What does it mean to
change the international system?
One of the fundamental questions of the debate was largely
semantic: how do we define what “change” is in the international system? In
order to clearly define what change looks like, it is helpful to define the
historical organization of the international system. IF we accept the
neorealist viewpoint, the international system is anarchy, and “anarchies are
necessarily “self-help” systems in which both central authority and collective
security are absent.”[1]
Changing the international system in this context would constitute changing how
states pursue their interests- from “anarchy and self-help” to collectivism and
cooperation. Alexander Wendt explains this view on change, contending that “transformations
of identity and interests through process are transformations of structure.”[2] Transforming
the structure of the international system to one based on collectivism and
cooperation is fundamentally remaking the international system.
What evidence of
change is there?
International organizations are strongest example of states
transitioning from self-help to cooperation.
The strength of international organizations has been in overcoming the prisoner’s
dilemma by linking state interests to positive outcomes through cooperation.
There are numerous examples of how this manifests itself in international
policy, several of which are discussed briefly below.
World Trade Organization
The WTO has rallied states around the
principle of fairness in the application of trade rules between states. The WTO
has an 80% success rate in resolving disputes, often at the expense of one party’s
sovereign right to determine its own trade policy.
European Union
The European Union has progressed from an
economic organization to a regional governance organization with shared
currency and a body of regulations on economics, trade, and politics. States
continue to cede the European Union more sovereignty because they recognize the
benefits derived from cooperation within the region.
United Nations Security Council
In contrast with wars 200 years ago, states
are now required to justify their wars of aggression to the UN Security
Council, and seek an international mandate. States which do not receive a
mandate and who act without a broad base of international support are often
subject to coercive measures from the international community, including
sanctions or armed intervention. This reflects the changing international norm
that invasions and wars of aggression are not acceptable.
These examples reiterate the idea that norms of state
behavior are changing. International organizations create the incentives for
cooperation which reduce instances of states acting to secure their perceived
interests through “self-help.”
A "Fair" Assessment of
the Debate
I entered the class debate over whether “the international
system can be fundamentally remade” with a realist perspective rooted in my
pessimism toward human nature and the belief that war is an inevitable part of
international relations. As I evaluated the arguments for and against the
ability of the international system to change, I identified convincing indicators
that the international system is currently undergoing change, shifting from self-help
and individualism toward collectivism and cooperation. I was not convinced by
the negative (or con teams) contentions that international organizations were
just vehicles for states to exert their sovereign interests- because there were
numerous examples of states ceding sovereignty or accepting a loss at the WTO
because the benefits of cooperation outweighed the disadvantages. Ultimately I
think the pro side has a stronger argument. The argument that fundamental change has not occurred yet
does not preclude the idea that change can, or is occurring.
Ben - I have to admit, I wasn't quite sure whether you truly were coming around to a more "optimistic" perspective of the nature of international relations, or if you were just "in character". I remembered a couple of sessions back when you mentioned your strict realist point of view. Glad to see that this debate opened your perspective to include a more hopeful approach to global affairs. Welcome to the "less dark" side! :)
ReplyDeleteI'm an intellectual mercenary. :)
ReplyDeleteIt's so funny that you're going the other way, Ben. I was always so swayed by the arguments of constructivism, but this program has brought out the realist in me that I never knew existed. I am interested in your point about the WTO, though. While you can point to the success rate of 80% compliance, that still means that one out of every five rulings is ignored. So to me, that was something I looked to from the Con side - that yes, states cooperate, right up until they don't like the terms and there is no enforcement mechanism. I can see how Fatima would call that the dark side, and I would totally agree. But it is something that I have begun to consider a much more legitimate theory over the past two semesters.
ReplyDelete