The World Politics And The Ones Obscured By It

When the world famous liberal thinker Francis Fukuyama in his masterpiece declared that we were witnessing the end of the history, he was greeting the new political structure and also the new international environment, which is peaceful[1]. However, developments that occurred after the collapse of the Soviet Union showed us that the dissolution of the Soviets was unexpected. The international society was not ready for peace and Fukuyama’s optimistic assumptions were far from becoming real. Moreover, the international society currently started to realise that the tension and the potential of mass destructive war during the Cold War era had provided a

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,

Even though realism finds itself deeply rooted in a utilitarian moral framework, critics arise as to such an outlook remains immoral (it is wrong to apply) at best. A major opponent theory is liberalism. Dismissing that conflicts are inevitable, liberals uphold that the spread of legitimate domestic political orders will eventually bring an end to international conflicts.[ Scott Burchill, “Liberalism” in Theories of International Relations, ed. Scott Burchill (New York: Palgrave, 2001), 35.] This approach involves embedding notions of democracy, human rights, and free trade. As a result, states will avoid ideology clashes and a universal state will emerge. Liberals might repudiate realism on its utilitarian ground: its consequential nature and lack of universal moral code. In this section, I will defend realism against some liberal criticism.

The United States of America proudly present themselves as a humanitarian liberal democratic power and as the main liberal architect whose role, became more significant in the post-Cold War world, given the end of the bipolar system which created a systemic permissiveness for the institution of the so called “New World Order”₁ paired with liberal ideals and the desire to spread peace and democracy in a global scale and pursue “(…) America's ideals -- liberty, democracy and peace.” ₂

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.

Attempts to characterize Liberalism are typically futile, since their outcome is either a catalogue of existing definitions, from which we accumulate just that they are distinctive, fragmented and conflicting; or still another arbitrary definition that simply stretches this rundown without taking out any uncertainty and disagreements in drawing closer the same topic, which by its inclination is unclear and packed with natural inconsistencies. It is difficult to define Liberalism in the world today. Liberalism origins can be followed to the beliefs of the Enlightenment in Europe in the eighteenth century (Cheyne, O’Brien, & Belgrave,2008). This strain of liberal thought can likewise be seen to rise in the philosophy and actions of the French

In conclusion, the relationship between the liberalist theory and the global war on terrorism along with the subsequent Iraq invasion illustrated the importance liberals place on universal interdependence along with the promotion of perpetual peace as a solution to global security and, ideally as it would follow, economic

Liberalism is wielded by countries as a tool to purse their gain and spread of knowledge. Liberalism has been promoted in, and sometimes imposed on, countries around the world, Sometimes liberal democratic countries have imposed liberalism for national interest, with to protect themselves from possible attack or to protect their economic interests. Sometimes liberalism is imposed for humanitarian reasons for the good of others. Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq, for example, is viewed by some people as being in our national interest and by others as humanitarian. Some oppose it and some see it as a just cause. When democratic elections are imposed on a country, they do not always bring equality or stability and can led

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 end of the Cold War between the United States and Soviet Unions was a start for a new Western order. Many expected that it would be peaceful, free trade and expanding markets and cooperation among states (Hawthorn, 1999). However, some scholars might argue that neoliberalism preserved the dominance of wealthy states. A variety of different arguments have been raised taking into consideration democracy and international order. This essay will consider three different theoretical perspectives on the topic through summarising the key points and analysing the strengths and weaknesses of these perspectives. Firstly, American hegemony will be considered, secondly, civic identity of the Western political order will be discussed and finally, economic openness liberal order will be taken into account.

Bringing states together is the key to worldwide peace and prosperity according to the liberal point of view. Liberalism purposes three ways to unify states: economic activity, spreading democracy, and multi-national institutions. Subsets of liberalism centered on these designs are labeled economic liberalism, Kantian liberalism, and neo-liberal institutionalism, respectively. The unification of states is essential to any form of

The Liberal ideals of the United States is possibly their biggest driver when it comes to crafting foreign policies and grand strategies, as it goes back to their founding, “the land of the free” is in their anthem after-all. The first idea of making Liberalism a global goal, was in the form of ‘Manifest Destiny,’ the term came from the

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