conflict and cooperation
Lecture Notes
Realism and Co-operation
Realists believe that the international system lacks authority, and states are the primary actors in international relations
Realists believe that states are always seeking to maximize their power to ensure security
co-operation for a realist will occur if:
alliances take the interest of the states
if security of that state is not threaten
Co-operation can occur, though it is fragile and often limited to short-term goals
state interests will always go first above collective interests
<aside> đź’ˇ
International cooperation is likely to occur when a single power (Hegemon) is willing to enforce the rules of the international system onto others: states will comply because they benefit from stability or because they fear the consequences.
</aside>
<aside> đź’ˇ
The principal-agent relationship, the international organizations acts as agents that implement the policies of the states (principals) without developing independent interests - believe that state power drives cooperation
</aside>
Case Study: The Boeing 737 Max
Story:
Two crashes, of the same model of Boeing 737, occurred shortly after takeoff, which suggested their was a flaw within the planes design or certification.
Passengers included high profile political and diplomatic individuals, which drew more international attention about aviation norms
China and India were the first to ground their planes, followed by many other countries, with Canada and the US as the last ones.
Transgovernmentalism: when government agencies from different nations cooperate or act together to ensure public safety.
The US has been considered the leader in aviation security with the FAA, as they were seen as a trusted authority by other nations, regularly invited to investigate incidents and offer guidance.
they set the global norms for aviation safety, with an excellent record in investigating crashes and ensuring compliance.
Norm: standard of appropriate behaviour for an actor of a given identity.
the fact that the FAA was the last to ground the planes—despite clear evidence that something had gone wrong in both crashes
The perception grew that the FAA was prioritizing corporate interests (Boeing) over safety, as it allowed Boeing to self-certify
This undermined the FAA’s legitimacy (a crucial part of authority), as it was no longer seen as a neutral enforcer of safety standards.
authority = power + legitimacy
Result:
Many countries that had traditionally relied on the FAA for aviation safety began conducting their own inspections, no longer depending on the U.S. as the global leader in aviation security.
Even after the FAA re-certified the Boeing aircraft following safety checks, some countries required additional training for their pilots, signalling that they no longer fully trusted the FAA's assessments.
This story looks at the erosion of norms through a structural lens: The U.S., as the global hegemon in aviation safety, lost the trust of other countries due to its failure to act swiftly and transparently
Liberalism and Co-operation:
Liberalism focuses on the potential for cooperation among states, and it can lead to mutual gains for all states involved.
Liberalism assumes that states recognize that long-term cooperation is often in their best interest.
Liberalism recognizes that states are not the only important actors in international relations.
Non-state actors: such as multinational corporations, NGOs, and international organizations—play significant roles in shaping global politics.
cooperation is driven by converging interests and often revolves around solving coordination problems, where multiple good outcomes exist
<aside> đź’ˇ
Coordination problem: occurs when there are multiple possible outcomes, but success depends on everyone choosing the same option.
</aside>
Norms act as focal points in liberal theory: serve as a common reference for actors when deciding which solution to choose.
Why would States Choose to Co-operate on an Issue Before it Emerges as a Focal Point?
Could be because of functionalism as states will cooperate when they realize that some issues can only be addressed effectively through collaboration.
early cooperation can help avoid fragmentation in global governance. By cooperating before issues become major focal points, states can push efforts and prevent conflicting national policies from emerging.
Collective Action Problem: all members of a group have an interest in receiving a common benefit, but not in paying for that benefit
can lead to free-riding as individuals will hope others will pay for the good while still benefiting from it
often arises with public goods
Rivalness: extent to which consuming a good prevents another from also consuming it (ex. food)
non-rivalness goods: goods where one person's consumption does not reduce availability for others (ex. knowledge)
Excludability: extent to which you can prevent someone from consuming a good
A good is excludable if it is possible to restrict access to those who do not pay for it.
Elinor Ostrom: Governance of the Commons
shows that local communities can effectively govern common-pool resources through self-organization, participatory governance, and adaptable institutions
Boundaries: clearly defining who has access to the resource and the limits of that resource.
Helps prevent overuse by specifying who is entitled to use the resource.
Trust: belief that others will adhere to agreed-upon rules and cooperate for mutual benefit.
can lead to stronger community bonds and better resource management
Verification: process of monitoring and ensuring compliance with rules and regulations. (think accountability)
Start Small: Initiating resource management efforts on a smaller scale before expanding.
Large Scale Collective Action Problems
Large Scale Collective Action problems: challenges that arise when individuals or groups must work together to achieve a common goal
anonymity: “Actors involved in large-scale issues, such as climate change, are often dispersed across various geographical scales (local, regional, global) and temporal scales (present and future generations)”
Leads to questions about representation: who co-operates?
can lead to a lack of accountability and a diminished sense of responsibility
Heterogeneity: differences in identities, socio-economic status, power asymmetries, perceptions of responsibility for climate change (e.g. developed vs. developing states).
many interests and priorities can create barriers to cooperation, as groups may have conflicting views on solutions.
