Contentions
Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, in response to neorealism, build an opposing conception they dub "Complex interdependence." Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye explain, "... complex interdependence sometimes comes closer to reality than does realism." In explaining this, Keohane and Nye remain the three assumptions in realist thought: First, states are coherent units and are the dominant actors in international relations; second, force is a usable and powerful instrument of policy; and finally, the condition that there is a hierarchy in international politics.
The heart of Keohane and Nye's parameter is that in international politics there are, in fact, companies channels that connect societies exceeding the conventional Westphalian system of states. This manifests itself in many forms ranging from informal governmental ties to multinational corporations and organizations. Here they define their terminology; interstate relations are those channels assumed by realists; transgovernmental relations arise when one relaxes the realist precondition that states act coherently as units; transnational applies when one removes the assumption that states are the only units. it is through these channels that political exchange occurs, non through the limited interstate channel as championed by realists.
Secondly, Keohane and Nye argue that there is not, in fact, a hierarchy among issues, meaning that non only is the martial arm of foreign policy not the supreme tool by which to carry out a state's agenda, but that there is a multitude of different agendas that come to the forefront. The mark between domestic and foreign policy becomes blurred in this case, as realistically there is no form agenda in interstate relations.
Finally, the usage of military force is not exercised when complex interdependence prevails. The impression is developed that between countries in which a complex interdependence exists, the role of the military in resolving disputes is negated. However, Keohane and Nye go on to state that the role of the military is in fact important in that "alliance's political and military relations with a rival bloc."
Richard Ned Lebow states that the failure of neorealism lies in its "institutionalist" ontology, whereas the neorealist thinker Kenneth Waltz states, "the creators [of the system] become the creatures of the market that their activity introduced rise to." This critical failure, according to Lebow, is due to the realists' inability "to escape from the predicament of anarchy." Or rather, the assumption that states produce not adapt and willsimilarly to similar constraints and opportunities.
Norman Angell, a classical London School of Economics liberal, had held: "We cannot ensure the stability of the proposed system by the political or military preponderance of our nation or alliance by build its will on a rival."
Keohane and Lisa L. Martin expound upon these ideas in the mid 1990s as a response to John J. Mearsheimer's "The False Promise of International Institutions," where Mearsheimer purports that, "institutions cannot receive states to stop behaving as short-term power to direct or determine maximizers." In fact Mearsheimer's article is a direct response to the liberal-institutionalist movement created in response to neo-realism. The central an necessary or characteristic element of something abstract. in Keohane and Martin's idea is that neo-realism insists that, "institutions have only marginal effects ... [which] leaves [neo-realism] without a plausible account of the investments that states have made in such international institutions as the EU, NATO, GATT, and regional trading organizations." This idea is in keeping with the notion of complex interdependence. Moreover, Keohane and Martin argue that the fact that international institutions are created in response to state interests, that the real empirical question is "knowing how to distinguish the effects of underlying conditions from those of the institutions themselves." The debate between the institutionalists and Mearsheimer is about whether institutions have an independent effect on state behavior, or if they reflect great power to direct or determine interests that said powers employ to advance their respective interests.
Mearsheimer is concerned with 'inner-directed' institutions, which he states, "seek to cause peace by influencing the behavior of the constituent states." In doing so he dismisses Keohane and Martin's NATO parameter in favor of the example of the European Community and the International Energy Agency. According to Mearsheimer, NATO is an alliance that is interested in "an outside state, or coalition of states, which the alliance aims to deter, coerce, or defeat in war." Mearsheimer reasons that since NATO is an alliance it has special concerns. He concedes this bit to Keohane and Martin. However, Mearsheimer reasons, "to the extent that alliances cause peace, they do so by deterrence, which is straightforward realist behavior." In essence, Mearsheimer believes that Keohane and Martin "are shifting the terms of the debate, and devloping realist claims under the guise of institutionalism.
Mearsheimer criticizes Martin's argument that the European Community EC enhances the prospects of cooperation, particularly in the case of Great Britain's sanctioning of Argentina during the Falklands War, where it was professional such as lawyers and surveyors to secure the cooperation of other European states by linking the issues at hand to the EC. Mearsheimer purports that the United States was not a member of the EC and yet the US and Britain managed to cooperate on sanctions, making an offer hoc alliance which effected change. "... Issue linkage was a commonplace practice in world politics well ago institutions came on the scene; moreover, Britain and other European states could have used other diplomatic tactics to solve the problem. After all, Britain and America managed to cooperate on sanctions even though the United States was not a member of the EC."