International Relations Theory

Nemzetközi Politika Elmélet - 2008 október 7.A liberalizmus.György László

egyetemi tanársegédBME GTK, Pénzügyek Tanszék, Gazdaságpolitika és Gazdaságtörténet Szakcsoport

Basic Vocabulary of Liberalism

1. Positive view of human nature (individuals are self-interested, but... cooperative)

2. Modernization3. Belief in progress (World War I, II, End of the Cold War

= “the end of history” (Fukuyama, 1989, 1992), 9/11)4. State as constitutional entity = Rechtsstaat (respect

citizens rights to life, liberty and property) (Locke)5. International law (Jeremy Bentham): it was the

rational interests of states to adhere to international law in their foreign policies

6. Republics will establish perpetual peace (Kant)

Basic Vocabulary of LiberalismClassical liberalism

FOCUSfreedom, peace, progress, cooperation

EARLY THINKERS

Locke (1632-1704)The rule of law

Bentham (1748-1832)Liberal states respect

international law

Kant (1724-1804)‘Republics will

establish perpetual peace’

Federation of states

Basic liberal assumptions

Human progress Human reason Cooperation

The process of modernization: development of the modern state

Basic Strands of Liberalism

Sociological liberalism Interdependence liberalism

Institutional liberalism Republican liberalism

Sociological Liberalism

• IR is about Transnational relations, ‘pluralism’• Transnationalism (Rosenau): ‘the processes whereby international

relations conducted by governments have been supplemented by relations among private individuals, groups, and societies that can and do have important consequences for the course of events’

• Security community (Deutsch) is more than the mere absence of war. Increased social communication; greater mobility; stronger economic ties; and wider range of human transactions contribute to the ‘sense of community’

• ‘Cobweb model’ (Burton): overlapping national and international interest groups with different types of interests (religious, business, labour). Overlapping memberships minimize the risk of serious conflict between any two groups.

• Sociological liberal macro-level analysis (Rosenau): anarchic system has not disappeared, but a ‘multi-centric world has emerged that is composed of diverse “sovereignity-free collectivities which exist apart from and in competition with the state centric world...’ (more unstable in some respects, but...)

The Cobweb Model

Billiard balls collide Cobweb of groups: conflicts muted

Definition

Sociological liberalism: a branch of liberal thinking which stresses that IR is not only about state-state reations; it is also about transnational relations, i.e. relations between people, groups and organizations belonging to different countries. The emphasis on society as wel as the state, on many different types of actor and not just national governments, has led some to identify liberal thought by the term ‘pluralism’.

Interdependence Liberalism

• Mutual dependence (Rosencrance, 1986, 1995, 1999)• Economic development and foreign trade are more adequate and

less costly means of achieving prominence and prosperity• Brute force is no longer the key to success, but highly qualified

labour, access to information, and financial capital• Most economically successful countries of the post-war period are the

so called ‘trading states’ (Germany, Japan)• High division of labour in the international economy increases

interdependence and decreases the risk of war• Functionalist theory of integration (Mitrany, 1966): cooperation

should be arranged by technical experts and not by politicians. Citizens seeing the welfare improvement would transfer their loyality from state to international organizations

• Neofunctionalist theory (Haas): integration is not only technical, but political as well. ‘Political actors are persuaded to shift their loyalties...’. ‘Spillover’: increased cooperation in one area leads to increased cooperation in other areas. Did not allow for the possibiity of setbacks....

‘Complex Interdependence’

• Whether integration is best explained by a liberal, neofunctional or realist approach emphasizing national interests

• Power and Interdependence (Keohane and Nye, 1977, 2001): post-war ‘complex interdependence’ is qualitatively different from earlier kinds of interdependence• High politics as security and survival vs low politics as social and

economic affairs• Relations on many different levels vial many different actors and

branches of government• Host of transnational relations outside of the state• Military force is less useful

• IR is becoming more like domestic politics (issues/coalitions) • Time and space: after the 1950s and in the industrialized, pluralist

countries• States will pursue different goals simultaneously + NGOs +

corporations. Power resources to specific issue areas. The importance of international organizations will increase

‘Complex Interdependence’Realism or Interdependence• ‘It is not impossible to imagine dramatic conflict or revolutionary

change in which the use of threat of military force over an economic issue or among advanced industrial countries might become plausible. Then realist assumptions would again be a reliable guide to events,’ (Keohane and Nye, 1977)

• Complex interdependence should supplement realism

Types of international relations

REALISMStates dominant actors and coherent units

Force usable and effective

Military security dominates the agenda

COMPLEX INTERDEPENDENCETransnational actors increasingly important. States coherent units

Military force is less useful. Economic and institutional instruments more useful

Military security less important. Welfare issues increasingly important

Basic Strands of Liberalism

Sociological liberalism Interdependence liberalism

Institutional liberalism Republican liberalism

Institutional Liberalism

• Beneficial effect of institutions (from jungle to zoo) vs realism: mere ‘scraps of paper’

• What is an international institution? International organization, or a set of rule=regime

• Behaviouralistic, scientific approach• Scope: number of issue areas• Depth:

• Commonality: the degree to which expectations are shared• Specificity: the degree to which expectations are clearly

specified• Autonomy: the degree of independence

• Current research: • To collect more data on the existence of regimes• Under what conditions and what mechanisms do regimes come into existence?• Do regimes persist even when the circumstances change?• What are the consequences of regimes for state behavior and problem-solving?• What long-term effects do regimes have on national and international politics?

