By: Rodger

Rodger — Sat, 25 Oct 2003 04:52:25 +0000

Re: Realist arguments about international organizations. Q: What realist is perhaps best-known for his attacks on international organizations? A: I nominate John Mearsheimer, Drezner’s colleague at Chicago. Yet, Mearsheimer seems to be hedging his bets these days. Read the following quote. I realize it’s not precisely on point to the discussion, but it does seem broadly applicable. After all, why bother with an agency like the UN if it’s merely going to reflect the interests of the powerful states? Or fail to do anything important? This was in the NY Times, September 12, 2003: ‘’In the cold war you could argue that American unilateralism had no cost,’’ Professor Mearsheimer continued. ‘’But as we’re finding out with regard to Iraq, Iran and North Korea, we need the Europeans and we need institutions like the U.N. The fact is that the United States can’t run the world by itself, and the problem is, we’ve done a lot of damage in our relations with allies, and people are not terribly enthusiastic about helping us now.’’ If you don’t want to pay the Times for the old article, you can still find it here: http://www.mtr.org/seminars/satellite/amimage/amimage1.htm

By: John Theibault

John Theibault — Fri, 24 Oct 2003 14:28:50 +0000

Sort of like the old Holy Roman Empire, right? Have you political scientists/theorists moved beyond Pufendorf’s perplexity on how to categorize that? The main difference seems to be that the HRE tried to exert authority in an environment of emergent state sovereignty and national consolidation while the EU tries to exert authority in an environment of (potentially) submergent state sovereignty and national consciousness. In any case, I think the HRE can provide some lessons for the EU, both positive and negative.

Comments on: Neither fish nor fowl

By: Rodger

By: John Theibault