LIBERALISM (rules, norms, and institutions; not just power and states) Why has liberalism succeeded domestically, but failed internationally? What causes war, if not anarchy? [The three 'images' of liberalism (box 6.1)] • Imperialism, the failure of the balance of power, undemocratic regimes “Liberalism pulls in two directions: its commitment to freedom in the economic and social spheres leans in the direction of a minimalist role for governing institutions, while the democratic political culture required for basic freedoms to be safeguarded requires robust and interventionist institutions.”
Enlightenment liberalism: Kant and Bentham • Free trade as a pathway to world peace—what are the pros and cons of this argument? Woodrow Wilson's “Fourteen Points” and the early roots of liberal institutionalism • The League of Nations and collective security • How is self-determination both necessary and challenging, from a liberal perspective? • Why did the League of Nations fail, and how does the veto power of Security Council members in the new United Nations charter address this problem? Neo-Liberalism also highlights the centrality of non-state actors and the role of international regimes • Keohane/Nye on transnational corporations & intl. non-governmental organizations (INGOS) • Can you think of other important actors? • What are some examples of international regimes? • Ikenberry and the (hegemonic) liberalism of privilege (n.b.: Skipping over for now: chapter 7 and the “neo-neo debate”) Michael Doyle, “Liberalism and World Politics” (skipping Machiavelli) Schumpeter's liberal pacifism, Machiavelli's liberal imperialism, and Kant's liberal internationalism Schumpeter on 'objectless imperialism': a war machine, warlike instincts, and export monopolism • “Modern (nineteenth century) imperialism, therefore, rests on an atavistic war machine, militaristic attitudes left over from the days of monarchical wars, and export monopolism” • For Schumpeter, people under capitalism are “democratized, individualized, rationalized”, such that “no democracy would pursue a minority interest and tolerate the high costs of imperialism [and war]”. What's wrong with this argument? (82) Kant's liberal internationalism and the pacific federation (on Perpetual Peace) • What is the democratic peace theorem on display here? What is its flip side, as Doyle points out? (“that liberals have indeed established a separate peace—but only among themselves”) ◦ “Aggression by the liberal state has also characterized a large number of wars” – such as? ◦ “Liberal states invade weak nonliberal states and...distrust...powerful nonliberal states.” • The three “definitive articles” of peace 1. That the civil constitution is republican (85) 2. That liberal republics form a pacific federation, or union 3. That a cosmopolitan law of universal hospitality will operate in conjunction with the pacific union • “without a teleology, such as the promise of perpetual peace, the complexity of history would overwhelm human understanding...peace is an ethical duty because it is only under conditions of peace that all men can treat each other as ends, rather than as means to an end.”