Institutional Liberalism

The role of institutions

• Provide a flow of information and opportunities to negotiate• Enhance the ability of governments to monitor others’ compliance

and to implement their own commitments - hence their ability to make credible commitments in the first place

• Strengthen prevailing expectations about the solidity of international agreements

Institutional Liberalism

GOAL OF ORGANIZATION

Specific General

Intergovernmental NATO, NAFTA AU (African Union)

Supranational ECSC, EURATOM EU

Transnational European Anti-Poverty Network

European Movement

Intergovernmental WHO, IAEA UN

Supranational - -

Transnational Amnesty International

World Federalist Association

TERM

S OF

MEM

BERS

HIP

Univ

ersa

lRe

gion

alA typology of international and transnational organizations

Republican Liberalism

• Basic assumption: liberal democracies are more peaceful and law-abiding...

• ‘Manifesto’: Perpetual Peace. A Philosophical Sketch. (Immanuel Kant, 1795)1. The Civil Constitution of every State shall be Republican (domestic

political cultures based on peacful conflict resolution)2. The Right of Nations shall be based on a federation of Free States

(common moral values)3. Cosmopolitan Right shall be limited to Conditions of Universal

Hospitality (Universal Human Rights and Commitments)• Peace is strengthened through (1) peaceful conflict resolution, (2)

common moral foundation and (3) economic cooperation and interdependence (‘the spirit of commerce’)

• Transformation in the 1990’s. ‘The evidence is not supportive of any profound optimism’. Why?

• Continued one sided dependence

Republican Liberalism

• One sided independence (vertical economic ties instead of horizontal)Agrarian subsidies: timing of direct subsidies in Hungary in the transition period

Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs (www.kum.hu)

EU-source National source

25 30 35 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

30 30 30 3030

3030 20 10

Neoliberalism and neorealism: the MAINSTREAM• Problem solving paradigms: interested in status quo

(so called atlantist researchers)

• Different view points originated from different values

• At least see the same world, but from different view points

• System maintainers (neoliberalism and neorealism) vs system criticizers (structuralism)

Neoliberalism

• Shaped by the assumptions of sociological, interdependence, institutional and republican liberalism

• Commercial (interdependence) and republican liberalism provide the foundation for current neo-liberal thinking in Western governments. These countries promote free trade and democracy in their foreign policy programmes.

• Neo-liberal institutionalism is rooted in the functional integration theoretical work of the ‘50s and ‘60s and the complex interdependence and transnational studies literature of the ‘70s, ‘80s• See institutions as the mediator and the means to achieve

cooperation. Regimes and institutions help govern a competitive and anarchic international system and they encourage, and at times recquire, multilateralism and cooperation as a means of securing national interests

• Recognize that cooperation maybe harder to achieve in areas where leaders perceive no mutual interests

• Believe that states cooperate to achieve absolute gains and the greatest obstacle to cooperation is ‘cheating’ or non-compliance

NeoliberalismCoalition of the willing in 2003

The neo-neo debate

Neorealism NeoliberalismInternational System

Anarchic. Anarchy put more constraints on the state and NLs minimize the importance of survival as the goal of state

Anarchic. NRs minimize the importance of international inter-dependence and regimes

Focus Relative power, security, survival in a competitive (and anarchic) international system

Economic welfare, international political economy (IPE), environment

International cooperation

Will not happen unless states make it happen. Hard to achieve, difficult to maintain, and dependent on state power

Easy to achieve in areas where states have mutual interests

Gains The fundamental goal of states in cooperative relationships is to prevent others from gaining more. (Relative gains)

Actors with common interests try to maximize absolute gains

Emphasis Capabilities over intentions and interests Intentions and preferences

Institutions and regimes

Do not mitigate the constraining effects of anarchy on cooperation

Significant forces in international relations, that facilitate cooperation

The neo-neo debate

• Not a debate between two polar opposite worldviews. Common: epistemology, focus on similar questions, agree on number of assumptions about IR. (Realist analytical starting point in many ways) Intra-paradigm debate.

• They study different ‘worlds’ of IR. NRs focus on security and military issues. NLs focus on political economy, environmental issues and lately human rights issues.

• NRs focus on relative (and absolute gains). NLs on absolute gains• NRs: world is still a competitive place with self-interests, be

cautious about cooperation. NLs: states can be persuaded to cooperate if they are convinced that all states will comply and cooperation will result in absolute gains

• NR and NL are mainstream theories on mainstream issues. What about inequality; society and domestic politics; ethical and moral issues backed by the society and international networks. What about a less state-centric world?

Weak liberals vs strong liberals

Weak liberals Strong liberals

anarchy progressive change with irreversible long-term effects

restricted role for international institutions Higher standard of living, more peaceful world

Democracies won’t turn back to autocracy anymore

states co-existing within the constraints of the security dilemma

War is too expensive, quitting cooperation is too expensive

Liberalism and World Order

• Deudney and Ikenberry (1999)1. Security co-binding2. Penetrated reciprocal hegemony3. Semi-sovereign and partial great powers (Germany, Japan)4. Economic openness5. Civic identity• These characteristics will survive after the collapse of the Soviet

Union as well• Kagan (2003): Power and Paradise: Americans from the Mars,

Europeans from the Venus

Liberalism and World Order

• Isaiah Berlin (1969: • Negative liberty vs Positive liberty (health, economic resources,

education)

• Liberalism of Restraint vs Liberalism of Imposition (Wilson, Kennedy, Bush, Blair) - wants to go out and forcefully change the world in a liberal direction