Formalizing Informal Cooperation?

Abstract

It is difficult to resist the temptation of formal approaches to order in international politics. We are attracted to treaties, laws and organizations, like insects to incandescent light. But, it might be an interesting exercise to consider whether contemporary international political relationships would be in better shape had there been fewer formal arrangement in place. For example, might the world be a better place if we had been left with an informal council (or concert) of the victors after the World War II rather than a formally established United Nations? Would the management of relations between Asia’s major powers be more straightforward had the United States chosen not to erect a series of treaty-based alliances (the San Francisco system)? Would Asia be more secure over the longer term if Washington had instead established a series of informal arrangements; more along the lines of the relationship that Washington enjoys with Singapore rather than with formal ally Japan? Are we wise to pin any hope whatsoever on the quest for formal binding targets on carbon emissions as opposed to the possibility of informal, and even tacit or non-negotiated, understandings between at least some of the major emitters?