Theory of International Cooperation: Possibility, reasons and conditions of International Cooperation

Résumé du document

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

Extraits

[...] Neorealists do not look for cooperation; like realists, they see the world as the co-actions of self-regarding units. They focus on the systemic level of analysis and the positions of the States compared to each other. They deliberately abstract the interactions between the actors and the institutions. Neorealists such as Waltz argue that the self-regarding units, the States, vary in their capacities but all provide the same function, security and survival. In that sense, they are the same and cannot differentiate from one another; there is no specialization among the actors, thus no interdependence. [...]

[...] 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 whereas ending up with a different conclusion. Even if the states still pursue their own interest, they share a wide range of them. This mutual interest is the main prerequisite for cooperation. A lot of issues such as the fight against global warming, or the expanding transactions thanks to international trade, peace or collective security are issues that are common to states and that can only be dealt with cooperation. [...]

[...] Cooperation does occur in the balance of power logic. The balance of power could be defined as the process by which states counterbalance to ensure that no single state dominates the system, or an outcome that establishes a rough equilibrium among states.[4] No matter its intentions, if a greatest power is rising, the States will align against it, whichever power it might be. This happens through the formation of alliances between States, who formally arrange defence to prevent dominance from the greatest power. [...]

[...] Another factor that helps cooperation in the game is technological change that favours communication between the actors and finally the common goals of the different states. Thus according to Oye, the prisoners' dilemma and similar games can be turned in a more cooperative way, which is not automatic but desirable, especially if the gains for cooperation are substantial. Cooperation is thus wanted and desirable, but still hard to get. International institutions are then the key actors in helping cooperation between states and making them pursue their goals. [...]

[...] 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. In a climate of such fighting, help and cooperation seems hard because the States want to have the most gain possible, which can only take place if the other ones have less. [...]