Comparative theories Flashcards

Question

What is the difference between liberalism the idealogy and the IR theory?

Answer 1

-Not much- often both pro-free trade and capitalism, support democracy and limited government, commit to a belief in human rights -Cosmopolitan- 'citizen of the world'. IR liberals tend to be more committed to this than the liberals we've seen before. They're often (but not always) to seeing humanity as a united body rather than separate individual states. US President Woodrow Wilson wanted to turn the 'jungle' of IR into a 'zoo' through creating international institutions. Uphold Westphalian sovereignty but limiting great powers. Moderns aren't so optimistic as major institutions are at mercy of powerful states.

Answer 2

Fascism has challenged liberalism as it saw the political weakness, materialism, anomie and lack of community of the West as fundamental contradictions in liberal societies that could only be resolved by a strong state that forged a new 'people' on basis of national exclusiveness. It faded away after WW2 because of its lack of success- it seemed that German fascism and its other European and Asian variants were bound to self-destruct, eg. fascism in Italy with Mussolini overthrown. Unending conflict leads to military defeat.

Answer 3

Communism has changed liberalism as a liberal society had a fundamental contradiction between capital and labour. Eg. those who own property rights sell rent to working class who sell their labour to survive but are exploited by surplus value (paid less than worth by elite) Liberalism explains inequality in liberal states as the root causes of economic inequality isn't because of underlying legal and social structure of society (egalitarian and redistributionist) but cultural and social characteristics of groups that make it up, eg. 'legacy of slavery and racism' which led to black poverty that still hasn't been resolved today, 2020 BLM George Floyd, he's not right about it being resolved. Fukuyama argues the communist threat has faded away because of a receding class issue from rising egalitarianism.

Answer 4

Vast bulk of the third world remains a terrain of conflict because they're not democracies yet, eg. dictatorships, African war lords

Answer 5

Assumes that aggression and insecurity are universal characteristics of human societies rather than the product of specific historical circumstances. They're not innate, behaviour is learnt.

Answer 6

It's a model for what a de-idealogised contemporary world would look like. Won't go into multipolar system but very strong hegemon which leads to rising powers wanting more so multiple countries go to war, bipolar system is stabilising. The world prior to 19th century led to British empire, Russia and Germany rose in power. France was powerful in Africa. This shows there were lots of great powers vying to be at the top (Thucydides Trap).

Answer 7

The way in which any state defines its national interest is not universal but rests on some kind of prior idealogical basis. States have now adopted highly articulated doctrines with explicit foreign policy agendas legitimising expansionism, eg. Marxism/Leninism which leads to still maintaining agencies. Eg. The Soviet Union’s expansionism wasn't just about power — it was driven by Marxist-Leninist ideology and the belief in a global class struggle. Realists: → China’s rise will provoke U.S. reaction → inevitable conflict. Fukuyama’s critique: → China’s foreign policy is shaped by its Communist Party ideology, historical memory (Century of Humiliation), and its need for internal legitimacy — not just power. → U.S. foreign policy is shaped by liberal democratic values, global leadership ideals, and public opinion. → Therefore, conflict is not inevitable — it depends on how both sides define and interpret their national interests.

Answer 8

Where war eventually becomes a thing of the past due to the rise of liberal democracies and their unwillingness to engage in conflict with each other. It could evolve to challenge the primacy of the state and the EU could provide a model for the future relationship between nations. As states worked more closely together, supranational governance would increasingly challenge the absolute authority of the nation-state. But democracy is an imperfect system so we haven't reached the end of history.

Answer 9

States seek power and security in a self-help system (can't rely on others to help you out). Realists don't believe in utopian schemes to provide peace, see world in terms of tragedy and evil so best you can hope for is people choosing the lesser evil. No natural harmony of interests, must live with diversity. Only just war is one that protects national interests. If no war, should secure military and be on guard. States seek independence as don't want to put themselves at risk. Even without ideological divisions, power rivalries remain (e.g. U.S. vs China is not ideological in the Cold War sense, but it’s still tense). States compete for influence, resources, security, and status — these are not going away. Believe human nature will prevail and state power is greater than IGOs (sovereignty).

