Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: A realist critique of the newest liberal institutionalism – Joseph M. Grieco

Résumé du document

In this research article, the author, Joseph M. Grieco, tries to critic the institutionalist theory through the realist prism. First, he describes the main statements of those two doctrines, emphasizing the differences between them. This compared approach is very interesting, as we can easily understand the points of conflict between those two international relations' theories. Grieco clearly stands for the realist theory, and demonstrates that the neoliberal claim to incorporate the realist core can be proved wrong. He focuses on the expectations of the states from the cooperation among them, showing that the predictable outcome of cooperative living amongst states depends from the aim of the above mentioned states; the maximization of either absolute or relative gains.

However, if we look at empiric data, the specialized international organizations that are so disparaged by the realists, as unable to enforce states to respect their commitments, seems erroneous. The WTO, the UN, or the IMF, can sometimes be way more powerful than states (especially for the first and last one). In the case of the IMF, as an example, the last European sovereign debt crisis, and especially the Greek case, showed its power, as it could enforce Greece to pay its debts to its creditors.

Extraits

[...] Moreover, it produces rules and trade laws that are signed by the member states during the trade rounds. We can there see a parallel with Jean Jacques Rousseau's theory of the social contract; the anarchy ceases with the appearance of a superior body, even if it is obviously different, as the WTO power is mainly a retaliation allowance power; nevertheless, the process is similar as a supreme authority is designed by consensus of the individuals. One would say in order to dispute this argument that states managed to overthrow the international institutions' power in the past, like did America with the Iraqi war. [...]

[...] First, the globalization can no longer be forgotten. It is really interesting that globalization produced both winners and losers; some states, the big northern economic powers, managed to make the most of the globalization, while poor states seem to be the excluded of the globalization. The first groups, the winners, are interconnected, linked by strong economic bounds. They have incentives to cooperate, as it is in their best interest; they are very unlikely to one day wage against each other, and thus may not care about the relative gains, but about their absolute gains. [...]

[...] Furthermore, their relations with the above mentioned first group also are conflict prone. Actually, the winners of the globalization are willing to keep their superiority upon the developing countries, while the developing countries hope to change the established order. And the international relations could, in this scenario be seen as a tool for the northern powers to maintain their hegemony. This is illustrated by the example of the WTO, where powerful countries such as the US or the EU are way more powerful than the small developing economies. [...]

[...] In this case, the realist approach seems to be more appropriate than the institutionalist one. Secondly, it seems important to realize that the shared history between two states may lead to an important difference in the way they'll handle their relationship. Historic enemies or former colonies may not interact as well as strong economic partners. As a conclusion, we'll say that the international relations cannot be thought universally, and that the context as to be taken in consideration. Sources Joseph M. Grieco ?Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation? in International Organization 42:3,pp.485 -?507. [...]

[...] Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: A realist critique of the newest liberal institutionalism Joseph M. Grieco In this research article, the author, Joseph M. Grieco, tries to critic the institutionalist theory through the realist prism. First, he describes the main statements of those two doctrines, emphasizing the differences between them. This compared approach is very interesting, as we can easily understand the points of conflict between those two international relations' theories. Grieco clearly stands for the realist theory, and demonstrates that the neoliberal claim to incorporate the realist core can be proved wrong. [...]