2001 saw the world united in indignation, and the emergence of a tacit promise to cooperate in the war to annihilate the flaw of terrorism. 2002 saw the same world divided and torn in the debate over a war carried out by those considering it as vital, and opposed as inconsiderate and unwise by others, in the process placing at risk the legitimacy of the greatest international institution, bringing forth once more the ancient realist assumption that international politics is ruled by power.
The stark opposition between these two events throws into light the question that has animated the debate in international relations for the past centuries: Is cooperation possible in the international context?
To tackle this question, we shall first oppose the Realist view that cooperation is fundamentally undesirable to the liberal "Utopianist" view that cooperation is the only proper way for the international system to function. Then we shall move to what has been known as the "neo-neo" debate, observe how this synthetic approach tackles the problem of cooperation and confront these modern theories to the twenty-first century international reality to measure how cooperation fits into our globalized world.
There has been for centuries a large debate between different schools of international relations as to whether cooperation between nations is possible or not. The most universally accepted and long standing theory that has emerged from this debate is what is known as "Realism". After having analyzed the theoretical and philosophical basis of this theory, we shall seek to understand what this implies in terms of cooperation among nations and find its flaws concerning its analysis of cooperation. The realist theory finds its fundamental basis in its idea of human nature. It was Thucydides in his analysis of the Peneloponesean war who first described his low esteem for human nature and behavior. According to him, men are selfish, act under the domination of passions, guided by a thirst for prestige. This has for consequence that "the strong do as they may, the weak suffer what they must." This makes the law of the strongest the law of all in the international system, and all politics are based on this assumption. For realists, self interest is the only relevant incentive to action in the international system. This is the translation of the selfish nature of humanity in terms of states. These interests are usually summed up to the quest for power, referred to as "capabilities" and survival. These two interests are distinct, according to the realist theoretician Morgenthau, in his "Politics among Nations" because for him power keeps shifting and is not stationary. It is not always held by the same states, and not always in the same proportions, contrarily to the notion of self interest, which is defended at all times by all states. Concerning morality, realists do not believe that states have any moral considerations while acting, and that there are no universal moral laws which regulate the international system.
[...] The only thing that can hamper cooperation in that case is the fear of cheating. For this, liberal institutionalists have found a solution: they desire to see the international system governed by institutions and regimes to enforce cooperation. According to Steven Lamy, in Globalization of World Politics”, institutions can be defined as connected set of rules, practices that prescribe roles, constrain activities and shape the expectations of actors” and regimes as “Social institutions that are based on agreed rules, norms, principles and decision making principles. [...]
[...] Therefore though the realist approach seems to suggest that cooperation is not possible, it has certain flaws that undermine its credibility. To oppose the Realist view, the liberal thinkers believe that the only possible outcome of international politics is a gradual movement towards cooperation. To understand this assumption, one must understand the theoretical and philosophical basis of the liberal theory. The basis of this theory is that human nature is fundamentally good. Men are not prone to conflict naturally, and if they can live on peaceful terms, they will do so. [...]
[...] The fact that human nature is good and that the only reason for war is that human nature cannot express itself, suffocated by the ruling elite who wished to defend its position, means that it is only because the world is not entirely democratic that war replaces cooperation in international relations. Ideally, in the liberal thinking, nations are following a path towards liberal democracy, and in the world that this would create, where international politics are decided upon by the people, there would be no more wars, as universal notions of peace and defense of human rights would take over. [...]
[...] The general conclusion of the neo-neo debate is that cooperation is possible in the international system, though it is difficult (with the level of difficulty varying, depending on the theory which one considers). This is a more realistic approach to the reality that the rather more extreme and highly theoretical analysis is provided by the classic realist and liberal schools. But the theory remains to be confronted with the reality of the modern world. And indeed this modern world poses serious challenges to international relations theory concerning cooperation. [...]
[...] The two share the assumption that the international system is anarchic, and therefore cooperation is not given. But neo liberals believe more strongly in the forces of interdependence which would make cooperating easier because it creates mutual interests. On the other hand, neo realists believe that cooperation is difficult to establish and even more so to maintain and will only happen if states work hard to achieve it. The two theories, according to Joseph Grieco in his “Cooperation Among nations” are opposed in their conception of the state, which creates the main divergence of analysis between them. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
