Liberal International thought Has Not Really Moved on since Immanuel Kant - Coursework Example

Liberal international thought has not really moved on since Immanuel Kant January 3, Liberal international thought has not really moved on since Immanuel Kant Introduction Liberal international thought is an ideology fronted by various highly qualified publicists, scholars that seek to address existing and expected problems that consequently aid in promoting lasting stability, and cooperation in international relations. It is sufficed with the fundamental principles and institutions that are vital for its realisation recognised by certain characteristics such as individual freedom, political participation, private property, and equality of opportunities (Badie, Schlosser, & Morlino, 2011). The essential principle in liberalism is the freedom of an individual. The paper seeks to discuss how liberal international thought has not moved on since Immanuel Kent by discussing the various concepts behind it along with the occurrences that have been taking place since its inception. The concept of liberalism is embraced by the following happenings within a political entity (Badie, Schlosser, & Morlino, 2011): i. The people need to enjoy core civic and political rights with equality and equity. ii. The sovereignty of states is because of the authority from the electorates and therefore, liberalism denotes that the state is devoid from interference from external authorities or internal insurgencies or military bureaucracies. iii. Recognition of the rights of private properties is a facilitator of an efficient economy system since property is justified by individual acquisition or social utility. iv. Economic environment is mostly regulated by the forces of supply and demand that may be local or international. Immanuel Kant’s view on International Liberalism Being a liberal republican, he theorised a concept of peace amongst states for the purposes of international relations. Kant wrote various articles to explain these theories and notably his essay on perpetual peace is the most significant in this instance (Buchan, 2002). Immanuel Kant had insights on republics based on the constitution and the popular representation as the best concept of a government. He upheld the perspective that government sometimes had to introduce restraints on foreign policies, establish the mandate to respect and obey the relevant human rights. He further explained that these institutional restraints only serve as a salve or caution in situation whereby a monarchical government exists (Badie, Schlosser, & Morlino, 2011). He imagined a forethought whereby, liberal republics would strive to maintain stability progressively amongst themselves by means of the pacific union as explained in his Second definitive article on perpetual peace (Badie, Schlosser, & Morlino, 2011). He fronted for a non-combative pact or rather a unanimous security concession with a fundamental court of arbitration. Firmly, he asserted the international laws and policies as secondary to the constitution that aided in pledging of stability and respect amongst nations. Kant’s view on liberalism also supposes that all liberal republics and public officials should be devoid of imperialism and international aggression on basis of morality. The policy of extending a state’s power and influence through military force or diplomacy on another state is cantankerous and beats the ideology of liberalism. Countries should only strive to maintain prudent relationships with each other to minimise possibilities of conflicts that may make instabilities inevitable. Kant also stirred up other notions such as material incentives to existing liberal frameworks. He noted that the spirit of commerce in conjunction with cosmopolitan laws, persuaded nations to device and promotes stability within the region. Relying on his classical liberalism, he asserted that the economy drives on free trade and international division of labour due to the tenets of comparative advantage or absolute advantage amongst states (Kant, 1795). Therefore, this mandate each state/sovereign to solve it disputes peacefully to avert the symbiosis economic ties that may be in existence. The international market devises mechanisms that ensure the production and distribution of goods and services is done without lots of technicalities thus supposing a flow of trade amongst countries creating ties that will serve as lobbies for mutual settlements. These ties amongst various liberal states will ensure no single conflicts fault an entire system since it may result to unfavourable economic outcomes. Onward International Liberalism After the deliberations by Immanuel Kant, many other theorists and state officials made their contribution that influenced international relations in various ways. The various ways in which the impact of international relations can be analysed are: i. The mandate of international law in moderating the behaviour of the state. ii. The role of different forms of unions, federations, alliances in international politics such as NATO ( North Atlantic Treaty Organization) iii. The effect of domestic political regime types and constitutionalism. iv. The commerce peace theory that pacifies ties in the international relations. v. The institutional peace theory in regards to how co-operation can be sustained in anarchy. vi. The effect and impact of international organizations on international relations such as Notably, most liberal and constitutional countries have been seen to act differently in regards to foreign relations that are in existence. These modern liberal democracies are only seen to be ensuring peace amongst themselves with less concern on others (Streit, 1938). There is enough evidence garnered by empiricism to attest the existence of separate peace amongst liberal democracies and not between non-democracy and democracy states (Babst, 1972). These can be depicted by the various instabilities that have been witnessed in the post Kant era, that include the cold war, the Balkans war, World War 2 amongst many other disasters. A separate peace among liberal democracies is supposed by these happenings. The international relations has been existing as a fragile network that can explode at any time due to the various inconveniences and lack of application of the various liberal democratic principles that over emphasised by Immanuel Kant in his works. The domestic nature of a particular country is now the main determinant of its relation with other countries internationally. Most countries have stringent laws and simulations in their sovereign that supposes them to be countries that are operating on a sole island with only affiliations to few countries that it’s trading with or has other committed ties. Therefore, if a country has laws that do not uphold the democratic principles or it is not a consequence of popular governance then a problem tends to be on the offspring since it will negatively affect its relation with other states internationally. An incentive of political liberal thoughts may be implied within the states by various mechanisms to try to create a liberal democracy that will facilitate peace. Such an incentive may be the use of civil societies. These civil societies act as viable forces within a state that aid demanding a just, equity and a liberal republic. Their activities within the state may aid in ensuring that stability in the country is achieved but that will not be in its fullest sense as expected. Notably, the external relations will not be largely affected and the potential chances of conflicts may remain (Buchan, 2002). It has been clearly portrayed that whilst the liberal