In his “The False Promise of International Institutions,” Mearsheimer presents a critique of institutionalism theories and the policies that ensue from them. He claims that these theories do not reflect the realities of the world and are disproved by the world’s history. According to him, the alternative, namely realism, is rejected because of its harsh notion of the inevitability of war; hence, the international institutions do not overpower the states’ ambitions and cannot fulfill their purposes (Mearsheimer, 1994). The first strength of this perspective is that it points out that the individuals in power often weigh more than large institutions; second, it denotes that past institutionalism attempts failed. However, the weaknesses are as follows: the world has changed since the Cold War and has become more decentralized and interconnected, so the international institutions now have power; moreover, these institutions also include military alliances that can easily access authority and enforce peace.
The counterarguments for realism theory should be evaluated as well. Pevehouse and Russett (2006) argue that international governmental organizations statistically present the ability to prevent violence and aggression between the states with the condition that the countries of these organizations are democratic. This argument seems somewhat illogical; it does not prove that all institutions are effective, only democracy-based ones. Ruggie (1982) claims that the international institutions work because of the existing free trade worldwide and its benefits that prevent the member states of an organization from breaking its convention and, for example, waging unjustified war. This counterargument has more value since mode states, in fact, try to use their advantages in the market, and their effectiveness depends on their compliance with the other countries that participate in trade. So, I can agree with Ruggie and state that the global nature of modern economics binds states into international organizations, such as SWIFT. Hence, these financial and other institutions affect trade, which is significant for the welfare of the nation. Therefore, the world relies on these institutions and regimes, and the realist paradigm cannot be considered relevant nowadays.
Bibliography
Mearsheimer, John J. 1994. “The False Promise of International Institutions.” International Security 19 no. 3, (Winter): 5–49. Web.
Pevehouse, Jon, and Bruce Russett. 2006. “Democratic International Governmental Organizations Promote Peace.” International Organization 60, no. 4: 969–1000. Web.
Ruggie, John Gerard. 1982. “International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order.” International Organization 36, no. 2 (Spring): 379–415. Web.