In what ways does the functionalist approach in International relations help in maintaining peace and order in global politics? (2023, 15 Marks)
Functionalism, set out by David Mitrany in A Working Peace System (1943), treats peace as a by-product of cooperation rather than the output of a constitutional settlement. States are not asked to surrender sovereignty, only to bind together shared interests “where they are common, and to the extent to which they are common”. It sustains order through several channels, each with limits.
Ways in which functionalism sustains peace and order
- Separating low from high politics. Territory and security are set aside while states cooperate on health, transport, post and weather, where gains are mutual. Even Cold War rivals kept sharing weather data.
- The function determines the form. Each agency is shaped by its task (a river basin, an airspace, a disease), not by a map, so no state must decide its whole future at once.
- Institutionalised cooperation. The UN specialised agencies (WHO, ILO, ICAO, ITU, UPU, WMO) are standing forums of professionals that supply rules, data and channels of dialogue while members quarrel.
- Ramification and interdependence. Success in one sector creates demand in the next, which Ernst B. Haas (The Uniting of Europe, 1958) systematised as spillover. Restraint then comes from entanglement, not from a balance of power.
- Transfer of loyalty. As agencies meet needs, allegiance drifts towards whatever delivers welfare, softening war-prone nationalism.
- Turning conflict into problem-solving. John W. Burton carried the insight into problem-solving workshops that recast disputes as shared problems.
- Regional peace. The European Coal and Steel Community (1951) pooled the sinews of war between France and Germany; Bulgaria’s entry into the euro on 1 January 2026 shows the logic still at work.
- Indian practice. The International Solar Alliance (launched with France in 2015) and the Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure (2019) build cooperation around a task rather than a bloc.
Limits on the peace it delivers
- The technical is political. Vaccines, semiconductors and data flows have been securitised. The US left the WHO in January 2026 and listed 66 international bodies, the Solar Alliance among them, for withdrawal: technical status is no shield.
- Power behind the experts. B. S. Chimni (2004) argues that the network of international institutions forms a nascent global state serving transnational capital, so “neutral” governance can entrench Northern advantage.
- Realist objection. Kenneth N. Waltz held that interdependence multiplies points of friction; asymmetric dependence is leverage, not peace.
- Distributive deadlock. The WHO Pandemic Agreement (May 2025) cannot open for signature until its benefit-sharing annex is agreed, and in May 2026 the Health Assembly extended those talks by a year.
- South Asia. The Indus Waters Treaty (1960) outlasted the wars of 1965, 1971 and 1999, yet India placed it in abeyance after the Pahalgam attack of April 2025, and SAARC has held no summit since 2014.
Conclusion
Functionalism keeps order best as a theory of maintenance rather than transformation: it deepens peace among states already not at war and keeps global public goods flowing across political divides. Where security disputes remain unsettled, it needs a political floor that only diplomacy and collective security can lay.