Chapter 3 Liberalist Perspective
Chapter 3 Liberalist Perspective PSCI 230X - 01
Popular in International Relations
Popular in Political Science
This 14 page Class Notes was uploaded by Autumn Fraser on Saturday October 3, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to PSCI 230X - 01 at University of Montana taught by Eric Hines in Summer 2015. Since its upload, it has received 21 views. For similar materials see International Relations in Political Science at University of Montana.
Reviews for Chapter 3 Liberalist Perspective
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
Date Created: 10/03/15
Chapter 3 Liberalism Perspective Thursday September 24 2015 151 PM Chapter 3 The liberalist perspective Liberalism o dismisses principles of power and politics 0 focuses on economic and political cooperation with common norms of inte behavior 0 international and NGOs are important players 0 As defined by the book 0 school of thought based on I rejection of power politics I need for international coop I distribution of shared interests I roll of NGO in shaping state press and policy choices 0 opposes realist explanations 0 focuses internal coop and mutual benefits 0 Liberal idealism 0 state governments and international institutions can I maintain international stability III shared rules and norms of coop Big difference between lib and real 0 possibility of stable world without reliance on state power politics Development of Liberalism Intellectual roots 0 Religious roots pertaining to the promise of perpetual peace 0 Big I political liberalism III powerful social and political movement of the 19th century the nobility and inherited privileges I Freeenlightened individuals John Locke and Voltaire would pursue mutually beneficial trade policies and respect one another I To Perpetual PeaceImmanuel Kant III imagined a federation of independent republics that would she responsibility III respect for rule of law ernational at challenged prosper from are mutual III joint economic interest 0 Early attempts of implementation 0 19th century statesmen and scholars called for international organizations diplomacy based on mutual compromises 0 global disarment 39 states elimination of weapons III if no weapons no wars 0 Lessons of WWI o Scared liberalists 39 behavior ofdeaths of 16 mill people 39 leaders acted like predators 39 previous pacifists now supported nationalism and war hungry govern 0 Call to liberalists 39 People across the world called for international coop 39 Pres Wilson promoted coop among countries wnotion of III free trade III respect 39 League of Nations III protect small countries III steer world toward coop and peace III But players must change internally as well III Liberal democracy must spread international stability resolve conflicts reduce likelihood of war League of Nations 0 first global org aimed at o prevention mediation peaceful resolution of interstate conflicts 0 support basic human rights 0 disarmament 0 economic coop Liberal internationalism o belief that communities of states should remove disputes with the help of Fell due to Euro economicterritoryless not strong identitygeneral discord Liberality ideas 0 fell away count prevent violence 1945 New beginning 0 Liberal ideas formed backbone of Am foreign policy after WWII to practice Iments international law Roosevelt and Willkei world needed new stuff 0 based on cooperation and peace 0 new charter brought back 39 free trade 39 security coop 39 equality among nations Roosevelt also created UN 0 council to preserve peace 0 China Soviet Union UK and US France 0 Economy flourished 0 World bankInternational Monetary fund 39 goal to create global financial system 0 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade GATT III reduced barriers to international trade 0 Marshal Plan 39 provided financial help to devastated Euro 39 revived Euro capitalism 39 reactivated trade between EU and US 0 Idea that foreign policy driven by could bring benefits 39 mutual interests 39 common values Faces of Liberalism after 1960 idea of liberalism pertaining to goveconomyrelations sparked Neoliberalism o theoretical position that state interest remain a main subject of analysts in relations 0 but these interests are realized in the context of interdependence among 39 Interdependence III interaction of states informal economic financial cultural III security is not always prime agenda issues become important at different times 0 trade and currency regulation 0 human right concerns 0 economic assistance of wealthy to poor states III military force not used by countries against countries 0 Summary international States 39 neoliberalism reflected changing nature of int relations 39 mutual preferences and not capabilities define int relations 39 states serve good of the peopleinte rest III capable of goodwill self restrain coop Liberalism vs Realism Differentinnovative in 3 ways 0 relies on international institutions and networks 39 instead of sovereign states III states are actors but