1947). This liberal ideology could be one way to classify why it is that states often cooperate within these international institutions and this essay will look at a range of theoretical approaches enquiring why it is states do this.

The concept of international institutions alone aligns with liberalism as by definition states will be working together to better the world in some way. Whether that is to ensure individual prosperity and freedom (Mitrany 1943; Claude 1964:11-13) or to create global peace and restrain from warfare (Mitrany 1943; Jacobson 1984:  21-29). Within liberalism there is the idea everyone has common goals and interests and for this to be achieved it would require states to cooperate with each other. An indication of this would be the rise of democracy in Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union, as states being more democratic would mean they are more in sync with each other. The EU, has created a common ground between European states, creating democracies in 27 countries including former Soviet Union states which were under authoritarian regime and it gives more sovereignty to member states who can decide the policy (Guardian 2007, cited in Clackson 2011). This clearly shows how the liberal thought of advancing the democratic world, giving states more independence and more control over policy has caused there to be cooperation within the international institutions. Another liberal idea of global peace effects why states cooperate within institutions. With no World war since 1945 and the number of people dying in conflicts has declined rapidly within that time (Spencer 2015) indicates the world has fallen in line with the liberal ideology of peace. These successes usually accredited to the UN and suggests that cooperation within institutions has led to more peace for states. In recent years, the neoliberal institutionalist thought has also played a part in developing this argument. They see more of the focus on the economic side of cooperation between states. The line taken is that the institutions will be a source of providing goods for all states and therefore international cooperation leads to absolute gains. However, there is a further point that neoliberals take. They recognize the international system of anarchy and that states will cooperate under this through institutions, but it will only be when this is beneficial to the individual state (Baylis et al 2017). Thus, the neoliberal take aligns more with the realist argument in that states will cooperate but more for selfish reasons rather than the liberal idea of ‘the greater good’.

There is also strong backing for realist arguments in explaining why states cooperate within international institutions. Realism sees the world in an anarchical state, with no real overreaching power, therefore within these institutions there will be competition for this power. However, to achieve this, states will need to cooperate with each other but it is thought these institutions are used as diplomatic tool boxes, to hide states over interests (Baylis et al 2017). One use of the tool box would be that states may build alliances and decide to cooperate, but they will change their strategy when it seems convenient (Stuenkel 2010). An example would be the joining on the EU by Britain, however their change in strategy to not adopt the Euro as their currency as it was not in their best interest (Clackson 2011). Moravcsik and Kahler see interaction between states as that of a power struggle between plurality of interest driven actors with varying power resources (Moravcsik 1995; Kahler 1997) however this fight for supremacy within the system is usually between the dominant powers. Therefore, cooperation that takes place will only reflect their interest, thus the institutions embody the rules of the game within which power politics is played (Schweller and Preiss 1997: 6, 13) rather than every state being involved. An example of this would be how there are only 5 permanent members of the UN security council, these being the dominant powers who emerged from WWII; Britain, USA, France, Russia and China. This shows that even within a very progressive system of a ‘security council’, the most important players will have the final say, as each of the permanent members has the power to veto any resolution. This is not to say that weaker states do not have involvement within the institutions. There is often cooperation either to balance against the hegemony or bandwagon within it (Gruber 2000). Rosecrance said they would bind together in order to achieve a voice within (Rosecrance 2001:140). An example would be the china led Asian infrastructure Investment Bank aiming to help support the building of infrastructure within the Asia-Pacific region. All leading back to the realist idea of dominance in the anarchical system, whether that is a large or smaller state, they are cooperating for more power.

The last theoretical approach is split between two thoughts, the Marxist approach and the Gramscian approach. They both follow the line that institutions are used by the powerful states to keep the world order in place and they work with each other in order to do so. The Marxist approach has the view of material economic power being fundamental to the structure of all societies and international relations (Baylis et al 2017). Therefore, according to Marxist beliefs, states within these institutions will cooperate for economic gain above everything else. Reinalda and Verbeek agreed with this stating how human rights concerns will not prevail over security or economic interest (Reinalda and Verbeek 2004). Indicating it is the capitalist system that controls these states and there need to cooperate to fuel this. Economic international institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF are often seen to be working in favor of the elite states. In a Reuters article, it was said how the International Monetary Fund continues to be seen as a club for rich countries (Reuters 2014). Gramsican approaches argue that institutions are just the products of global elites projecting their dominant ideas (Boas and McNiell 2004), and part of a hegemonic bloc that work together to control the world economic order. This approach is seen to be more nuanced, recognising how cooperation fixes the hegemony in place (Cox 1987; Gill 1990). Therefore, it can be seen that through the powerful elites pushing their economic agendas through the capitalist international institutions, why it is states so often cooperate.