The third theory within Liberalism, Ideational Liberalism, is based on the idea that that the ideological preferences can determine the actions, peaceful or not, taken by states, citizens, and domestic actors. In John M. Owen’s essay, “How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace,” Owen examines this theory using the democratic peace theory. He argues, due to liberal ideology and liberal democratic institutions, “that liberal ideas cause liberal democracies to tend away from war with one another, and that the same ideas prod these states into war with illiberal states “(Owen 1994). His reasoning is that liberal democracies share an interest in promoting freedom, equality, self-preservation, and material well being, but conflict would act counterproductively …show more content…
Even though he notes that the democratic peace theory “does not lead to perpetual peace” (Owen 1994), he states that “democratic peace provides strong evidence that ideas matter in international relations, both as shapers of national interest and as builders of democratic institutions” (Owen 1994). As a result, this is an example of how ideological preferences can predict relations between various states. In addition, Moravcsik states, like Owen, that “the conﰝfiguration of domestic social identities and values as a basic determinant of state preferences and, therefore, of interstate conflict and cooperation” (Moravcsik 1997). He further asserts that conflict is unlikely if the two actors share a social identity (respect for boarders and citizenship rights, shared commitment to particular political institutions, support of socioeconomic regulation and redistribution) (Moravcsik 1997). In conclusion, Ideational Liberalism is the idea that similar preferences and ideological beliefs result in less conflict because of shared beliefs and …show more content…
Keohane argues that international institutions, “institutions that can be identified as related complexes of rules and norms, identifiable in space and time,” can encourage cooperation and create expectations for countries’ behavior (Axelrod & Keohane 1985). Right now, there are many international institutions in place, which aim to encourage cooperation and peace. For example, the United Nations plays a large role in facilitating cooperation between China and other nations. As a result, Neo-Liberal Institutionalism would argue that China will rise peacefully because institutions, like the U.N., are strong enough to prevent war. However, on the other hand, some may argue that these institutions are not effective enough in encouraging cooperation. For example, with the situation in the SCS, tensions continue to rise between the U.S. and China, Japan and China, and many other South East Asian countries. As a result, countries have been increasing their military presence in the region. China has begun militarizing islands, as well (CNN). The slow increases in conflict could lead to violence and the U.N. has not been able to solve this issues. In addition, Keohane stated that international institutions needed to be strong enough to incentivize cooperation and also needed to punish and prevent defectors. Recently, the international institutions have not been able to accomplish this. For example, China has
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 enhancement of life, and reveals that human nature does not change.
International organizations such as NATO and the UN are essential not only for global peace, but also as a place where middle powers can exert their influence. It is understandable that since the inception of such organizations that many crises have been averted, resolved, or dealt with in some way thro...
Shiraev, Eric B., and Vladislav M. Zubok. International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Power, the perception of superiority over another human, is the source of many conflicts between people. Feeling inferior causes people to act beyond their normal personality. John Knowles strongly demonstrates this point in his work, A Separate Peace. In the relationship between Finny and Gene, Gene sets himself up to be inferior in the balance of power which motivates him to act irrationally to take power back from Finny.
Wendt, Alexander. “Constructing International Politics.” International Security. Cambridge: President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1995. 71-81. Print.
Farber, H. S., & Gowa, J. (1997). Common Interests or Common Politics? Reinterpreting the Democratic Peace. Journal of Politics 59 (2): 393-417.
Neo-realism and Liberalism both provide adequate theories in explaining the causes of war, yet Neo-realist ideals on the structural level and states being unitary actors in order to build security, conclude that Neo-realist states act on behalf of their own self interest. The lack of collaboration with other states and balance of power among them presents a reasonable explanation on the causes of war.
