This week, we were assigned an in-class debate on whether the international environment can be remade. Drawing on the theories of constructivism and liberal institutionalism, my side argued that the environment could be remade. While we certainly had the more difficult argument to make, I think we did a great job of asserting our side, and despite the prevailing realist views of the class, I think we made a strong case for the fact that yes, the international environment can be remade.
This is a difficult question to answer in a "yes or no" framework. Of course the realists have history on their side - the international environment has remained the same throughout most of human history, so it's easy to say it cannot be remade when we have so little evidence that it has been. However, humanity experienced an enormous shift in the 20th century - with increasing globalization and weapons that can destroy the Earth, the world changed a great deal. While the world remained the same for thousands of years, climate change, an unprecedented increase in technology, and population boom resulting in billions of new humans means that the world is not, and never will be, the same as it has been throughout history. Has the international environment been remade? It's too soon to tell. Can the international environment be remade? I think so - with all of the new global institutions created in the 20th century, it can be done gradually. Must the international environment be remade? This is imperative. The world faces major, apocalyptic problems that go far beyond national scope, so while we can say the international environment has not been remade (yet) the truth is that it MUST be remade - global cooperation is the only answer to these problems.
While our international institutions do not have all of the answers, of course, they are merely a first step in creating our international environment. In the grand scheme of history, they are so new that of course it is hard to tell what tangible effect they will have. However, even their existence is an important part of remaking the international environment - countries are beginning to see the importance of international cooperation. The realists could that countries only do this because it's currently in their self-interest, which I agree with. However, interests evolve, and while countries will probably always act in their self-interest, that does not necessarily preclude peace.
Difficult decision indeed! After reading your post Alex, I'm thinking how long is too long? Remake can be done but perhaps we could come up with a new IR theory that addresses this time factor in both short run as well as long run? If economics can have such definition, I don't see why IR can't?
ReplyDeleteI'd say it's hard to put a number on how long is too long - while we of course can't wait thousands of years for the world to change, that is the amount of history that we're up against. I agree that theories need to address both short and long run implications of international cooperation, and set realistic expectations, but again, it's hard to quantify that. Definitely something to keep thinking about...
DeleteGreat post! I pretty much agree with you. My debate takeaways really aligned with yours. I particularly like the last sentence because I now think (for many of the reasons you mentioned, between international trade, forces of globalization, etc.) that the international environment is constructed in such a way that cooperation and peace have become vested state interests and it can be argued that both realism and constructivism/liberal institutionalism have merged in a way.
ReplyDeleteI was wondering the same thing - why hasn't a theory addressed this, and then I ran into the English theory, which sort of addresses this gap. I'd definitely be interested in reading more English theory scholars.
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_school_of_international_relations_theory