Among the three paradigms most prominent in the field of international relations, liberalism serves as the most accurate portrayal of the real world. It suffers from fewer flaws than realism and constructivism. In addition, it correctly and more specifically explains the workings and structure of progress of the world. It also explains the way that anarchy at the international level impacts relations between states, as it explains humankind’s tendency to cooperate when faced with anarchy.
There are a number of core qualities of liberalism. In a liberal world, international relations is primarily driven by self-interests and domestic politics. Liberalism states that, due to the anarchy present in the sphere of international relations, the chances of successfully achieving one’s self-interests decreases. However, to mitigate this anarchy and increase chances of success, humans will cooperate. This cooperation allows for the emergence of capitalism, democracy, and international organizations, all of which further humanity’s wanting to collaborate. Because of this and the importance of domestic politics in liberalism, the primary actors become sub-state groups who can then influence state-level and international-level politics. Unlike the cyclical, realist interpretation of history, liberals view history as progressive. They are of the opinion that history, examined scientifically, is an evolution of institutions, types of governments, and ideas over time, instead of switching between the two phases of war and peace.
There are three subcategories of liberalism: ideational, commercial, and republican. All three have their respective followings, which advocate that their influence of politics is the most responsible for determining state interests. However, they also interact and cooperate with one another, and supporters of each subcategory acknowledge the truth behind the other subcategories. This is especially seen through the wide acceptance of the Kantian triangle, which describes the importance of (international) organizations and institutions, economic interdependence, and democracy as a type of government. Combined, these three elements of the Kantian triangle help to promote peace and mitigate anarchy in a liberal world.
Ideational liberalism is the belief that ideas and values at state level determine international identity. According to Moravcsik, there are three main types of ideas that influence international politics. They are ideas about what makes up a nation, ideas about a particular economic method, and ideas about a nation’s political system. All of these ideas are important parts of ideational liberalism, as, despite being primarily domestically focused, they have the capacity to influence politics on a wide scale. This is particularly true when the ideas are held or helped by powerful national organizations.
The next subcategory, which relates to the economic interdependence branch of the Kantian triangle, is commercial liberalism. In this subcategory, material interests are at the forefront, as the material desires of influential domestic groups interact, identifying state interests. Part of commercial liberalism describes that economically powerful groups will most often have their preferences echoed by the state as a whole, as they logically have the economic swaying power in a nation. States will interact according to these preferences, which will in turn influence state behavior. If one state is influenced to make X adjustment to tariffs by a group, and another state is persuaded to make their own by a similarly powerful group, the resulting actions of both states stem from the commercial and economic influences.
Commercial liberalism is closely associated with peace due to economic interdependence. This is based on the logical assumption that few, if any, states can achieve their self-interests while isolating themselves economically. Groups with economic influence typically desire peaceful relationships, as those lead to free trade between nations. Free trade is more profitable for every side than acquisition of materials through conquest, as war and military technology become both more destructive and expensive over time.
One of the material desires of states influenced by economically powerful groups is state-wide economic growth. After globalized trade begins, this is advanced by embracing what Friedman calls the “Golden Straitjacket,” a way of increasing the international availability of a state’s economic system. By doing so, the state opens its markets to more international traffic, through the Electronic Herd. Together, the Golden Straitjacket and Electronic Herd lead to more peaceful international relationships due to supporting economic interdependence. If a state allows its economy to be scrutinized, it appears more inviting to investment. If it isolates itself economically, it becomes poor and unable to compete with other states. And if the state becomes aggressive, it finds war exceedingly costly and its behavior not accepted by the international community. Thus, by being dependent on other states to better their economy, a state will be more focused on collaboration and peace.
The final subcategory of liberalism is republican liberalism. This section of liberalism details that the types of political systems and institutions a state has determine which groups’ interests are presented by the state on an international level. The political system in place in a state, which allows certain people and groups to make policy, determines which groups preferences are favored on a national scale. These preferences in turn influence a state’s interactions with the international community.
Republican liberalism ties into the Democratic Peace. This is the concept that democracies are very peaceful with one another, and it is supported in depth. Liberal states foster the creation of democratic political systems, which allow a state’s population to have a say in foreign policy. According to Owen, the influence a population has on a state’s foreign policy affects the chances of international war. This is true in democracies, as populations in democratic states can easily be rallied against illiberal states. The realist critique against the Democratic Peace is very flawed, despite a number of arguments from scholars including Mearsheimer, Snyder, and Mansfield.
As stated, liberalism focuses on self-interests. According to Russett, this manifests itself in desire for material wellbeing and political freedom. Because of these desires, capitalism and democracy are established as the best economic and political systems. Capitalism allows for the highest rate of success in achieving material wellbeing, especially when factoring in its affordability under capitalism. Capitalism negates the need for aggressive power maximizing techniques, as it becomes cheaper if one purchases desired materials instead of choosing to acquire them in a violent fashion. Capitalist trade also allows the free trade and flow of information throughout different states, allowing each state to advance further in a peaceful manner. Democracy in turn is the political system that, thus far, most easily allows for political freedom and representation. Alongside capitalism, democracy also affords for a safer world, as it is harder for one leader to direct their country into conflict. It also advocates for further cooperation, on national and international levels. Furthermore, due to its allowance of political freedom and cooperation, democracy is the best political compliment to capitalism, which allows for the free pursuit of material wellbeing. Finally, in Russett’s interpretation of liberalism, both capitalism and democracy lead to the development of international organizations. This in turn promotes cooperation, peace, and the spread of liberal norms, adding up to a more peaceful world and well mitigated anarchy.
