Liberalism and Its Key Values

In being so, liberalism possesses both economic and political components. Economic liberalism argues that, increasing economic interdependence would lead to a more peaceful international realm. Political liberalism bases itself on the belief that ‘A just world order assumes the establishment of republics ’. Thus, political liberalism as practiced by the United States during Cold War becomes a critical proponent of democracy promotion by noting that overlapping national interests will allow for a tamer international environment, engendering the notion that democracies do not engage in wars. Although democracy as interpreted by liberal theory on its own does not lead to free market, it may create the necessary infrastructure for such an event to occur. The promotion of democracy, to a great extent, increases economic interdependence through the alignment of core national values and therefore decreasing the probability of hegemony between the states. However, The notion of liberalism was undermined in the literature of the United States foreign policy after the Cold War. Even though the states were economically interdependent during the Cold War yet they engaged in rivalry for resources to the extent that if, assumingly, the “World Trade Organization” came to be perceived as a corrupt institution,

Within today’s society we are commonly faced with the moral question, what seems logically correct vs what seems ethically correct. It is an inquiry that goes hand in hand with if people are born naturally evil, or if that trait itself is developed over time. However, as a whole the overriding debate is not directed towards human nature itself, but rather to what degree should the government really be involved in our economic system in order to create an accommodating society. Over time human nature has drastically evolved to what it is today, but what is still undeniable is that there has, and likely always will be a division among individuals. Those divisions being based upon class structure. The source given states, “Individuals are, by nature, unique and unequal. Efforts by the state to interfere with the lives of individuals will result in a restrictive and inefficient society.” This is a direct link to the perspectives and ideologies presented with the idea of Classic Liberalism. By definition classic liberalism is an ideology that values individual freedoms in the sense of religion, speech, press, etc, as well as supporting limited government involvement economically. This idea has been supported by many in the past, including philosophers such as John Stuart Mill and Adam Smith. The author of the source is clearly a supporter of right wing economics. They believe in individualism over collectivism, and like many philosophers, they also believe that government is only

struggle for power in the international system still exists, however the collection of powerful, banded states “create rules and institutions that ensure a stable order in which to pursue their interests” and ultimately “dominate the system.” Liberalism recognizes that multiple states can share a benefit and while relative power exists, and there is the potential for communal gain that is nonzero-sum. This key distinction is essential to building a comprehensive perspective of the liberal system, and its actors, who promote adherence to the rules established for the collective gain of the members of the system, not just the relative gains against the adversaries. In addition, unlike a realist paradigm, once a hegemon becomes so powerful that it decides to unilaterally act in pursuit of its interests, it will soon recognize the limits of its power.

Liberalism: where “people understand their own business, and their own interests better, and care for them more, than the government does or can be expected to do”, as defined by John Mill. Many individuals considered this ideology as the solution to their political, economic, and possibly their social needs; where a renewed acknowledgement of human worth and rationality materialized. Citizens were given the opportunity to delve and pursue their own desires of wealth without any government involvement. This contemporary kind of thinking ultimately increased the wealth of both the individual and the state immensely. Life was rather pleasant…for the privileged. The wealth and prosperity of classical liberalism only applied to people who had

The Democratic peace thesis, whose basic concepts were studied by Kant in the 1700s, is the theory that suggests that democracies have been pacific in their relations with one other and are unlikely to go to war with another democracy. “Democracies rarely fight each other (an empirical statement) because (b) they have other means of resolving conflicts between them and therefore do not need to fight each other (a prudential statement),and (c) they perceive that democracies should not fight each other (a normative statement about principles of right behavior), which reinforces the empirical state¬ment. By this reasoning the more democracies there are in the world, the fewer potential adversaries we and other democracies will have and the wider the zone of peace.” russet

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.

There are many ways in which the Iraq war and its aftermath support elements of liberalism. Liberals posit that aggression and war cannot be avoided but can be moderated, if not eliminated, through a collective action. They add that institutions are effective in managing self-interests thereby making perpetual peace and economic development a possibility. Pertinent elements of liberal IR theory to be discussed are the following: value of multilateral approach, aspect of humanitarian intervention, spread of democracy, and the notion of benign liberal empire.

Realism and Liberalism are two extremely prominent theories of international relations. These doctrines exhibit sagacious perceptions about war, foreign affairs and domestic relations. The fundamental principles of protocol in which we rely upon aren’t always apprehensive (Karle, Warren, 2003). By interpreting the data one could fathom these ideas. The assessment of these faculties wield noteworthy dominance about the concepts of international affairs. In analyzing this data, you will comprehend the variant relationship between Realism and Liberalism.

During his lecture, “Clear and Present Safety” Michel A. Cohen discusses what he calls an incontrovertible truth—that America is safer than it has ever been. Cohen argues that the United States spends too much on its military and not enough on other issues such as climate change and pandemic disease. At several intervals Cohen mentions China’s rise as a global rival to the U.S. However, he claims the U.S need not worry about China because China is only focused on regional issues. Cohen also cites that China spends 9 times less on its military than the U.S. Another area where Cohen thinks the world is safer than it realizes, is the creation of new democracies. Cohen makes the argument that there are more democracies in the world than ever before (117) and that there are fewer military conflicts taking place (30, down from 53 in 1992). American citizens and policy makers, according to Cohen, incorrectly believe a false narrative that the world is growing more dangerous; and to support this he cites a study conducted in 2008 by the Center for American

Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau’s political philosophies and theories each differ from one another’s, but these three philosophers have all staked their claims as to what man would be like, prior to the formation of the state. This is the State of Nature. Their notions on the social contract reflect their position on the political spectrum. These three philosophers also examine the purpose and function of the government to individuals of the state.

The idea that democracies do not fight each other can be traced back to the writings of Immanuel Kant over two hundred years ago in essay ‘On Perpetual Peace’, however, only in the early 1980s and with the writings of Michael Doyle was the idea consolidated. According to Doyle and other advocates of the democratic peace theory, liberal democratic states have been able to maintain peaceful relations amongst themselves, but are prone to wage war against non-democratic regimes. In order to prove this theory, vast databases have been constructed of historical dyadic relationships between states as well as detailed breakdowns of incidents of inter-state war. The conclusions reached are best shown in the work of Bruce Russett who has argued that

Liberalism is another concept that considers the concept of power from another perspective. States no longer play a crucial role in the system of international relations. Instead, they create favorable conditions for individuals’ performance. Moreover, the government establishes rules and order regarding the life inside a state. Societal norms form under the influence and the rule of law. Police, judges and laws as products of state’s activity are needed to secure person’s life and liberty. However, excessive coercion can turn individuals against the state. However, it should learn how to

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

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

Many contemporary political ideas concerning Liberalism have arisen from theories written by Benjamin Constant, a Swiss-French political activist. The central principles of Liberalism are rights and popular sovereignty. Constant’s defense of individual rights are very much tied up with the idea of limiting state power. His work reveals a subtle suspicion of governmental power and a slight anxiety over the risks of giving power to those who may not have societal interest at heart. The critique of society made by Constant has underlying similarities and forthright differences with the Communist theorist Karl Marx. Marx wrote about true political representation and the ways in which political power in certain hands can revolutionize society. In terms of popular sovereignty and democracy, the two scholars seem to write in the interest of the sovereign, the social body. They are opposed on the topic of rights, especially property rights — the Communist theory is centered around the abolition of such, whereas Constant writes that property owners are better qualified for politics. The similarities within their theories lie in their writings on representation and their ideas concerning which hands power should be concentrated into.