COOPERATION UNDER ANARCHY IN POST WAR EUROPE (Term Paper Sample)

COOPERATION UNDER ANARCHY IN POST WAR EUROPE 5TH DECEMBER, 2019. COOPERATION UNDER ANARCHY IN POST WAR EUROPE Introduction Achieving cooperation in world politics is generally viewed to be difficult. This is because of the structural and circumstantial dispositions of the actors in international relations. There is no common government to enforce rules, and by the standards of domestic society, international institutions are weak. Cheating and deception are also endemic. And yet, cooperation is at times attained. Theories of international relations offer various inductive and deductive methods of analysis in examining cooperation.　Although this paper will not exhaust on all of such approaches, this paper is designed to explore this subject in the following manner. First, the definition of cooperation will be briefly addressed, because as a term, cooperation is both ambiguous and aloof - there is the necessity to designate what this study will define cooperation as. Second, the paper will provide a descriptive analysis of how cooperation is possible in the context of post war Europe, despite the nature of the international system being anarchic. This will be done by assessing how cooperation is portrayed by different theories in international relations. In doing this, the study hopes to examine how the attainability of cooperation is inscribed by different theoretical genres. Before trying to draw conclusions about the factors that promote cooperation under anarchy, let us recall the definitions of these key terms. Cooperation is not equivalent to harmony. Harmony requires complete identity of interests, but cooperation can only take place in situations that contain a mixture of conflicting and complementary interests. In such situations, cooperation occurs when actors adjust their behavior to the actual or anticipated preferences of others. Cooperation, thus defined, is not necessarily good from a moral point of view. Anarchy also needs to be defined clearly. As used here, the term refers to a lack of common government in world politics, not to a denial that an international society-albeit a fragmented one-exists. Clearly, many international relationships continue over time, and engender stable expectations about behavior. To say that world politics is anarchic does not imply that it entirely lacks organization. Relationships among actors may be carefully structured in some issue-areas, even though they remain loose in others. Likewise, some issues may be closely linked through the operation of institutions while the boundaries of other issues, as well as the norms and principles to be followed, are subject to dispute. Anarchy, defined as lack of common government, remains a constant; but the degree to which interactions are structured, and the means by which they are structured, vary. Theoretical Approaches to Cooperation under Anarchy Realist Perspective Realism has dominated international relations theory at least since World War II. For realists, international anarchy fosters competition and conflict among states and inhibits their willingness to cooperate even when they share common interests. Realist theory also argues that international institutions are unable to mitigate anarchy's constraining effects on inter-state cooperation. Realism, then, presents a pessimistic analysis of the prospects for international cooperation and of the capabilities of international institutions.[Hans J. Morgenthau, Scientific Man vs. Power Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1946), especially pp. 187-203.] Realism encompasses five propositions. First, states are the major actors in world affairs. Second, the international environment severely penalizes states if they fail to protect their vital interests or if they pursue objectives beyond their means; hence, states are "sensitive to costs" and behave as unitary rational agents. Third, international anarchy is the principal force shaping the motives and actions of states. Fourth, states in anarchy are preoccupied with power and security, are predisposed towards conflict and competition, and often fail to cooperate even in the face of common interests. Finally, international institutions affect the prospects for cooperation only marginally.[Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations, p. 10; see also Waltz, Theory of InternationalPolitics, p. 95.] [Waltz, "Reflections on Theory of International Politics: A Response to My Critics," in Keohane, ed., Neorealism and Its Critics, p. 331.] [Waltz, Man, State, and War, pp. 224-38; and Waltz, Theory of International Politics, pp. 79-128; Stanley Hoffmann, The State of War: Essays in the Theory and Practice of International Politics (New York: Praeger, 1965), pp. 27, 54-87, 129; Aron, Peace and War, pp. 6-10.] [Aron, Peace and War, p. 5; Gilpin, "Political Realism," p. 304.] [Waltz, Theory of International Politics, pp. 115-16; see also Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations, p. 512; and Stanley Hoffmann, "International Organization and the International System," in Leland M. Goodrich and David A. Kay, eds., International Organization: Politics and Process (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1973), p. 50.] Liberalist Perspective Proponents of liberalism believe that international relations evolve and have been undergoing a process of modernization brought about by the scientific revolution and the intellectual revolution of liberalism. From this point of view, the late 17th century represents a historic benchmark when the process of modernization began transforming international relations by laying the ground for significant improvements in human morality and welfare. The growth and spread of liberal democracy or republican government, international economic interdependence, and international law and institutions are seen as the key elements of this modernization. This process, however, isseen as gradual and uneven. The engine at the heart of this modernization process is believed to be a vital private sector largely free of governmental interventions.[See Zacher and Matthew, in Charles W. Kegley, ed., Controversies in International Relations Theory, 1995, 110.] As a result of the process of modernization, according to liberals, a group of liberal states has emerged within which international interactions are more extensive, more cooperative, and peaceful than between non-liberal states or between liberal and non-liberal states. The relations between these liberal states are characterized by what Kant called a “perpetual peace.” In order to explain the mechanism of liberal pacification, scholars adhering to liberal paradigm invoke various causal constructs with the emphasis on different factors. Republican liberals stress the importance of republican, or representative government. According to this explanation, democratic states, where citizens have their say in decision making and bear the costs of war, generally tend to avoid war and pursue more accommodating policies, particularly towards other liberal democratic states with whom they share democratic values. Among liberal states international cooperation and peace are seen as a simple function of converging state interests. Neoliberals, recognizing mutual interests as a necessary but insufficient condition for successful international cooperation, emphasize the role of international institutions—rules and norms that govern international interactions.[Ibid] [Kegley, Charles W. Controversies in International Relations Theory: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge. Peking University Press, 2004.] [Maoz, Zeev, and Bruce Russett. “Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946–1986.” American Political Science Review, vol. 87, no. 3, 1993, pp. 624–638., doi:10.2307/2938740.] [Andreas Hasenclever, Peter Mayer, Volker Ritterger, Theories of International Regimes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 57.] [Robert O. Keohane, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984).] Game Theory in International Relations Although conflict is commonly viewed as the antithesis of cooperation, unfortunately, this does not provide much in the way of understanding. Commonly, cooperation can only take place in situations that contain a mixture of both conflicting and complementary interest. Furthermore, cooperation can be realized through several different means in international politics. Generally, we can categorize the types into: tacit, explicit, and imposed cooperation. Explicit cooperation indicates cooperation entailing a bargaining or negotiating process, examples being the negotiation of treaties and bargaining disarmament. According to Milner, this is the most common form of cooperation in international relations. On the other hand, in tacit cooperation, the involved parties' cooperative behavior occurs as a result of convergence of the actors’ expectations. The most notable example can be the prisoner's dilemma, where policy coordination is a result of calculated benefit from the payoff matrix. In an imposed cooperation, one party forcefully alters the behavior of opposite party. Imposed cooperation is often a result of hegemonic leadership in international negotiations.[Kenneth A. Oye ed., Cooperation Under Anarchy (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1986), pp. 1-24.] [Helen Muner, International Theories of Cooperation Among Nations: Strength and Weaknesses, World Poutb, Vol. 44, No. 3 (April, 1992), pp. 466-496.] [Ibid] Accordingly, the following definition of cooperation offered by Robert 0. Keohane best grasps the relationship between the involved parties for the purposes of this research - cooperation occurs "when actors adjust their behavior to the actual or anticipated preferences of others, through a process of policy coordination. From this definition, three inherent features of cooperation can be extracted; (1) that actors- adjustment is directe...