The author sets out to investigate the claim that institutions, such as the European Community and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, push countries away from conflict and promote peace (Mearsheimer, 1995). To achieve this objective, the author compares and contrasts both the realist and institutionalist schools of thought, as follows:
1. Realists argue institutions cannot markedly affect the prospects for international peace and stability not only because they lack independent effect on state behavior, but are basically a reflection of the distribution of power in the world, and are based on the self-interested paradigms of the great power states. (Mearsheimer, 1995).
However, Institutionalists acknowledge that institutions are independent entities bearing the capacity to move countries away from war and conflict not only by altering their inclinations and therefore shifting state behavior, but also by discouraging countries from scheming for self-interest behavior on the grounds of how every move influences their relative power positions (Mearsheimer, 1995).
2. The author believes that institutionalism has no place in the modern political setting, and it was in fact used by dominant Western states in post Cold War Era to suppress other states, or to gain relative advantage.
3. The author buys realists’ idea that states have little reason to trust each other and that international competition is in a state of relentless security competition (Mearsheimer, 1995). Consequently, international institutions cannot possibly claim to have a sway in the maintenance of world peace and stability.
4. To stress his point home, the author argues that contemporary states operate in both offensively-oriented and defensively-oriented paradigm, in line with the realist school of thought.
5. He suggests that contemporary countries not only look for opportunities to take advantage of one another but also operate to ensure that other countries do not take advantage of them, in line with a realist perspective (Mearsheimer, 1995).
6. To provide evidence, he argues that contemporary states are motivated principally by relative gain concern when considering entering into cooperation with other states (Mearsheimer, 1995).
Additionally, the author suggests that modern-day countries are often hesitant to pursue cooperation agreements with other countries due to the perceived fear that others will cheat on the contractual agreement with a view to increase their relative competitive advantage (Mearsheimer, 1995).
Consequently, he is of the view that the most powerful states in the world build and design institutions, not to maintain world peace and stability but to maintain their allocation of world power, or even enhance it (Mearsheimer, 1995). These assertions, in my view, are influenced by the realist line of thought.
6. The author pokes holes into the liberal institutionalist’s assertion that institutions are a significant cause of peace and stability by suggesting that it is very difficult to connect cooperation and stability. He argues that the assertion cannot be true as the liberal institutionalists refuse to acknowledge the fact that relative-gain concern is the main hindrance to interstate cooperation (Mearsheimer, 1995)
7. To conclude, the author argues that liberal institutionalism does not in any way avail a sound foundation for understanding international relations, not mentioning that institutions do not promote world stability and power as suggested by liberal institutionalists (Mearsheimer, 1995).
8. From his critical analysis of realists and institutionalists perspectives, the author finds that institutions have negligible influence on state behavior, and therefore hold little assurance for enhancing peace and stability in contemporary society.
Reference List
Mearsheimer, J.J. (1995). The false promise of international institutions. International Security, 19(3), 5-49.