Institutional Hegemony: Leadership Through Institutions

Abstract

Summary:

This thesis adds the concept of institutional hegemony to the conceptual toolbox of historians studying international relations. Here, institutional hegemony is defined as leadership acquired through institutions. International institutions (organizations, treaties, norms, alliances, etc.) are more than only the arenas in which states interact, they can be tools with which states attempt to attain hegemony (literally: leadership). When states pool their sovereignty and their power in international institutions, this opens up roads for states to attain leadership over other states – either by excluding them or by profiting from including them. Rather than theoretically explaining how institutions can help states in acquiring hegemony, this thesis will make its argument by offering four cases, one large and three small. The largest case discussed in this thesis deals with the institutional strategy of France and Britain between 1945 and 1963. Both states were confronted with a similar international position; both France and Britain were going through the process of decolonization, both were surpassed in terms of power by the United States and the Soviet Union, and both recognized that the European Economic Community (E.E.C) could become an important factor in international relations. This similar position arguably brought France and Britain to pursue a similar institutional strategy: pooling their capacity for independent action with other states. France aimed to do so in the context of European integration, whilst Britain expected much of the Commonwealth. In addition to this large case on Britain, France, and the E.E.C., three smaller cases are discussed. The first of these additional cases, that of West-Germany and European integration, provides an addition to the main case of this thesis. By embedding itself in international institutions West-Germany regained its sovereignty, and ended up becoming the leading state on the European continent. The second case, on Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council (G.C.C.), illustrates that the concept of institutional hegemony can be applied to a broader range of cases than only ‘Western’ ones. After the 2011 Arab Spring, Saudi Arabia proposed to expand the G.C.C. with Jordan and Morocco. Thereby Saudi Arabia enlarged the institution which it lead, and thereby its leadership. The third case discusses the 2014 New Development Bank, a potential rival to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund initiated by the BRICS states (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). This last example indicates that institutional hegemony is likely to become even more relevant in the near future, as the waning of the Pax Americana will probably bring more challenges to the post-war Bretton Woods system in the years to come. Institutional hegemony potentially allows a wide range of observers to get a better grip on international politics. Leadership still plays a crucial role in global affairs, but it cannot always be captured by the conceptions of hegemony that existing schools of International Relations offer. Contemporarily, the institutional road to leadership is arguably one of the more viable roads to hegemony.