The Blasphemy on Cooperation

Introduction

As John Duffield simply puts it, "International institutions are often instruments of
powerful states and transnational corporations, serving to advance their interests and perpetuate
existing inequalities.” The notion of powerful states and transnational corporations wielding
influence within international institutions points to a complex dynamic where entities with
significant economic and political clout leverage these platforms to further their interests. By
using their power to further their own objectives and uphold current hierarchies, these powerful
individuals have the ability to influence agendas, policies, and decisions made within these
institutions.

According to Duffield's viewpoint, international institutions have the potential to

represent and uphold the interests of those in positions of power, rather than being objective
organizations that promote equal cooperation among states. Because decisions made within these
frameworks may not always give the needs or concerns of weaker states or marginalized groups
priority, this alignment of institutional functions with the preferences of powerful entities can
worsen inequality. But first, what are international institutions? Which theory is this extracted
from?

This paper explores each of the many aspects of neoliberalism as explained by John
Duffield and Robert O. Keohane, exploring the functions of international organizations in
promoting collaboration, controlling interdependence, and forming the world system. This study
navigates the complexities of this relationship by means of a contextualized synthesis and critical
analysis, recognizing the potential advantages and intrinsic difficulties presented by neoliberal
perspectives within the context of IR. Neoliberalism, through its influence on international
institutions, shapes a convoluted picture of global governance, characterized by power dynamics,
cooperation and contestation, and the pursuit of shared goals.

This analyzes the power, cooperation, and resistance mechanisms that form this dynamic
relationship through critical analysis, with the ultimate goal of understanding the role these
institutions play in determining the direction globalization and global governance will take in the
future. Although international institutions are frequently used as tools of neoliberal IR theory,
their operations are not monolithic, allowing for the emergence of alternative visions for world
government and spaces for contestation. To guarantee that they contribute to a more just and
equitable global order, critical engagement must take place in the constantly evolving
relationship between neoliberalism and international institutions.
A Synthesis

John Duffield and Robert O. Keohane, in their influential works "What Are International
Institutions?" and "International Institutions: Can Interdependence Work?" respectively,
elucidated the concept of neoliberalism, which is a comprehensive framework of political, social,
and economic theories that have significantly influenced international relations and global
governance in recent years.
Duffield provides a basic understanding of neoliberalism through his investigation of
international institutions. He explores the fundamentals of these organizations, highlighting their
function in regulating and supervising global affairs. Duffield draws attention to the neoliberal
theory that international organizations are vital channels for collaboration, stability, and
facilitating interactions among states. In his view, international institutions lessen uncertainty by
encouraging negotiations, so they are more than just passive observers; rather, they are active
agents that influence state behavior and aid in the mitigation of conflict through the
establishment of norms, rules, and frameworks (Duffield, 2007).

Keohane, on the other hand, expands on this framework by analyzing the performance of
international organizations in a world identified by interdependence. This interconnectedness
[reliance] frequently leads to a scenario in which the policies or actions of one nation can have a
major impact on or be impacted by the actions of another. Here, Keohane makes the claim that
state cooperation and interdependence are essential in an increasingly interconnected global
arena. To simply put it, he maintains that "global issues require systematic policy coordination,
and such coordination requires institutions" (Keohane, 1998). He therefore argues that
international institutions are essential for managing interdependence and resolving issues
pertaining to collective action by virtue of their regulatory and coordinating roles. In a world
where the actions of one state can have far-reaching consequences for others, his work highlights
the importance of institutions in promoting stability and cooperation.

The Role of International Institutions from a Neoliberal Perspective

Neoliberalism views international institutions as vital components of the global

system because of its emphasis on individual liberty, free markets, and little government
intervention. As mentioned earlier, these groups perform a number of tasks, such as
promoting collaboration, controlling interdependence, and influencing world politics. First of
all, it supports accountability and transparency. In international relations, international
institutions frequently enforce accountability and transparency. According to Grant and
Keohane (2005), they set up procedures and mechanisms to make sure that states follow the
rules and regulations that have been agreed upon. This prevents unilateral actions and
contributes to a sense of fairness and predictability in the international arena. Hence, this
transparency establishes state-to-state trust and contributes to the development of a more
stable and cooperative global environment. Secondly, by establishing shared norms and
expectations, Through declarations, resolutions, and treaties, international institutions do, in
fact, play a crucial role in forming collective international norms and expectations. These
institutions set common norms of conduct and principles that direct states' actions on matters
like international trade, environmental protection, and human rights (Duffield, 2007).
Because they encourage consistent and accountable behavior from states, these common
norms serve as a framework for cooperation and, in the end, reduce the likelihood of conflict.

It's also critical to remember that international institutions support [peaceful] dispute
resolution. International organizations provide channels for the amicable settlement of
disputes between nations; via the processes of adjudication, arbitration, and mediation, they
can assist nations in resolving their differences without using force or violence [as some
theories propose]. These organizations support international peace and stability by offering a
fair and unbiased forum for resolving disputes.

At last, solving issues with collective action. Without a doubt, they are crucial in
resolving situations involving collective action, or situations where individual states are
motivated to act against the interests of the collective as a whole. Two notable instances of
this are the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and environmental degradation.
International institutions enable states to overcome these obstacles and accomplish shared
objectives that would be difficult or impossible to accomplish separately and individually by
offering a framework for cooperation and coordination.

