Justin Walters

2/19/2019

Take Home Essay #1

Our text International Organizations tells us that, “The principal goal of theory is to simplify and clarify
what matters most.” So, when we ask ourselves what the three principal theories of our discipline have to
say on the subject of International Organizations, we are being asked what matters most about this subject
in light of our three theoretical frameworks. Before we dive into the specific perspectives of each
theoretical school of thought we should establish what those schools are.

The first theoretical perspective we will explore is Liberalism. This theory “holds that human nature is
basically good, social progress is possible, and human behavior is malleable and perfectible through
institutions.” Proponents of this theory believe that conflict between nations are not inevitable, but,
instead, are the product of corrupt, inadequate institutions and/or leaders. As nations interact with one
another and deepen economic, social, and political ties human freedom, equality, and shared prosperity
expand as well. Our text furthers explains that in classical liberalism states are the most important
collective actors, containing as they do a pluralistic character. The attitudinal direction and expressed will
of a given nation are formed through a variety of means, and no single definition of a states interest
prevails. Finally, liberalism believes that cooperation is not only possible but likely to grow over time for
two important reasons: As nations interact with one another in the international community they learn
from one another, and work within the context of the international system as constituted in a relational
sense rather than as strictly as a means to balance power among states or maximize narrow strategic
interests. Additionally, as interdependency increases through the spread of shared values like democracy,
globalized awareness, and knowledge this will naturally lead to a deepening belief in the necessity and
mutual value of greater cooperation in areas like peacebuilding, common welfare, and social justice.

Our next theoretical perspective is called Realism. Realism has its roots in a Hobbesian understanding of
the world as being, “a war of all against all,” or to put it less dramatically realism believes that
individuals, and in IR theory nations, act rationally in order to preserve their own particular interests with
the highest possible interest being that of security and power. Unlike Liberalism, which also believes that
states are the primary actors in the international community, Realism holds that states act in a unitary
manner to pursue their own individual interests. Which is to say the goal of securing their existence and
relative power within the world is the primary pursuit of any and all nations. As such there is little to no
impetus for deepening cooperation or growing interdependency because the nation-state is concerned
with relative advantage over all others, and the securing of its own existence as of maximal import. This
means that the international system is essentially anarchic with the only basis for peaceful interaction
being the pursuit of relative advantage and the balancing of power so as to avoid destruction. The man
regarded as the founding father of modern realism, Hans Morgenthau, believed that international
organizations act as tools of states to be used when desired, increasing or decreasing the power of states,
but unable to affect the basic power dynamics of the international system. They reflect the distribution of
power, they do nothing to fundamentally change it. While realism does not claim that international
cooperation is an impossibility it merely states that the impetus for such cooperation are few and far
between.

The third and final major theory which we will here discuss is constructivism. This theory has become
increasingly in vogue among IR theorists as it posits that the behavior of states, individuals, and all such
actors are primarily determined through shared beliefs, socially constructed rules, and cultural practices.
The way these three factors interact with one another determines the norms upon which systems, like the
international one, behave. Unlike realism which treats the interests of a state as being fixed, or liberalism
which sees those interests as being shaped in only one direction by mutuality, a constructivist believes
that interests are socially constructed and prone to change over time in any number of directions as they
are influenced over time by various factors like culture, ideas, norms, and interactions both international
and domestic. Our text provides us with a helpful quote here for further understanding what
Constructivism is and believes when it says, “the social construction of international politics is to analyze
how processes of interaction produce and reproduce the social structures – cooperative or conflictual –
that shape actors’ identities and interests and the significance of their material contexts.” Constructivists
are strong believers in the power of ideas and institutions towards shaping the international community.
In understanding the underlying social contexts of a given nation-state constructivists believe we can
better understand and predict the way in which they will interact with others within that international
community.

To answer the question of how do the three major theories explain the emergence, persistence and
survival of international organizations we have offered here a basic explanation of these three major
theories. In Liberalism international organizations emerge as a result of the need to create the framework
for further interaction, and to give rules to the game so to speak. Once these organizations have emerged,
they persist because they facilitate deepening levels of communication and eventually interdependency.
They survive because they provide the sort of mutual benefit that is part and parcel of the liberal
worldview. In Realism international organizations form through the efforts of great powers towards
gaining a comparative advantage or because states wish to delegate certain issues to subnational
authorities so the primary interests of the state can better take precedence. Once these organizations are
created, they persist because they meet a need or advance one of the primary interests of the members,
such as the collective security of NATO member states. They survive so long as they continue to advance
the interests of participatory states or provide some sort of comparative advantage over similarly
positioned states. In Constructivism international organizations emerge from the social context of the
times they are born out of it, for instance a Constructivist would point to the ending of WWII and the
desire to avoid such globe spanning conflict while also needing to rebuild and integrate emerging states as
being the impetus for the creation of the UN. The idea ferment produced from the League of Nations
combined with the aforementioned cultural and historical context led to the emergence of the UN, and the
spawning of numerous other multilateral institutions. These organizations persist, once created because
the ideas behind them retain relevance and generate cultural capital that leads to the incorporation of these
organizations and their accompanying identities as new norms. They survive because they eventually
embed themselves into the framework of our shared values, institutionalizing norms and establishing a
place within the greater cultural framework that goes beyond being just a simple organization.

From my perspective I find elements about all three perspective as ringing with truth, but I tend to favor
liberalism as being the closest to explaining how the issue works in actual practice. While, when you
zoom down on a micro level, and particularly when you look only at a given moment in time, realism and
constructivism are very persuasive, I feel that when you zoom out to a macro level liberalism best
explains how it all actually works. While ideas and institutions certainly matter, and interests like power
and security often have an overriding effect on the arc of history, as it were, the reality seems to bend
towards greater interdependency (an “inescapable network of mutuality” some might say), cooperation,
and generally peaceful interactions between states. I believe the evidence supports this even as these
realities seem to fray at the edges a bit (Fukiyama was perhaps a bit premature?). Actual, direct conflict
between states is on the wane. The trend is towards globalization even as reactionary political movements
harness anti-globalists forces to win elections in some parts of the world. Of course, the governance rarely
has managed to match up with the rhetoric as such closed society style political movements seem to be
unable or unwilling to turn back the reality of globalization. And although, many states seem to embrace
efforts to more directly compete rather than to cooperate with one another, the old alliances and
multilateral framework have not yet given way to anything new that would point to a re-emergence of the
kind of great power competition one would expect from the barely contained hostility of the realist vision
or any sort of ideological rethinking, cultural re-imagining, or broadly held reactionary take against the
status quo of international relations.