Is Cooperation Feasible?
"Several of the readings from weeks 5, 6, and 7 suggest that cooperation among states is practical, and, under the right conditions, probable. This premise is quite different from what we encountered during the first weeks of the seminar when we considered classical and neorealism. Your task in this paper is to summarize the arguments that support cooperation. Then, assess to what extent you find these arguments convincing.
For example, in light of what you learned about realism and neorealism, do the theories of cooperation hold water? If so, explain how and why. If not, explain how not and why not." By: Nazanin Afshin-Jam
INTRODUCTION
When Iceland’s Eyjafjallajokull volcano erupted and spewed ash into the airspace overhead, it affected millions of travelers worldwide and cost hundreds of millions of dollars a day to the airline industry. From the early warning monitors, Iceland alerted its neighbors including Britain about what was going to take place. In times of crisis and disaster, cooperation and coordination between states is valuable and necessary. Living in a globalized world, what impacts one part of the world increasingly affects other parts. In the modern era, with the opening of trade markets coupled with the increase in speed in technology and communications, it is too costly for states to live in isolation and act unilaterally. According to Henry Kissinger, “the world has become interdependent in economics, in communications, in human aspirations (Kaufman, Howell,
Parker and Doty 503).” States must increasingly collaborate with one another to satisfy and maximize their self-interests and also to address security and economic challenges. There is no question as to whether or not states cooperate; everyday there are examples of it, from postal service coordination, responding to natural disasters, combating terrorism to sharing information about crime through Interpol. The question that needs to be addressed is whether or not collaboration is probable between states and whether it is lasting . Liberals and realists have different perspectives on the durability of cooperation especially as it relates to international regimes and institutions. This essay will analyze both the liberal arguments in support for and the realist’s perspectives against the feasibility of long term cooperation.

REALISM and COOPERATION
While realists agree that cooperation is possible between states, they believe that it is not the norm and is limited in time due to human nature and the anarchic structure of the world. Realists perceive humans as bad, greedy and self-interested beings willing to go to any lengths to seek power and maintain state security (Kaufman, Howell, Parker and Doty 139). They also have the belief that due to the anarchic structure of the world- void of a central authority above that of the state to resolve disputes- states compete to maximize self interest. This creates suspicion, distrust and conflict among them. Because of this security dilemma, realists do not foresee a long term arrangement for cooperation between states. Rather, they see a temporary arrangement between states in the form of alliances to ensure a balance of power is met. Cooperation in this context is solely for self-interest to preserve state security by ensuring equilibrium of power where no one state dominates power on the international stage. “According to balance-of-power theory, cooperation endeavors such as political-military alliances necessarily form in self-help systems.
Acts of cooperation are accounted for on the grounds that mutual interests are sufficient to enable states to overcome their suspicions of one another” (Kaufman 499).
LIBERALS and COOPERATION
Liberals have a different belief and understanding on the nature of cooperation. Their view of human nature is not as negative as realists. Liberals like 17 th
century theorist John Locke steered people away from the dominant realist thought that the natural state of the world is conflict and war.
Even in pursuing ones interests, he believed that “we can live in relative peace and harmony because the rational will respect and tolerate each other” (Week 5 Handout). As human beings and

states are considered “rational” - in other words they choose actions that satisfy intent and maximize output- they are of the belief that “all problems can be solved” (Week 5 and 6 Handout).
While Liberals concur with realists that we live in a state of anarchy, they differ in response to addressing the security dilemma. They believe that a ‘balance of power’ approach actually contributes to more instability and exasperates conflict. Rather, they argue in favor of a collective security system whereby “each state in the system accepts that the security of one is the concern of all, and agrees to join in a collective response to aggression” (Baylis, Owens and Smith 114).
Furthermore, liberals believe that cooperation is possible in the long term through the facilitation of international regimes and institutions. ‘Regimes’, according to John Ruggie, are “a set of mutual expectations, rules and regulations, plans, organizational energies and financial commitments, which have been accepted by a group of states” (Kaufman, Parker, Howell and Doty
495). Institutions act “as the mediator and the means to achieve cooperation among actors in the system” (Baylis, Owens and Smith 132). Woodrow Wilson, a liberal internationalist, was one of the first people to try and put the theory of collective security to practice in the implementation of his
‘Fourteen Point-Plan’ to peace through the creation of an institution known as the League of
Nations (Kaufman, Parker, Howell and Doty 177). “The League represented an ambitious attempt to construct a more highly organized international society capable of bringing order across a whole range of issues” (Ibid, 47). Such an institution was meant to facilitate cooperation among states on issues of mutual interest and issues affecting the globe.
HEGEMONIC STABILITY THEORY
Realists viewed Woodrow Wilson as an idealist and used the League of Nation’s failure to respond to Italy’s aggression in Abyssinia in 1935 as a crushing example discrediting liberal hope

