The discipline of international relations is often subjected to interpretation by a plethora of various theoretical perspectives and paradigms. Whereas some of these perspectives, particularly theories such as Realism, may have been relevant in the past; however other theoretical perspectives are much more suited and better able to explain and account for change in the international system in today’s world. One particular theory that comes to mind is that of the school of Liberalism, which despite being centuries old, is extremely relevant in today’s changing international system. First proposed by English philosopher’s Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham in the 18th century; the notion of Liberalism was devised as a reaction to what at the time was seen as the barbarity of international relations and what Kant himself referred to as the ‘lawless state of savagery’ (Kant, 1795). Although the seeds of Liberalism were sown many centuries ago, the core ideas of liberal theory are more relevant today than they ever have been. This paper will explain and justify the reasons why liberalism is better able to account for and explain change in the international system; and why other theoretical perspectives of international relations, such as realism and feminism, have been discounted in favour of the Liberalist perspective.
When one interprets the various changes in the international system from a liberal perspective, one often interprets how the liberalist school of thought influenced how modern states within the international system implement the idea of freedom for citizens. The notion of freedom is inherently important to human beings as this arised from the fact that humans are essentially choosing creatures, constantly taking decisions that determine what actions they take (Birch, 2007, 160).
In today’s changing international system, there is a rising importance of the individual within society. This idea of political liberalism and of the importance of individual liberty is reflected within the United States Constitution which dictates that “all men created equal” (U.S. Constitution, 1788). Writers such as Guedes Sorianio (2013) argue that the political constitutions of modern day liberal democracies often include fundamental rights which guarantee freedom to citizens (Guedes Soriano, 2013, 588-589). This reflects the ideas of liberal thinkers such as Friedrich Hayek who argues that an individual is free is he is not subject to unjustifiable coercion. In order to recognize that an individual is truly free is for that individual to acknowledge that there is a domain, defined by rules, in which he may pursue his own aims (Kukathas,1990, 132). This is also supported by Van de Haar (2009) who argues that this emphasises the importance that liberalism has in international relations and within the changing international system,. He argues that the liberalist school of thought is correct to assume that the individual is of ultimate value, and that politics must serve the greater benefit of individual people (Van de Haar, 2009). Although the liberalist school of thought emphasises freedom of the individual, there are however, other theories which perceive freedom quite differently. For example, the Marxist perspective of freedom is that freedom is man’s ability to exercise conscious rational control over his natural environment and over his own social forces (Walicki, 2005). Despite this however, it can still be argued however, that liberalism is the theoretical perspective better able to explain and account for change in the international system due to the profound importance it places on the concept of freedom and the individual, a concept included in the constitutions of many modern states.
This idea of individual freedom also coincided with the idea of human rights which Forsythe (2006) proclaimed “projected liberalism into a realist world” (Forsythe, 2006 3-4). Scholars such as Richardson (2001) argue that the promotion of liberal democracy and of individual freedom gave prominence to the idea of human rights as economic growth will lead to democratization, which he argued offered the best protection for human rights in the long run (Richardson, 2001, 89).
The liberalist idea of human rights and the “rights of man” has its foundations in the age of enlightenment; particularly as more recognition was given to the experience of individuals struggling against the arbitrary rule of the state (Donnelly, 2003). However, this liberalist idea of the importance of human rights is not without its criticisms. Marxists for example, dismiss the liberalist idea of human rights as mere bourgeois freedoms which inevitably fail to address the class based nature of exploitation (Linklater, 1992, 27). Similarly, Realists are also rather pessimistic regarding the liberalists idea of human rights. Realists argue that when push comes to shove, human rights are often very low on the list of policy goals of states in modern international society. Suggesting that despite the spread of liberal democratization, the importance of human rights isn’t as important has initially thought (Dunne and Hanson, 2009). Despite these criticisms however, it can still be justified that liberalism is better to account for change in the international system with regards to human rights. This is primarily because human rights are almost always regarded as a core fundamental aspect of liberal democracy, which in itself is a result of the processes of globalization.
In addition to this notion of the liberalist idea of individual freedom, it is important for one to also consider the changing role that states play in the international system. Among the various principles that are central to the tradition of liberalism, one of the most profound is the liberalist claim that states should protect individual liberty without dictating the goals and purposes espoused by free people (christman, 1991). In the past, states were often always regarded as the single most important players in international affairs. On the other hand, liberalists argue that states are indeed important actors in international relations; but just as important are individuals and Non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Scholars such as Florea and Gales (2012) argue that the main purpose of the state lies in defending the general interest, which is common good. They also argue that states should help individual citizens to realise their potential (Florea and Gales, 2012). This is supported by Cooray (1996) who writes that though the state is not superior to other institutions – states should have a limited number of tasks in order to maximise individual freedom (Cooray, 1996). A key proponent of limiting the role of states is neo-liberalist thinker Friedrich Hayek (1973) who argues that the role of states should be to focus on providing institutional safeguards for individual freedom, and not to interfere in public life too much (Hayek, 1973).
