{"title":"Deflective Cooperation: Social Pressure and Forum Management in Cold War Conventional Arms Control","authors":"Giovanni Mantilla","doi":"10.1017/S0020818322000364","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Why do states create weak international institutions? Frustrated with proliferating but disappointing international environmental institutions, scholars increasingly bemoan agreements which, rather than solving problems, appear to exist “for show.” This article offers an explanation of this phenomenon. I theorize a dynamic of deflective cooperation to explain the creation of compromise face-saving institutions. I argue that when international social pressure to create an institution clashes with enduring disagreements among states about the merits of creating it, states may adopt cooperative arrangements that are ill-designed to produce their purported practical effects. Rather than negotiation failures or empty gestures, I contend that face-saving institutions represent interstate efforts to manage intractable disagreement through suboptimal institutionalized cooperation. I formulate this argument inductively through a new multi-archival study of conventional weapons regulation during the Cold War, which resulted in the oft-maligned 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. A careful reconsideration of the negotiation process extends and nuances existing IR theorizing and retrieves its historical significance as a critical juncture and complex product of contesting diplomatic practices.","PeriodicalId":48388,"journal":{"name":"International Organization","volume":"77 1","pages":"564 - 598"},"PeriodicalIF":8.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Organization","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818322000364","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Abstract Why do states create weak international institutions? Frustrated with proliferating but disappointing international environmental institutions, scholars increasingly bemoan agreements which, rather than solving problems, appear to exist “for show.” This article offers an explanation of this phenomenon. I theorize a dynamic of deflective cooperation to explain the creation of compromise face-saving institutions. I argue that when international social pressure to create an institution clashes with enduring disagreements among states about the merits of creating it, states may adopt cooperative arrangements that are ill-designed to produce their purported practical effects. Rather than negotiation failures or empty gestures, I contend that face-saving institutions represent interstate efforts to manage intractable disagreement through suboptimal institutionalized cooperation. I formulate this argument inductively through a new multi-archival study of conventional weapons regulation during the Cold War, which resulted in the oft-maligned 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. A careful reconsideration of the negotiation process extends and nuances existing IR theorizing and retrieves its historical significance as a critical juncture and complex product of contesting diplomatic practices.
国家为什么要创建脆弱的国际机构?国际环境机构层出不穷,令人失望,令学者们感到沮丧,他们越来越抱怨这些协议与其说是解决问题,不如说是“作秀”。本文对这一现象进行了解释。我将偏转合作的动态理论化,以解释妥协挽回颜面的制度的产生。我认为,当要求创建一个机构的国际社会压力与各国之间关于创建该机构的好处的持久分歧发生冲突时,各国可能会采用设计不当的合作安排,以产生其所谓的实际效果。而不是谈判失败或空洞的姿态,我认为,挽回颜面的机构代表了国家间通过次优制度化合作来管理棘手分歧的努力。我通过对冷战期间常规武器管制的一项新的多档案研究归纳地提出了这一论点,这一研究导致了1980年《联合国某些常规武器公约》(UN Convention on Certain conventional weapons)的诞生。对谈判过程的仔细反思扩展了现有的国际关系理论,并对其进行了细微的修改,并恢复了其作为外交实践竞争的关键节点和复杂产物的历史意义。
期刊介绍:
International Organization (IO) is a prominent peer-reviewed journal that comprehensively covers the field of international affairs. Its subject areas encompass foreign policies, international relations, political economy, security policies, environmental disputes, regional integration, alliance patterns, conflict resolution, economic development, and international capital movements. Continuously ranked among the top journals in the field, IO does not publish book reviews but instead features high-quality review essays that survey new developments, synthesize important ideas, and address key issues for future scholarship.