The View of Keohane and Martin
In their work, the researchers advocate the efficiency of the institutionalist theory while addressing some flaws of Mearsheimer’s “version of realism” (Keohane and Martin 39). Keohane and Martin note that Mearsheimer sees international institutions as ineffective. One of the reasons for that is the fact that every state wants to be the most powerful within the institution, especially when it comes to security. At the same time, authors argue that NATO can be regarded as an illustration of the institution where members are not focused on supremacy in their military power. The researchers also argue that institutions help states to compromise and achieve consensus on various issues when several members make up the international institutions. Importantly, the authors stress that these institutions may be effective in economic, political and security issues under the conditions mentioned above.
In my opinion, Keohane and Martin unveil the flaws in Mearsheimer’s approach and manage to prove that international institutions are effective. Moreover, the authors provide sufficient arguments to prove the strengths of the institutionalist theory. One of the most valuable insights of the paper is the attention to particular conditions when international institutions are effective.
Ruggie’s View on Realism
Ruggie does not support Mearsheimer’s criticism of institutionalism. Ruggie provides three major arguments (62). First, the author stresses that the US leaders adopted institutionalist ideas and were active advocates of international institutions. The researcher emphasizes that this influenced the development of the international relations positively especially when it came to the international security (Ruggie 65). Second, international institutions managed to create a safe international arena. Such policies as non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and the projects of NATO can be regarded as illustrations of the effectiveness of international institutions. Third, the American focus on institutionalism was not a mistake or impaired vision, but an effective platform for the development of the international relations. The author concludes that realism could be used in the pre-World Wars world, but it is absolutely inappropriate in the modern society.
I believe Ruggie’s three arguments are appropriate, and the author manages to reveal flaws of the realism. More importantly, the author proves that institutionalism is the only option for the modern world. I agree that international institutions (for example, NATO) should and can ensure global security as the members of this institution have common benefits.
Wendt’s Position
Wendt is a supporter of Mearsheimer’s realism. The author provides the definition of social structures and notes that these are shared knowledge and understandings (Wendt 73). Social structures also include material resources and mainly exist “in practices” (Wendt 74). The author also explains the nature of objectivity, war, and peace. Importantly, the researcher stresses that anarchy can be the reality as there can be no laws that would prevent states from attacking each other since countries suspect each other of desires to attack. At the same time, neorealists claim that there will be no war when there is no conflict between core interests. The author also claims that responsibility and ethics are also in the focus of neorealists.
I share some ideas included in the article. I agree that countries will not be in conflict if there is no conflict of core interests. However, I totally disagree with the notion that anarchy is a characteristic feature of the modern world. I believe there can be order, and international institutions can ensure compliance with regulations.
Works Cited
Keohane, Robert O., and Lisa L. Martin. “The Promise of Institutionalist Theory.” International Security 20.1 (1995): 39-51. Print.
Ruggie, John Gerard. “The False Premise of Realism.” International Security 20.1 (1995): 62-70. Print.
Wendt, Alexander. “Constructing International Politics.” International Security 20.1 (1995): 71-81. Print.