Institutionalism in international relations

Institutionalism in international relations comprises a group of differing theories on

international relations (IR). Functionalist and neofunctionalist approaches, regime theory, and
state cartel theory have in common their focus on the structures of the international system, but
they substantially differ in the way they precede. The functional theory of David Mitrany is the
oldest institutional theory of IR. Mitrany suggested that slim functional agencies should
organize the needs of cooperation among even conflicting states. The neofunctionalism and the
communitarian method of Jean Monnet advocated the principle of supranationality: international
bodies superordinated to the nation states should administer the common interests. The
functionalist approaches have been often criticized to be idealistic and normative in their positive
view on international institutions.

Regime theory holds that the international system is not in practice anarchic, but that it
has an implicit or explicit structure which determines how states will act within the system.
Institutions are rules that determine the decision-making process. In the international arena,
institution has been used interchangeably with 'regime', which has been defined by Krasner as a
set of explicit or implicit "principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which
actors expectations converge in a given issue-area." Institutionalist scholars hold a wide array of
beliefs stemming from the central proposition that institutions "matter" in answering the question
"what explains a particular outcome?". There are four reasons for this, a structure choices,
provide incentives, distribute power, and the last is define identities and roles.

Rational choice institutionalism
This school attempts to explain collective choices by rational actors. Outcomes are a product of
the interaction between actor preferences and institutional rules. Rational institutionalists also
regard institutions as themselves being rationally chosen by actors who view the rules as
facilitating the pursuit of their goals. For example, the institutional decision-making rules of the
European Union are such that the largest states can structure political outcomes.
Historical institutionalism
The historical institutionalism school believes that institutional factors account for differences in
cross-national political outcomes. There are two elements:
Institutions could shape actor preferences by structuring incentives, redistributing power,
and by influencing the cultural context.
History is "path dependent." Choices or events early in the process can force a path from
which it becomes increasingly difficult to deviate.
Theda Skocpol's work illustrates an example of historical institutionalism. Responses to the Great
Depression of the 1930s differed greatly between Sweden and the United Kingdom, which had
similar problems in terms of severity and duration. The two countries responded with vastly
different policies due to differences in existing domestic institutional structures.
Historical institutionalism
As the name suggests, this version of institutionalism states that "history matters." Paths
chosen or designed early on in the existence of an institution tend to be followed throughout the
institution's development. Institutions will have an inherent agenda based on the pattern of
development, both informal (the way things are generally done) and formal (laws, rulesets and
institutional interaction.) A key concept is path dependency: the historical track of a given
institution or polity will result in almost inevitable occurrences. In some institutions, this may be
a self-perpetuating cycle: actions of one type beget further actions of this type. This theory does
not hold that institutional paths will forever be inevitable. Critical junctures may allow rapid
change at a time of great crisis.






Democratic Peace Theory
Definition of Democratic Peace Theory is usually broadly broken into four main categories
icluding those that emphasize the structural constrains imposed on policy-makers in liberal
democratic regims, those that argue shared norms between liberal democracies are the key, those
that assert that democracies are satsfied powers unlikely to use force, and those that emphasis
that perceptions among liberal democracies are such they represent each other as trustworthy.

According to Doyle and other, adherents of the democratic peace, liberal democratic
states have been able to transeend the imperatives of power politics an and international system
of anarchy in their relations with other liberal democratics states, and have not even attacked
other liberal democratic states when it may have been to their advantage. Democratic Peace
Theory also not how it adherents have attempt to explain the phenomenan, but, its resonance with
the general public and policy-makers. Moreover, this pop culture popularity has occured despite
the general perception within the wider academic community that at best, it represents wishful
thinking. More importantly, the nuances of democratic peace theory have been lost as it has
become enmeshed within popular political discourse in the West.

Application of Democratic Peace Theory
Democratic Peace Theory as a Representational Practise
Democratic Peace Theory is important to distinguish this technic from the standard theoritical
deconstruction common to critical international relations, where the standard theoretical seeks to
elucidate the assumptions, presuppositions, and norms that have influenced the foundations of a
particular theory, a representational decontruction of the sort attempted in this paper seeks to
reveal how a theory has both moulded and become emmeshed within ideas of self-indetification
and an ontological outlook which hepls to define indentity.


As a representational practise, democratic peace theory need nodal points around which
to fix meaning and entablish positions to make predication possible. In other word, it help to
affirm the identity of the self in relaton to other. Two nodal points are of significance for
democratic peace theory. The first one is conception of democracy that is common to democratic
peace theory discussion. It emphasizes procedural rather than substantive characteristics
including elections and constituions. The second is he democratic peace theory is archored is a
conception of war. Here, war is strictly an inter-state exercise. Intra state warare does not appar
on the democratic peace theory radar screen. The conceptions only recognize formal declarations
of war.