Content area
Full Text
G. John Ikenberry: After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. Pp. xi, 320. $55.00.)
A principal thrust of most institutionalists and constructivists is an attack on the binary anarchy vs. hierarchy assumptions of structural realism. They paint anarchy on a grey scale in which anarchy is mitigated as order becomes institutionalized or reconceptualized. G. John Ikenberry in After Victory makes a bolder claim than most institutionalists. After Victory argues that institutions go beyond providing functional benefits to constrain the freedom of action of states, including and especially great powers. The punchline is that the restraining power of institutions cumulates, so that as institutional breadth and depth grow, elements of "constitutional" order are created in international relations.
Ikenberry argues that the great powers that emerge after hegemonic wars (Napoleonic, World War I, World War II, Cold War-hence, After Victory) build institutions to "lock in" the newly favorable international order. Ikenberry suggests that enlightened self-interest explains the formation of institutions. Institutions provide common goods and facilitate cooperation, but also serve the interests of their creators. Postwar great powers restrain themselves and trade possible short term gains for longer term benefits and the hope of retaining influence over others through the institutions they create. These benefits of institutions create a grand bargain, where strong founders and weaker followers envision joint gains, and the institutions limit concerns about relative gains.
Ikenberry adds two elements to the arguments of neoliberal institutionalists and hegemonic stabilizers. The first is that institutional effects cumulate and can become powerful enough to resemble characteristics of constitutional order. The second is that...