There was a surge of optimism after the end of the Cold War. These events challenged the relevance of traditional accounts of International Relations such as Realism. Its main contender, Liberalism, gained the upper hand in the 'Positivist' debate. In order to understand how the end of the Cold War and globalisation undermined traditional accounts of International Relations, one must first understand the nature of Liberalism and the challenges it poses to Realism.
The origins of Liberalism can be found in the writings of Locke, Bentham, and Kant. These writers displayed optimism in human nature, and took great faith in human reason. John Locke, for example, saw potential in human progess, in modern civil society and capitalist economies. Locke also contended that the state played the role of underwriting the liberties of its citizens enabling them to live their lives and pursue happiness without interference from other people. Jeremy Bentham coined the term 'international law' and believed that it was in the rational interests of states to respect international law. Immanuel Kant furthered this argument and argued that a world of such mutually respectful states would eventually establish perpetual peace in the world. These writers constitute what International Relations determines as 'Classical Liberalism'. The focus of this tradition was on human nature, and the belief that people would cooperate rather than conflict with one another.
However, Liberalism took on different shapes as a result of modernisation and the emergence of international institutions, NGOs, and global civil society, resulting in what is known as neo-Liberalism. There are different varieties, including sociological Liberalism, institutional Liberalism, and Republican Liberalism amongst others. Sociological Liberalism for example examined the influence of transnational relationships, in other words, relationships between people, groups, and organizations across borders. James Rosenau argues that the state-centric world has become supplemented by non-state actors, actors that are 'sovereignty-free' which exist apart from and in competition with 'sovereignty-bound' actors. The basic assumption of this view is that NGOs, global civil society, and transnational organisations now play a much more influential role in International Relations.
Institutional Liberalism involved the study of International Institutions such as the EU, the UN, and NATO and their influence on state behaviour. Robert Keohane is one of the leading academics in this field. He argues that international institutions have the capability of providing constraints on states, and promoting cooperation rather than confrontation. Keohane contends that international institutions make up for the lack of trust that exists in the international system through creating greater commmunication. In order to evaluate this claim, Keohane adopts the Behaviouralist approach. This, however, has drawn fierce criticism from 'Post Modernism' and its suspicion towards any theory of International Relations that makes certain claims to truth.
Republican Liberalism is the most 'normative' strand of neo-realism. This has its origins in Kant and his ideas of perpetual peace. This is the argument that liberal democracies do not go to war with one another. This is because of three reasons. First, is the existance of domestic political cultures that are based on peaceful conflict resolution and fierce opposition towards war. Second, democracies have common values that result in the formation of what Kant calls the 'pacific union'. Finally, peace is strengthened amongst democraticies because of economic cooperation and interdependance. Republican liberals are optimistic that peace and cooperation will prevail in international relations based on progress towards a democratic world. Furthermore, they see it as their responsibility to actively promote across the world.
One of the major critiques towards Neo-Liberalism is in fact Neo-Realism. This is what scholars of International Relations know as the neo-neo debate. What one can notice, is that the debate is no longer about human nature as such, but more on the structure of the international system and how it influences state behaviour. This is because, both sides of the debate realised that human nature is highly complex and capable of both 'good' and 'evil' acts as a result of its surrounding environment.
Neo-Realism contends that economic interdependance is nothing new, and that while states cooperate within international institutions, they do so only to advance their own interests. Institutions are no more than the theatres where the power play unfolds. Finally, Neo-Realism critiques Republican institutionalism, arguing that there is always the possibility that democracies will revert to authoritanism. However, the main argument as propelled by Kenneth Waltz within the Neo-Realist tradition is that the international system is anarchic. In such a system, states are forced to behave in ruthless and self-seeking ways in order to survive.
However, Neo-Liberalism opposes this understanding of international politics and judges it as being simplistic. The main arguments would be that there are certain groups of states that are acquiring a governmental system, such as the EU. Politics, therefore, is not stopping at the 'water's edge'. Furthermore, there are examples in international relations of firmly consolidated liberal democracies. Liberals contend that it is highly unlikely that these states would go to war with one another, as combined, they form a 'security community'. In this light, in addition to the presence of international regimes, laws, and institutions, the Neo-Realist claims of international anarchy are somewhat short sighted. The absence of an over arching government does not mean that the international system is anarchic.
The end of the Cold War and globalisation has seen a significant rise in the popularity of Liberalism as a theory of International Relations. The advancement of technology, the emergence of transnational groups, great communication between individuals across borders, suggest that the traditional accounts of International Relations such as Realism have been undermined.
No comments:
Post a Comment