Liberal view of international relations - Essay Example

Liberal view of international relations International relations deals with the study of state issues and affairs in the international arena. It also includes a look at the role of state and non state actors such as the international organizations and the multinational corporations. More over, it also deals with the formulation and conduct of foreign policy. That is, the policies formulated by state governments to guide their relations with other states in the international realm. That said, the study of international relations would not be complete without critical analysis of the theories of international relations. These theories can be divided into two. Positivist and the post positivist theories. The difference between these two theories lies in the fact that while positivist theories such as, realism, liberalism, and neo liberalism aim at explaining the simple question of why and how power is exercised in the international realm, the post positivist theories mainly focus on the question of what power really is, what it is, how it is reproduced and/or experienced. (Introduction to international relations, 2008) The liberalists are those in support of the liberal theory/school of thought in international relations. There are various types of liberalism; interdependence, institutional or even sociological and republican liberalism. (Jackson & Sorensen, 2007) The theory has its basis on the idealism theory of international relations. The theory came about soon after World War 1 and is associated with such people as Woodrow Wilson and Emmanuel Kant. The theory sought to explain he causes of World War One and how it could be avoided in future. According to Woodrow Wilson, war only served to destroy. Thus, if countries could avoid war the better for them. They would gain more from the international cooperation than they would from any war. (Introduction to international relations, 2008) Thus, the liberal school of thought operates on certain core assumptions. The first and most fundamental premise of the liberal school of thought is the argument that the relationship that states have with other actors, state and non state, in the international community to a great extent shapes their behavior by influencing their preferences. To the liberalists, how states behave in the international arena has more to do with their preferences rather than their capabilities. Consequently, depending on such internal factors in states such as culture, the economic system or even the type of government therein, the preferences are likely to be different from state to state. In liberalism, the relations that particular states have to the local domestic and even the global communal framework in which they are set in has a fundamental impact on their behavior as far as international politics is concerned. Thus, societal ideas, interests and the institutions in these states heavily influence their behaviors by shaping their preferences. The liberalists also distinguish between high and low politics as the determinants of interaction between states. That is to stay, to the liberalists, states do not only interact in the international relations as a result of high end political issues such as politics and security. State also interact on the basis of low political issues in the form of economics and culture. (Shared assumptions of realism and liberal institutionalism, n.d.) Another assumption of the liberal school of though lies in the fact that rational individuals and private groups who organize and exchange to promote their interests as opposed to states are viewed as the primary actors in the international arena. Again, that states and other political institutions represent some division of domestic society. This then forms the basis of interests upon which state officials then define state preferences and therefore act with a purpose in the world politics. Lastly, that there is interdependence of the international system. (Moravesik, 1997) To the liberals, peace is always the preferred conditioned that should prevail in the world. Concurrently, states should always try to find ways of maintaining peace as they go about their interactions. This is because with peace, man will be able to focus on such things as food, family and culture that serve to make his life even better. Man should therefore focus on fostering peace and avoiding weapons and war. Liberalists are of the opinion that war stems from misunderstandings and not having adequate institutions. Thus, to them the solution to avoiding and preventing wars lies in the formation of better institutions. Also, the liberals argues that misunderstandings between states can also be avoided by way of education and discussions. According to Jackson and Sorensen, an analysis of the liberal school of thought reveals the fact that it is based on the assumption that the nature of man is essentially good; optimistic view of human character. (2007)Hence, the reason why to the liberalists, rational individuals occupy a primal place hand in hand with other actors such as the private groups in international relations. Because man acts out of reason and perfectible, he is going to act in a way that will not result in any kind of misunderstanding or culminate in some kind of war. This is in total contrast to the realists who view man as greedy. Thus, because man is openly rational he is more concerned with his own progress. (Jackson & Sorensen, 2007) However, to a great extent man is elfish and irrational. States are made of men which means they take up the nature of the men who form them. This means that whatever the case some times war will be unavoidable. To the liberals, force and military power can be avoided which also means that war can be avoided. States/nations come together voluntarily giving up some of their powers, establishing international law and forming international organizations such as the League of Nations and later the United Nations which can best engender their cooperation as well as peacefully settling disputes in addition to governing their relations. This is the reason why such actors as the UN are able to occupy such important places in the international arena. They are formed/established by way of voluntary agreements for the purposes of defense (including arms management and disarmament) and the regulation of conflicts. (Keohane, 1982) This again has its basis on the nature of man. He is rational enough to realize that there is need for him to cooperate with others so that he can improve his life. To the liberalists, cooperation is inevitable for the simple fact that man is tied to his fellow men by way of universal humanity. Consequently, the limits imposed by state boundaries within which men live in are nothing but artificial. This leads him to look for ways to counter these boundaries because in the end it makes his life better cooperating with others. This has important ramifications, since state boundaries are ‘fluid’ then human right violators can be pursued regardless of where they may hide and brought to book. Also, this gives legitimacy to the involvement of states and other state actors in not so well off countries that may need development al assistance. On the assumptions of the liberal school of thought lies certain critiques. For instance, in the fact that unlike the realists who are for the use of force as a means to and end, to the liberalists, force and especially military power, can only be employed after all other avenues including dialogue, negotiations or even arbitration have proved unsuccessful. Nonetheless, this presents a problem, who is to say that countries may not sabotage any peaceful means of solving a misunderstanding so that they can engage in an all out armed conflict if it going to serve their interests better? The liberalist are of the opinion that man is essentially good, rational and not aggressive. However, this is misleading. When is man ever rational. He is always going to act as per his interests which will in most cases collide with those of other rational men. This means that whatever the case some times war will be unavoidable. (shared assumptions of realisms and liberal institutionalism, n.d.) So are the liberal views relevant in the modern day world? The answer is some what debatable. Liberalists have some very strong positive arguments but which have been challenged in the modern day world. The very fact that man is able to cooperate through the ‘fluid’ state boundaries for his own benefit is what has led to globalization. With globalization people, companies and even governments are able to interact and integrate more. It is a process that is driven by international trade, investments and made possible by information communication and technology. (Levin institute, 2008). People can easily move around. This is commendable. As much as globalization has been a positive thing it has also been negative. While it has contributed immensely to the peaceful co existence of states it has also been a threat to that same peace. Terrorism has been made possible by globalization. People are able to share information through technology on the making of weapons and how to use them. Also, they can travel without restrictions to where they ultimately commit their crimes. Therefore, in as much as the liberals think that man is rational and his aim for cooperation and sharing is so that he can improve his own life there is also another side to the argument. Sometimes the cooperation and interaction may not always translate to benefits. Through terrorism, man acts irrationally. Therefore, the liberal views do not seem to hold. They fail to recognize the fact that man and by extension states are guided into action by their interest. Where interests lay, rationality is thrown out. (introduction to international relations, 2008) According to the liberalist, it is the cooperation and interaction that has resulted in interdependence. (Keohane & Nye, 1977) However, the interdependence and the integration has been both good because countries have been able to mutually benefit like in the case of the European union. (Sorensen, 2007) On the other hand, it has not resulted in the end of war. While no major wars comparable to World War One and World War have occurred, there have been wars nonetheless. For instance, the Gulf war and the war in Iraq. Again, the liberalist’s views do not hold. If education and discussions as one way in which wars can be avoided why did it not work in this case? The answer lies in the same argument that state preference (interest) rather than capability determines their interaction with other states internationally. Cooperation and the need for peaceful co existence has resulted in the formation of such bodies and international organizations as the United Nations. These bodies have been able to provide some stability in the international arena. More over, they are also important in the peaceful settlement of disputes. However, they are only as successful as the countries that form them are committed. the international organizations draw their members as well as resources fro the member states. Concurrently, member states only support these organizations in as far as they perceive these organizations are relevant to their state interests especially those with powers to veto. On another angle, such bodies as Amnesty International do not completely make the world a peaceful place. While they are able to operate across borders and therefore helping to foster peace, these actors are still at the mercy of nation states. They do not have all the necessary powers that they may require to get the job done. (Keohane, 1982) Liberalism is one of the theories of international relations. It can be traced far back to people like Woodrow Wilson. It can be linked to the idealism theory by Emmanuel Kant. After World War One, it was set forth to explain the causes of the war and how such an occurrence could be avoided in future. The liberalists have an optimistic view of man as being rational and concerned with progress. Thus, rational individuals and groups occupy a focal point in the liberal theory of international relations. Because of this, he cooperates with others and is concerned with maintaining peace. For this reason, he forms international organizations that maintain stability in the international arena. International law is also formulated to govern relations between states. According to the liberalists, the nature of state interactions in the international arena is influenced more by their preferences rather than their capabilities. The reason why the liberalist view of international relations may not be all that relevant in modern day world rests on the fact that liberalism is based on optimism and hope more than anything else. While this is good, what the liberalists are hopeful for may not always happen. As much as there is need for interdependence, cooperation and peaceful coexistence, it is evident that the nature of man may not always be for it. And in any case, state preference rather than capability is what determines how state behave. Here preference translates to interest. In the event that these interests conflict with those of others, peaceful coexistence may not prevail. References. Introduction to international relations. 2008. 19 November 2008 Jackson, Robert & Sorensen, Georg. Introduction to international relations: Theories and approaches. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Keohane, Robert. ‘The demand for international regimes’. International Organization 36.2 (1982): 325- 355. Keohane, Robert & Nye, Joseph. Power and interdependence. New York: Harper Collins, 1977. Levin institute. ‘Globalization’. 2008. 19 November 2008 Moravesik, A. ‘Taking preferences seriously: A liberal theory of international politics’. International Organization 51.4 (1997): 513- 553. 19 November 2008 Shared assumptions of realism and liberal institutionalism. n.d. 19 November 2008 Read More