The Realist Tool Shed: The Role of Institutions and International Organizations for Realists

The issue of international organizations and institutions has always been a much-debated topic in realism; whether it is why they exist, why states invest in them and how they influence global politics. Mearsheimer defines institutions "as a set of rules that stipulate the ways in which states should cooperate and compete with each other". He goes on to stats that these rules are agreed upon by states and follow what is considered "standards" of behavior" or higher norms. Just by reading this, any realist would already find many difficulties understanding and agreeing with the definition. The three patterns of state behavior, as well as the assumptions of realism, contradict what Mearsheimer is saying. Regardless, it would be unfair and wrong to assume that institutions and organizations are therefore meaningless and irrelevant in the study of international politics for a realist standpoint. While realists do see the world as state centric and inherently competitive, they do agree that cooperation can occur in the pursuit of power; therefore institutions can be used as tools of state interest.

In order to fully understand the realist view on institution, we must first look at the assumptions and patterns of realism. Realists focus on states as a primarily self-interested actor in international political system. They address five main assumptions; the international system is anarchic, states possess some offensive military capability, states can never assume the intention of other states, they want to maintain their sovereignty and that states think strategically about how to survive. The three patterns of state behavior are states fear one another, each state aims to guarantee its own survival, and they aim to maximize their relative power positions over other states. Simply by looking at this, it is clear that creating a set of rules on how states should cooperate and compete would be extremely difficult according to a realist. In spite of the international system being essentially competitive, realist do however see cooperation as somewhat possible through consideration of relative gains and concern about cheating.

Before a state can simply agree to cooperate, it needs to take into account whether the profit/gain is something to strive for. Since realists are focused on a balance of power, they look at the relative gains of cooperation. Institutions are then used in such a way that the state can do better, or at least not worse than another state. However, the possibility of cheating must be considered when looking at cooperation. Many realists are concerned that states will cheat in order to advance their own interests, making cooperation hard and unreliable.

Despite all of this, cooperation still occurs in such areas as state alliances, as seen in WWII and the Cold War. It is through these alliances, which typically revolve around collective defense, that institutions are born and used. Realists believe that these institutions can be used as a tool in the relations between one state and another, and that the rules often resonate state self-interest influenced on the distribution of international power. Thus it is often the great powers that are able to create and mold institutions to their advantage. Mearsheimer quotes Tony Evans and Peter Wilson as he goes on to describe intuitions simply as "arenas for acting out power relationships".

Another way to examine how realists look at institutions is to look at an example such as NATO or the UN. NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty organization was created during the Cold War to help the west. While some may look at NATO as being the crucial part of maintaining stability, realists would argue it was the balance of power at the time

...