Mearsheimer, Keohane and Martin

Summary

John Mearsheimer, a leading figure in offensive realism, critiques the role of international institutions in promoting peace and stability, arguing that they are often ineffective and simply reflect the distribution of power. His 1995 article, 'The False Promise of International Institutions,' challenges neoliberal institutionalism, collective security, and critical theory. In response, Robert Cohan and Lisa Martin defend liberal institutionalism, asserting that institutions play a vital role in facilitating cooperation, especially on security issues and relative gains. The debate highlights key differences in understanding state behavior, cooperation, and the impact of institutions in international relations.

Takeaways

• 😀 John Mearsheimer is a prominent figure in offensive realism, arguing that states must continuously maximize their material power to be secure in an anarchic international system.
• 😀 Mearsheimer's article, 'The False Promise of International Institutions,' critiques the idea that international organizations can meaningfully prevent war and foster peace, which was a dominant view post-Cold War.
• 😀 Robert Keohane and Lisa Martin co-authored a response, defending neoliberal institutionalism by challenging Mearsheimer's critique and emphasizing the importance of institutions in international cooperation.
• 😀 Neoliberal institutionalism, as opposed to realism, argues that institutions play a critical role in facilitating cooperation, even in situations where relative gains (how much one state benefits compared to others) are a concern.
• 😀 Mearsheimer critiques theories like liberal institutionalism, collective security, and critical theory, arguing they fail to recognize the importance of relative gains in preventing interstate cooperation.
• 😀 According to Mearsheimer, international institutions like NATO are mere reflections of power distributions rather than independent forces shaping global stability.
• 😀 Mearsheimer's narrow realist perspective holds that the balance of power within the international system dictates whether there will be peace or conflict, rather than international institutions.
• 😀 Keohane and Martin argue that, contrary to Mearsheimer, institutionalism is relevant to security because institutions provide essential information, helping states avoid worst-case scenarios based on uncertainty.
• 😀 Neoliberal institutionalism also acknowledges the role of power and state interests but posits that institutions facilitate cooperation by addressing issues like cheating and relative gains.
• 😀 In conclusion, while Mearsheimer sees international institutions as irrelevant or secondary to power politics, Keohane and Martin argue that institutions are valuable tools for enhancing state cooperation and security, especially when relative gains are a concern.

Q & A

What is John Mearsheimer's main theoretical perspective in international relations?

John Mearsheimer is a proponent of offensive realism, a variant of neo-realism. This theory suggests that states must constantly seek to maximize their material power to ensure security in a world where war and conflict are persistent.

How does Mearsheimer view international institutions in his article 'The False Promise of International Institutions'?

Mearsheimer argues that international institutions have little to no meaningful impact on preventing war or promoting peace and stability. He believes that they merely reflect the distribution of power in the international system, and that the balance of power, not institutions themselves, maintains stability.

What are the three key theories that Mearsheimer critiques in his article?

Mearsheimer critiques liberal institutionalism, collective security, and critical theory in his article. He argues that these theories falsely promise to promote peace and stability.

What is the central criticism of liberal institutionalism presented by Mearsheimer?

Mearsheimer criticizes liberal institutionalism for its narrow focus on economic issues and its failure to adequately address security concerns, particularly regarding relative gains and how they impede cooperation between states.

What is the significance of the timing of Mearsheimer's article 'The False Promise of International Institutions'?

The timing of Mearsheimer’s article was significant as it was published only four years after the end of the Cold War, a period when international institutions were being hailed as important for promoting global peace and stability. Mearsheimer directly challenged this prevailing view.

How does Mearsheimer characterize the role of international institutions in the context of interstate cooperation?

Mearsheimer views international institutions as irrelevant to interstate cooperation, seeing them as mere reflections of the balance of power among states. For him, institutions do not significantly affect the prospects of peace or war.

What is the difference between absolute and relative gains, according to Mearsheimer?

Absolute gains refer to how much a state benefits from cooperation, while relative gains refer to how much one state benefits compared to others. Mearsheimer emphasizes that relative gains are crucial in security matters, as they can determine whether a state can protect itself or be vulnerable to military aggression.

What is the core argument presented by Cohan and Martin in their 1995 response to Mearsheimer?

Cohan and Martin argue that Mearsheimer's view of liberal institutionalism is flawed. They emphasize that institutionalism is relevant to security issues and can help facilitate cooperation, particularly in managing relative gains concerns, which Mearsheimer overlooks.

What role do Cohan and Martin suggest international institutions play in managing relative gains?

Cohan and Martin argue that international institutions can act as important coordinating mechanisms, helping states manage concerns about relative gains by promoting information sharing and clarifying distributional issues, which can ease cooperation even when relative gains matter.

Why do Cohan and Martin believe states invest in international institutions despite power imbalances?

Cohan and Martin argue that states invest in international institutions because the rules these institutions impose can influence state behavior, encouraging short-term sacrifices for long-term gains and ultimately facilitating cooperation, even in a system grounded in power and interests.