signify less with growth of int instate an 0 international order can be based on compromise and coop III int orgs open mark diplomacy should help avoid zero sum gar interest of all countries 0 not regard interstate conflict or war as a necessary part of international or 0 Also descriptive in criticizing but also prescriptive says what should happen in Obsolescence of big wars 0 war became obsolete as a result of Europe outliving the idea that war was the or achieving goals 0 strategies for ending violence could be 0 economic coop o cultural exchange 0 Comprehensive edu But not all countries can pursue reforms to create this acting as predators instez tolerate these actions 0 us invading Iraq 39 neoconservatives claimed that principles of liberalism could democra help of western military 0 liberals said no it would create violence and hatred Lessons of Diplomacy liberalism sees diplomacy o the management of international relations through negotiations as a movement toward successful global coop and gov once was secret now more open with NGO s being major supporters Democratic Peace theory democracies are not likely to fight one another 0 institutions of representative dem discourage going to war against other Cll 39 include parliaments free press public orgs public opinion sooooo le to be aggressive 39 scared values and norms of behavior partner rather than fight Id NGOS nes and maximize 39der the world ily method of ad Should world itize iraq with emocracies aders don t want III more open less threatening resolve conflicts because of highe ability to negotiate III economic interdependence make war stupid for economic rea Soft power ability of states to influence other states by example such a social and economic not only democracies hold it communist Russia was emulated in the early phase cannot be calculated operates through perception challenge official politics creates gaps between public and official opinion applies to int and N608 when used in reapoitik chances security and balances relations between countr International and NGI nongov institutions Liberal institutionalism 0 international order cannot be achieved without International Organizations several states working together to achieve international coop 0 create mutual obligations 0 provide equal access to info 0 reduce uncertainty that countries face evaluation each others policies Intergovernmental organization IGO o org composed of sovereign member states I UN I NATO I security economic financial education etc Transnational Orgs 0 Private citizensnonstate agenciesnetwork of states working together I international security depends on these as well I sports religious artistic activities I interested in open borders and coop Cross national networks 0 armed with practical ideas and not guns 0 to create bonds and enhance human living ext NGO s o iberaists say power should shift toward these orgs in international arena 0 3 Interconnected fields I Information gathering and analysis III what gov is unwilling to collect environmental human rights I problems I Advocacy and education III appeal to public option and gov to address int programs I IAIE IJ I I J er tolerance and sons success 5 of cold war 39ies NGO s or dangerous organize and oenver numanitanan Ella and support III environmental protection Broad scope different supports support different ways 39 multilateralism 0 states acting alone create int tension 0 So states Int orgs NGO s should work all together 39 liberal interventionism 0 only accepts violence if diplomatic and nonviolent means are exhausted 39 liberal isolationism 0 supports int trade and cultural coop O rmly against involvement in militarypolitical alliance and interference with domestic affair 39 pg 99 Illiberal views 39 illerbal views 0 belief that an ideal peaceful world can be created only by force 0 once proper order is established violence will disappear 39 revolutionist anarchists 39 religious fundamentalists 39 Marxism Application 39 Individual 0 leaders must decide what is best 0 some don t declare war or support coop some do 39 State 0 domestic politics in uence foreign politics 39 societal ideals interests institutions influence state behavior by shaping state prefer 39 foreign policy depends on public support 39 PG 105 table 0 Policy climate 39 prevailing sentiment among policy makers and other influential individuals D what gov int org and NGO should do on the international level D lib int not exclusive choice of individual politicians dependent on dem principe of gov pub opinion policy climate 39 Global 0 globalization 39 growing dependence of countries and their economies on one another 39 libs say it threatens their principles 39 as int corps grow power of indie states diminish say libs 39 corps will snap foreign policy for sake of pro t 0 Optimists 39 interdependence diminished ability of powerful states to act unilaterally 39s of other countries ence 39 Atlanticism O belief that the relationship between the USA and Europe is a focus of national interest