The Hegemon and the Nature of the International Organizations

can balance the hegemon’s huge influence and unilateral urges. This has disclosed the other aspect of international organization and global governance. Thus, the conclusion of this dissertation can be applied to the issue of global governance. Also, when the hegemon will tend towards unilateralism and hegemonic global governance, as well as when it will be more enthusiastic about the idea of institutional governance can be more accurately predicted. Additionally, the process of global governance can be better understood and predicted. When the United States plays a critical role in international organizations, global governance might be effective, but not comprehensive. When the hegemon cannot dominate postwar international institutions, truly democratic institutional governance with a large degree of openness can be realized though its effectiveness is still in doubt. In conclusion, the findings of this dissertation can tell us much more in other issue areas.

In concluding this dissertation, two points should be emphasized. First, although the three organizations are the most important ones in their respective issue areas and each represent different levels of openness, the conclusion of this dissertation still cannot be considered to be universally applicable. The case studies are very typical and representative, but they are mainly focused on US influence on critical international organizations. If a different study were to deal with organizations that are not critical and a state that is not a hegemon, would the evolution of that state’s influence be accurately predicted by this model? More work must be done before this question can be answered. The objective here is limited to a study of the most important state and the most important organizations. The second point that needs emphasizing is that this dissertation does not deny the importance of other factors, such as the domestic politics of the United States, though they are usually intermediating variables. However, as an analytical framework, I have tried to focus on the most important factors that can decide the basic evolution of US influence. This dissertation is not aimed at explaining a question as comprehensively as possible. In fact, it is trying to demonstrate a basic framework that contains the most significant determining factors.

is to act as an instrument of hegemonic states, which eliminates the need for a specific theory about international institutions. “Realists and institutionalists particularly disagree about whether institutions markedly affect the prospects for international stability. Realists say no; institutionalists say yes. Realists maintain that institutions are basically a reflection of the distribution of power in the world. They are based on the self-interested calculations of the great powers, and they have no independent effect on state behavior.”²⁶⁴ If we want to precisely grasp the nature of international institutions, we must know the distribution of influence among the great powers on these organizations. We must also know whether this distribution can be changed. The research in this dissertation effectively resolves this theoretical puzzle because it reveals the conditions that constrain state influence on international organizations.

First, we can draw the conclusion that international organizations are still anarchical despite the decisions they make in the name of international public authority. International organizations can provide meeting places or issue agendas, but the officials of the organizations cannot unilaterally decide the outcomes of international affairs; only the representatives of member states can do that. International organizations are loose groups of states, not the central governments of the world.

Second, this dissertation has shown us that whether a particular organization is hegemonic or democratic depends on two factors: the distribution of power and the openness of the organization. Thus, the arguments of both Neorealism and Neoliberalism are correct only under specific conditions. If the hegemonic state is much stronger than all other states and the organization is relatively closed, then we can say these international institutions are hegemonic and reflect the national interests of the hegemon. If the hegemonic state is relatively declining and international organizations are relatively open, then we can say that international organizations are democratic and reflect the views of the majority. When the hegemon has substantial influence on an international organization, the organization should be best described as

“multi-polar;” a system in which several great powers or state groups have important roles. Therefore, there is no universally normative conclusion about the nature of international organizations. That is to say, the conclusions of Neorealism and Neoliberalism are only partly useful in the study of international organizations.

Finally, this dissertation identifies a means by which to change the nature of international organizations. Even if the basic distribution of power cannot be altered in the short term, broader member representation and more solid voting alliances can to some extent change the distribution of influence. That is to say, we do not need war to establish a brand-new order; states can change the process of decision-making and the guiding principles of international organizations through a redistribution of internal voting power. In the empirical study of US influence on the IMF, we have found that by working Haftendorn and Christian Tuschhoff, eds., America and Europe in an Era of Change, Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1993, p. 53.

264 John J. Mearsheimer, “The False Promise of International Institutions,” International Security, Vol. 19, No. 3, Winter, 1994-1995, p. 7.

together, Western Europe and the Third World could exert veto power. However, they are usually not organized well enough to exercise veto power. This lack of organization allows the hegemon to unilaterally veto any unfavorable draft resolutions.

The relationship between the hegemon and international organizations will be an enduring core issue in international studies, and I hope this dissertation will contribute to promoting further understanding of this issue area.

Bibliography