Neoliberalism: Institutions as Facilitators of Cooperation

One could contend that the idea of neoliberalism and the word "cooperation" are basically
interchangeable. One of the best examples of neoliberalism's emphasis on institutions that
promote cooperation is the European Union (EU). The EU is the epitome of supranational
institutions guiding collective action, independent of economic ties. Its single market, which is
based on shared laws and guidelines, serves as an example of how institutional frameworks can
encourage collaboration between independent states. In a similar vein, ASEAN, the Association
of Southeast Asian Nations, serves as an example of how regional organizations foster
collaboration. Undoubtedly, in spite of divergent political beliefs and past disputes among
constituent nations, the institutional structure of ASEAN has enabled diplomatic discussions and
economic cooperation, cultivating a feeling of unity among heterogeneous states [this is subject
to debate].

More so, international trade agreements put a further spotlight on the role that institutions
play in promoting collaboration. The ability of institutions to manage and mitigate conflicts
resulting from divergent national interests is demonstrated by the World Trade Organization
(WTO), which continues to fulfill an imperative part in facilitating negotiations and dispute
resolutions among member states.

Neoliberalism and International Institutions: A Contextualized Analysis

Many international organizations were established in the years following World War II,
such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Trade
Organization (WTO). These organizations arose in the context of a worldwide effort that
embraced free trade and economic liberalization, principles that were closely related to those of
neoliberalism.
In terms of Duffield's critique—power and inequality in action—despite their seeming
neutrality, Duffield contends that international organizations frequently work to further the
objectives of powerful countries and transnational corporations. Upon analysis, this paper makes
the case that this happens through a number of mechanisms, one of which is the privatization of
global governance. One example is the growing use of private contractors by the World Bank for
development projects, which raises questions about accountability and transparency.
Furthermore, the WTO's support of free trade agreements may worsen national wealth gaps by
assisting developed economies at the expense of developing ones.

Speaking of Keohane's optimism in this context—cooperation and conflict

resolution—he stresses the importance of international institutions in promoting collaboration
and controlling interdependence while also acknowledging their deficiencies and possible biases.
One way this is demonstrated is by lower transaction costs. By giving nations a forum to
negotiate and carry out global environmental accords, the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change lowers the costs associated with individual action.

Through the synthesis of these [Duffield and Keohane's] perspectives, this paper arises
into a more sophisticated paradigm for understanding the relationship between neoliberalism and
international institutions, as well as how their so-called concept of "cooperation" affects global
order; this moves beyond simplistic binary views. This framework recognizes three key
concepts: (1) Neoliberal Hegemony—which, while not unique or monolithic, nevertheless exerts
a substantial amount of influence over international institutions; (2) Contested Terrain—where
diverse actors and agendas compete, international institutions are more than just tools; and (3)
Double Face Outcomes—wherein international institutions can lead to a variety of outcomes,
including conflict, cooperation, and both reinforcement and contestation of inequality.

To scrutinize further in the context of collaboration and conflict within the WTO, it can
be seen that although the organization supports free trade, which benefits its members, it has also
come under fire for giving developed countries' interests precedence over developing countries'
concerns. Protests and resistance movements questioning its legitimacy have resulted from this.
Furthermore, the IMF and the Global Financial Crisis’s neoliberal recommendations for
economic changes drew heavy criticism for intensifying the 2008 financial crisis' consequences,
especially for developing nations. This provoked requests for a more sophisticated strategy that
takes into account the unique circumstances of various nations. Lastly, there is the emergence of
global civil societies, exemplified by organizations such as the International Labour
Organization, Greenpeace, and Amnesty International. An increasing number of NGOs and
social movements are actively involved in interacting with international institutions, keeping
them accountable, and advocating for reforms that advance human rights, social justice, and
environmental sustainability.

Conclusion

To draw the curtain, although the neoliberal perspective implies collaboration and
institutional governance, it has to address the ingrained prejudices and power dynamics that exist
in international institutions. To quote Keohane once more, he strongly argued that one weakness
of the neoliberal IR perspective is that international"institutions are run by the elites, in the hands
of the elites of the national government and international organizations” (Keohane, 1998). As it
turns out, these institutions have aided in international cooperation and governance, but they also
confront serious difficulties because of power disparities, scope constraints, and a lack of
accountability. In order to establish a more just and equitable global order, it will be imperative
to address these shortcomings in the future by strengthening accountability, widening
representation, and rethinking global governance. In order for global governance to truly
advance, domestic civil society must be recognized and elevated within these institutions in order
to guarantee their accountability and responsiveness to an expansive spectrum of societal needs
and concerns.
References

Grant, R. W., & Keohane, R. O. (2005). Accountability and abuses of power in world politics.

American Political Science Review, 99(1), 29–43.

https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055405051476

Keohane, R. O. (1998). International institutions: Can interdependence work? Foreign Policy,

110, 82. https://doi.org/10.2307/1149278

Duffield, J. S. (2007). What are international institutions? International Studies Review, 9(1),

1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2486.2007.00643.x