Kant, Liberal Legacies and Foreign Affairs
By Michael Doyle – pages 111-118 International Politics
What difference do liberal principles make to the conduct of states?
Realists tend to say that liberal principles just get in the way of proper, security first thinking…
Liberal ideology isn’t just peace loving and restrained but it may reduce the probability that states will
successfully exercise the consistent intentions that world peace may require.
1) Essential principle: Freedom of the individual. Moral freedom, the right and duty to be treated
as moral subjects and not as objects or means alone. (Kant)
a. Freedom from arbitrary authority – negative freedom. Free conscious, speech, press,
equality.
b. Positive freedoms – equality of opportunity in education, health care and employment
lead to self-expression.
c. Democratic participation and representation to guarantee the other two.
Conservative liberalism with laissez-faire, social order and individual freedom
Liberal Liberalism – Social welfare and social democracy.
Both committed to equality and rights, the government derives its authority from the people
and is not subject to other prerogatives, third, the economy rests on the rights to private property and
fourth, economic decisions should be predominantly shaped by laissez-faire methods.
It does better in foreign affairs than it has domestically.
When states respect each other’s rights to sovereignty, people can create international ties and make
profitable exchange to create mutual advantage and public respect.
Constitutionally secure liberal states have yet to engage in war with one another.
Realists say that all interdependence is overridden by the natural anarchy of the international system.
But African countries are surviving via mutual toleration…
Nothing can account for the wide reach of liberal peace between liberal states.
Realists say that liberal peace is just caused by the lack of deep rooted conflicts of interests – but why
don’t they exist?
Some say the liberal peace, or pacification, is due to the fact that citizens rule the polity and bear the
costs of war and therefore see the choice of war differently.
Maybe it’s because laissez faire economics has a tendency towards rationalism and this does not lead to
war. Trade leads to peace?
Partial explanation but it doesn’t make sense in the fact that it is only liberal states not fighting
with only liberal states/
Immanuel Kant showed us the best reason. Perpetual Peace.
Republics, once established, lead to peaceful relations. Once aggressive interests of absolute
monarchies are tamed and once the habit of respect for individual rights in engrained wars appear as a
disaster to the people welfare.
Consent of the citizens will never been gained.
But in a non-republic, a war is easy to decide. Ruler is not a member, and war doesn’t sacrifice anything
of his.
Regular rotation of office in liberally democratic polities reduces the head of government from
becoming this.
This is called the constitutional guarantee of caution.
Liberal wars are only for fought for popular, liberal purposes.
Free speech helps citizens see both sides of conflicts.
Cosmopolitan law, or the spirit of commerce, sooner or later takes hold of every nation, compelling
them to avert war.
Cooperative advantage of labor and free trade…. This will also make us defend our neighbors.
We accommodate one another so no one loss will sour a relationship.
Strategic alliances have been broken, economic ties with non liberals has proven fragile, but the political
bond of liberal rights and interests has proven a remarkably firm foundation for mutual nonaggression.
Interstate War and Terrorism
The Era of Leading Power Peace
Robert Jervis, pages 377-392
War and the possibility of war have been the motor of international politics…. But between current,
leading great powers (important that they are the great powers), the US, West Europe and Japan, war
will not occur in the future. Argument.
One big security community
Used to be violent rivals – a change of great proportion
Major states, Russia and China might fight or a member of the community, but these aren’t structured
or lack the attributes of great powers: shaky regimes, not at the forefront of any development, and
hacve no attraction for other countries to follow. They might be great powers too, but not the most
developed ones.
5 Questions Arise
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Does the existence of the community mean the end of security threats to it’s members? (US)
Will the community endure?
What are the causes of its construction and maintenance?
What are the implications of this transformation for the conduct of international affairs?
What does this say about theories of the causes of war?
1) Sure threats still exist that will impact US politics…. But, they do not represent a struggle for
dominance in the international system or a direct challenge to American vital interests.
The move is away from leading power wars.