This point is further elaborated by Vanberg (2011) who argues that the democratic state should act only as the agent of its citizens; and that the activities of the state should be legitimized in terms of the common interest of its citizens (Vanberg, 2011). The changing role of states in the international system is therefore better explained and accounted for by the liberalist school of thought. Academic scholars such as Burchill et al (2009) argue that in a changing world of continuous global integration; cooperation between states is possible as states can discover a coincidence of strategic interests which can be turned into formalized agreements (Burchill et al, 2009, 67).However, when one compares the liberalist view on the role of states to other theories of international relations; it is clear as to why the liberal perspective is better able to account for the changing role of states in the international system. For example, although constructivism emphasises co-determination of agents and structures through certain processes (Wendt, 1999, 194). The liberal perspective is thus favoured over the constructivist theoretical perspective as liberals argue that the role of Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and individuals in the changing international system are just important as that of nation-states.
According to rational choice theorists however, states only appear to act in the pursuit of self-interest (Berman, 2013). The Marxist perspective of the role of the state also differs as Marxists often argue in favour of granting more power to the state, and that decision-making power over the economy should be concentrated in the hands of public administration (Tătulescu, 2013, 81). Furthermore, the neorealist perspective of the role of the state is frequently seen as inadequate by liberalists as it analyses the state system in isolation from processes of cultural and economic changes, the likes to which states are now subject to as a result of continuous changes in the international system (Linklater, 1995. 250). Thus, it can clearly be justified that liberalism is better able to account for change in the international system as liberalists argue that modern day states are indeed important actors on the world change; however they are not the only important actors. Liberalists also argue that modern day states should seek to further ensure the security of their citizens
Further emphasising the importance of Liberalism and why it is best at accounting for change in the international system as opposed to other theoretical perspectives; it is important to acknowledge the profound modern influence that liberalism places on the concept of liberal democracy. The end of the Cold War gave way to an influx of new liberal democracies, with many countries undergoing dramatic democratisation. Fukuyama (1992) heralded this era as the “end of history” as he regarded the collapse of the Soviet Union and the shift towards liberal democracy as the key point that marked the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government (Fukuyama, 1992). An astonishing number of autocratic regimes around the world were replaced by democratic regimes. Today, there are hundreds of states all over the world which can plausibly claim to have freely elected and democratic governments (Plattner, 1998).
Writers such as Chan (2002) argue that this example of the triumph of liberal democracy laid down new rules of international coexistence following the end of the Cold War (Chan, 2002). On the other hand, whilst it can be argued that democratisation is an important aspect of liberalism; and one that makes it better to account for change in the international as opposed to other theoretical perspectives. There are contrasting theoretical perspectives with regards to the concept of democracy. Most notably is the Marxist perspective which views democracy as an unrealistic utopia under capitalism, and that a capitalist state can’t democratic as it represents the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (Held, 1992).
In contrast however, the feminist argument calls for the further democratization of democracy; ensuring new pathways for women into politics and enhancing women’s political participation (Dryzek and Dunleavy, 2009).
Thus, to conclude this discussion on democracy; it can be argued that the liberalist view of democracy should be favoured as liberal democratic states in the modern international system are less likely to use force in their relations with one another. As a result, liberalism is better at accounting for change for in the international system due to the influence it has had on the increase in the number of liberal democracies within the international system
This concept of liberal democracy is said to be a direct response of globalization. Scholars of the liberal school of thought argue that the move towards a global democratic system organized along neo-liberal lines is seen as a significant trend; and that the globalization of the world economy coincided with neoliberalist thinking in the Western World. Liberalism often argues in favour of globalization as liberalists tend to place focus on the importance of the growth of free trade, the capacity of Trans-national Corporations (TNCs) to escape political regulation and the liberation of capital from national and territorial restraints (Micklewait and Wooldridge, 2000). Writers such as Kukoč (2009) argue that most governments and states have often promoted liberal policies towards globalization. In addition to this, Kukoč also argues that influential multilateral agencies have continuingly linked globalization with liberal thinking and liberal ideas recently gained widespread unquestioned acceptance as ‘common-sense’ (Kukoč, 2009). In addition to this however, there are also contrasting theoretical perspectives with regards to globalization. Most notably is the Marxist perspective which argues that globalization is, as Marx predicted, an expansion of capitalist relations across the globe.
