Liberalism Flashcards
Liberal International Foundations
Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907
first attempts of regulating war, mediation (preventing the escalation of war)
didn’t survive WW1, but initial rules would be taken up by later international legal organisations
G77
outgrow of the non-alignment movement
liberal world
willingness to find common solutions to global problems and to define some global rules
Is it possible to change the nature of international politics according to liberalism?
Yes
states are rational
anarchy isn’t inevitable
progress is possible
brief history of liberalism
5
- historical alternative to realism
- relatively recent
- roots in international law (Bentham)
- economic ideas (Adam Smith)
- enlightment ideas (progress in humanity)
who invented the term international?
and what did he have to say about the law
Bentham
law is among nations, between nations and above sovereigns
international jurisprudence based on the equality of sovereigns
‘‘greatest happiness of the greatest number’’ secured by international judges
enlightment + liberalism
believe in progress in humanity towards peace and rationality
- Locke, Kant and Mill
*European setting: liberalism is possible in Europe, peaceful relationships can exist between civilized states (outside of Europe isn’t rational/civilized)
Woodrow Wilson
4
political scientists
became US president during WW1
Wrote the 14 points (foundation League of Nations)
didn’t bring the 14 points to practice in a sufficient manner (US didn’t join the League of Nations)
similarities liberalism and realism
3
similar roots:
- anarchy is the default stage
- rationality, self-interest of states
- equal sovereignty among states (Westphalian myth)
differences liberalism and realism
4
disagrees with realists:
- progress and change are possible (gradual)
- change isn’t automatic and natural, but a rational learning process of states
- what matters isn’t the distribution of power, but the distribution of preferences
- mutual and absolute gains (vs. relative, zero-sum)
institutional preferences
different states have different institutions and different preferences of other states (you gain knowledge through/by cooperation)
3 main assumptions
Kantian triangle
- Democracy:
- not all units/states are similar, polititical regimes matter (especially democratic institutions)
- civil constitution of every state should be republican (Kant)
- democracies are more peaceful than dictatorships - economic interdependence
- sustained commercial interaction limits conflicts
- trade -> higher costs of conflict -> less conflict
- trade forms a mode of communication -> better knowledge + complementary view of mutual gains and interests - International organizations
- IOs -> federation of free states, cosmopolitan law between IOs
- number and competences of IOs have grown over time
- IOs promote peace and cooperation
once you have these three dimensions, you immediately have more peace
why are democracies more peaceful than dictatorships?
two types of constraints on the behaviour of democracies;
- norms
democracies have the norm that conflicts should be resolved peacefully by negotiation and compromise - institutions (-> accountability)
leaders are held responsible for their actions (incl. costs and benefits of war)
how do IOs promote peace and cooperation?
- forum for mediating
- identifying and coercing norm-breakers
- reducing uncertainty by providing information
- demonstrating mutual and long term gains of cooperation (e.g. Hanseatic League)
liberalism in the interwar period / idealism liberalism
ideas 4
problems
- peace isn’t automatic, it’s an outcome of continuous effort
- belief that there is some degree of harmony of interests (mutual interest between states + some degree of norms or accepted behavior)
- there are some conditions that have to be met in the international level to guarantee domestic order
- international organizations and rules to guarantee peace (enforced by collective security)
problems: practical issues and failure to anticipate
- self-interest and sovereignty
- limited consensus among states
harmony of interests
mutual interests between states, some degree of norms or accepted behavior
liberal institutionalism
context 3
ideas 3
post WW2
neo-neo debate
developments of international institutions and interdependence after WW2
- anarchy isn’t durable, cooperation is possible
- institutions mitigate concerns and reduce transaction costs
- mutual and absolute gains from cooperation
liberal internationalism
drop in conflicts, increase in global trade and number of democracies
seemed to benefit all of the world
liberal international order
LIO
Ikenberry
post cold war stability because of unipolarity, but also because most states are democracies
post-sovereign/post-Westphalian system: increasingly new rules (sovereign states see this as beneficial)
relative peace in democratic ideas -> legitimacy of democracies
US became the liberal Leviathan according to Ikenberry, this vision isnow changing
inherent tensions liberalism
4
- is the liberal international system really liberal, orderly and universal?
- clashing liberal norms?
sovereignty v. promotion of democracy
self-determination v. sovereignty - rise of new powers within & outside LIO
- false promise of international institutions
realists argue that IOs only exist because states see it as tools to get what they want, it’s not good for everyone (reinforces the position of the most powerful states) - unsurprising that liberal scholars/thinkers/politicians are preoccupied with preserving the liberal order: it creates unequal gains for the West
democratic peace theory
- democracies don’t go to war with each other
- strong empirical regularity
!not really a theory: it isn’t sure why it is the case
- democratic values, accountability
*only the freest of democracies don’t go to war together
*how do you define peace
*theory could lead to more war: idea that all states should be democracies leads to policy to ensure democracies (e.g. US intervention Iraq 2003 with the idea that it would promote democracy also in other countries)
divisionary theory war
theory that states go to war with other states to divert attention to domestic problems
commercial peace theory / capitalist peace theory
trade limits conflict
*WW2: Germany and Britain went to war together while they were important trade partners
woodrow wilson 14 points
8 january 1918
'’the programme of the world’s peace, therefore, is our programme; and that programme, the only possible programme, as we see it, is this:’’
- pen covenants of peace
- absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas
- removal of economic barriers + establishment of equality of trade conditions
- national armaments reduced to a minimum
- adjustment of all colonial claimed
- evacuation of all Russian territory
- Belgium evacuated and restored without attempt to limit sovereignty
- all French territorium freed
- readjustment of the frontier of Italy, along recognizable lines of nationality
- Austria-Hungary accorded freest opportunity autonomous development
- Rumania, Serbia and Montenegro should be evacuated and territories restored
- Turkish portion of the Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty
- independent Polish state should be erected
- a general associations of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike
'’we can’t be separated in interest or divided in purpose, we stand together until the end’’
power
product of ideas
not only material/military
Kant
Kentian triangle
democratic peace thesis
to achieve peace requires:
- transformation of individual consciousness
- republican constitutionalism
- federal contract among states to abolish war
collective security
arrangement where each state in the system accepts that the security of one is the concern of all, and agrees to join a collective response to aggression
(e.g. NATO and League of Nations)
alliance system of security
several states join together, usually as a response to a specific external threat
liberal thinkers of the inter-war period were
radically imperialist
privileging an international order that was hospitable to empire and inhospitable to alternative radical internationalist ideas about democracy and the subordination of sovereign authority to the rule of law
contemporary challenges liberalism
cooperation is harder to achieve and sustain than liberals assumed
- recurring crises + disagreements in multilateral institutions
- violence in the Middle East and Africa
- unrest triggered by global economic inequalities
three phases liberalism (Ikenberry)
Liberal internationalism 1.0 = idealist moment inter-war period (failed attempt to replace the old balance of power order with the rule of law)
Liberal internationalism 2.0 = post WW2
- American-led international order
- model in crisis: American hegemony no longer an adequate framework to support an ILO + liberal principle of sovereign equality under threat (conception of sovereignty has become conditional on good behavior)
- US lacks the capacity, and Western institutions the legitimacy to maintain the liberal world order in the future
Liberal internationalism 3.0 = ?
- requires a move away form a sovereignty-based order towards one where global institutions become the new rulers of the world
R2P
responsibility to protect
can the sovereign state be relied on to sustain the institutions and purposes of the liberal order?
Not anymore
- Ikenberry: unrealistic that states will cede sovereignty to institutions