in a collective security system. Realists do acknowledge the presence of institutions; however, they believe that they are short lived. They argue that due to the self-help system we live in and our human nature, there is high likelihood of cheating and reneging on promises, treaties and contracts
(Ibid, 115). Realists like Robert Gilpin use Hegemonic Stability Theory (HST) to explain that institutions can be strong as long as the hegemon that created them also remains strong. They believe that once there is the demise of the world’s hegemon, instability will ensue and the institutions it created will also crumble and fall like a deck of cards.
Liberals on the other hand believe that once created, these institutions are hard to disassemble and will in fact be strong enough to outlast their hegemonic creator. They believe it is too costly to disentangle the web that has already been created. As ‘start-up’ costs associated with the creation of an institution have already been paid, it would only require maintenance. Liberals would argue that given benefits of cooperation outweigh costs associated with being part of an institution; states would opt to stay.
Robert O. Keohane takes from both theories and shows how even with the end of hegemony, cooperation can persist. Keohane contemplates why cooperation often succeeds even when discord still dominates the world? He argues that cooperation has outlasted the HST prediction because the
U.S. has been in decline since 1960 and yet institutions and cooperation among them prevail
(Kaufman, Howell, Parker and Doty 488). He says “when shared interests are sufficiently important and other key conditions are met, cooperation can emerge and regimes can be created without hegemony” (Ibid, 490). The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is a good example of how an institution has outlived its original purpose. While it was supposed to keep the Soviet Union at bay during the Cold War, it has evolved into an all encompassing collective defence system and has been in existence for over 60 years. Not only does it now collaborate with non-NATO members but

it is also expanding its membership. Another example of a lasting institution is the United Nations.
Liberals recognize the failure of the League of Nations but argue that albeit not perfect, its successor, the United Nations remains strong and standing. Even though lacking teeth militarily, the UN has an important role for states to collaborate in development projects including humanitarian missions addressing diseases like HIV/AIDs and Malaria or creating environmental treaties addressing global warming like the Kyoto Protocol, or improving women’s rights by providing microcredit financing.
COOPERATION IN PRACTICE
While states may start out cooperating for purposes of mutual benefit, it is believed by liberals that in time there will be a spillover effect to other such areas for the betterment of the greater good
(Week 7 Handout). Cooperation between states can be on many different levels. There are empirical examples of cooperation taking place economically and for security including human security issues that concern all world citizens.
ECONOMICALLY
In this age of globalization in order to compete on the world market and maximize profits one must focus on ones comparative advantage, in other words, using economies of scale to export what one is relatively good at while importing other goods and services. As states collaborate in this mutual capitalist venture, markets open up and trade expands. States become interdependent on one another because they come to rely on each other economically. “Worldwide economic integration has intensified as the expansion of global commerce, finance, and production links together the fate of nations” (Baylis, Owens and Smith 16).

Woodrow Wilson also recognized how economic prosperity and opening barriers of trade promote peace. The third point of his famous ‘Fourteen Points’ promotes “the removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance” (Kaufman 177).
Understanding the benefits of economic collaboration for trade, many states have united in trading blocs in their geographical region. European states have formed the European Union, Asian states have created The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and North American states have assembled the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) . As far as more global regimes are concerned there exists the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and
The World Trade Organization (WTO). Many of these institutions have been in existence for decades and do not seem to be diminishing in importance or influence.
This kind of collaboration and binding relationship has the secondary benefit of promoting peace because states that trade together generally are more reluctant to go to war with one another.
Immanuel Kant expresses this thought in his Perpetual Peace doctrine which acts as a precursor to
‘Democratic Peace Theory’. The theory prescribes that liberal democracies do not go to war with one another. The promotion of peace acts as another incentive for states to continue collaborating as their number one priority is ensuring state security. Michael Doyle further emphasizes this point in his essay when he says that “capitalism promotes peace” (Baylis, Owens and Smith 112). He explains the tendency of liberal democracies to be in good standing with one another. He speaks about how benefits of trade can only be enjoyed under conditions of peace. Capitalist naturally see war as a hindrance to profit maximization because it diverts resources and disrupts trade and commerce. He provides evidence where capitalists have invested specifically in institutions that prevent war and establish peace like the International Criminal Court in The Hague (Ibid, 183).