Answer 10

-Ineffectiveness of international organisations to protect peace (UNSC veto means power is unfair, would have to limit state sovereignty) -Decline of American hegemony, leading to a rejection of liberal economics (The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), launched by China, is an example of a rejection of liberal economic principles that favor Western-dominated international institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as it focuses on state investment rather than Washington Consensus, also AIIB) -Inequality of global liberal economy- western dominance? (IMF and WB, SAPs austerity, US veto) -Global financial crisis challenging neo-liberal economic model (showed risk of being interconnected as led to a global crash so move away to interdependence) -Continued importance of nationalism and state sovereignty (Brexit, populist governments) -Trump/Brexit? (rejection of liberalism in EU, Trump breaking international relations like trade war) -Overly positive about progress? (Arab Spring caused more authoritarianism in Egypt and civil wars in Syria and Libya) -Overly positive about human nature? (Rwandan genocide. 800.000 killed)

Answer 11

Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger says old way of politics doesn't exist anymore as world is more multipolar so need more IGOs. Need cooperation with different types of countries to achieve success, eg. G7.

Answer 12

'If nations can pursue their imperial ambitions without consequences, then we put at risk everything this very institution stands for'. He was referring to Russia (Ukraine) and North Korea (allies with Russia). Imperial ambitions put IGOs like UN at risk as they focus on their own state, not international cooperation, there's no effective conflict resolution, Russia has the veto in UNSC, WTO, could cause problems in G20 and BRICS. Biden's a liberal- institutional liberalism, likes UN, put US back into Paris Agreement, likes NATO (reaffirmed commitment), eventually gave up veto supporting Israel- recognised he no longer had authority to block what UN wanted morally

Answer 13

Realist POV: (globalisation-sceptic) -Globalisation is nothing new and its extent has been exaggerated, eg. free-trade liberalism was advanced during Pax Britannica in 19th century, WTO- 'aims' to reduce tariffs abroad -The state continues to be the most important actor internationally, sovereignty, eg. when a powerful state like the US uses its military power to influence international policy, prioritising its own national security interests, eg. Iraq intervention to secure access to oil supplies -States have promoted globalisation to further their own interests. The Bretton Woods system for example helps US exports and expand American soft power, pessimistic view -Greater interdependence will lead to 'mutual vulnerability', eg. Brexiters feared the UK being dragged down by the EU (loss of sovereignty with Factortame case, fear of having to bailout struggling economies like Greece, paying more for membership than return so opportunity cost, felt EU regulations stifled economic growth like CAP and fishing quotas, also could make their own trade deals like with Australia) Liberal POV: (hyper-globalist) -Globalisation is novel and intensifying (eg. increasing numbers of IGOs like BRICs, ASEAN) -Globalisation is leading to the declining importance of the state, leading to the rise of supranational organisations like EU which has a lot of influence via single market (free movement of goods, services, capital and people) and customs union (same tariffs on imports from other countries, no tariffs on each other and trade deals as a single bloc) so it's more unified, UNICEF has countries coming together for economic policies -Globalisation is in everyone's interests. International cooperation helps improve quality and reduce prices. Economic interdependence spreads ideas like human rights and democracy, eg. every country in EU and G7 is a democracy -Globalisation promotes economic, political and cultural interdependence which leads to peace and cooperation, eg. creation of regional political institutions like EU which creates laws for all member states, like NATO and UNESCO

Answer 14

Realist POV: -Conflict is unavoidable because of human nature and the structure of global politics: states operate in a self-help system so the only just war is one to defend national interests; the world is in a Hobbesian state of nature so war is a constant threat; classical realists believe states are led by humans who have an innate 'will to power' so they always want to dominate other states -IGOs are merely tools of state power: states only cooperate with IGOs when it's in their own interests, otherwise exercise their individual power to achieve goals; US and UK invaded Iraq in 2003 without authorisation of UN; Trump withdrew the US from WHO as too much funding and didn't benefit US, also withdrew from Paris Agreement -Conflict is sometimes necessary to defend a state's interests or increase a state's power: Russia invaded Ukraine (justified because of NATO's broken promise); Afghanistan war is an example of the US defending their state interests, through waging a necessary war of self-defence Liberal POV: -Conflict can be avoided with changes to the structure of global politics: through cooperation in institutions like EU and WTO; through ICC nations and individuals are held accountable for crimes like war crimes -IGOs create a forum for dialogue and conflict resolution: UNSC has authorised military action, sanctions and peacekeeping missions around the world- Russia is most sanctioned country; NATO grew from 12 to 30 signatories; combines defence of western Europe, including securing airspace of its Baltic members with operations outside western Europe like in Afghanistan -Economic interdependence reduces the likelihood of state conflict. This is based on specialisation and comparitive advantage found within free market capitalism, eg. EU and WTO