Pros And Cons Of Liberal Peace Theory

Since the dawn of human civilization, individuals have been constantly immersed in conflict with each other. Whether these conflicts stemmed from socio-economic inequalities, political disputes, property rights, religious disagreements, or any other contentious matter, the creation of human governments has necessarily been to handle, organize, and resolve conflicts between people within communities in the least destructive manner possible. Governments act as a formal instrument through which individuals in a society can agree upon shared rules, solve problems, and engage in cooperative behavior, and it helps avoid the severe repercussions resulting from revolutionary social upheaval. The purpose of government – as spelled out in the Preamble of the Constitution – is to “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” While countless forms of government have sprung up over the centuries, only one has been resilient enough and has had the pervasive influence necessary to stand the test of time: democracy. While there are many different types of democracies, this paper will focus on liberal democracy specifically. A liberal democracy is a form of representative democracy that operates under the paradigm of classical liberalism. According to the Center for Research on Globalization, liberal democracy is defined as:

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

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,

Democratic Peace Theory is another example of how liberals prove that the spread of democratic principles is beneficial. M.W Doyle and R.J. Rummel came up with this theory in the end of the 20th century, which posits that democracies are hesitant to start a conflict with other democracies. “When the citizens who bear the burdens of war elect their governments, wars become impossible” (Doyle, 1986, p.1151). The reason of this theory is that liberal state that individuals, without the help from the government, are naturally very similar. Democracies are favourable in the setting environment where ideas of progress and liberty are common. Peace has to be established through diplomacy and war only used against authoritarian and undemocratic states in order to maintain the peace in the state system. The main example of the relevance of the theory is Europe Peace. Europe was the bloodiest continent on Earth for many centuries, but since 1945 because of the increased integration and cooperation there were no general wars between European states themselves. Liberals also mention the importance of the creation of collective security – institutions, which would be a legal framework for interaction in order to promote democratic values. Neo-liberals, such as Joseph Nye or Robert Keohane argue that

A typical case of study is the Cold War. From my understanding, the Cold War describes the relationship between America and the Soviet Union between 1945 and 1980. During this period, neither sides ever fought each other directly, but indirectly they influenced other countries through their ideologies (i.e. America’s democracy and Russia’s communism) to war. For example, America supplied weapons to South Vietnam (anti-communist) to war with North Vietnam (pro-communist), who were also supported and supplied weapons by China/Russia. Also with Afghanistan, Americans helped them after the Soviet Union invaded in 1979 by supplying them with weapons to war, without physically involving themselves. This portrays that, in the absence of a supreme power to regulate law in International relations, the system will not be able to provide any public good, in this case, PEACE among states. However, to some extent they do. To achieve this peace, both realists and liberals have outlined various factors that facilitate this provision among States. For liberals, peace among states can be achieved through economic cooperation, democratic peace

In Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs, Doyle attempts to disprove the Realist political system while advocating for the Liberal political system using second opinions and various forms of evidence. Doyle creates a strong case for the adoption of liberal democracies within states because, as he explains, promotes peace between them. He discusses the fact that states who adopt a domestic liberal system hold the same key institutions and these create a pacifist effect among liberal states. Throughout his paper, Doyle addresses a couple main items. The first being the fact that liberal states do not go to war with other liberal states, and the second being the fact that despite remaining peaceable with each other, liberal states have problems with many other non-liberal states.

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.

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.

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

This belief faced significant criticism, however, since free trade between states of different stages of development can result in a relationship in which the less developed state is dependent on the more developed state ( global South to North dependency). Many beliefs related to Liberalism actually face criticism as a result of an imbalance of power and influence between states. The Democratic Peace Theory, for example, suggests that conflict between two democratic states is unlikely – less likely than conflict between two non-liberal states or conflict between a liberal and non-liberal state. While history would suggest this to be true, there are multiple factors that contribute to this truth. For one, liberal states tend to be wealthier than non-liberal states. This means that they have less incentive to start war than a less wealthy state. Additionally, liberal states tend to have amicable relations with other liberal states – take Canada and USA for

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

If it is wrong for an individual within a state to commit a crime against another individual so does it applies to democratic nations. It is wrong for one democratic nation to wage war against another democratic nation. This idea was also developed in Kant’s argument about the league of peace or pacific federation (Foedus Pacificum) This idea of peace is based on all human beings which stand in an ethical relationship to one another. For Kant’s “this league of does not seek any power of sort possessed by any nation, but only the maintenance and security of each nation’s own freedom “. Doyle will later expand on this proposition that liberal states have a unique ability and willingness to establish peaceful relations among themselves.

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

Norms are expectations of behaviour and a vital part of the international community (Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998, 887). In the anarchic system of international politics, norms can provide stability and unity due to certain expectations, as well as implement change when norm shifts restructure the international community (Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998, 894). Therefore, the process that enables a norm to be accepted internationally is an important one to analyze and understand. In order for a norm to become international, the most important factors are shared moral assessment and hegemonic acceptance of the norm.

Fukuyama and McFaul make strong arguments for the importance of democracy promotion, but it is not without its flaws. The world is fragmented by ethnic, linguistic and religious differences, and as such, the notion that there exists 'moral universals' is viewed as dangerous (Dunne 2001, pp. 179). Gray (1995, pp. 146) aptly articulated that "the universalizing mission of liberal values such as democracy, capitalism and secularism undermine the traditions and practices of non-Western cultures." And that may illustrate the rejection of Liberalism thus far. Democracy, when promoted by Western states, is inextricably tied in with other Western ideals such as capitalism and secularism. These ideals often do not mesh well with prevailing cultural practices, resulting in dissent and potential military conflict, results contrary to Liberalism's ultimate goal. This leads to the second rationale: national security.