The two main theories have very different views on cooperation. The first, and the dominant theory of neorealism, is that cooperation is not likely to occur, while on the other hand, neoliberalism focuses on the possibility for cooperation to take place.
According to neorealism, international cooperation is not likely to occur. The Neorealist theory rests on the anarchy inherent in the international system. Neorealists define anarchy as the decentralized distribution of power in the international system. No leader or central authority has the legitimacy to monopolize power . Neorealists argue, just as realists have, that the international system is fundamentally insecure. States are the main unitary actors, and they act in a rational way to pursue their self interest, which includes security and survival. To achieve these goals, each State will try to gain more power, not as an end, like pure realists view it, but only as a way to survive. The international system is thus led by the struggle for power between the strongest and the weakest actors. Because there is no overriding power, the system remains insecure, self help is the guiding principle. In a system of self help, States will not seek others' help to achieve their goals, but will rely only on their own capabilities
[...] Thus international regimes and the network of international institutions, coordinate expectations and behaviors. The identities of the institutions are initially shaped by the self interests of the States, but after their creation they become independent and shape the identities of the states. They get legitimate actors in the international system and help cooperation. Finally another point made by the neoliberalists such as Doyle is that cooperation is more likely to happen while democracy is spreading throughout the states. He stated that democracies usually do not fight each other because they share a common basis of values and principles, which can definitely helps cooperation. [...]
[...] Two attributes of the international system prevent the States from cooperating, according to Mearsheimer[2]. The main obstacle to cooperation is that states think in terms of relative gains. Not only do they want to maximize their power, but they also want to reduce the others' power. For the realists, the transactions and interactions that occur in the international system are a zero-sum: the more one State gets, the less the other have. Thus, the States are always trying to increase their gains, thereby decreasing the other's gains. [...]
[...] The main advantage of international institutions is to avoid fear from the states that leads to non cooperation and conflicts. According to neoliberalists such as Keohane, they create the capability for the states to cooperate in mutually beneficial ways by reducing the costs of making and enforcing agreements. They reduce the transaction costs by establishing rules and norms that all actors engage in respecting. With those rules they provide a sense of continuity and favor reciprocity. One of their main actions is to reduce uncertainty, thanks to the information that they provide. [...]
[...] They assume that States are the main actors of the international system, even if they take into account other actors such as institutions, and they assume that these evolve in an anarchic system. States are rational in their actions and are self-interested units. Thus neoliberalists do not focus anymore on domestic policies but start with the same point as the neorealists, though they end up with a different conclusion. Even if the states still pursue their own interest, they share a wide range of them. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
