Class Notes (810,237)
Canada (494,016)
POLB81H3 (69)


11 Pages
Unlock Document

University of Toronto Scarborough
Political Science
Wiafe- Amaoko

Institutions are a set of rules that states themselves create and they set the standards in term sof how to behave and competeformalized in international agreementsRealisminternational system is portrayed as a brutal arena where states look for opportunities to take advantage of eachother and therefore have little reason to trust eachother struggle for power and the most powerful actor in system has to ensure that no other state thats that position there is a lot competition for international security realism say a states which do not compete for power is unlikelyInstitutions in a Realist World realists agree that states sometimes operate through institutions but they think that those rules reflect state calculations of selfinterest based on international distribution of powerthe most powerful states in the system create and shape institutions rules so they can maintain their power in the world systemInstitutions then are arenas for acting out power relationships the causes of war and peace are functions of the balance of power and institutions largely mirror the distribution of power in the systeminstitutions intervenes in the process of war NATO is a good example of realist thinking about institutionsits an institutions playing a role in preventing world war 3Varieties of Institutionalist TheoriesThere are3Liberalist institutionalism Collective Security Critical TheoryAll of these three theories offers how institutions push away from war and create stabilityLiberalist Instituionalism Author says this is the least ambitiousdoes not address how to prevent war but emphasizes on exaplining how economic and environmentalcooperation among states will reduce war but liberal institutionalists do not explain howLI say that cheating inhibits cooperation and institutions will overcome this issueCollective Security confronts the issue of how to prevent war CS says force will continue in world politics and states have to guard against this threat of war can be reduced by implementing three antirealist normsFirst anti realist norm states should reject the idea of using force to change status quo Second dealing with states which threaten for warin a responsible way like not acting on the basis of their own narrow selfinterest but rather they must resist the temptation to respond in whatever way and this would maximize their individual gains join together with the other states and present the aggressor with the threat of overwhelming force Third states must trust eachother to renounce aggression and to mean that renunciation They should be confident that other states will come to their resuce should they become the target of aggressionCritical Theory said to be the most pratical and changes institutions similar to collective but is predicted on the assumption that ideas and discoursehow we think and talk about international politicsare the driving forces behind state behavior rejects realist claim that state behavior is largely a function of the given structure of the external world ideas shape the material world which revolutionizes international politics because it changes the way we think and talkLiberal Institutionalism This is weak according to the author because liberalists dont talk about how institutions cause peace but only explaining cooperation in cases where state interests are not opposed liberalists look at the reasons why states do and dont want to cooperate so the reasons why they dont want too this doesnt explain anything says little about how to deal with states competing each other over security because this is what happens in order to gain world power states want to be the most powerful they prove this with security and weapons and this often revolves around the idea of threatening for war and what not And security issues revolve around war and peace Liberalistss dont have ans in how to deal with states in this situation they define cooperation narrowly away from fixing military issues military is a huge form of power and cooperationliberalists dont define cooperation around military but rather around economic and political issues Liberal institutionalists assume that cooperation is a positive goal although they recognize it has a downside as well According to liberal institutionalists the principal obstacle to cooperation among states with mutual interests is the threat of cheatingPrisoners dilemma is an example of the problem states much achieve in order to get cooperationstates can either cheat or cooperate with eachother however each state is tempted to cheat when both cheat then cooperation wont be easyEach side wants to maximize its own gain but does not care about the size of the other sides gain each side cares about the other side only so far as the other sides chosen strategy affects its own prospects for maximizing gainthe key to solving this issue is to convince the other side that they have a collective interest in making short term sacrifices gain from successful cheating for sake of long term benefits pay off from mutural long term cooperation institutions must deter cheaters and protect victims 3 messages to cheaters you will be caught you will be punished immediately and u will jeopardize future cooperative efforts Liberal institutionalists do not aim to deal with cheaters and victims by changing fundamental norms
More Less

Related notes for POLB81H3

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.