Does Liberalism Have a Future in International Relations Theory - Coursework Example

LIBERALISM AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Introduction The theory of Liberalism suggests that people and the nations, which represent the people, have the capability of establishing mutual interests as well as cooperation at least in portion, by working according to international laws and organisations. The liberal theory opposes the realists’ idea that politics is just about the fight for power. However, the liberal theory does not dismiss power as one of the most important factors that determine the nature of international relations, but apart from power, it incorporates ideology, morality as well as emotions such as mutual identity and friendship. The liberal theory also maintains that international politics can be a game of non-zero sum in which one or more countries can win without compromising others. The theory suggests that human beings have behavioural attributes that unite them beyond their national or geographical boundaries. This article will provide an explanation on the general idea of liberalism and examine whether liberalism has a future in the theory of international relations. Classic Liberalism and Neoliberalism Classic liberalism is a direct derivative of idealism and base on strict adherence to the nature of human beings (Hodgson 1993). However, contrary to the idea of classic realism of pessimism, classic liberalism idea is very optimistic about the nature of human beings. Classic liberalism traces its intellectual backdrop to political philosophy. The idea suggests that the social linkage that humans established is because of the fact that their cooperation will enable them to improve their welfare in the best manner possible. Modern liberals continue to apply the idea to the various societies in the world and contend that people and nations can enhance their welfare by joining their hands together and establishing a society that is cooperative and peaceful (Habermas 2005). This is evident through the ongoing process of globalisation where countries are struggling to harmonise the means they use in dealing with similar problems and become more mindful about the problems faced by others. Neoliberalism emerged in the twentieth century in parallel with neorealism (Slaughter 1994). Neoliberalism supports the idea of neorealism that high competition amongst sovereign nations in a system of anarchical world will cause conflicts. Nevertheless, neoliberalism argues that the system is not as anarchical as the way neorealism claim (Slaughter 1994). According to the neo liberalists’ view, complicated interdependence is the major characteristic that defines the system. This means that nations join through trade and various factors such as social and economic that enhances cooperation and minimizes conflicts. The complicated dependence between nations enhances the use of international laws and international organisations acquire great significance. On the other hand, the international laws that nations obey as well as the international organisations work to minimize anarchy in the system that in turn removes conflicts (Slaughter 1994). This is evident through the formation of international organisations such as the European Union that continues to resolve conflicts within members as well as the harmonization of all laws regarding various matters, which add up to the welfare of the people. In Africa, there is the African Union that plays a vital role in solving conflicts within member countries in Africa as well as any conflict that involves an African country and another nation out of Africa (Moravcsik 1997). Liberalism and International cooperation Contrary to realism, liberalism does not agree with the idea that the acquisition, preservation and the application of power are the core strategies for achieving international cohesion. Liberalism contends that the formulation of foreign policies should be according to the doctrines of cooperation and altruism (Moravcsik 1997). In fact, realists are always willing to use military force if conditions compel to do so especially on matters concerning self-defense. For example, the desire to restore democracy prompted President Wilson Woodrow to send United States troops to Europe and President George Bush took the same step with the aim of enhancing democracy in Iraq. However, many liberals argued that the use of force would not produce the most desired effects and would result to imperial dominance (Yoo 2003). This criticism shows that many people are moving towards a cooperative means of conflict resolution rather than military force. The idea of liberalism found good applications in many leaders after the cold war. A good example was the idea of President Bill Clinton urging the people of the United States to support the initiative of sending troops to Bosnia because of the need for humanitarian assistance in the country (Jefferson 1999). More recently is the idea that President Bush announced that the United Nation would support any democratic movement in the world. All these efforts were aiming at constructing harmony and uniformity in the manner countries resolve the various issues affecting them. This means that in the near future, the various countries in the world will be administering their activities in a democratic manner that will help in building international peace and understanding where the need for application of force will be extinct. Liberalism is opposed to the idea of the realism that practicing an ethical conduct often mostly functions in opposition to the interest of the country (Burchill et.al. 1996). Liberalism argues that the national interests of a country and the international interests usually go together. This means that enhancing the economic conditions of the world, improving democracy and human rights will greatly assist in the creation of cohesion in the world (Walker 1993). This is evident through the increased process of democratization in the world. This in turn will lead to elimination of the necessity of force and will help foster peace and understanding. Liberalism and future of international cooperation Liberalism holds that human beings are moving towards an international system that is more orderly and more peaceful (Rourke & Mark 1991). According to the idea, the world