Moravcisk And Republican Liberalism

Morals:

The belief in a moral obligation to engage in international, like the persuasion theory, is quite broad. Morality can’t be reduced to a matter of right and wrong; states have more complex beliefs than that. In this case, the causal factor for participation is rooted in belief. This differs from coercion in that coercion disregards the intentions of (the weaker) states. The weaker states do what they must not what they desire. The morality theory also differs from the persuasion theory. Under the persuasion theory the state is in control of its actions and acts based on ideas and principles, however, those principles are based on self-interest. Morality is based on selfless beliefs that participation will benefit some group within the state, the whole

Moravcisk’s Republican Liberalism theory has both domestic and international components. The domestic side of his argument is that states (this is places a particular emphasis on the current leader) engage in international law to constrain future governments. While the current government might be in favor of human rights laws there’s no guarantee that all future governments will, so to prevent any such undesirable behavior in the future, states constrain themselves with international law. This practice is especially popular in developing states (such as the former Yugoslavian states in the 1990s) because they desire guidance in their transition to a more stable nation and want to ensure that their state doesn’t violate human rights or behave unethically. The international side of the argument is one in favor of democratic peace. Emerging democracies need international democratic peace to protect the rights of their citizens and others. Moravcisk’s theory is based around the creation of the European Court of Human Rights and why states chose to sign the treaty creating