societies embrace an ideology of political peace, democracy, and freedom the relationship outside the state are shaped by other factors such as gross barbarism and frequent violence (Buchan, 2002). Liberalism theory has tried to respond to this realistic position by asserting that at least liberal states tend to be more peaceful compared to illiberal states that are in occasional conflict and if liberalism is spread, these conflicts will be sufficiently reduced. Liberalism has tended to be replaced by the ideology of realism that tries to point out situations as they are and not what they ought to be. Realists are not inclined to the morality basis in regards to the core principles of democracies and freedoms, their notions supposes on the law/situations as it is with no deeper on look. This has made realists have a concept that persistent wars and violence is a firm phenomenon on the international relations that cannot be wished away by some moral ideals. It supposes an existence of conflict of ideas between the liberal idealist and the realists. The liberal international realists still affirm that most liberal states are usually inherently peaceful as compared to illiberal states. Liberal states cannot engage in warfare with another liberal state, it only engages other countries that are illiberal and undemocratic in their nature. The notion can be explained by the constant and random violent motives that are being channelled to illiberal and non-democratic countries by these liberal republics. It sometimes results to unwanted positions whereby the sovereignty of the illiberal countries is infringed. It has made the world to suppose a silent universe rather than a peaceful universe in its fullest meaning. The essence of liberal international relations was to ensure that peace is achieved in the entire globe devoid of other factors. A problem suffices, as one cannot purport that liberal states are inherently peaceful since that peace is only within the scopes of relation to other liberal states and not all states. It has been defended by other liberalists who have asserted that liberalism cannot be exclusive dealt without classifying the internal and external political realms that exist. They have presumed that liberal states act as standards of civilisation and they only engage violently with other illiberal states to try to standardize their aspects of civilization (Buchan, 2002). Many theorists have tried to uphold the notions created by Immanuel Kant on these liberal international ideals. The most notable publicist who offered a sophisticated argument defending the principles of liberal relations was Michael Doyle (Doyle, 1997). He emphasised that it is rare for a constitutional liberal state to engage in warfare with another liberal states and that if all nations strive to be liberal; a pacified union will be established whereby stability will be dominant. He upholds the various accounts Immanuel Kant gave on the success of liberalism that were a combination of self-interests and principles. He affirmed that the economic and sober ties amongst liberal and republic states have ensured that there is no conflicting interest. Interest that may deter their working relationship. Their relations with non-liberal countries are usually very fragile and may lead to unnecessary wars if not keenly managed since there are usually no profitable relations between the states to cool the already built tension. This realisation depicts that non-democratic nations may be aggressively approached by liberal states so that they can be able to ascertain their commercial interest and achieve economic success. Therefore, illiberal states are being dealt with in a contentious manner that is usually less peaceful. It seems to be confusing on how liberal countries can suppose, as the agents of peace and stability within the international region and at the same time are potentially warlike instruments of foreign policies (Buchan, 2002). It is where the realists tend to counter the guidelines on idealism. Nevertheless, liberalists have produced two different notions that try to explain this position. These notions are the explicative normative liberal peace and the creation of peace through war. It has been furthered by the notion that liberal countries tend to be more supreme and vital than the non-liberal countries. These assertions and occurrences show a clear merge between liberalism and realism to a certain qualm. Immanuel Kant’s exclusive thoughts on international liberalism have been compounded with other school of thoughts. Many modern liberal democratic theorists have negated on the foremost principles fronted by Kant. Claims have been asserted that Kant’s quest for a pacified federation was as a result of military competition and his ideals on principles were a mockery and not democratic. It made some to label him as a masquerade of liberalism and democratic peace. In essence, liberation was to the process that was to limit the states sole control over the citizenry of persons in relation to the state both politically and economically. Political liberalisation will efficiently aid in establishing and expanding the scope of individual liberty and rights and freedoms (Badie, Schlosser, & Morlino, 2011). These rights and freedoms help citizens to be able to speak against the authorities and point out the various absurd that take place in the government. Citizens are expected to be vigilant and not indolent, and political liberalism will help them achieve that. On the other hand, economic liberation facilitates the growth of trade by reducing unnecessary government interventions and technical or tariff barriers to trade. Conclusion International relations amongst nations need to be achieved within the restraints of liberalism. Most scholars, publicists, and diplomats have noted that the notions of national security and the balance of power rather than the liberal institutions and principles as fronted by Immanuel Kant adjudge the relations among states. Hence, this is an indication that liberal international thought has not really moved on since Immanuel Kent. REFERENCES Doyle, M., 1983. Kant, liberal legacies, and foreign affairs: Part II. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 12(4), 323-353. Badie, B., Schlosser, D., Morlino, l., eds., 2011. International Encyclopedia on Political Science. London: Sage. Buchan, B., 2001. Liberalism and Fear of Violence. Critical review of International Social and political philosophy, 4(3), 27-48. Hammarlund, A., 2005. Liberal Internationalism and the Decline of the State: The Thought of Richard Cobden, David Mitrany, and Kenichi Ohmae (Palgrave MacMillan History of International Thought). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Odysseos, L., & Petito, F., (Ed) 2007. The International Political thought of Carl Schmitt: Terror, Liberal War and the Crisis of Global Order (Routledge Innovations in Political Theory). 24th ed. London: Routledge Doyle, W., 1986. Liberalism and World Politics. American Political Science Review, 80 (4), 1151–1169. Richardson, J., 2001. Contending Liberalisms in World Politics: Ideology and Power. Boulder: Lynne Rienner. Moravcsik, A., 1997. Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Relations. International Organization, 51(4), 513–553. Hall, I., 2006. The International Thought of Martin Wight. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Kant, I., 1991. Political Writings (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought). 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kegley, W., ed., 1995. Controversies in International Relations Theory: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Read More