must achieve this objective of maximum cohesion and uniformity of interests. Both realism and liberalism agree that the state is very important in world politics, but the realists stress on the state only while liberalists, apart from the state, they include the significance of international organisations. Classic liberalism suggests that just like the manner humans can learn how to work together without losing their individualism, nations can also cooperate and work together while maintaining their autonomy (Walt 1998). This is evident in the manner countries enable their citizens to intermingle and work together while maintaining their citizenship with their home countries. According to this view, the expansion of the economic interdependence between nations and the spread of culture in the world will help bring international cooperation among nations (Wendt 1995). The view suggests a world in which every individual country maintains its sovereignty. This is evident through the process of decolonisation and the urge that every country must respect the status of other countries (Jackson 1993). The effect of this is the creation of a world that is free from conflicts that will in turn improve cooperation among nations. This however, means that countries must sacrifice part of their sovereignty to the international community to enhance cooperation and promote good conduct. This is also evident in the numerous constitutional reforms in many countries to make their laws compatible with those of the international community. This means that the world is heading towards a common way of decision making that in turn will eliminate conflicts. The future of liberalism manifests itself in the manner countries are struggling to achieve uniformity in the manner they manage their affairs (George 1994). For example, the European Union has great influence in the management of both political and economic matters within members in the European continent. It is good to remember that no any individual country that received external pressure to join the union. Every individual nation joined voluntarily to benefit from the cooperative environment created by the union. This is good evidence that supports the liberalist idea that sovereignty is reducing to enhance international cooperation. The spread of democracy and the increase in economic interdependence between countries also supports the idea of liberalism in enhancing international cooperation. This is because, the spread of democracy and economic interdependence reduces conflicts between nations and tend to harmonise their systems to achieve uniformity in the manner they deal with the various matters in their countries (Walker 1993). According to the constructivist idea, international cooperation does not just come from material influences such as wealth and power, but includes both inter subjective as well as subjective factors such as norms, ideas, culture, history and the identity (Hopf 1998). Contrary to strategic interaction proposed by liberalism, collectivism considers a sociological strategy. The identities and the interests of nations are not rigid, but change because of the process of socialization and mutual interaction. According to the idea of collectivists, power politics and anarchy are never rigid, but can change according to the changes in the social structure of the people. Norms and customs, upon their establishment shape life and restructure the interests of the country (Rourke 2007). However, the ideas are favouring those of the liberalistic view since there has been an increasing recognition of the contribution of international organisations in shaping the behaviour of nations. International organisations continue to discourage the use of force in achieving cohesion and emphasises that social relations help to achieve uniformity in the manner the people of different nations behave. This is evident through the increased forms of interaction as people interact and share ideas in the world that in turn make them continuously, behave in the same manner and consequently achieving international cooperation (Rourke & Mark 1991). The feminist theory regarding international relations argues that there has been great discrimination of women in world politics (Rourke & Mark 1991). According to the theory, men and women have different views concerning world peace. Women think deeper in terms of peace incorporating social justice, ecological balance as well as equitable distribution of income (Rourke 2007). In addition to peace based on military concept, women want to see peace in terms of sexism, domestic violence, poverty among other matters that are of great concern to women. According to this view, the incorporation of these factors in defining world peace is that which will bring cohesion in the world. However, the idea goes hand in hand with that of the liberalists. This is because, the theory, just like that of liberalism, is not advocating for political power in achieving international cooperation (Rourke 2007). The growth of democracy advocated by liberalists is considering all the important factors proposed by the feminists. Democracy aims at achieving equality and recognizing the contribution of all individuals in the society towards development (Rourke & Mark 1991). Nationalisation of the economy is another theory that presents ideas closer to those of realism (Rourke 2007). The theory contends that countries have to use their economic power to enhance their political power and in turn to use their political power to further, enhance their economic power (Halliday 1987). However, for a country to gain economic power, it has to collaborate with other countries since economic growth increase with increase in production and availability of market for product. Therefore, the idea goes back to that of the liberalists of achieving cooperation without the use of force. This is because; economic cooperation helps in eradicating all forms of conflicts. According to the theory of economic internationalisation, internationalisation of the economy will help to increase international cooperation in the absence of political interference (Rourke 2007). This is evident through the elimination of trade barriers to allow free movement of people and products across nations. Again, the theory, presents ideas that agree with the liberalist. The