In conclusion realist and liberalist theories provide contrasting views on goals and instruments of international affairs. Each theory offers reasons why state and people behave the way they do when confronted with questions such as power, anarchy, state interests and the cause of war. Realists have a pessimistic view about human nature and they see international relations as driven by a states self preservation and suggest that the primary objective of every state is to promote its national interest and that power is gained through war or the threat of military action. Liberalism on the other hand has an optimistic view about human nature and focuses on democracy and individual rights and that economic independence is achieved through cooperation among states and power is gained through lasting alliances and state interdependence.
To understand the international relations of contemporary society and how and why historically states has acted in such a way in regarding international relations, the scholars developed numerous theories. Among these numerous theories, the two theories that are considered as mainstream are liberalism and realism because the most actors in stage of international relations are favouring either theories as a framework and these theories explains why the most actors are taking such actions regarding foreign politics. The realism was theorized in earlier writings by numerous historical figures, however it didn't become main approach to understand international relations until it replaced idealist approach following the Great Debate and the outbreak of Second World War. Not all realists agrees on the issues and ways to interpret international relations and realism is divided into several types. As realism became the dominant theory, idealistic approach to understand international relations quickly sparked out with failure of the League of Nation, however idealism helped draw another theory to understand international relations. The liberalism is the historical alternative to the realism and like realism, liberalism has numerous branches of thoughts such as neo-liberalism and institutional liberalism. This essay will compare and contrast the two major international relations theories known as realism and liberalism and its branches of thoughts and argue in favour for one of the two theories.
Democratic states are perceived to be more peaceful because “democracies do not attack each other.” The proposition that democracies never (or rarely; there is a good deal of variation about this) go to war against one another has nearly become a truism. Since Michael Doyle’s essay in 1983 pointed out that no liberal democracy has ever fought a war with another democracy , scholars have treated pacifism between as democracies, “as closest thing we have to an empirical law in international relations.” The democratic peace proposition encourages hope for a new age of international peace. Over the years since Michael Doyle’s essay a lot of literature has been written about “democratic peace theory”. A lot of analysis has focused on the claim- that liberal democracies do not fight each one another. There is a lot of action- reaction sequence in the academic arguments. As an idea catches on it accumulates adherents. The more popular an idea, there is more likehood of a critical reaction that raises serious and strong reservations about the validity of the new idea. In this essay, I would like to examine the claim- that democratic states are more peaceful as democracy causes peace. In this essay I draw on the writings of John M. Owen, Michael Doyle, Christopher Layne, Mansfield and Snyder, Alexander Wendt, Robert Keohane and Lisa Martin for their views on why democracies do not fight one another and then deduce my own conclusions.
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
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 most importantly republican constitutionalism.
The democratic peace theory stems from the generally optimistic liberal tradition which advocates that something can be done rectify the effects of an anarchical system, especially when it comes to war or conflict. For democratic peace theorists, the international system should be one in which there is cooperation and mutual benefits of the states are taken into consideration. The theory depends on liberal ideologies of civil liberties, democratic institutions and fairly elected governments and claims that liberal democracies are different from other systems of government as they do not conflict with other democracies due to the very nature of the liberal thinking and the pacifying role that democracy itself plays. According to the theory, the thought process behind democracies abstaining from war is that...
Mingst, K. (2011). Essentials of international relations. (5th ed., p. 70). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
The study of international relations takes a wide range of theoretical approaches. Some emerge from within the discipline itself others have been imported, in whole or in part, from disciplines such as economics or sociology. Indeed, few social scientific theories have not been applied to the study of relations amongst nations. Many theories of international relations are internally and externally contested, and few scholars believe only in one or another. In spite of this diversity, several major schools of thought are discernable, differentiated principally by the variables they emphasize on military power, material interests, or ideological beliefs. International Relations thinking have evolved in stages that are marked by specific debates between groups of scholars. The first major debate is between utopian liberalism and realism, the second debate is on method, between traditional approaches and behavioralism. The third debate is between neorealism/neoliberalism and neo-Marxism, and an emerging fourth debate is between established traditions and post-positivist alternatives (Jackson, 2007).