Basic Explanation of Liberalism in IR

Introduction

Liberalism and realism represent contrasting perspectives in international relations (IR). While realism has traditionally dominated IR theory and practice, liberalism emerged in the 20th century as a viable alternative approach, gaining particular prominence after World War 2 and again after the end of the Cold War. However, major international events and developments since the 1990s have consistently brought realism back into focus as the dominant paradigm in international relations.

Although liberalism seemed ascendant at certain points in recent history, the two perspectives have been engaged in an ongoing debate about the fundamental nature of IR. This continuing discussion between realism and liberalism has been a central theme in IR scholarship since the mid-1980s, with evolved variants of the two theories providing the main conceptual frameworks that define the field. However, it is important to note that policymakers and scholars use the terms realism and liberalism differently in practice.

Fundamentals of Liberalism

Liberalism is founded on several core tenets that shape its perspectives on governance and economics.

• First, liberalism emphasizes equality and basic rights for all citizens, rejecting systems that provide greater power or privilege to certain groups over others based on class, race, religion, or other factors.
• Second, liberalism asserts that legislative authority should be derived from the people through systems of democratic governance. This contrasts with systems where monarchs, aristocracies, or other elites hold power without popular consent.
• Third, liberalism argues for strong individual property rights and ownership. Individuals should be free to obtain property through legal means and not have it arbitrarily seized by governments or elites.
• Finally, liberalism expresses a preference for free markets as the most efficient economic system. Competition and consumer choice, rather than state control, should drive the economy. Overall, these principles of equality, democratic governance, individual rights, and free markets form the basis of liberalism and distinguish it from other perspectives.

Liberalism in International Relations

Liberalism considers states as having varying characteristics and proposes diverse causes for conflicts, ranging from imperialism to undemocratic regimes. In contrast to realism’s view of an inherent struggle for power, liberalism attributes the root causes of war to flawed domestic governance and international systems.

Concepts like collective security, open commerce, and world government are suggested as remedies to mitigate conflict between states. Collective security involves nations agreeing to collectively respond to acts of aggression, while open commerce aims to build economic ties and interdependence. World government proposes consolidating authority into international institutions that can mediate disputes.

Liberalism also advances the idea of the democratic peace theory. This attributes democracies’ inherently pacifist nature to domestic constraints and norms against warfare. Therefore, promoting democracy worldwide could create more peaceful relations between liberal states.

Overall, liberalism offers more optimistic alternatives for international cooperation than realism. It advocates new systems and institutions to transcend power politics between states. However, putting these liberal ideals into practice has proven challenging.

Failure of the League of Nations

The League of Nations was established after World War I with the aim of resolving international disputes through negotiation and collective security. However, the League ultimately failed to prevent World War II, exposing a major gap between the rhetorical idealism underpinning the League and the realist constraints of international politics at the time.

The failure of the League of Nations to prevent World War II despite its ambitious vision exposed the dominance of power politics and national interests over liberal ideals like international cooperation and collective security. This demonstrated the gap between rhetorical idealism and realpolitik constraints, setting the stage for renewed realist perspectives in international relations after 1945. The League’s demise highlighted that successful multilateral institutions require great power support and willingness to back rhetoric with concrete actions.

The United Nations

Despite the failure of the League of Nations, the United Nations (UN) emerged as its successor after World War 2, with the aim of maintaining international peace and security. However, the UN Charter took a more cautious approach to collective security compared to the League Covenant.

Under the League, members were automatically obliged to provide military support in response to acts of aggression. This ‘automaticity’ was dropped in the UN system, with members retaining the discretion on whether to contribute troops or enforce sanctions. The UN Security Council holds primary responsibility for authorizing military action, but the permanent members (US, UK, France, China, Russia) can veto resolutions. This reduces the scope for unilateral idealism.

While the UN has achieved some successes in peacekeeping, humanitarian aid, and setting global norms, it has faced criticism for inaction at times of crisis due to gridlock between the major powers. The UN is an imperfect institution, but remains an important forum facilitating international cooperation.

Transnational Actors

The formation of the United Nations after World War 2 established the primacy of sovereign states in the international system. Under liberalism, states were the primary actors in global affairs. However, in subsequent decades, transnational actors emerged to challenge the dominance of states.

Transnational actors include multinational corporations, global media outlets, intergovernmental organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and transnational social movements. These new entities transcended national borders and state control. They operated globally, wielding significant economic, cultural, and political influence.

Multinational corporations, with their global production chains and vast economic resources, constrained state autonomy in trade and investment decisions. Global media organizations shaped public opinion worldwide through news and entertainment. Intergovernmental organizations like the UN and World Bank created regulations and standards that bound states.

Nongovernmental organizations championed causes like human rights, environmentalism, and economic development, mobilizing activists globally. Transnational social movements coalesced around issues like women’s rights, indigenous rights, and antimilitarism. With global communications, activists coordinated across borders.

