Challenging Institutions: Getting Goods or Getting Your Own Institution?

  • Matt Millard University of Alabama, USA

Sažetak


I present a discussion of the current state of liberal internationalism as it relates to international organisations. I maintain that the literature focuses too much on liberal interna- tionalism instead of non-liberal internationalism. This is problematic because non-liberal states are increasingly becoming important players in the international system, as is the case with Rus- sia and China. I argue that non-liberal states have a variety of approaches in their dealings with international institutions that can enable them to maximise their net gains from institutions. These are: 1) keep using the liberal institution, 2) utilise institutional àla cartism (forum shop- ping), 3) create an anti-liberal institution, or 4) opt out of institutions alltogether. Scholars and practitioners alike should acknowledge that international institutions can be a vehicle whereby non-liberal states maximise their power and diminish the power and influence of liberal states.


Reference

Abbott, Kenneth W., and Duncan Snidal. 1998. “Why states act through formal inter- national organizations.” Journal of conflict resolution 42 (1): 3–32.

Aggarwal, Vinod K. 1998. “Reconciling multiple institutions: Bargaining, linkages, and nesting.” Institutional designs for a complex world: Bargaining, linkages, and nesting: 1–31.

Alter, Karen J., and Sophie Meunier. 2006. “Nested and overlapping regimes in the transatlantic banana trade dispute.” Journal of European Public Policy 13 (3): 362– 382.

Betts, Alexander. 2013. “Regime complexity and international organizations: UN- HCR as a challenged institution.” Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations 19 (1): 69–81.

Bugajski, Janusz. 2010. “Russia’s pragmatic reimperialization.” Caucasian Review of International Affairs 4 (1): 3−19.

Busch, Marc L. 2007. “Overlapping institutions, forum shopping, and dispute settle- ment in international trade.” International Organization 61 (4): 735–761.

Ferdinand, Peter. 2013. “The positions of Russia and China at the UN Security Council in the light of recent crises.” Briefing Paper, Policy Department, Directorate- General for External Policies of the European Union, March: 10.

Grant, Charles. 2009. “Can Russia Contribute to Global Governance?” Centre for External Policies of the European Union, June. http://www.cer.org.uk/insights/can- russia-contribute-global-governance.

Jupille, Joseph, and Duncan Snidal. 2005. “The choice of international institutions: Cooperation, alternatives and strategies.” In American Political Science Association annual meeting, Washington, DC.

Keohane, Robert O., and Joseph S. Nye. 1977. Power and interdependence: World politics in transition (2nd ed., pp. 27–29). Boston: Little, Brown.

Keohane, Robert O. 1989. “International institutions: two approaches.” In Macht und Ohnmacht politischer Institutionen, edited by Hans-Hermann Hartwich, 285−305. Opladen: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Koremenos, B., C. Lipson, and D. Snidal. 2001. “The rational design of international institutions.” International Organization, 55(4): 761–799.

Leeds, B. A. 2000. “Credible commitments and international cooperation: Guaran- teeing contracts without external enforcement.” Conflict Management and Peace Science, 18 (1): 49–71.

Mitrany, D. 1933. The progress of international government. New Haven: Yale Univer- sity Press.

Volgy, Thomas J., Derrick V. Frazier, and Robert Stewart Ingersoll. 2003. “Preference similarities and group hegemony: G-7 voting cohesion in the UN General Assembly.” Journal of International Relations and Development 6 (1): 51–70.

Objavljeno
2018/08/29
Broj časopisa
Rubrika
Članci