Liberal Internationalism Vs Liberal Pacifism

One has to try as much as possible to try to preserve the rest of humankind from any evil that can happen to the other people. Neo-liberalism emphasizes that all being are equal and independent and no man is supposed to harm each other’s innocent life, health or possession as it recognizes all being as workmanship of on omnipotent (God). Moreover, no man that has the liberty to destroy himself and man should not have more than other hence encourage sharing such thing as power. For example, although people punish each other for transgressions, the offender has the right to seek forgiveness from the offended and can assist the offended to recover from the offended to make satisfaction for the harm he or she suffered. On the other hand, classic liberalism encourages the practice of individualism. For example, the essential feature of individualism from the elements provided by Christianity and the philosophy of classical antiquity was first completely developed during the Renaissance and from that time, it has grown and spread into what is today recognized as Western European civilization. Classic liberalism emphasizes on freedom and liberty hence encouraging men to develop their own individual gifts and bents. Whenever, small one man’s sphere is, he is encouraged to view and observe himself as supreme (Friedrich 7-14).

John Knowles’ novel, A Separate Peace, reveals the many dangers and hardships of adolescence. The main characters, Gene, and Finny, spend their summer together at a boarding school called Devon. The two boys, do everything together, until Gene, the main character, develops a resentful hatred toward his friend Finny. Gene becomes extremely jealous and envious of Finny, which fuels this resentment, and eventually turns deadly. Knowles presents a look at the darker side of adolescence, showing jealousy’s disastrous effects. Gene’s envious thoughts and jealous nature, create an internal enemy, that he must fight. A liberal humanistic critique reveals that Knowles’ novel, A Separate Peace, has a self contained meaning, expresses the

Pacifism covers an array of views and there are many subcategories of pacifism, some of which I will cover, but the main definition of the word pacifism is the opposition to war and/or violence. Perhaps the most famous use of the word pacifism is found in the “Sermon on the Mount”, where Jesus claims the “peacemakers” are blessed. In this passage, the Greek word eirenopoios is translated into Latin as pacifici, which means those who work for peace. One common and simple argument for pacifism among religious groups or god fearing people is the argument that god’s revealed words says, through the bible, “Thou shalt not kill.”

For a while now I have seen myself as citizen of a global community that begins in Australia but is reflective of, and permeable to the influence of outside cultures. There is little doubt that English speaking countries have more influence on Australians like me, however as LDC’s (lower developed countries) technologically advance, interactions and familiarity with outside cultures will instill confidence in the world’s people, ultimately leading to a global civil society (Rourke 2012) – at least that is what the idealist in me believes. Throughout this unit I have been able to identify with liberalism and determine where I sit on the realism verses idealism spectrum. In Liberalisms Inevitability, Jeff Manza writes “… Liberals do not understand

Liberalism was previously a projection of how international relations ought to be; now, liberalism is a modern theory towards peace attained with a state’s ambition for dominance. “Self-interest” has two definitions in accordance to liberalism and realism. Liberalism considers the measure of power within states through stable economies, the possibility of peace and cooperation, as well as the concepts of political freedoms (human rights). Realism believes states are driven by competitive self-interest; international organizations hold little to no real influence because states are self-preserved. International relations is governed by states acting in their self-interest through liberalism; states act in their self-interest by cooperating with one another through international organizations, transnational advocacy networks, and non-governmental organizations. International organizations, normative values, and terrorism are all examples of how international relations is progressing into liberalism.

In his article, ‘The Worldwide Liberal Revolution’ he emphasizes on liberalization, democracy, and communism, authoritarian and totalitarian governments. He adds that there has been a much quieter revolution occurring over the past twenty or thirty odd years. This may be seen in the exceptional economic growth in East Asia since World War II.

Liberalism thinks accumulation of military power and other powers reduces the economic efficiency. Peace is more effective than war. The following table coming from Frederic shows the specific difference between Liberalism and Mercantilism (1999).