Through these transnational actors, the idea of the autonomous, sovereign state was eroded. States had to negotiate authority and legitimacy with these new global forces. Interdependence and connectivity empowered transnational actors to penetrate state borders and constrain government policies. The primacy of states was no longer absolute in a liberal international order.

Interdependence

The idea of interdependence gradually eroded the notion of state autonomy, although neo-realists criticized these ideas as fanciful. States became more interconnected through trade, finance, communications, and other linkages. This made them more vulnerable and dependent on each other, undermining the realist notion of state sovereignty and independence.

While interdependence theorists believed it could promote cooperation and reduce conflict, neo-realists argued it was being overstated. They pointed out that military force still mattered greatly in international relations, so true interdependence was limited. States remained concerned primarily about relative gains and their position in the global balance of power.

Neo-realists like Robert Gilpin agreed economic interdependence was increasing, but did not believe it eliminated geopolitical and military competition between major powers. States may cooperate in some areas, but still engage in strategic rivalry in pursuit of power and influence. The extent of interdependence should not be exaggerated.

Overall, while interdependence highlighted that states were not fully autonomous actors, neo-realists maintained their core attributes like military capability and relative power still shaped their behavior. Interdependence alone would not transform international relations in a more cooperative direction.

Neo-Liberalism Variants

Liberalism evolved into several strands of neo-liberal thought in the post-WW2 period. These variants offer distinct conceptual frameworks for understanding international relations while retaining core liberal principles.

Commercial Liberalism

Commercial liberalism focuses on using free markets and trade to promote cooperation and interdependence between states. Lowering barriers to commerce is seen as mutually beneficial, creating incentives against conflict. Commercial liberals advocate open economies and minimal barriers to the free flow of goods, services, and capital globally.

Republican Liberalism

Drawing on Kant’s perpetual peace, republican liberals contend that democratic states are inherently less prone to go to war, especially with each other. Therefore, spreading democracy worldwide reduces the likelihood of war. This theory is described as the democratic peace thesis.

Sociological Liberalism

Sociological liberalism examines how increased connections between societies and peoples lead to shared interests and norms. Rather than seeing states as isolated, it views them as embedded within domestic and transnational social relationships and structures. These facilitate cooperation through common values and identities.

Liberal Institutionalism

Liberal institutionalism proposes that international institutions allow states to achieve mutual benefits by constraining self-interested behavior. By surrendering some sovereignty, states can gain increased prosperity and stability. Institutions empower cooperation through reducing uncertainty, transaction costs, and enforcement problems.

Challenges for Liberalism

Despite its historical significance, contemporary liberalism faces challenges both in theory and in practice. Recent crises in multilateral institutions that were designed to facilitate global governance demonstrate that cooperation between states is far more difficult and complex than liberal theorists often assume. The American “benevolent hegemony” that upheld many liberal values and institutions in the post-WW2 era also appears to be in decline, and the prospect of truly effective global institutions ruling the world in some liberal vision seems increasingly distant.

Key multilateral institutions such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and the European Union have all faced existential crises in recent years, calling into question their efficacy and questioning the faith that liberals place in such organizations. Rising nationalist and populist movements have further undermined cooperation, as the Brexit vote demonstrated. The election of Donald Trump in the US also signaled a move away from liberal leadership.

As American power and willingness to underwrite global institutions wanes, no other nation or bloc of nations has emerged that seems willing and able to take its place. The ideal of a rules-based international order upheld by robust liberal institutions appears more fragile than ever. Both established powers like the US and rising nations like China and India prioritize realist self-interest over idealistic cooperation.

This inability to solve pressing global issues like climate change through collective action suggests inherent limitations to the liberal paradigm. While liberals may counter that imperfect cooperation is better than none, the gap between theoretical optimism and messy reality continues to haunt the liberal project. The future balance of power between realism and liberalism remains uncertain.

Neo-Neo Debate

The neo-neo debate refers to the ongoing discussion between neo-realists and neo-liberalists that has been central in IR scholarship since the mid-1980s. Both sides evolved from traditional realism and liberalism to offer new paradigms and conceptual frameworks that define the field. However, policymakers and scholars use the terms differently in practice.

While both neo-realists and neo-liberalists agree on the anarchic nature of the international system, their perspectives diverge on the feasibility of cooperation. Neo-liberalists argue that international cooperation is possible when states have common interests, emphasizing absolute gains for all parties. Institutions can facilitate this cooperation by reducing uncertainty and transaction costs. However, cooperation remains limited without underlying power structures to enforce agreements.

In contrast, neo-realists contend that international cooperation is inherently difficult due to the structure of the international system. State interests are rarely in complete alignment, so relative gains become more important, along with concerns about cheating or free-riding. Power disparities between states further hinder mutually beneficial agreements. While institutions have a role, neo-realists assert that their influence is limited without the power to enforce compliance.

In the neo-neo debate, neo-liberalists express greater faith in international institutions, norms, and regimes to promote cooperation between rational state actors. Neo-realists remain more skeptical, arguing that power dynamics between states are the primary determinants of cooperation. Ultimately, both theories provide valuable insights into the possibilities and limits of cooperation in global politics.