Institutional limitations on hegemonic influence in international organizations: Conflict resolution in the Organization of American States, 1948--1989

This dissertation identifies and tests institutional factors that affect the level of influence a hegemonic member state is able to exert within an international organization. I argue that factors such as the institutional structure and procedures can limit the influence of powerful states within an international organization. My hypotheses are applied to twenty-six cases of conflict resolution handled by the Organization of American States (OAS), with four of the cases evaluated in detail: the Dominican-Venezuelan case (1960), the Cuban case (1960), the Dominican case (1965), and the Nicaraguan case (1978). This research specifically addresses anomalous cases in which the United States was unable to dominate the OAS despite its hegemonic status in the region. Such outcomes are unanticipated by the two dominant theories of international relations, realism and neoliberal institutionalism. I adapt theories of organizational sociology to focus on the organization itself rather than the states in the international system. I establish an original analytical framework that includes structural, procedural, normative, internal relational, and environmental factors to be tested for each case. The four factors having the greatest impact on U.S. influence within the OAS are consensus among Latin American members, resources necessary for organizational action, regional principles, and perceived level of threat to regional stability. Two theoretical approaches provide insights into the anomalous cases under examination. Constructivist theory emphasizes norms, which play a role in limiting hegemonic policy options and in strengthening Latin American unity. Organizational sociology highlights the impact of structural, procedural and environmental factors on U.S. influence. Explanations of the behavior of international organizations are incomplete without analysis of the institutional factors that shape the dynamics and interactions of member states. The synthesis of institutional perspectives adapted for my research complements predictions by realism and neoliberal institutionalism to yield a more complete understanding of the actions of international organizations and their impact on member states.