Can states achieve cooperation in the international system?

Résumé du document

Considered as utopian by some, or as the main purpose of statehood by others, cooperation has always been one of the most controversial issues in international relations. It has been discussed by the two dominant theories, realism and liberalism, and seems to be the point where scholars and theorists seem to disagree the most. According to realist thinkers, the state is the reflection of the human being and hence is selfish. Moreover, the international system is anarchical. Thus, roughly they think that cooperation between states is impossible. On the other hand, liberalism is considered as optimistic (Clark states that liberalism is 'the tradition of optimism'), and therefore liberal thinkers easily imagine and dream of cooperation.

Basing ourselves on those two main theories, we will first examine them and try to reconcile them through the new theory emerging in world politics: neo-liberalism. Finally, we will analyse why cooperation between states could become mandatory in today's changing world order ...

Extraits

[...] The states are the main actors and they can cooperate with each other as long as an international agency is able to avoid cheating. But if cooperation is possible, some states still don't wish to enter or compel to certain agreements if they think that greater gains can be achieved outside cooperation. The second war in Iraq obviously proves it. The IAEA had been sent over to Iraq by the United Nations to verify that the country was respecting its promises, but the USA thought they would gain much more by invading the Iraq (especially economic and geopolitical gains). [...]

[...] We could notably name the 'Transmanche Region' (Kent in Great Britain and Nord- pas-de-Calais in France). Those regions don't have much power but can create schools or hospitals which are not under the full control of national governments, and create a sense of identity differing from national. But the most important step which has been taken toward a global community is the recognition of individuals as subjects. Today, anybody can sue a state, at different levels, from a local court to the European Court. [...]

[...] According to realists, there are two major barriers to cooperation: 'state concerns about cheating and state concerns about relative achievements of gains'[7]. Indeed, as the international system is anarchical, nothing compels a state to be honest and respect the terms of the contract, nothing prevents cheating, and the balance of power could be disturbed by a state gaining more in the agreement than another one. This is the distinction between absolute gains and relative gains. Absolutes gains will maximize the power of the state, while relative gains will diminish other states achievements. [...]

[...] On the other hand, neo-liberalism seems to provide a much better understanding, and clearly affirms that cooperation between states is possible and that states should cooperate as often as possible. This being quite clear, states must realize that cooperate with each other is the only way for them to 'maintain their position in the system'[32]. New emerging actors in the international system indeed take advantage of the lack of cooperation between states to gain influence and might on the long run make the states redundant. Realists claim that the state must survive at all costs. Today, the best chance of survival has become cooperation. [...]

[...] As we've seen, cooperation, from a liberal point of view, is possible, necessary, and the main goal of statehood. Hedley Bull even affirms that, 'as a member of an international society, states express their identity through their relationship with others'[11]. This could be seen as a very utopian theory, too idealist to be applied empirically. Indeed, liberalism has become dominant after the two world wars, through the creation of the League of Nations in 1919 and of the United Nations in 1945. [...]