Trust may be diminished when interests are misaligned
uncertainty: often uncertainty about the extent of the problem and its consequences, as well as the effectiveness of proposed solutions.
can lead to hesitation in taking action, as stakeholders may be unsure of the risks and benefits
lac of urgency
inactivity: action is necessarily collective, not individual.
bleak futures can lead to feelings of hopelessness or despair, causing inaction among stakeholders who feel that their efforts mean nothing
Regime
Regime: sets of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules and decision making procedures around which actor expectations converge in a given issue area.
Arctic Regime Complex:
refers to many international governance frameworks that address issues in the Arctic:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
provides scientific assessments and reports on climate change
Helps inform policy decisions and international cooperation
International Maritime Organization (IMO)
responsible for regulating shipping and maritime safety, focusing on ship pollution and environmental protection
Works to enhance marine safety standards
European Union (EU)
acts as a major stakeholder in Arctic affairs, pushing for the need for cooperation on climate change and environmental protection
funds research initiatives and provides policy frameworks
Arctic Council:
high-level forum that promotes cooperation among Arctic states and indigenous communities
The council has been inactive in high-level meetings since 2022, impacting collaboration and decision-making
Arctic 5
includes Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia, and the USA, forming an informal group focused on Arctic governance and security issues
The group has been largely inactive
Role of IOs
Data Collection, Analysis, and Dissemination:
IOs gather, analyze, and share data on global issues (ex. climate change)
data informs stakeholders about current conditions and trends, facilitating better decision-making and strategic planning
Reduces uncertainty
IOs help clarify complex issues with reliable data
reduced uncertainty leads to more informed decision-making
Input to Decision-making
IOs contribute evidence-based recommendations to national and international policies
Monitoring and Supervision (enforcement)
IOs are responsible for monitoring compliance with international agreements and regulations
Dispute settlement
Platform for discussion & negotiation
Lawmaking
Soft law
Technical guidance and regulation provide boundaries
Consequences of Multiple and Overlapping Institutions: IR is…
Economic dispute among international institutions about... bananas
Puzzling because there wasn’t much to disagree on – so why did it last 11 years?
Treaty of Rome 1957 / Single European Act 1992 require removal of internal barriers to trade and common external tarriffs
European Banana Import Regimes
African/Caribbean/Pacific (ACP) producers regime, governed by Lome Convention: preferential access for former colonies
BENELUX, Denmark, Ireland 20% tariff
Germany: special banana protocol appended to the Treaty of Rome
GATT obligations on not providing preferential access to some and not others
EU Banana Regime:
1992: New EU regime is decided
Unrestricted access for EEC bananas
ACP bananas tariff-free to a certain quota
Other bananas face a tariff of 20% to a certain quota
<aside> đź’ˇ
Forum Shopping: Multiple & overlapping jurisdictions means that actors can choose the forum in which they expect to get a preferred outcome
</aside>
IR is Bananas
1992: “Dollar zone group” : CostaRica, Colombia, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Venezuela contest in GATT: success but no implementation due to release of new EU regime
1994: Germany challenges in ECJ (rejected)
1994: Dollar zone group launches new challenges at GATT (Bananas II) – results in framework convention
Germany challenges framework at ECJ (refuses to rule)
Banana producers challenge in German courts
1995: USA joins WTO challenge: quota system is ruled counter to WTO (retaliatory tariffs)
2001: EU shifts to tariff only system
Constructivism and Co-operation
Constructivism believes that states' identities are formed through social interactions - a shared identity or common values among states can enhance trust and facilitate cooperation
When states adhere to common norms, they are more likely to cooperate.
States engage in discussions to define their interests and find common ground.
States may reassess their priorities and engage in cooperation as their identities and perceptions change.
States that cultivate trust are more likely to collaborate on security issues, leading to collective responses to threats
IO as bureaucracies
Rational-legal authority with power deriving from:
Technical knowledge & information classification
Establishment of meanings (EG: sustainable development, human security)
Diffusion of norms (EG: WPS Agenda)
Shifts the principal-agent relationship
Anticipatory Governance
Power of IOs to frame global problems into the future
EG: Benchmarking: Kyoto Agreement (2 degrees), SDGs, NATO’s 2% target
Binds themselves into desirable futures
Regional Organizations: Security Communities
Group of states with a common identity and dependable expectations of peaceful change
EU
Warlike past other
Dependable expectations of peaceful change
North America
Kinship identity
NORAD, NAFTA, PJBD, Boundary Waters
Enacting the Security Community: ASEAN’s Never-ending story
Eternally in crisis but consistently survive
Expectations of peaceful change are not dependable
Sustained by a never-ending debate about crisis