Liberal Institutionalism in International Relations (IR)

Liberal Institutionalism & International Relations (IR) 

Introduction

The Liberals put out this plan because they thought that if an institution or international organization were to be established, you could turn the rainforest into a zoo.

The key idea is that there is anarchy in foreign politics since there is no equivalent institution to the state in domestic affairs. International politics may change in nature if some equivalent arrangement is likewise developed there. We can turn the jungle into a zoo, to quote Woodrow Wilson. Woodrow Wilson, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Keohane, and Nye are among those who support this viewpoint.

 

Advantages of liberal Institutionalism

Nations are considered to be logical actors. Dispute settlement at the level of international organizations is less expensive and more effective than on the battlefield.

The lack of clarity in international relations on state behaviour is one of the causes of the security challenge and states' quest for dominance. International organizations contribute to the evolution of norms, increasing the predictability of state behaviour. Moreover, these platforms allow us to learn about other people's perspectives.

International organizations provide a platform for holding countries responsible for their pledges and for monitoring them. Additionally, international organizations cut transaction expenses.

Wilson believed that a “collective security” system might take the place of the "balance of power."

 

Evolution and Current Condition

The international structure, conventions, and regime have not changed that much since the Cold War's conclusion.

Because of the struggle between the US and USSR and the failure of the UN's collective security framework to prevent aggression and conflicts, the UN remained paralyzed during the Cold War.

Political organizations in the global setting remained poor during the cold war, while those dealing with nonpolitical issues, like WHO and UNDP, acquired legitimacy.

At both the global and regional levels, there has been an explosion of political, economic, and security groups since the end of the cold war.

Critical Evaluation

Realists still have concerns about liberal institutionalism and the effectiveness of international organizations, despite the post-cold war world order. This is because the structure of international politics continues to be hierarchical and chaotic.

Quazi Negotiations is a notion created by Joseph Nogee. It means that although there are conversations taking place at international conferences, the actual results of these organizations are very restricted.

Restructuring of international organizations is necessary, especially the UN Security Council, the IMF, and the World Bank, which are heavily weighted in favour of wealthy nations.

Great powers have been seen to use coercive diplomacy against the weaker nations to win support for their viewpoint. In WTO negotiations, green room diplomacy is quite common.

International law is still weak and cannot be enforced without the support of strong nations that frequently undercut international bodies.

The bureaucracies of the industrialized countries govern the work of international institutions, and it is sometimes said that this results in a "democratic deficit" and a lack of transparency in how they operate.

Because it weakens their sovereignty, countries are not interested in strengthening international organizations and rules.

The IAEA's failure to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons capability covertly, these institutions are ineffective watchdogs, as seen by the lack of measures against China despite the suspected transfer of nuclear weapon technology to Pakistan, a non-NPT state. Many times, nations do not work together, and power is ultimately what counts.

 

Conclusion

While liberal institutionalism must be respected, the importance of power must also be recognized. Reforms for international organizations are urgently needed. If nations lack commitment, institutions will not function. There are many problems in the world today, such as terrorism and climate change, that no one country can solve on its own. Therefore, these organizations are important in providing a forum for discussion and assessment of international norms. The major powers are accountable for this particular duty.