The Role Of A Liberal State

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:

However a reason why liberals support democracy is that it shows each individual is equal- one vote per person, gives everyone equal influence on how countries governed. Since voting is done individually, it constraints the collective pressures of groups within society.

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

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.

The other kind of nonideal theory deals with unfavorable conditions, that is, with the conditions of societies whose historical, social and economic circumstances make their achieving a well-ordered regime, whether liberal or decent, difficult if not impossible. These societies are called burdened societies.” Rawls says that liberal societies should only go to war when they believe their safety and security is threatened. “When a liberal society engages in war in self-defense, it does so to protect and preserve the basic freedoms of its citizens and its constitutionally democratic political institutions.”

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.

Liberal institutionalism assumes the nature of international system to be cooperative. This theory argues that despite the anarchic nature of international system, states are willing to communicate and cooperate with each other for mutual benefit.1 International institutions and norms are crucial for mitigating hostile tensions between states by creating a platform that allows state to communicate, generate trust and develop peaceful relationship. Additionally, the continued interactions between states increases the likelihood of cooperation.2 In a liberal institutional international

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 his article, “The Future of the Liberal World Order”, John Inkenberry discusses what he sees as a global shift in power, from the Western and Northern powers such as the United States and Great Britain to the more Eastern and Southern developing states like China, India and Brazil. This potential shift in power has sparked a fear in many people. This fear, as the global power switches from West to East and North to South, stems from the thinking that these new nations that are coming to power will abolish the liberal world order that we all know. I however believe that instead of challenging the United States for power and changing the world order to more reflect their ideologies, these emerging nations will instead seek a greater position of leadership in the already existing world order. Firstly, I will provide an argument of Inkenberry’s main arguments and why realists’ have started to worry. Second, I will show how China is rising to threaten the United States superpower position in today’s world order, and finally I will illustrate ways which show that China is not challenging the Liberal World Order and why.

In this essay the conservative theories of Realism and Liberalism will be compared and contrasted in connection with the study of International Relations. Post World War I International Relations was established as a formal discipline with the eructation of the Woodrow Wilson Chair at the University of Wales, given the worldwide urgency to create international order and stability in the wake of the war. Realist in International Relations view human nature and the states behaviour practically and truthfully, adopting a matter-of-fact attitude instead of visualising how the political institutions ought to function. Liberalists

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

Liberal democracy, with a capitalist economy, is the only form of social organization that will work in this world. Socialism and Communism appear to be sound in theory, but would never come close to achieving what capitalism does. Liberal democracy and capitalism allow for a beneficial competition where communism does not. This competition, in the liberal tradition, on both political and economical levels, allows for the best balance of security and freedom to the people under the government. However, this liberal tradition does not take care of every problem, but it does a better job than any alternative. Competition is a necessity in this world. A more competitive market allows for a more functional

Since the post-World War 1 period, Liberalism has been actively advanced by Western (or 'first-world') states as a desirable system of political theory. According to Dunne (in Baylis & Smith 2001, pp. 163), the basis for its appeal stems from the fact that Liberalism is viewed as inherently 'optimistic', making it a natural counter-theory to the Realist theories advanced by practitioners of realpolitik in the past (feudalism, dictatorships etc.). What makes Liberalism 'optimistic' in a sense is that, as an ideology, it is fundamentally anchored around the liberty of the individual, and furthermore, strives for global peace. Considering the rampant destruction and bloodshed experienced by many of the states involved in both the World Wars,

Paul Wilkinson is an international relations expert and author of his book, International Relations: A Very Short Introduction. Wilkinson explains in his book that is almost “mission impossible” to use a general theory to explain such a complex subject as international relations; however, Wilkinson considers himself as liberal in his international relations views. According to the philosophers Machiavelli and Hobbes, a realist view human beings as selfish individuals by nature, human beings are a hazard threat to the world because of there constant crave for power, which leads sovereign states to create large powerful militaries to protect themselves from possible invasion/attacks. Our current international relation system may be portrayed as a ticking bomb to the economy, world peace, security, and social welfare; on the other hand, liberalist view our current international system as community in which sovereign states work together to promote and practice peace, and carry out international laws.