In 1982, President Reagan gave a speech before the British Parliament, he announced a “crusade for freedom” and a “campaign for democratic development”. These liberal claims are that of Liberal Peace, also called Democratic Peace or Democratic Liberalism. According to Doyle in his Liberalism and World Politics, “there is no canonical description of liberalism”. But, there are some characteristics that are commonly related to what we call liberal, such as “democracy, individual freedom, political participation, private property and equality of opportunity”. So liberalism is a set of principles and institutions with certain characteristics. The notion of democracy which is part of liberalism is important to fully understand the theory of …show more content…
The Liberal Peace Theory
A/ What is the definition of the Liberal Peace Theory ?
According to Zenonas Tziarras, “Democratic Liberalism is based on the notion that liberal democracies are more peaceful and law-abiding in relation to other political systems. The liberal peace theory and therefore liberal peace-building, have become more prominent after the end of the Cold War because of the predominance of the western ideology”. The liberal peace theory is based on the fact that liberal democracies have never fought a war against each other, they only fight autocracies. In his essay A dyad of Democracy and Economic Interdependence, Ground in Agent Desires, David R. Newbrander explains that the desire of individuals for security and felicty is what encourages people to get together in order to create a government that would “provide protection from threats, enforcement of law, and stability for industry”.
B/ Evolution of the theory
The Liberal Peace theory appeared in the late 1970s but has deeper roots. Indeed, its main principles can be found in Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan (1651) and in Immanuel Kant Perptual Peace (1795). Principles from those two books are gathered to create this
…show more content…
They explained that the main goal of political leaders is to be reelected in order to remain in office and that to achieve this goal they will threaten to use force to resolve a conflict only if there is a high possibility of a successful result. Indeed, according to Kant, when given the choice, very few people would vote positively to go to war and since the state is ruled by a democratic government representing the people, it is supposed to make the same choice as the people. The theorists of this era said that democracies were characterized by norms of non-violent conflict resolution, compromise and the rule of law. They claimed that these norms are externalized into the international
Liberalism is an ideology which advocates equality of opportunity for all within the framework of a system of laws. It includes a belief in government as an institution whose primary function is to define and enforce the laws. Furthermore, a Constitution, must be developed not solely by one ruler but by representatives of the elite groups. Therefore, liberalism invariably involves a belief in the need for legislative bodies which represent the influential groups. The Constitution then defines ...
Thus, after considering Kant’s discussion of perpetual peace, political moralism and political realism are incompatible in reality. While Kant may have made a compelling case that a conflict does not occur in theory between morality and politics, a conflict does remain when it comes to man’s subjectivity. For one reason, not all politicians will adhere to morality publicly and thus will not enter into a collective unity to attain perpetual peace. Another reason is that Kant’s idealistic theory is too divorced from the reality of the political realm and thus cannot be applied universally.
Fareed Zakaria’s The Rise of Illiberal Democracy expresses the views he has on the differences between liberal democracy and illiberal democracy, and which one causes civil war. He also explains how both types of democracy go hand in hand with other in the formation of the United State government and it constitution. Zakaria also talks about how majority of the countries in the world are democratic, but majority of which are an illiberal democracies. His ideals could also be reflected during the civil rights movement.
Farber, H. S., & Gowa, J. (1997). Common Interests or Common Politics? Reinterpreting the Democratic Peace. Journal of Politics 59 (2): 393-417.
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 countries. Liberalism provides a theory that predominantly explains how states can collaborate in order to promote global peace; however, as wars have been analyzed, for example World War II, the causes of them are better explained by Neo-realist beliefs on the balance of power and states acting as unitary actors. Thus, looking out for their own self interest and security.
Liberalism, formed in the latter part of the 18th Century from opposition to existing political monarchies in Europe, was based on rights of individuals and the responsibility of government to protect those rights. Conservative philosophy was born as a reaction to dangerous tendencies detected within the liberal movement toward excessive governmental control. While conservatives form the base of their beliefs on traditional values, respect for authority, and maintaining custom, liberals fought government tendencies to diminish, ignore, or abuse individual human rights. Both beliefs balanced each other until liberalism shifted its emphasis from protecting individual rights from government to using government as a source for supplying basic life necessities. The modern liberal agenda began as President Johnson's Great Society to wipe out poverty and enhance the quality of life for all Americans.
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.
...aditions of certain cultural practices, but not to the extent of making it a political theory. In todays world, we need a solid foundation to each individual in order to have a working, non-oppressive, self-respecting society. The liberal approach respects the ideals of certain cultures, but not to the extent of the communitarian. Overall, the liberal theory of justice is a more relevant political theory in our globalized world.
The liberalism and the realism approaches the international relations from very different perspective, and even though many of its views contrast from each other, the ...
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.
The first one, refers to democracies. Waltz puts in doubt the peace thesis arguing that the increase number of democracies will not assure peaceful intentions of states towards others. Indeed, Waltz argues that, contrary to peace thesis defenders, the United States and Great Britain, the predominant democracies in the nineteenth century, instead of using force, they used their influence ov...
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...
To start, Liberalism traces its roots back to the Enlightenment period (Mingst, 2008) where many philosophers and thinkers of the time began to question the established status quo. Such as the prevailing belief in religious superstition and began to replace it with a more rational mode of thinking and a belief in the intrinsic goodness of mankind. The Enlightenment period influenced Liberalism’s belief that human beings are thinkers who are able to naturally understand the laws governing human social conduct and by understanding these laws, humans can better their condition and live in harmony with others (Mingst, 2008). Two of the most prominent Liberal Internationalists of the Enlightenment period were Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham who both thought that international relations were conducted in a brutal fashion. It was Kant who compared international relations as “the lawless state of savagery” (Baylis and Smith, 2001, pp 165). It was also Kant who believed nations could form themselves into a sort of united states and overcome international anarchy through this (Mingst, 2008). This was probably the beginning of a coherent belief in a sort of union of sovereign states. Toward the end of the seventeenth century William Penn believed a ‘diet’ (parliament) could be set up in Europe, like the European Union of today (Baylis and Smith, 2001). We can see much of this liberal thinking today in organizations such as the United Nations.
Liberalism and democracy are closely tied together in international politics. They have a central bond which brings out the notion of democratic peace. Today much of Latin America and the European Union practices democracy. The chances of these nations getting into an armed conflict are very scarce in today’s standards. Liberalism promotes the idea of human security and equality and democracy reinforces that idea into the political framework of governing bodies and their higher authorities. Liberalism leads to democracy which promotes democratic peace preventing conflict between nations. This article will look at how liberalism leads to democratic peace through the process of creating democracy.