Thus stating that globalization is simply a triumph of capitalism (Munck, 2010, 51). Similarly, the Feminist school of thought also takes a pessimistic view towards globalization.
For example, Jaggar (2009) argues that recent feminist analysis of globalization tend to regard globalization to be a result of systematic, structural injustices on a global scale and that the global structure in itself is implicitly biased against women (Jaggar, 2009). Other feminist philosophers even go so far as to argue that globalization has contributed to gross human rights violations against women (Parekh and Wilcox, 2014). However, it can still be justified that the liberalist perspective on globalization should be favoured over other theoretical perspectives. This is because liberals argue that globalization is about the benevolent spread of liberal economic, political and cultural processes throughout the world. It can be argued that these processes bring political benefits through the spread of liberal democratic institutions in which liberty; freedom and justice for all peoples are guaranteed (Weber, 2010. 109). Thus, it can be stated that liberalism is better able to account for change in the international system as most governments promote liberal policies as a result of globalization being designed on neo-liberal ideas of free trade economics and democracy.
Another key aspect of liberal thinking is the aspect of free trade. The principles of free trade as enunciated by Adam Smith (1776) continue to have profound relevance even to this day. Free Trade dictates that commercial traders should be allowed to exchange money and goods without concern for national or international barriers. Liberalists argue that this will therefore maximise economic growth, which is considered necessary for nations in the changing international system (Burchill et al, 2009b, 75). Scholars of liberalism often advocate the notion of free trade as they believe it respects the individual freedom of citizens; particularly when governments attempt to intervene and dictate how citizens should spend their money (Kicsi, 2009). Liberalists argue that free trade produces economic growth and development among all parties. Free trade is considered to be a key proponent of globalization and liberal democracy as it reduces poverty in less developed nations (Spencer and Moe-Lobeda, 2009). However, liberalist perspectives on free trade are often criticised by other theoretical perspectives. Realists for example, argue that that the “Utopian-like promise” of free trade has been eroded by the realities of the market place. Thus, suggesting that advocating the idea of free trade is “pointless and unreal” (Yeager and Tuerek, 1984). Scholars of feminism also criticise the liberalist notion of free trade by arguing that free trade and trade liberalization often neglects gender discrimination issues (Ulmer, 2004). Feminist scholars such as Elson at al (2007) build on this by arguing that women are more likely to be hired as cheap labour, thus often involving them in more exploitive situations (Elson et al, 2007).
Finally, the Marxist perspective also takes a critical stance towards the liberalist idea of free trade by arguing that the concept of free trade only benefits the wealthy within countries, suggesting that the “benefits” of free trade are only for the few (Shah, 2006). Despite this criticism however, the Liberalist perspective is still favoured over other theoretical paradigms in regards to the concept free trade. The profound and deep-rooted relevance of free trade in the modern age as a result of globalization in the changing international system transcends the classic liberal ideas regarding the freedom of the individual. Thus, it can be justified that liberalism is better at accounting for change in the international system as opposed to other theoretical perspectives. It could be argued that this is a result of the increasing importance of free trade economics which is considered a necessity for the economic growth of developing nations such as India and Brazil within the international system.
In conclusion, the evidence profoundly suggests that the liberalist school of thought is the theoretical discipline of International relations which is truly best at accounting for change in the international system as opposed to other theoretical perspectives as it provides a much more detailed and comprehensive account and explanation for the vast changes in the international system.. The ideas of liberalism identify the key instruments that states can use in order to achieve shared common interests which can be almost essential for modern states in the changing international system (Walt, 1998). Although the theory of liberalism has its roots in the early 18th century, the ideas of liberalism have never been more relevant as they continue to transcend into nearly every aspects of the changing international system. The emergence of the modern democratic state based on liberal democracy echoes the classic liberal idea of constitutionalism and the importance of the freedom of the individual (Jackson and Sørensen, 2013, 101). This idea of individual liberty trickles down into the political constitutions of various democratic states, thus highlighting the rising importance given to human rights and individual freedom and liberty. The increasing appearance of these democratic states is of course an almost inevitable result of the process of globalization which saw the triumph of western liberal ideas of free trade which thus enabled the economic growth of less developed countries under neoliberal principles. Whilst other theoretical perspectives such as Realism, Marxism and Constructivism may have been relevant and perhaps even influential in the past; the changes in the international system are only best explained by Liberalism as these changes are almost entirely based on the liberal principles based on the original ideas of Kant and Bentham. Thus, the evidence of the triumph and influence of liberal ideas in the modern age truly reflect the importance of liberalism and justify as to why Liberalism is the theoretical perspective which is best at accounting for change in the international system.
Coffee and Critique 