International Relations

C19(b) - Theories of International Relations (IV)

Date: Jun 14 | Time: 01:45pm to 03:15pm | Location: 680 Sherbrooke St. West 491

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Brian Bow (Dalhousie University)

Old versus New Institutionalism and the Debate between Formal/Informal institutions: Hedley Bull as foil to Rationalist International Relations with respect to the privileging of Concertation: Andrew Cooper (University of Waterloo/Balsillie School of International Affairs,)
Abstract: Alexander Wendt and Raymond Duvall distinguish between ‘old’ and ‘new’ institutionalists. In the first category the work by the prominent English School scholar Hedley Bull is highlighted. In the latter it is the extended contribution of Robert Keohane that is given pride of place along with other rationalist international relations (IR) scholars. As teased out by Wendt and Duvall several distinctive features separate the two literatures. One of the most striking points of divergence, however, is overlooked: the contrasting positioning between Bull and rationalist IR in terms of the debate over the preference for formal and informal institutions. In Bull’s case informality, as represented particularly by concertation – an institutional format designed as a self-selective hierarchical global management design - remained central to his understanding of the nature and impact of institutions. The rationalist IR ‘family’ by way of contrast stands out as converts to the import of informal institutions on a diffuse and uneven basis only after a sustained endorsement with respect to the superiority of formal multilateral international institutions (IOs). Conceptually, it is argued in this paper that the emphasis given by the Bull to informal institutions with special reference to concertation recalibrates the categorization of fundamental institution: with concertation elevated to a similar status as multilateralism as positioned in an established fashion by rationalist IR. In terms of operational practice, the paper demonstrates that the lack of an appreciation of concertation open gaps in rationalist IR analysis that prevent any serious engagement with core 21st informal institutions notably the G20 and the BRICS.

Ignoring inequality: Economists in the struggle for postcolonial development: Alice Chessé (McGill University)
Abstract: Including transnational experts into the everyday work of IOs has become an anchoring practice of contemporary global governance. This paper argues that it has simultaneously transformed multilateral diplomacy and maintained colonial structures of power in the global economic order. I study the role transnational economic professionals from the Global South and the Global North have played in the design of multilateral development policies in the 1940s and 1950s. Practices of knowledge production among Western economists at the OEEC/OECD produced ignorance on the causes of global inequality by silencing the role that colonial extraction played in post-WWII European economic recovery. A partial interpretation of the success story of the Marshall Plan effectively ignored the structural and historical causes of national prosperity highlighted by Global South economists. As a result, questions of economic development were effectively removed from the decolonization process underway at the UN, and postcolonial countries became excluded from the multilateral coordination of development assistance.

Claims of Hypocrisy, double standards and measuring the strength of the liberal Order: Ariel Reichard (Charles University, Prague), Or Honig (Hampden-Sydney College)
Abstract: National leaders routinely criticize Western powers and international institutions (UN, ICC) as being unfair towards their countries. Many argue that the current liberal order is deliberately biased against specific actors, usually due to identity traits (e.g., out of racism, cultural phobia). Critics of global institutions point to several behaviors that supposedly prove hypocrisy on the part of the liberal world, essentially claiming that IO's single out some countries for criticism and punishment while shielding others, thus showing double standards. In some cases, such claims are made by conflicting actors (e.g., Israelis vs. Palestinian). These claims are surprising as classic IR theory traditionally views politics as separate from fairness, while popular notions of politics likewise view it as an a-moral (for some, immoral) activity. Leaders are thus not expected to be motivated by such grievances. The fact that some claims are made by leaders who exploit power relations while ignoring international legal customs suggests claims are merely rhetoric. But if so, what makes them resonate so widely among global audiences? We examine when and why claims of hypocrisy are made and are accepted/rejected by different audiences. We find that while the international community does behave inconsistently in applying international norms this is often done non-deliberately/without malice. This suggests national elites are either misperceiving international behavior or are deliberately espousing populist rhetoric for their own purposes. We discuss the implications of both options and explore how perceptions of international behavior can be utilized to measure support for liberal norms among global publics, as well as how global institutions should respond to changing popular expectations of their performance.

Alternative Futures and the Evolving Security Environment Implications for Decision-Makers: Ali Dizboni (Royal Military College of Canada and Queen's University), Robert Addinall (Royal Military College of Canada), Peter Gizewski (Royal Military College of Canada)
Abstract: The future security environment is riddled with uncertainty. Foresight methods, despite their limitations, offer a framework for planners to assess the significance of various drivers and their potential interactions, leading to the identification of various security requirements. To effectively navigate this evolving landscape, it is essential to understand the underlying factors contributing to the increase in international geopolitical tensions and fragmentation. In 2017, the Canadian Forces published a comprehensive three-volume Future Army Process in 2025 that utilized various methods, including environmental scanning, the futures wheel, hindsight, and red teaming. This publication introduced four alternative future scenarios: High-Octane "Green" World (HOGW), Global Quagmire (GQ), Materialism Gone Mad (MGM), and Recyclable Society (RS).The primary objective of this paper is to evaluate the extent to which these alternative future scenarios, with a particular focus on the Global Quagmire (GQ) scenario, can provide insights into the reasons behind the current international geopolitical tensions and fragmentation taking place in the international security environment. By so doing this paper not only offers a deeper understanding of the key forces driving international tensions and instability but also highlights both the benefits and limitations of strategic foresight as an approach capable of supporting military planners and decision-makers as they attempt to address the challenges of a highly uncertain and rapidly changing security landscape.