Interaction Across Institutional Boundaries - International System Of Research With Non-member Relationship

International institutions are created to promote cooperation, with a byproduct of institutional borders distinguishing members with non-members. Social effects of an international institution, therefore, are not only how it affects cooperation among members within the context of institution, but also how it affects the relationship between institutional insiders and outsiders. For this reason, it is theoretically enlightening to analysis how institutions affect social behavior of nonmembers, more or less ignored in current research agenda.To begin with, this dissertation seeks to find out how it differs for member states and nonmembers in facing an institution. The author contends that members endeavor to broaden the scope an institution covers and build up institutional capacity to cope with public concern. Whereas, nonmembers initiate outreach activities to react to the social environment an institution creates, take a share of institutional benefit of global governance, and gain sufficient international recognition. When these two sets of individual needs match with each other, it then paves way for two sides to meet and interact with each other.Insofar as the rules applicable, the author claims that the institution in being constitutes a foundation based on which interaction unfolds. The institution in being may as well advance certain modes of behavior, making the tabula rasa of international society a thing of past. Yet, an international institution confines and enables nonmembers in different ways from it does to members. While it affects members within the context of the institution, this does not happen without non-members'prior adherence to this institution. Therefore, it is necessary to explain why non-members decide to adhere to the principles embedded in an institution. The author points out that the need for mutual legitimization brings institutional insiders and outsiders together. More often than not, non-members need to adhere to the mission and principles advanced, whereas the institution needs to add concerns of outsiders or newcomers in its rule system.The mutual legitimization, however, does not happen accidentally. Here, the logic of who-shapes-whom does not apply, instead, co-evolution between institution and non-members counts. Institution not only teaches, but also learns. The absence of organizational learning makes mutual legitimization difficult if not impossible. The author then takes Six-party talk, UK's EC entry, and Indian nuclear diplomacy for examples to illustrate above mentioned dynamics.Concerning the empirical experience of China, the author points out that comprehensive participation in international society not only requires China to deepen participation in the context of institutions joined in, but also calls for broadened participation in institutions from which China is still absent. Investment in institutions of the latter category means to China a bright diplomatic opportunity and higher marginal return. The author also takes a sketch over institutions China yet to join and concentrates on the field of non-proliferation to evaluate the extent to which China and international society mutually legitimized.It concludes that mutual legitimization significantly affects both the process of interaction between institutional insiders and outsiders and the realignment of international society as a result. In the field of international relations, when discussing the social effects of international institutions, besides the question of how institutions shapes members'behavior, the phenomenal hits of institutional insiders and outsiders are also noteworthy.