The Domestic Analogy in the Context of Liberal Reform Program - Literature review Example

The domestic Analogy in the context of liberal reform programme The domestic analogy is the main idea that is pegged in the liberal internationalist approach to international relations. It is a theory that largely explains domestic and global politics in terms of how they function. It also pays close attention to their relations (Walt, 1998). The paper aims to describe domestic analogy in the context of liberal reform programme. History of Domestic Analogy Domestic analogy is an idea whose origins can be traced in Immanuel Kant’s essay, Perpetual Peace. In the essay, Kant says that seeking for consent from citizens on whether or not to engage in war can be especially challenging. For example, in a case where they view the same as a dangerous enterprise (Brown, Nartin & Rengger, 2002). Of course, seeking for approval from the public by the government is under presumption that if governments are accountable, they have nothing to hide, but to give the public accurate and full information on the situation. The need restore world peace is what pushed Woodrow Wilson soon after the First World War to create the infamous league of liberal democracies largely to keep and sustain peace in Europe. Although domestic analogy is an idea that was derived from the concept of democratic peace. Many people, who were in support of the same, felt that it would have been applied effectively on not only the first world war but also on the second world war (Smith, 1992). The idea in its Entirety The essence of the domestic analogy begins off from the fundamental premise that states are more like citizens and, on the other hand, the globe is more like a big state on itself. The domestic analogy is built on the presumptions that the creation of states and the enforcement of peace can also be done on the international scale. (Doyle, 1986). The domestic analogy is the fundamental principle that underlies the formation of organizations, for example, the League of Nations and the United Nations. It is, however, crucial to state categorically that these organizations granted states themselves rights, in the same way, citizens have rights in their constituent states. In order for an international organization to grant such exclusive rights, the organization must have the capability of using military power to act as a deterrent to starting a war. This is, in the same way, as the states do as they exercise their sovereign power. It is, however, not an easy task for the organizations to implement the same on a massive scale such as on the international scale (Richardson, 1997). This is largely so because about a half the nations around the globe have not subscribed their membership to the organizations; consequently, they are ruled by their ideologies. The non-member nations are usually afraid of surrendering their rights to self-defence simply because of the unfounded fears of losing wholly or part of their sovereignty. It is important, however, to state that while the Liberal internationalism has a peculiar character of making assumptions. However, it is not possible and practical of this assumption to come into reality (Richardson, 1997). The domestic analogy also compounds the idea that the states’ internal political affairs will largely determine how that particular state will act with regards to maintaining democratic peace on an international stage. For example, a state, which subscribes to autocratic leadership, will have little or no concern with regards to the rights of it neighbour country or state (Ikenberry, 2009). However, it will be more concerned and willing do all it can to ensure that it protects the rights of its citizens. A democratic state, on the other hand, cares for the well being of its neighbours’ rights, as well. Consequently, it will be more than willing to engage in constructive talks aimed at ensuring sufficient rights for everyone through collective security. This is reflected in the fact that quite a few democratic states have opted to engage each other in war (Paul & Hall, 1999). Main ideas of the Liberal reform programme Liberal thinking prescribes a set of standards that are supposed to act as a guide to people who engage in the mission of ensuring peace between various states. The liberal thinking is based on ensuring that moral and ethical obligations of a state are followed by the citizens. It is assumed that complying with the set rules will not only foster relationships between states but will also ensure a peaceful co-existence between nations. In the liberal school of thought, the government has the sole mandate of enforcing the basic laws which protect the rights of citizens including the right of association (Booth & Dunne, 1999). Liberals believe that while it is possible to prevent war, they acknowledge the fact is a there is more to be done before that goal is eventually reached. The liberals, like realists, share the sentiments that war never ends, but has repeated tendencies that are a characteristic of the anarchic structure (Richardson, 1997). However, the liberals do not point out the actual cause of war. Instead, they point that war results due tendencies such as imperialism, the inability to balance power and due to the extremist governments which perpetuate impunity (Richardson, 1997). Another squabble proposed by the liberals soon after the first war was the powerlessness of the state to take charge of transformation and modernization. They argued that there was a need for complete transnational cooperation to help in resolving emergent problems. The argument stems from the fact that soon as states start engaging in a serious integration process, the ‘cost’, that comes as a result of removing the cooperative ventures, increases significantly. Such positive benefits resulting from the fundamentals of liberalism are the ones that drove the need for its implementation (Smith, 1992). Emmanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham are two figures who remained quite vocal with regards to liberal enlightenment. The two gentlemen were reacting to the insensitivity and barbarity that was exhibited by the international relations which they described as “the lawless state of savagery.” The insensitivity occurred at a time when domestic politics had taken a center stage in the wake of a new age of rights, citizenship and constitutionalism. The recklessness, that was exhibited on the international stage, led the two gentlemen to elaborate plans for “perpetual peace individually.” Their plans, although written over two centuries ago, have remained the bedrock on which freedom and justice in international relations are sought (Hoffmann, 1999). The liberal school of thought’s idea of natural harmony of interests in international political and economic relations is also criticised as being inherently flawed. The very fact, that Britain and Germany had significantly close associations before the advent of the Great War, shows that