Liberal international
relations theory
Paul Bacon
SILS, Waseda University
Liberalism - modernization
• The liberal tradition in IR is closely connected
with the emergence of the modern liberal
state.
• The liberal intellectual revolution placed great
importance on human reason and rationality.
• The process of modernization generated by
the scientific revolution led to improved
technologies, and more efficient ways to
produce goods and master nature.
Liberalism and reason
• Liberals have a positive view of human nature.
• Liberals believe in the power of human
reason, and believe that rational principles
can be applied to international relations.
• Of course, people are self-interested and
competitive up to a point. But they also share
many interests in common, and cooperative
social action is therefore possible.
• This is true both domestically and
internationally. Conflict and war are not
inevitable – human reason can triumph over
human fear and the lust for power.
Liberalism, progress and
individualism
• Modernization increases the need for cooperation.
• In the long run, cooperation based on mutual
interests will prevail.
• Belief in progress is also a core value for liberals.
• But how much progress? Robert Keohane is a
cautious liberal optimist.
• Fukuyama believes that we have reached the ‘end of
history’, as we will see later in this course.
• Progress means progress for individuals, or for
groups of individuals.
• According to John Locke, states exist to protect the
rights of their citizens, and to allow them to live their
lives and pursue happiness without interference by
other people.
Liberalism and the separation of
powers
• For realists, the state is a concentration of power.
• For liberals the state is a constitutional organization,
where power is separated.
• The state establishes the rule of law and enforces it.
It respects the rights of citizens to life, liberty and
property.
• Bentham believed that such constitutional liberal
states would respect and tolerate each other. This is
because it is in the rational interests of constitutional
states to obey international law.
• The German philosopher Immanuel Kant supported
this view. He argued that constitutional states which
respected and tolerated each other would eventually
establish ‘perpetual peace’ in their international
relations.
Four strands of liberal thought
• Jackson and Sorensen, and several
other writers, identify four different
strands of liberal theory. These are:
• 1. Sociological liberalism
• 2. Interdependence liberalism
• 3. Institutional liberalism
• 4. Republican liberalism
Sociological liberalism 1
• Realism was the dominant theory of international
relations for much of the twentieth century.
• After WWII and during the Cold War, the military
competition between the two superpowers was at the
center of attention.
• Realists, as we have seen, focus on the relations
between sovereign states.
• Sociological liberals believe that this approach is too
narrow and one sided. They believe that international
relations is not only about state-state relations.
Sociological liberalism – the
normative argument
• Sociological liberalism addresses an old idea in
liberal thought.
• This is the belief that people are usually more
cooperative and peace-loving than governments, and
that there should be more contact between peoples
from different societies.
• Transnational relations can often therefore be just as
important as state-state relations.
• Transnational relations involve relations between
individuals, groups and organizations from different
countries.
• There are many different types of transnational actors
and transnational relations (examples?).
Definitions of transnational relations
• Rosenau defines transnationalism as
• ‘the processes whereby international relations
conducted by governments have been
supplemented by relations among private
individuals, groups and societies that can and
do have consequences for the course of
events’.
• Bacon - ‘Relations across state boundaries
that take place between two or more actors,
at least one of which is not a government
actor’.
Security Community 1
• Karl Deutsch was an influential
sociological liberal during the 1950s.
• He developed the idea of a ‘security
community’.
• He argued that in a security community,
a group of people have become
‘integrated’, which means that a sense
of community has developed.
• In such communities, conflicts can be
resolved without fear of violence.
Security Community 2
• For Deutsch, extensive transnational ties, lead to
peaceful relations, which create the conditions for a
security community.
• Deutsch argued that a security community had been
created in the North Atlantic area by the western
countries.
• It is because of Deutsch’s work that it became
common to suggest that European countries would
never fight each other again.
• Discussion point – do US/Japan relations
count as a security community?
Security Community 3
• Deutsch argued that security communities
are established as the result of a number of
different factors:
• 1. Increased social communication
• 2. Greater mobility of people from countries
within the security community
• 3. Stronger economic ties
• 4. Greater range of mutual human
transactions
• (A realist would also suggest that a shared
common threat is important)
Cobwebs and billiard balls 1
• The realist model argues that states are like ‘billiard
balls’.
• This means that they are independent, self-contained
units.
• This phrase was suggested by Arnold Wolfers, who
was a prominent realist during the 1950s.
• John Burton, however, argued that transnational
relations between people from different countries
create new forms of society.
• These exist alongside or in competition with the
system of states.
• He claimed that all nation-states contain individuals
and groups which share contacts and interests with
external groups, such as religious groups, business
groups, labor groups, etc.
Cobwebs and billiard balls 2
• Burton argued that we should map actual
patterns of communication and transaction
between people, groups and organizations
around the world.
