Theorizing International Relations: Liberalism

Are liberal democratic states liberal in their international relations?

• Core liberal belief that reason could deliver freedom and justice in international relations.
• According to Doyle – 2 elements to the Kantian legacy, (1) restraint among liberal states and (2) “international imprudence” in relations with non-liberal states.
• YES: Liberal states tend to be in relations of amity with other liberal states, i.e. they are friends with a high degree of convergence in economic and political matters.
• YES: Voices within the liberal tradition believe that a legal and institutional framework must be established that includes states with different cultures and traditions. Agrees with Bentham’s belief that if you “establish a common tribunal…the necessity for war no longer follows from a difference of opinion”.
  

• YES: 1989 Fukuyama wrote an article, ‘The End of History’ contending liberal states were more stable internally and more peaceful in their international relations.
• YES: Coden’s belief that free trade will create a peaceful world order.
• YES: Liberalism in American foreign policy (under Bush): “the US will promote moderation and tolerance and human rights…the requirements of freedom apply fully to Africa and Latin America and the entire Islamic world”.
• YES: Liberalism’s ‘collective security’ solution in international relations.
• NO: Supposed universal value of free trade brought disproportionate gains to the hegemonic power.
• NO: liberal democracies are as aggressive as any other type of state in their relations with authoritarian regimes and stateless people – Doyle.
• NO: Experience of the League of Nations was a disaster. Morally, the creation of the League was idealistic, but in practice states remained imprisoned by self-interest.
• NO: Current world order is highly unresponsive to the needs of weaker states and people.  The resulting global inequality is ‘grotesque’.
• NO: Radical liberalism; liberalization advocated by the West in impoverished countries often comes into conflict with the norms of democracy and human rights. Takes away state’s own accountability for their domestic constituencies, in order to qualify for Western aid and loans, states are often required to meet harsh economic criteria requiring cuts in many welfare programmes. Also, inflexible response of international financial institutions to various crises in the world illustrates this point.

How useful is the idea of interdependence in understanding contemporary international relations?

• Example: Britain & Germany had highly interdependent economies before WWI confirms the fatal flaw in the association of economic interdependence with peace.
• Pluralism – the elaboration on interdependence, where changes in one part of the system have direct and indirect consequences for the rest of the system.

Notes on Baylis Chapter 6:

• 1990s, liberalism appeared resurgent as Western state leaders proclaimed a New World Order.
• While liberal values and institutions have become deeply embedded in Europe and North America, the same values and institutions lack legitimacy worldwide.
• Hoffman believes ‘essence of liberalism is self-restraint, moderation, compromise and peace’, whereas the ‘essence of international politics is exactly the opposite: troubled peace, at best, or the state of war’.
• Liberals argue that power politics itself is the product of ideas – and ideas can change.
• Doyle’s four dimension definition of liberalism; (1) All citizens are juridically equal and possess certain basic rights to education, access to a free press, and religious toleration, (2) legislative assembly of the state possesses only the authority invested in it by the people, whose basic rights it is not permitted to abuse, (3) key dimension of the liberty of the individual is the right to own property, including productive forces, (4) most effective system of economic exchange is one that is largely market driven, not one subordinated to bureaucratic regulation & control.
• Liberal thought on a global scale embodies a domestic analogy operating at multiple levels.
• Historical project of liberalism is the domestication of the international.
• Liberalism (Human nature) sees the causes of war located in the interventions by governments both domestically and internationally, disturbing the natural order.
• Liberalism (state) sees the cause of war located in undemocratic nature of international politics, especially balance of power and foreign policy.
• Liberalism (the structure of the system) sees the cause of war located in the balance of power system.
• Liberalism pulls in 2 directions; (1) its commitment to freedom in the economic and social spheres leans in the direction of minimalist role for governing institutions, (2) democratic political culture required for basic freedoms to be safeguarded requires robust and interventionist institutions.
• Kant & Bentham were 2 leading liberals of the Enlightenment. Their abhorrence of the lawless savagery led them individually to elaborate plans for ‘perpetual peace’.
• Kant had argued that if the decision to use force was taken by the people, rather than the ruler, then the frequency of conflicts would be drastically reduced.
• Most famous advocate of an international authority for the management of international relations was Woodrow Wilson. Peace could only be secured with the creation of an international organization to regulate the international anarchy.
• Neo-liberals agree with core assumptions of neo-realism; the anarchic international structure, the centrality of the states & a rationalist approach to social scientific inquiry. Difference is that neo-liberals argue that actors would enter into cooperative agreements if the gains were evenly shard. Neo-realists dispute this: what matters is a question not so much of mutual gains as of relative gains – a neo-realist state must have more to gain than its rival.
• Political strategy regarding globalization: Liberalism of privilege. Richardson – the problems of globalization need to be addressed by a combination of strong democratic states in the core of the international system, robust regimes, and open markets and institutions.
• Radical liberals place great importance on the civilizing capacity of global society.
• The universalizing mission of liberal values, such as democracy, capitalism, and secularism, undermines the traditions and practices of non-Western cultures – Gray.
• The emphasis on personal liberty, unfettered trade, and the accumulation of property can lend itself to a society riven with inequality, suspicion, and rivalry.