Session 15: Institutions as the harbingers of peace?

What is particularly striking is the fact that realism has been received by American policy makers with much hostility as demonstrated by the authors of "The Promise of Institutionalist Theory". By critiquing John Mersheimer's Realist dissertations made in the 1990's, Robert Koehane and Lisa Martin have identified the logical fallacies in "realism" which ultimately reiterate the importance of institutions in the political, economic and military spheres.

One of the most important assumptions made is regarding the idea that "States are rational egoists operating in a world in which agreements cannot be hierarchically enforced and that institutionlists only expect interstate cooperation to occur if states have common interests". Looking through the lens of Realism, how would the authors reconcile with the reality that the UN in fact is an institution which does operate within a system of hierarchy and, since its very inception, has been giving the stronger nations relatively more power than the others. William Easterly in his book "The White Man's Burden" highlights the hierarchical mechanism present within institutions making the UN, EU, WHO the "Planners" that have been unsuccessful in implementing poverty alleviation policies. Therefore, it would not be completely correct to credit institutions as the harbingers of peace, but rather to recognize their significance as those entities that disseminate information as Koehane and Martin have suggested throughout the course of their article. However, again reassessing the credibility and efficiency of institutions all around the world, it would be better to adopt Mearsheimer's realist stance and to view institutions with a degree of skepticism since information has always been and will always be asymmetrical given the security dilemma. For example, the roots of the Cold War lie in the information asymmetry espoused by the institutions and State agencies at the time. 

The idea that the Cold War and every other security dilemma can be alleviated if the State puts faith in institutions forms the basis of the articles argument which seems a little idealistic given historical evidence. Authors critique Mearsheimer's "loophole" which asserts institutions are only limited to the political and economics spheres. Further extending the debate, Koehane and Martin suggest that institutionalist theory becomes more applicable when the states are economically interdependent because of which they need to coordinate to maintain an equilibrium. Here institutions act as the "constructed focal points" which actually enable trade and make reciprocity the linchpin upon which good foreign policy is fostered. This seems like a more tangible perspective but given the tone of the article, the authors are perhaps overstating the importance of institutions.

Koehane and Martin identify that "Realisms insistence that institutions have only a marginal effect" makes it difficult to understand why there are so many international economic, political and military institutions which nations put their faith in. Their take on the existence of institutions like NATO, EU and GATT is that "coercive cooperation" is plausible because of the collective action these institutes endorse which makes it possible to impose sanctions as in the case of the Falklands War. The thought this article aims to leave us with is the idea that if we were to put faith in institutions and reassess Mearsheimer's realist perspective, we would be able to coordinate peace - a thought that is hard to fathom given the economic, political and military asymmetry in the world. However, the idea that one should elicit from this article is that if realists were to recognize the importance of institutions in more than just the political and economic sphere, it would be beneficial.