Yielding Sovereignty to AIIs
3
institutions was hegemonic stability theory, a structural explanation emphasizing the way
different balance-of-power configurations made institutions more or less likely. The early
institutionalist critiques of hegemonic stability theory added state motives to the equation
without eliminating structure. For example, Keohane explicitly argued that both “supply” and
“demand” factors were necessary for “a more comprehensive and balanced interpretation” (1983:
142). Keohane’s seminal work, however, spawned two decades of research on state motives that
has increasingly ignored his call for balanced, hybrid explanations. Because structural
explanation was so tightly linked with hegemonic stability theory, as that theory faded, so too did
broader concerns about system structure. In their review of 50 years of the literature on
international institutions, for example, Martin and Simmons (1998) make no explicit mention of
structural theories even though they explicitly discuss demand-side theories. Their research
agenda calls for a deepening of the state motive approach by focusing on domestic politics and
thus the origins of state demand. While some scholars have worked on supply-side factors, such
as the role of ideas (Goldstein and Keohane, 1993), political entrepreneurs (Haas, 1992; Keck
and Sikkink, 1998), and institutional path-dependence (Pierson, 1996) this literature has taken a
piecemeal approach rather than thinking about supply-side issues more systematically—and
system structure has been largely ignored.
Like Keohane, we argue that international institutions are the product of both system
structure and state motives, and that the time has come to once again even the analytical keel —
but in the opposite direction of 20 years ago. Structural factors are important because states
motivated to construct new international institutions (whether by common problems or by
common values) still face two important systemic constraints: (1) anarchy, including state
understandings of anarchy, which makes states reluctant to yield the sovereignty they need to
Convention