One subset of liberalism is neoliberalism, which is based around the concept presented earlier that humans, and therefore states, cooperate when confronted with anarchy. It explains why humans organize to mitigate the anarchy and promote security. This is unlike the realist view of the world, in which humans will only work together insofar as they profit from a collaborative venture. This is in part due to the concept of absolute gains over relative gains. In a neoliberal world, since states are collaborative, they are more focused on transactions that allow all of the cooperating states to profit, versus closely examining the difference in gains.
There are a number of different types of organizations states can form to promote international security. Called collective security organizations, these institutions are designed for the specific purpose of mitigating anarchy. They are composed of a group of usually liberal states that cooperate to combat aggressive, illiberal states.
According to Sterling-Folker, states work together despite rational actors, able to weigh costs and benefits. This allows them to recognize that it is impossible to know the true intentions of a foreign group, but that it is far more beneficial to work together to achieve similar goals than to act aggressively towards each other. Therefore, they collaborate to create international institutions to mitigate the anarchy present in international relations. These organizations let states establish higher standards of trust with one another by providing instructions for appropriate conduct, structure for competition, and the ability to punish wrongdoing, and allowing monitoring of other states. The institutions decrease the uncertainty of international relations, supporting the argument that cooperation is preferable to aggressive competition.
One of the two less likely paradigms is realism. In realism, the primary actor is the state. The paradigm itself is most easily generalized as the belief that the realm of international relations is perpetually chaotic due to some desire for power, whether that be directly stemming from human nature or states themselves. This desire for power leads to balancing among states, as each pursues an increase in power. In “A Realist Theory of International Politics,” Morgenthau describes that realism puts forth the notion that laws governing politics, particularly international politics, do not change over time. This is due to the idea that humans always hold a desire for power. However, what realists believe causes that desire has changed. In realism, morality does not matter at the state or international level, as states are only concerned with the wellbeing, and security, of their people. Because they focus on power to further their security, states are prevented from committing moral fallacies. In addition, according to realist thought, “prudence, weighing costs and benefits, is the supreme virtue in politics.” This means that a state’s ability to make informed decisions regarding other state’s actions helps determine how successful a state can be in its accumulation of power and security.
At its most basic level, realism is split into two camps: classical realism and neorealism. Classical realism can be attributed to the writings of thinkers such as Machiavelli and Hobbes, and more recently was supported by Morgenthau. Neorealism has gained much more traction in modern international relations. They are separated by a fundamental disagreement over what a state’s desire for power originates from. Unsurprisingly, this fundamental break in disciplines causes a number of other differences between the two sub-paradigms. However, a commonality between them is that both are concerned with relative gains, in contrast to absolute gains. Rather than caring whether or not a state and its ally both achieve increases in power, both types of realism encourage a state to focus on differentials between gains. This strains states’ abilities to cooperate, as they will become primarily concerned with said differentials, increasing suspicion about another state’s successes. Instead of focusing on cooperating for mutual benefit and gain, states are motivated to cooperate only if it promotes their success and enhances their power and security.
Classical realism is the thought that humankind has an innate desire for power, rooted in human nature. It is certainly more of a philosophically focused outlook on wanting power, in contrast to Neorealism. In classical realism, the desire for power drives the relations between states. This is because this desire for power is hardwired into humans and because humans are the directors of states, which in turn direct international politics.
Neorealism does not support the notion that humans harbor an innate desire for power. Instead, it dictates that desire for power is driven by a need for security. As there is “no overarching international authority” that defends states or ensures that agreements are honored, and since states cannot predict what other states will do, there is a recognition of other states’ abilities to inflict harm on other states. Because of these threats to security and safety, states are encouraged, at the international level (therefore not including individual desires in the argument), to increase their power. This prompts a zero-sum competition, meaning that if one state experiences an increase in its power, other states, even that state’s allies, experience a decrease in their power. This in turn leads to the security dilemma, which dictates that defensive tactics and maneuvers performed on by one state can easily be taken as offensive and provocative by other states.
Within neorealism there is a divide between offensive realism and defensive realism. Defensive realism is the philosophy that, if one increases one’s power, others will follow suit, making power balancing an automatic process and decreasing the chances of international conflict. Thus, for defensive realists, the primary cause for international wars are power transitions and security dilemmas. Defensive realists also believe that states defending against external threats inherently have the advantage. This is due to technological advantages and better knowledge of terrain. In contrast to offensive realism, this disincentivizes power maximizing through aggressive means, such as imperialism.
Offensive realists declare that states do not automatically balance against rising powers or states increasing their own power. They believe that states should always try to maximize their power–if there is an opportunity to increase one’s power, it should be taken. They also follow the idea that neither the defender nor the offensive state is favored technologically or in terms of terrain. Because of these beliefs, in an offensive realist world there is an incentive to actively and aggressively seek more power. Unlike defensive realism, offensive realism would be more open to attempts at imperialism.
There is also a strong argument in realism against what realists would call excessive nuclear disarmament. Realists view nuclear weapons as the ultimate balancing tool. They are weapons of immense destruction, therefore one of the best ways to deter invasion and war. While they do serve as excellent reasoning against large-scale conflict, it is imperative to also recognize the importance of international organizations with regard to nuclear weapons.