associations with regards to economic interdependence cannot be used to offer sustainable peace. Since the beginning of the century, the occurrence of war at different at times even among close nations only serves to show how political and economic interests of different nations can fuel war (Smith, 1992). Emmanuel Kant’s plan to attain uninterrupted harmony, for instance, entailed an alteration of people cognizance of constitutionalism and contract that aimed at quelling war between states (Richardson, 1997). This plan is still held in high regard and has previously been likened to a permanent peace treaty rather than a “superstate” actor or world parliament. In his plan, Kant asserted that liberal states were largely Pacific and as such, their international relations with other liberal states are often stable as they are perceived to create “separate peace.” Although Kant insists on the restraint among liberal states and “International imprudence.” As far as relations with non-liberal states is concerned, his assertions cannot be fully accepted due to the following reasons (Richardson, 1997). First and foremost, Kant puts forward an argument that in the event that a nation’s decision to engage in war with another is taken by the public as opposed to the prince. Then the frequency of the conflicts across the world would decrease significantly. An extrapolation of this argument is that there would be lower frequency of conflicts between liberal and non-liberal states. The argument has, however, received much criticism as historical evidence suggests otherwise. Perhaps a more logical explanation for the democratic peace would be that liberal states are in many cases rich and, therefore, have nothing to gain or lose by engaging in war with poor states. In a nutshell, liberal states tend to have very rigid relations and have mutual benefits tendencies (Ikenberry, 2009). Secondly Bull critiques the Kant’s idea of the domestic analogy and his view of liberal states. Kant’s opinion of the domestic analogy is that the situation among individuals is uniform as the situation among states. For example, states are more like citizens, and the world is unitary holding the states together (Held & McGrew 2002). Bull is hesitant to agree with this notion. He notes that even states are more or less the same as a society of individuals. As such, the states also have fears of waging war with other nations as they perceive such moves as dangerous and uncertain of the outcome. Bull is of the view that liberal states will, in many cases, tend to have a common purpose and, as such, will be allied together. Bull, therefore, feels that the world would rather continue working the way it has been as opposed to changing it as that could result to bringing much new trouble (Held & McGrew 2002). Arguments against Domestic Analogy and liberal reform Programme The whole idea of the domestic analogy has been variously criticised as not necessarily representing the views of the realist thinkers. In fact, the critiques point out that it si impossible to apply domestic solutions on an international scale. This is essentially because no one is best suited to decide who makes decisions pertaining to what is acceptable around the world. In addition, no one can enforce such a conduct on an international scale. There is also the argument that domestic analogy is largely idealistic, and this poses dangers as states would never want to lose their sovereignty to other higher authority. Also, in the event that states surrender the same, there still would be conflicts of interest pertaining to how much of the authority is acted (Cox, Ikenberry & Inoguchi, 2000). The Implication of the First world War in liberal thinking The occurrence of the First World War significantly changed the liberal notion that peace does not occur naturally but one which must be constructed. While critiquing the notion that peace occurs in tandem with a States’ prosperity, argues that peace and prosperity can only occur in consciously devised machinery (Smith, 1992). The US president added his voice on the same saying that peace can only be achieved with the formation of a global body that will observe and arbitrate global conflict. The president argued that while liberal thinking was an idea whose time had come, security is quite a sensitive issue that cannot just be left to bilateral diplomatic deals. Although the peace can be enforced domestically by the society, the same thinking cannot be applied on the international stage. For instance, in the event where resolution conflict is not possible, only then can the ideas of liberalism and domestic ideology be applied (Cox, Ikenberry & Inoguchi, 2000). Conclusion In a nutshell, domestic analogy is the depiction of a state’s existence as a “society of the people.” The idea of the domestic analogy is supported quite well by various theories. That notwithstanding, the doctrine’s view of international relations also receives a significant amount of criticism. The first criticism regards the doctrine’s notion that anarchy occurring among states can be endurable to some extent whereas anarchy among individuals it is not. Another criticism of the doctrine regards its premonition that states do not exhibit the same level of vulnerability to violent attacks as individuals. The other criticism on the doctrine is its view that liberal states tend to have political and economic stability as compared to non-liberal states. References Booth, K., and Dunne, T., (eds) (1999), The Interregnum: Controversies in World Politics 1989–1999 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Brown, C., Nartin, T., and Rengger, N., (eds) (2002), International Relations in Political Thought: Texts from the Ancient Greeks to the First World War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Cox, M., Ikenberry, G. J., and Inoguchi, T., (eds) (2000), American Democracy Promotion: Impulses, Strategies and Impacts (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 1–17. Doyle, M., (1986), ‘Liberalism and World Politics’, American Political Science Review, 80(4): 1151–69. Held, D., and McGrew, A., (eds) (2002), The Global Transformation Reader, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Polity Press). Hoffmann, S., (1987), Janus and Minerva (Boulder, CO: Westview Press): 394–436. Ikenberry, G. J., (2009), ‘Liberal Internationalism 3.0: America and the Dilemmas of Liberal World Order’, Perspectives in Politics, 71(1): 71–87. Paul, T. V., and Hall, J. A., (eds) (1999), International Order and the Future of World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Richardson, J. L., (1997), ‘Contending Liberalisms: Past and Present’, European Journal of International Relations, 3(1): 5–33. Smith, M. J., (1992), ‘Liberalism and International Reform’, in T. Nardin and D. Mapel (eds), Traditions of International Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 201–24. Walt, S. (1998), ‘International Relations: One World, Many Theories’, Foreign Policy, 110: 29–46. Read More