1. Institutionalizing Conflict: How Institutions Have Contributed to the Destabilization of European Security Andrej Krichkovic Dmitry Novikov

2. Mainstream theories’ assumptions on institutions: neoliberalism Provide information (reduce level of distrust) Make commitments more credible Reduce transaction costs (aggregate mutual economic advantages) Establish focal points for coordination (to resolve multiple equilibrium games) Establish credible mechanisms of bilateral and multilateral negotiations (conflict resolution)

3. Mainstream theories’ assumptions on institutions: realistic critique Institutions are created by states and depend on their policy International order is driven by balance of power and capabilities, not institutional framework Institutions’ potential to reduce distrust is limited (not intentions, but capabilities determine state’s actions)

4. Weak points: Realistic approach do not pay any attention to institutions, while liberals generally overvalue their significance Liberal institutionalism views the role of institutions as deliberately positive for the international order Realists focus on balance of power and “natural interests” reduce the potential of theory to analyze decision-making process

5. Why institutions matter? Despite changes in balance of power is the core factor, influencing international order, institutions may contribute to this process in a negative way (as we state in the article). There are three assumptions on institutions we will test in the article: Institutions naturally pursuit status-quo, what means that highly advanced institutional framework is more reluctant to reform “Fake” or “symbolic” institutions – institutions without a clear agenda – may produce fake expectations and slow down negotiations on any reform of an international order, stimulating conflict potential Institutions produce bureaucracies with a certain ideology and agenda, which influence decision-making on a national and international level

6. Case Study: European Security Crisis What we have: A highly-developed institutional framework with a number organizations The regional balance of power changes with Russian post-Soviet recovery Emerging power seeks a way to reform the security order and its institutional embodiment The current crisis was mainly caused by disproportion between distribution of power and institutional design

7. Suggestions on institutional reform Transformation of the NATO-centric Structure to OSCE-centric (90s) “Limited integration” – Russia-NATO Council (2002) Treaty on European Security (2008) Humanitarian and Economic space “from Lisbon to Vladivostok”

8. System level: Reluctant Institutions

9. Interstate level: “Symbolic Institutions”

10. Sub-state level: Self-Acting Bureaucracies

11. Conclusions: Despite balance of power remains the core factor, determining international order, NATO was the key factor

12. THANKS!