2) Even if suspicions and conflicts of interests were great enough to make people use threatening
actions and compile against the US, its unlikely that war would ever break out.
The real fear is that Europe breaks up and the US simultaneously drops forces there which
would lead to security competition but Germany is tying Europe together and needs to reassure
themselves this way and Americans will always favor keeping SOME troops there as a security
guarantee.
Now that people expect peace, hypersensitivity to war is unraveled. US doesn’t care that Britain
has missiles to destroy ALL OF IT…
3) Why? 3 explanations – Realist, Liberal, and Social Constructivist. Different assumptions and
terms but often overlapping factors.
a. Social Constructivism – the role of norms and non-violence and shared identities leads
democracies to become friends. A benign cycle of behavior, beliefs, attitude and
expectation change.
No more virulent nationalism. (Afghan textbooks)
But is this mistaking effect for cause? Are these all effects of the change? …
Oh well, these ideas will replicate and sustain.
b. Liberalism – most attention. Pacifying effects of democracy and economic
interdependence. Democracy is dispersed person power, information freedom flow.
interdependence is the free trade laissez faire economy.
Maybe interdependence is an effect and not that big of deal… plus how much impact
would the loss of said interdependence really have?
c. Realist – The rise of the common threat from Russia and China is reason for the
Community.
Maybe its because of the American hegemony and its allies don’t have to expect an
attack from it anytime soon and would expect Americanassisstance.
Maybe it’s the pacifying effect of nuclear weapons. If sufficient numbers…. Victory is
impossible. But this only explains a decreased chance of war, not a secure community.
Jervis Explanation (A Synthetic Interaction Explanation)
Conquest is difficult and war is terribly costly. But with nuclear weapons and extensive firepower, war
just will never make sense.
Statesmen consider the benefits and the costs. The expected benefits have dropped so low in the
community… people are satisfied post WWII. Even Japan US, who would benefit that much?
Change in values about war, honor, and glory.
Territorial disputes eliminated with satellite.
All members are somewhat homogenous, democratic and similar values.
No one thinks multiculturalism is bad.
4) ImplicationsNo one expects wars anymore so states will no long even consider using force…
a. There will be severe conflicts of interest without clear means to resolve them.
b. Dense network of institutions allow countries to disrupt to “hit back”
Bargaining will continue so abilities to help and hurt other remain relevant. So will threats,
bluffs, mobilization of war resources but the content of these forms will be different within the
Community.
It might be like the US-Canada relationship.
Four Possible Futures
1)
A world in which national autonomy is further diminished and the distinctions between
domestic and foreign policy continue to erode.
Reduction of sovereignty and growth of NGO power would make scuffles between government, labour
boards, business interests and environmental groups greater.
“National interest” would become even more problematic.
2)
Community states play a large role but with more extensive and intensive cooperation.
Relations would be more governed by principles and laws, more joint efforts and high/low politics lines
blurred.
The US would share its power more responsibly.
3)
Maybe the Us wont relingquish its title and will lead somewhat of an empire which therefore
they keep defensive spending low while making an agreement of collective security with the US.
The alternative to American dominated stability may be worse so it is sustained.
4)
Americans try to maintain hegemony but the control dangers of this lead others to make a
balanceing coalition… maybe people fear the US will one day drop its security agreement so Europe
becomes more assertive..
A rift within the community.
What ultima ratio will replace cannons? Who knows.
5) Implications for Theories of the Causes of War
The very existence of a security community undermines many of the theories of the cause of war…
Or atleast human nature and drive for dominance this not fated to bring war.
Well.. wars still exist, but not through members of the Community.
This hits realists that say leading powers will ALWAYS struggle for dominance, relative gains and
security.
Marxist theory traditionally says even moreso that capaitalists could never cooperate and power
transitions are difficult to manage peacefully.
But the US has never lost hegemony. But its coming. OH well, no violence now!
The community constitutes a proof by existence of uncoerced peace without central authority.
Because they are the most powerful, this poses a fundamental challenge to our understanding of world
politics and our expectations of the future and its possibilities.