As explained by William Hawk in his essay “Pacifism: Reclaiming the Moral Presumption”, the pacifist is a person that refuses to participate in war for in any circumstance for two reasons; the grounding belief that war is wrong, and the belief that human life is sacred and invaluable. Many pacifist

Since International Relations has been academically studied Realism has been the dominant theory of world politics. The theory’s inability to explain the end of the Cold War, however, brought strength and momentum to the Liberalism theory. Today Realism and Liberalism are the two major paradigms of International Relations. The aforementioned theories focus on the international system and the external factors that can lead to two phenomena - conflict and cooperation. Realism believes that as a result of anarchy and the security dilemma, conflict is inevitable. Liberalism argues that this conflict can be overcome through cooperative activities amongst states and international organizations. This paper will explore as well as compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of both theories. It will also debate which of the two theories is more valuable in the

Liberalism is an international-relations theory that relies heavily on interdependence among many different actors within our international system. Individuals, nongovernmental groups, international organizations all hold roles that are pivotal to international-relations (Arreguin-Toft and Mignst 88). Liberals believe that people are inherently “good”; they are rational and can make the correct choices to move society towards progress. However, it is crucial to the international system that all actors work together to build an efficient, sustainable society. Liberals believe that working under one international system would aid in the construction of appropriate social institutions to neutralize threats to the common good (83-84). Almost 200 countries signed the Paris Climate agreement to aid in the globe’s fight in preventing temperatures from increasing to 1.5 degrees Celsius from where they were before 1950. Though many countries signed it, only 164 fully accepted the terms.

Liberalism is another concept that has significant arguments regarding international relations. Liberal economics have determined the shape of the monetary system and support the concept of open markets, where individuals have the freedom to engage in commerce. Unlike realists, liberals oppose mercantilism and the zero-sum game much like the countries in NAFTA. This disagreement is the cause of many disagreements during the NAFTA negotiations. If countries are able to work together and trust one another to attain power, conflict is less likely to occur and overall economic wealth for countries can be gained. Through free trade, the goal is to have a decreased amount of wasted resources on inefficient production because the more individuals that engage in this collective use of resources the more likely the system would become efficient and acquire heightened economic gains such as wealth. ) Finally, there is the liberal institutionalism perspective which approves of regimes and international organizations. Utilizing these rules through rapid growth of regimes, regulate economic affairs, determine which activities are allowed and disallowed, and assure that

Compare and contrast Realism and Liberalism as theories used in the study of International Relations

In order for countries to cohesively overcome international barriers, frameworks of ideal political standards must be established. Two of these frameworks constantly discussed in international relations are the theories of Neo-realism and Liberalism; two theories with their own outlook at the way politicians should govern their country as well as how they should deal with others. Neo-realism lies on the structural level, emphasizing on anarchy and the balance of power as a dominant factor in order to maintain hierarchy in international affairs. In contrast, Liberalism's beliefs are more permissive, focusing on the establishments of international organizations, democracy, and trade as links to strengthen the chain of peace amongst

To define any perspective in International Relations, one must understand its’ origin and primary authors, including the context in which they were writing in. Liberalism is one of the more loosely defined perspectives as it has had a number of authors throughout history. Primarily, liberalism relies on the positive aspects of human nature. One of the most prominent liberal authors was Kant- who often wrote of the anarchical nature of international relations- referring to it as “the lawless state of savagery.” He also wrote of three primary routes to obtaining peace within this system, namely treating all aspects of human life with humanity, allowing for a federation of states and

Social humanitarian sciences focus on studying global political processes and the object of its research are social phenomena, which are defined as “international relations” in the world we know. International relations are comprised of many different categories, such as foreign policy, international politics or world politics. However, the central issue of international politics is the international relations. The term “international relations” has been first used by English philosopher J. Bentham at the end of 18th century. It is important to note that it is not accidentally that the term appeared at that particular time, as the border line of 18-19th centuries is marked by evolution of the international relations’