Two Approaches of International Institutions - Essay Example

International s: Two Approaches The article under review was written by Robert Keohane inInternational Studies Quarterly under the title International Institutions: Two Approaches. It was published in 1988 which is almost twenty years ago therefore a historical setting for the 80s must be kept in mind while the article can be analyzed in our present context (Keohane, 1988). Fundamentally, the article suggests that in order to better understand international relations and the working of international institutions a person needs to understand the two approaches to contemporary international bodies. The two approaches are given as the rationalistic approach and the reflective approach of which the rationalistic approach has had a long standing with the intellectual elite. However, the reflective approach is challenging this standing by focusing on subjectivity and pre-existing human conditions. At the same time, the supporters of the reflective approach have been unable to come to terms in creating a research methodology or a coherent viewpoint of their own although they have been successful in asking some very troubling questions for the supporters of the rationalistic approach (Keohane, 1988). Perhaps the most startling observation is made on the very first page of the document since the writer says that no general theory of international relations can be used to explain the complex relation that exists between international bodies and member countries (Keohane, 1988). In a world where we have learnt to bring down complex international equations to simple axioms (such as, nations have no permanent allies, just permanent interests and to define the legality of war with dictates such as just in cause and just in action) such a claim seems far fetched to say the least. However, this observation is qualified by saying that the formalistic theories of international relations often fail when the situation is extremely complex. Strategic bargaining amongst a small number of nations might be defined by deterministic laws but when it comes to groups of countries and national interests along with the dictates of international bodies, the equations may get too complex (Keohane, 1988). One can certainly agree with this idea since there is a lot more to be done with regard to formulating new theories and developing present theories of international relations but to reject them out of hand simply because they are not applicable in certain cases seems to be a wrong decision made in haste. Keohane differentiates between the concepts of cooperation, harmony and discord to clarify his own position with regard to these concepts. He rightly suggests that certain situations create automatic coordination between international bodies as well as individuals but persons who are in harmony or discord have no intrinsic motivation to move from one state to another without having encountered some changes in their respective positions (Keohane, 1988). The writer certainly goes to great lengths in order to clarify his standing within the community of analysts since he declares himself to be a child of enlightenment. He declares that it is his belief that the human condition can be improved through action which is based on acquired knowledge that guides our progress as a society and civilization. The purpose of such advancements is to bring about improvements in the welfare, independence and individual security of all concerned parties (Keohane, 1988). With such beliefs, it can be assumed that the writer will take a sympathetic approach to both the rationalistic and reflective views of international institutions as well as the ideas of sovereignty. The writer does an excellent job of explaining realist and neorealist theories in the context of rationalism since they can be used to understand both the concepts of cooperation and discord in the context of international institutes. The author accepts that rationality is contextual since rational ideas can cease to be applicable once the context is changed (Keohane, 1988). This flexibility gives the rational approach a leg up as compared to the reflective approach since it is easier to change opinions once the facts have changed. This praise given to the rationalistic approach is balanced with the criticism of the approach when the analyst says that rationality does not bring about an exact set of conclusions about international institutions. Even though taking a rational approach can give an observer a set of rules which explain the behavior of international bodies in a given context, the approach often fails when conclusions and guidelines need to be drawn for long term conditions (Keohane, 1988). One has to agree with the author on this point since the drawbacks of the rational approach are visible quite clearly when we examine the actions taken by international cooperative groups with a long term view. Quite often, these actions can not be explained by rationality alone since a situational, sociological or reflective approach is also need to understand them. The writer gives some very strong inherent limitations to the rationalistic theory which further intensify his leaning towards a reflective approach. Rationalist theory is limited by the game theory under the prisoner’s dilemma which is dependent upon the context of the situation. Additionally, there are further doubts expressed by the writer when it comes to applying the rationalistic perspective regarding the international institution as well as the primary individuals who control the actions of the body (Keohane, 1988). Fundamentally, the author’s assessment of the rationalist theory is that while the rationalist theory can give us a good analysis and presents us with interesting questions; it does not give us any substantial answers or solutions. Logically therefore, a reader expects to find that the reflective theory would be better at giving answers to questions posed by the cooperation of international bodies but this expectation is not fruitful. The author clarifies that the reflective theory is important in a sociological context and that it is very useful in giving us guidelines for understanding what can happen in a given international situation. However, the answers produced by the reflective theory application may not be always correct (Keohane, 1988). Although the writer admits that the reflective theory and reflective analysis of international situations is valid only up to a point, he never clearly defines what that point is. Perhaps this is not as much a limitation of the reflective theory as much as it is a lack on analysis with the reflective theory. The author declares quite emphatically (although some writers may object to it) that the proponents of the reflective theory have done little more than to bring objections to the various applications of the rational theory (Keohane, 1988). However, the writer does not clarify a direction or discusses situations where the reflective theory should be applied. In fact, even when he gives the names of international bodies such as GATT and NAFTA he does suggest that rational benefits such as economic realities may prevent a reflective analysis of these institutes. In either the case of applying the reflective theory or the rationalistic theory the author bemoans the fact that not having a combined approach to the analysis of international affairs is hurting the field and restricting players to taking one approach or the other (Keohane, 1988). It seems that despite the wealth on information available on the theories themselves there is a considerable lack of application of these theories to developing situations and previously established international bodies. Despite the value of the article, I did find one thing to be lacking in the analysis made by the author. At the very beginning as well as in the abstract section, the author suggests that there may be a change for a synthesis between the two theories. After reading the article and understanding the limitations as well as the strengths of the two theories I find myself in complete agreement with the writer that there is indeed room for compromise and cooperation between analysts from different sides of the debate but the writer does not provide any clear guidelines on how a synthesis should be made. The author would find many analysts in complete agreement with him since his suggestions of further work on the topic must be taken seriously. Competing theories of analysis are always wonderful for any field of study since they give interesting viewpoints and different methodologies for looking at the same situation but competing theories where neither has the full answer for many situations does seem to point towards the fact that the creation of new theories as well as the further development of present ideas is an essential requirements for the field. Overall, I feel that this is an essential article for students as well as teachers of international affairs since it thoroughly discusses both the predominant theories of international relations as well as their application to international bodies. As promised in the introduction by the author, it does not fall short of giving ideas for the future and some direction for theorists and researchers in the field so that they can apply the same ideas to their work. Word Count: 1,508 Works Cited Keohane, R. (1988). International Institutions: Two Approaches. International Studies Quarterly, 32(4), 379-396. Read More