idea is against the idea of overdependence on force as a means of building relations just like the liberalists. The increase in the pace of trade liberalisation is also among the core factors strengthening liberalism as a means of achieving international cooperation (Rourke & Mark 1991). Economic structuralism is another view that explains the nature of international cooperation. According to this view, structural differences in the economy of different countries inhibit integration (Wendt 1987). They view the idea of globalisation as a means of achieving further dominance by the developed countries like the United States and the United Kingdom over the other poor developing countries (Haggard & Maxfield 1996). Economic structuralisms argue that in cases where conditions do not pave the way for the dominance, these powerful nations tend to use force to extend their dominance in these countries. They view that globalisation is an American strategy for spreading its dominance over other countries in the world. A good example is the Iraq war, which according to the view, was a strategy aimed at achieving dominance (Rourke 2007). However, the operations of business by foreign organisations in a country benefit the country economically because it assists in the utilisation of the resources of a country. The idea of many governments to encourage foreign investors in their countries is a good evidence of this preposition and this encourages the acceptance of peaceful means of resolving conflicts rather than force (Haggard & Maxfield 1996). Postmodernists argue that the liberalist theory perpetuates musty means of conceiving how countries organise and conduct themselves (Rourke & Mark 1991). Postmodernists express that the realities presented by the liberalists can change by thinking about the nation and examining matters in different ways. Postmodernists advocate for changes in the identity of primary politics in excess of nationalism to include wide coverage such as being a European or simply being a human (Rourke & Mark 1991). The idea aims at achieving uniformity in the manner people think and perceive themselves, which will help in bringing international cooperation. It aims at eliminating the idea of people looking at themselves different from others. This idea supports the development of liberalism with the only difference being that liberalism continues to allow nations to retain their identities while cooperating (Halliday 1987). Conclusion It is very evident that the world is evolving politically, socially and economically. For many years in the past, nations sought their political, economic as well as all other interests according to the level of their powers using the international anarchical system. The other remaining alternative undergoing rapid transformation is the idea of adopting a more cooperative, long-term worldwide approach. The political environment prevailing in the world has a role in determining the manner that people in every country live. Political integration is necessary to promote cooperation in the world that in turn will help to achieve peace without the use of military power. Almost all theories that tend to explain the path that the world has to follow, in achieving international cooperation insist on economic liberalisation in one or more ways. This gives a clear indication of the importance of the liberalist view in achieving the best theory regarding the future theoretical developments concerning international relations. The world is moving towards a common means of solving problems in which regional and geographical boundaries plays an insignificant role in determining the behaviour of the people. Bibliography Burchill, Scott, Andrew Linklater, Richard Devetak, Matthew Paterson, and Jacqui True 1996, Theories of international relations, Macmillan, London, pp. 10. George, Jim 1994, Discourses of global politics: a critical (re) introduction to international relations, CO: Lynne Rienner, Boulder, pp. 29-30 Habermas, J. 2005, ‘Equal Treatment of Cultures and the Limits of Postmodern Liberalism’, Journal of Political Philosophy, Vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1-28. Haggard, Stephan, and Sylvia Maxfield 1996, ‘The political economy of financial internationalization in the developing world’, International Organization, Vol. 50, no. 01, pp. 35-68 Halliday, Fred 1987, ‘State and society in international relations: a second agenda’, Millennium- Journal of International Studies, Vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 215-229. Hodgson, G. M. 1993, ‘Institutional economics: surveying the ‘old’and the ‘new’’, Metroeconomica, Vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 1-28. Hopf, Ted 1998, ‘The promise of constructivism in international relations theory’, International security, Vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 171-200. Jackson, Robert 1993, ‘The weight of ideas in decolonization: normative change in international relations’, Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change, pp. 111- 38. Jefferson, Kurt 1999, ‘The Bosnian war crimes trial simulation: Teaching students about the fuzziness of world politics and international law’, PS: Political Science & Politics, Vol. 32, no. 03, pp. 589-592. Moravcsik, Andrew 1997, ‘Taking preferences seriously: A liberal theory of international politics’, International organization, Vol. 51, no. 04, pp. 513-553. Rourke John, T., and A. Boyer Mark 1991, ‘International Politics on the World Stage’, University of Connecticut, pp. 57-81. Rourke, John T. 2007, International politics on the world stage, McGraw-Hill, pp.141 Slaughter, Anne-Marie 1994, ‘Liberal International Relations Theory and International Economic Law’, Am. UJ Intl L. & Poly, Vol. 10, pp. 717. Walker, Rob 1993, Inside/outside: international relations as political theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 2. Walt, Stephen 1998, ‘International relations: one world, many theories’, Foreign policy, pp. 29- 46. Wendt, Alexander 1987, ‘The agent-structure problem in international relations theory’, International organization, Vol. 41, no. 03, pp. 335-370. Wendt, Alexander 1995, ‘Constructing international politics’, International security, pp. 71-81. Yoo, J. 2003, ‘International law and the war in Iraq’, American Journal of International Law, pp. 563-576. Read More