The main argument that Koremenos, Lipson, and Snidal make in
their article The Rational Design of
International Institutions “is that states use international institutions
to further their own goals and design institutions accordingly” (762). This is their
explanation for why we can observe differences in international institutions.
I
found this to be a really interesting article that they laid out and something
that we could have used when we had our projects about international
institutions and the ideas of coercion or reason. They referred to the EU for a
lot of examples, so I would like to try address the key ways that institutions
vary with another international institution that one of our groups talked about,
NATO.
Membership for NATO comes from North America and Europe. NATO focuses on
the ideas and interests of its member countries with diplomatic and military capabilities.
NATO’s power is centralized in its member countries, with a council that has
permanent and rotating members. NATO has control over protecting the security
of its member states; the control is enforced by the agreement to participate
and negotiate by its member states. NATO has the ability to be flexible when
new outcomes and problems arise, but it is not always flexible in new
situations NATO was an international organization created to protect the
interests of its members through political and military means.
The reason for
this organization’s existence, is why it is different than say, the EU or the
UN; it has a different focus, though they may be similar in some regards. Do
you believe the design of the institution is created to further the state’s own
goals? How does agency relate to and affect these differences?
No comments:
Post a Comment