Transcript liberal - Omnifoo.info

Introducing the IR Paradigms
1: Liberalism(s) in IR
Prepared for Junior International Politics Class at NENU,
Fall 2015
Assumptions of Liberal IR





States have hierarchies of goals which are flexible.
Collective security, prosperity (i.e. GDP growth), and
absolute gains are key state goals.
Military power not always most important. Other forms
like economic & soft power are often more effective at
influencing others' behavior.
Economics, especially market incentives, often
determines political outcomes such as state behavior.
The Cold War's end was an “End of History”
(Fukuyama), and the world is progressing toward a
universal acceptance of liberalism.
Contrasts with Realism





Cooperation is likely and can be built over time.
We should not oversimplify a complicated world.
(Parsimony much less valuable than complexity)
Reject, sometimes invert the division between “high”
and “low” politics (Security & IPE)
Domestic factors are more important than the
international system.
Interstate wars are becoming smaller & rarer, especially
since the end of the Cold War.
Immanuel Kant & Roots of
Liberalism



Reciprocity → states develop
organizations & rules to facilitate
cooperation
Popular Accountability (via liberal
democracy) → liberal states will
be less inclined to war
Increased Trade → economic
interdependence (& war is BAD
for business)
Liberal Institutionalism




In 1970s USA lost power, while institutions
like the UN took on “lives of their own”
(Keohane, “After Hegemony”)
Massive growth of non-state organizations
(IGOs & NGOs) strongly suggests influence
independent of powerful states.
States voluntarily give up sovereignty to work
within UN, WTO, IMF, etc.
International law is slowly becoming “binding”
Democratic Peace Theory

FACT: Liberal democracies do not go to war
against each other


FACT: Liberal democracies still go to war against
illiberal regimes.


Mutual respect & domestic dislike of war →
settle conflicts peacefully
Regime change itself may be a strong
motivator for liberal states to wage war on
illiberal regimes
Supporters: Schumpeter, Doyle. Detractors:
Rosato, Realists
Neoliberalism



Neoliberals accept many of Realism's
assumptions (i.e. anarchy, state-centrism),
but conclude that cooperation can be made
more likely in the long term with reciprocity.
IR most resembles the game of Prisoner's
Dilemma, iterated endlessly.
Neoliberalism is the dominant theory in IPE,
as seen in the combination of free trade and
global capitalism (= Globalization).
EXAMPLE: Domestic Coalitions

The preferences of powerful groups within
the state determine key state behaviors
(Moravcsik)

“Internationalizing coalitions” engage the
neoliberal, global economy & pursue
prosperity/development > nuclear
weapons (East Asia, Solingen)

“Internally-focused coalitions” are
unstable, distrustful of neighbors, &
pursue military strength/nuclear weapons
(Middle-East, Solingen)
Economic Interdependence




Liberalism seeks to replace military competition (i.e.
traditional security) with economic competition.
The European Union began as a narrow economic
community managing key industries. Its expansion
and continuation confounds realism.
Contrary to Marx, capitalist states NEVER go to war
with each other, because war is BAD FOR BUSINESS,
especially for MNCs.
Is the WTO more successful at managing economic
conflict than the UN manages security conflicts?
Why/why not?
Contradiction within
Liberalism (Sorensen)

“Liberalism of Restraint”


Liberalism includes a strong value of
tolerance of diversity
“Liberalism of Imposition”

Liberals believe their values are either
universal or superior

Liberalization of the world is a prerequisite
for Kant's “perpetual peace”

Liberals impose themselves on other
states
The USA Is a LIBERAL Hegemon




It uses liberal language to promote international
law, universal human rights, and globalization
However, it is willing to violate international law to
spread larger, liberal values (and its own power?)
The USA seeks global acceptance of its
hegemony by portraying itself as a legitimate
leader of the “liberal world order”
The USA wishes to equate “liberal” with
“benevolent”. Do you agree?