Analysis Of After Hegemony: Cooperation And Discord In The World Of Politics

725 Words 3 Pages
Robert Keohane’s After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World of Political Economy addresses the extent of interaction and collaboration between nations, in addition to the contention between nations. He states that in comparison to the rivalry and disagreement, the level of cooperation in global politics is quite low. This is because of a hasty increase of interdependence amongst nations following World War II, which has led not only to the increase of cooperation, but also to an increase strife. With an increase of parties in world politics and the ability to easily communicate and thus develop a system of interdependence, the discord among states has become likened to anarchy due to no dominating authority, or hegemonic leadership. …show more content…
(10) The realist perspective on this statement would be to agree. There must be incentives for cooperation to occur between nations, such as concerning economics or peace. Cooperation can also lead to a balance of power, such as alliances during war, which also have the incentive of peace to motivate cooperativity. Without a hegemonic leadership, however, there is little stability in the amount of cooperation in world politics. Cooperation is normally an effort to overcome conflict, and is therefore not the absence of conflict but instead a sort of toleration and evasion of such. I am inclined to agree with a realist perspective of cooperation. While I would like to believe nations can come together without strife and that policymakers act selflessly and without ulterior motives, I know that’s not true. Decisions are always made in the best interest of at least one party. While ideally, I dislike this scenario, were I in power or in a decision-making position I would act in the same way, working either for my own self-interest or for the benefit of my …show more content…
Thus, according to Keohane, international regimes do not hold any supreme power over nations. They are based on cooperation and only operate if nations submit and promote the rules. It is unlikely, in theory, that a nation would fall under an international regime if they were not supporters of its policies. This is unless a weaker nation were pressured, which seems plausible, but perhaps I am misunderstanding the context. The United Nations is an example of an international regime, which has been relatively successful, but still comes into conflict with nations not following set regulations, such as North Korea in the present time. While North Korea was admitted to the United Nations, this nation follows very few of the proposed rules and

Related Documents