“First temporary tribunals were established to cover atrocities in Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Then a new permanent International Criminal Court (ICC) was created in July 2002 to prosecute those who commit genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity” (Baylis, Owens and Smith 338). This kind of collaboration among states has been unprecedented as it blurs sovereignty lines and suggests there may be room in the direction of global governance. There are already norms being set at the
United Nations which indicate that such concepts of shedding one’s sovereign attachments for the greater good is not solely a utopian ideal. For example in 2005 at the World Summit, the UN included a paragraph about ‘the responsibility to protect’ in its set of norms (Ibid, 338). The premise is that if a state is unable to protect its own citizens, it is the responsibility of the international community to come to the aid of the people. It will likely be a long time before states intervene and meddle in domestic affairs of sovereign states when human rights are being violated, but there is hope that it is a possibility.
SECURITY
The ICC and the norm of the ‘responsibility to protect’ are good examples of how states are not only becoming interdependent on one another economically but they are starting to rely on each other to ensure global security, which is a far departure from a realist’s belief that we are living in a self-help world. As already indicated NATO acts in the capacity of a collective defense system.
Article 5 of NATO’s charter prescribes that if a NATO member is the victim of armed attack, all other members will consider it an attack on them and come to its aid. After the 9-11 attacks, a coalition made up of the USA and the United Kingdom came together to combat terrorist factions in
Afghanistan, namely al-Qaeda whilst destabilizing Taliban control in the country. Later, after the
UN Security Council gave approval of a mission, certain NATO members joined in collaboration including Canada and Australia. “Successful responses to security threats require the creation of

regional and global regimes that promote cooperation among states and the coordination of policy responses to these new security threats” (132). The UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic
Energy Agency, is trying to mitigate Iran’s proliferation of its nuclear program. Although response to the problem is slow and arguably ineffective, it still acts as an example of states collaborating to try and stop Iran from possessing nuclear weapons.
HUMAN SECURITY
After the Cold war, states were forced to address new security concerns. Security was no longer perceived solely through the lens of the nation state but focused on the individual. Concern for human security has increasingly become an important field of study in international relations as it affects stability nationally and globally.
For human security issues it is not only practical to collaborate in order to advance humanity but it is necessary for human survival. Issues concerning the environment like global warming, rising water levels, oil spills, and endangered species; health issues including disease and other pandemics like swine flu, avian flu and mad cow disease, affect us all.
There has been visible collaboration between states providing resource and expertise in the area of demining where landmines have been spread and have maimed mostly innocent civilians. This was part of the International Campaign to ban landmines which is now extending its terms to include cluster bombs. There is increasing need for collaboration of states on many levels.
“Transnational police activities involve high levels of cooperation” in areas of illicit trade in arms, drugs, human trafficking, slave trade, counterfeit goods and theft of intellectual property” (Baylis,
Owens and Smith 337).

There is also an increasing realization that threats to any country’s security cannot be addressed unilaterally (Baylis, Owens, and Smith 132)”. States are increasingly collaborating to find creative solutions to problems affecting the world.
CONCLUSION:
Realism has dominated IR for centuries and has carried forward suspicion in the psyche of those who run the state; it is thus natural from a realist’s perspective that cooperation would seem naïve and a short term affair. The Liberal school of thought however would have us believe that not only is cooperation among states practical but probable. In order to fully understand the possibility and benefit of long term collaboration between states there must be a shift in mindset and liberal tenets must be given a chance to prove itself in time.
It is assumed that as years go by, states will fall deeper in patterns of globalization and become more imbedded in the institutions they come to rely on. A rapport of trust will be built overtime between states which increases interdependence and has a domino effect for further cooperation. Once the liberal train starts to roll and the benefits of the promotion of the liberal program is witnessed - be it democracy, capitalism or international organizations- it will gain momentum and more states will want to join the club.
Whether these institutions will live out indefinitely, evolve or erode, no one knows; but it must be given a chance overtime to prove its effectiveness. If John Lennon were singing a tune to this debate he would say “all that were saying is give peace (and liberal institutionalism) a chance”.

Works Cited
Baylis, John, Smith, Steve, & Owens, Patricia. (2008). The Globalization of World Politics.
UK: Oxford University Press, USA.
Kaufman, J. Daniel, Parker, M. Jay, Howell, V. Patrick, Doty R. Grant. (2004). Understanding
International Relations: The Value of Alternative Lenses Fifth Edition. McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc, USA.
Week 5 and 6 Handouts