Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Definitions
Cooperation
o Process whereby states, “adjust their behavior to the actual or anticipated
preferences of others, through a process of policy coordination”
Regimes
o “A set of mutual expectations, rules and regulations, plans, organizational energies
and financial commitments, which have been accepted by a group of states”
o
d
Institutions
Stephen Krasner – A regime is effective to the extent that its members abide
by its norms and rules & that it achieves certain objectives or fulfills certain
purposes
John Ikenberry – After Victory
o Robert Keohane’s, After Hegemony is the classic text cited that
articulates the views of neoliberal institutionalism and cooperation in
a world “after hegemony” (Keohane 1984). In a play on Keohane’s
words, Ikenberry seeks to understand a world “after victory”. In
particular, Ikenberry’s book examines the period in history after the
Allied powers victorious triumph over Nazi Germany in 1945. What
would the world order be after victory? Ikenberry’s answer is
straightforward, but surprising. Ikenberry argues that once a state
wins a war, they are met with three choices: to dominate their
enemies, abandon the losers, or transform the international system. In
the case of the United States, they transformed the international
system by employing institutions as a way to establish political
control and order (Ikenberry 2001: 5-6). For example, the end of
World War II saw the creation of the Bretton Woods institutions, the
United Nations and NATO. Furthermore, once institutionalized, states
– particularly the industrial democracies -- commit and link to one
another to create a post-war order that is durable and stable
(Ikenberry 2001: 6). As Ikenberry suggested: “…[I]nstitutions
are…critical at the beginning of hegemony – or ‘after victory’ – in
establishing order and securing cooperation between unequal states”
(Ikenberry 2001: 17).
o This ‘world order’ is even more surprising considering the huge
asymmetries of power that existed following the war. Contrary to
conventional realist assumptions, the United States neither dominated
nor abandoned Europe after the war. Instead, there were great
incentives to “locking in” an institutional order. For strong states,
institutionalization had the long-term gain of preserving international
order and stability. For weaker states, joining institutions reduced the
likelihood that powerful states would dominate or abandon them.
Although a common refrain from realists is that institutionalists do
not treat power seriously, Ikenberry places power at the center of his
argument. Institutions develop because of the asymmetries of power
between weak and strong states in the international system. While
neoliberal insitutionalism usually speaks of institutions as resolving
‘collective action’ or ‘information’ problems, Ikenberry sees
institutions as crucial for resolving these power “asymmetries”.
o Ikenberry sees the international order as one shaped constitutionally
– through institutions – rather that just “creatures of the international
distribution of power” (Ikenberry 2001: 28). For Ikenberry,
institutions create a “constitutional order”; a political order that exists
because of agreed upon rules, that allocate rights and restrain power
(Ikenberry 2001: 29). Institutions create order in three ways.
One, institutions have shared, or mutual agreements, over the
rules of the game.
Two, these rules set limits on the ability to exercise power.
Lastly, once these rules are in place, they are not easily
changed (Ikenberry 2001: 31).
o The ability of these institutions and a constitutional order to become a
stabilizing presence in the international system is due in large part to
an expansion of democratic regimes throughout the world. It is no
accident, Ikenberry claims, that as democracy becomes the norm in
the world, “deeper linkages” will lead to more intergovernmental
commitment (Ikenberry 2001: 5
The Rise of Non-State Actors, the Development of Norms & the Creation of
Global Civil Society
Barnett & Duvall – Power in Global Governance
o Argue that the field of global governance has neglected an adequate
understanding of power and the ways in which power can differently
affect different situations
Criticizes existing IR literature on power for its primary
attachment to realism, namely how one state uses its material
resources to compel another state to do something it does not
want to do
Not enough attention to social relations
o Power is the production, in and through social relations, of effects on
actors that shape their capacity to control their fate
o Proposes 4 forms of power:
Compulsory Power
Direct control of one actor over the conditions of
existence and/or the actions of another
Steers attention towards material resources to control
others
o Great powers often use (or threaten to use) resources
to influence others. MNCs use capital resources to
shape economic policies at national and global levels
Not limited to material resources but also includes
symbolic and normative resources
o Transnational activists, civil society & NGOs employ
policies of shaming to alter state policies.
o Non-permanent members of the UNSC use legal
norms to constrain the permanent members
o International organizations use their expert, moral,
delegated, and rational-legal authority to discipline
both state and non-state actors.
Institutional Power
Actors’ indirect control over the conditions of action of
socially distant others
Focuses on the institutions that mediate between actors
Institutions enable some actors to shape the behaviour or
circumstances of socially distant others. Dominant actors set
the agenda of most global institutions and that agenda might
work to the development or detriment of other actors. Market
forces can create dependent relationships that limit the
choices of weaker nations. Systems of exchange can also be a
media of power.
The behavioral constraints and governing biases of
institutions often create institutional rules that generate
unequal leverage in determining collective outcomes. As
such, weak actors often lose out on the collective rewards that
are created by institutions.