Liberal Internationalism - Baylis, J,. Owen, P. & Smith, S. The Globalization of World Politics
8th ed, Ch.6
-’Liberalism as a model of government has been remarkably successful… there are 75
liberal democracies in the world, which is more than any other regime-type (pg 195).’ Liberal
thinkers argue that ‘international affairs are the enemy of liberalism (Stanley Hoffman pg
195)’ leading to the development of newer liberal structural ideas after the impact of
historical conflicts such as the first world war.
-Post World War One, nation states formed IGOs in order to prevent the events of the war
from occurring again. ‘After the futile slaughter of 40 million soldiers and civilians, the league
of nations was created to solve disputes between countries (pg 196),’ drawing on classic
Liberal ideologies proposed by key thinker Immanuel Kant as an effort to move towards a
global peaceful resolution to international conflict. This development in international relations
was spurred by ‘the concern to prevent future destruction on a global scale (pg 196),’ and
has led to the development of idealist societal structures in contemporary societies.
Key Points
-’Early liberal internationalists thoughts on international relations took the view that the
natural order has been corrupted by secret treaties and outdated policies such as the
balance of power (pg 200),’ indicating that liberal internationalist solutions for this ‘corruption’
lies within the process of developing a ‘body of international laws and rules constraining the
self-interest of states (pg 200)’ in a similar fashion to early enlightenment liberals. Applied to
modern context, Liberal Internationalists draw on the ideas of enlightenment liberals to
suggest that conflict can be avoided through ‘trade and cross border flows (pg 200)’ that
allow for cohesion to develop between nation states.
-Kantian principles including the idea of a ‘perpetual peace (pg 200)’ that ‘could be achieved
through the transformation of individual consciousness, republican constitutionalism and a
federal contract among states to abolish war (pg 200)’ can be applied to contemporary
democratic nations, with modern Liberal internationalists drawing on Kant’s work to suggest
that ‘liberal states are pacific in their international relations with other liberal states (Michael
Doyle 1980 {pg 200}) however the legitimacy of this claim can be brought into question with
the existence of conflict between liberal states, such as conflicts between India and
Pakistan, acting as an example of the likelihood that a nation state will always act in their
own self-interest.
-Some Liberal internationalists adopt the view that ‘liberal states were more stable internally
and more peaceful,’(‘The End of History’ Francis Fukuyama 1989 {pg 200}) whilst others
‘recognize that liberal democracies are as aggressive as any other type of state in their
relations’ (M. Doyle {pg 200}).
Liberalism - International relations theories: Discipline and Diversity 3rd edition pg 96 - 114
-Key liberal ideas centre around the idea that social progression towards peace on a global
scale can be achieved through using ‘a system of international law among republics
governed domestically by the rule of law would provide the basis for sustained peace
(Immanuael Kant)’
-On an individual scale, Kant suggested that ‘the natural process of self-interest could impel
rational individuals to act as agents to bring a just peace (pg 96),’ implying that human
nature intrinsically strives for a peaceful resolution to any kind of conflict, further possibly
, implying that the only reason for large scale conflicts is the interference of political power
and harmful ideology acting as a blockade for the process of human nature.
-Liberalism is useful in understanding the origins of international relations, with liberal ideas
centering generally around a more pacific and less confrontational view than other
perspectives, realism, neoliberalism etc, providing an alternative structure for contemporary
democracies than the structures we observe in the modern day. Kantian liberalism strives to
develop a global system that can achieve peace using judicial power and social cohesion
within democratic states, with international cooperation following as a result of nations
internally moving to more peaceful societal structures.
Can Liberal Institutionalist/Kantian ideas lead to global peace?
-’Other analyses show that the constraints on war do not differ much from those on
militarised disputes’ (pg 101). Liberal constraints on war differ from realist constraints on war,
with realist key thinkers suggesting that nations often opt for the choice of exerting a nation’s
militaristic power over other nations, e.g. the cold war, intending to act as a deterrent from
inciting warfare, as well as the deterrence of a nation’s allies and size/distance (pg 102).
Kantian (Liberal institutionalist) constraints suggest that there are more blockades in the path
of warfare than suggested by realist thinkers. The Kantian influence of democracy ‘suggests
that democracies will rarely fight or threaten each other (pg 102),’ due to the norms and
institutions that democracies maintain. ‘Democratic peoples and their leaders recognize
other democracies as operating under the same principles in their internal relations (pg 102),
leading to the proposition of peaceful solutions to internal conflicts. This in turn suggests that
on a much wider scale, nation states recognise this democratic process in other nation
states, leaving the option for a peaceful resolution to conflict on the table. Similarly,
institutions are mirrored across most modern democracies, with democracies having to
weigh up the worth of institutional (cost, casualties, structural damage etc) damage when
considering the prospect of war. Other Kantian constraints include the loss of international
relations regarding trade and the existence of international organisations like the IMF that
rely heavily on international cooperation to function effectively.
-The question ‘are democracies peaceful in general? (pg 106)’ brings to light issues with the
presumption that the Kantian system is a system that could fit all contemporary democratic
societies, with modern conflicts such as the war in Afghanistan existing as tangible evidence
that the Kantian world does not exist. Up until the end of the cold war, ‘democratic states
only comprised a small number of the entire system (pg106)’ indicating that democratic
societies are a relatively new institution across the globe. ‘We do not know that geographical
neighbourhoods in which democracy is the predominant form of government are especially
peaceful (Gleditsch 2002 {pg 106}).’ The very existence of conflict amongst democratic
nations suggests that democracies are not generally peaceful, with many democratic nations
utilising their militaries to settle international conflicts following ‘preventive military action,’ by
extension implying that Kantian constraints on conflict tend not to apply to the real world,
with ‘just five countries - the USA, the UK, France, plus regional powers India and Israel -
account for nearly 80% of the violent conflicts by democracies (pg 106/107),’ indicating that
the most developed democratic nations elect to utilise their power following realism, as
deterrents.
Concluding Notes
