Critically assess the major conceptual ideas of Liberals about international relations

Résumé du document

In the study of international relations, two main theories have been historically opposed, leading to what today is referred to as the Neo-Neo debate. In fact, realism and liberalism, while sharing common assumptions, have a very different analytical perception of the international system and the interaction between states. While the realists have dominated the period of time relating to the beginning of the Second World War and the end of the Cold War, since 1989, the liberal theory seems to be regaining strength. But what are the major conceptual ideas of Liberals about international relations? In order to answer this question, we will first focus on the core assumptions of liberalism, after which we will expose the ideas it develops on state interaction and the functioning of the international system, and to end with, we will briefly analyze the main points of criticism of this theory.

Extraits

[...] However, as a conclusion, this optimistic theory is not entirely consensual, not only within its thinkers, but also inside international relations theories. Indeed, liberalism fails to acknowledge the importance that democratic regimes give to military power and to the safeguard of their own security. What is more, liberalism does not account for the risks that democratic transitions imply, not only due to the possible violence of this process, but also because democratic accountability can lead to the explosion of identities at different scales. [...]

[...] This is especially relevant because liberalism is very consensual in this state. Finally, liberalism is not only challenged by realism, but also by other non core theories such as constructivism, feminism or the English School, which include other types of actors such as NGOs and consider the increasingly heavy role of transnational networks. Bibliography Karen A. Mingst, Jack L. Snyder, Essential Readings in World Politics, 3rd edition Andrew Moravcsik, “Taking preferences seriously: a liberal theory of international politics”, International Organization (1997) 4 vol Michael W. [...]

[...] But which are the major conceptual ideas of Liberals about international relations? In order to answer this question, we will first focus on the core assumptions of liberalism, then we will expose the ideas it develops on state interaction and the functioning of the international system, and to end with, we will briefly analyse the main points of criticism of this theory. To begin with, liberalism considers the states as key actors in international relations, alongside with international institutions and the commercial interests that link actors[1]. [...]

[...] Snyder, Essential Readings in World Politics, 3rd edition, chapter 1 Andrew Moravcsik, “Taking preferences seriously: a liberal theory of international politics”, International Organization (1997) 4 vol Andrew Moravcsik, “Taking preferences seriously: a liberal theory of international politics”, International Organization (1997) 4 vol Andrew Moravcsik, “Taking preferences seriously: a liberal theory of international politics”, International Organization (1997) 4 vol Michael W. Doyle, “Liberalism and World Politics”, The American political science review (1986) 4 vol Immanuel Kant, Perpetual peace, edited with an introduction by A. Robert Caponigri, New York Liberal Arts Press 1948 Karen A. Mingst, Jack L. Snyder, Essential Readings in World Politics, 3rd edition, chapter 1 Karen A. Mingst, Jack L. [...]

[...] After seeing the main assumptions of liberalism, the understanding of its vision of the international system is rendered more approachable. In fact, this theory seeks to domesticate the international sphere, in other words, it extends domestic ideas to the world scale[4]. The main conclusion of liberalism is that liberal states, which are founded on the centrality of civil rights, are fundamentally opposed to war. The first justification for this statement is that war becomes impossible as long as the citizens (who would be those suffering from the burdens of conflict) elect their governments[5]. [...]