• This way, we would get a much more
accurate account of what is happening in the
world, because we would be mapping actual
human behavior.
• Burton famously argued that if we do this,
then we would end up with a ‘cobweb’ of
dense transnational interactions.
• We do not get the simple billiard ball model
that realism wants us to see. (This can be
seen in the diagram on page 110 of Jackson
and Sorensen).
Identity and membership 1
• Realism suggests that we always prioritize our
national identity and our state membership.
• But this is often not true.
• Sometimes different aspects of our identities are
more important than others.
• For example, many of you in the room today have
more in common with each other than you do with
many people from your home countries.
• Sociological liberals argue that people have many
different identities and memberships (aspects of
identity?).
Identity and membership 2
• For example: gender; age; nationality; race;
education; occupation; hobbies; political
beliefs; rural or urban identity; and local,
national or cosmopolitan identity.
• Sociological liberals argue that patterns of
human relations are driven more by mutually
beneficial cooperation than by conflict.
• Because individuals have interlocking
memberships of many different groups, and
share the same values, conflict will be
reduced. (But note, Huntington and Walzer)
Interdependence liberalism
• Transnational relations are increasing in
frequency.
• This means a higher level of interdependence,
and therefore, to some extent, dependence.
• Interdependence means mutual dependence
– in the sense that peoples and governments
are increasingly affected by what happens in
other countries.
• Examples include terrorism, AIDS, and
environmental degradation.
• An important idea here is interdependence
sensitivity.
Is major war obsolete? 1
• Since the 1950s, modernization has seen the
emergence of several large industrialized countries.
• A number of authors, such as Mueller and
Rosecrance, argue that states have changed their
attitude to war in the past 50 years.
• Historically, states have used military force to achieve
territorial expansion.
• In the past, wars have been winnable at
comparatively low cost, and clear objectives have
been met.
• However, highly industrialized states can now
achieve power and prosperity more cheaply and with
less risk through other methods, such as economic
development, and foreign trade.
Is major war obsolete? 2
• The costs of using force have increased, and
the benefits have declined.
• Trade is increasingly beneficial for states.
• This is because of the changing basis of
modern economic production.
• Before, territory and resources were the key.
• Now, the most important things for success
are a highly qualified labor force, access to
information, and financial capital.
Interdependence reduces violence
• In support of this claim, two of the most successful
countries of the postwar period, Germany and Japan,
have been ‘trading states’.
• These countries have not prioritized high military
expenditure and economic self-sufficiency in the way
that realist/mercantilist theory suggests that they
ought to.
• Instead, they have intensified the international
division of labor supporting their economic success,
and increased their interdependence.
• A strong division of labor in the international economy
increases interdependence between states, and
discourages and reduces violence between them.
• Violence is likely to be costly in relation to the other
options which are open to advanced economies.
Complex interdependence
• In Power and Interdependence (1977) Keohane and
Nye suggest that the advanced economies are living
in a state of complex interdependence (CI).
• CI, they argue, is qualitatively different from earlier
and simpler forms of interdependence.
• In the past, international relations involved state
leaders dealing with other state leaders.
• The use of military force was always an option.
• There was a distinction between the ‘high’ politics of
security and survival (realism) and the ‘low’ politics of
economic and social affairs.
Complex interdependence - definition
• Keohane and Nye argue that this is no longer
the case. Under conditions of CI:
• 1. Transnational actors are increasingly
important. States are often not coherent units
• 2. Military force is less useful than in the past.
Economic and institutional instruments are
often more useful.
• 3. Military security is less important, and
welfare issues are seen as increasingly
important.
Complex interdependence and cooperation
• Keohane and Nye argue that under conditions of
complex interdependence, international relations will
be much more friendly and cooperative than realists
believe.
• 1. Transnational actors such as non-governmental
organizations and transnational corporations will
pursue their own separate goals relatively free from
state control.
• 2. The importance of international organizations will
increase. This is because they provide opportunities
for weak states to act, and also allow for coalition
formation and agenda-setting.
Complex interdependence - scope
• Keohane and Nye argue that CI can be dated
to ‘the long-term development of the welfare
state’ which began in the 1950s.
• Conditions of CI apply to the relations within
and between the countries of western Europe
and north America, Japan, South Korea
Australia and New Zealand.
• The conditions of CI develop as
modernization develops.
• Discussion point – could relations of complex
interdependence develop between Japan and
China?
Complex interdependence - caveats
• It should be noted that realism is not obsolete.
• Realism is still useful for helping us to understand
international relations between countries which are
complexly interdependent, and countries which are
not.
• Liberalism supplements realism, rather than replacing
it.
• It is also possible, if highly unlikely, that force could
be used to settle a dispute between complexly
interdependent countries in the future, if the stakes
were high enough.
• Keohane and Nye are much less idealistic than other
writers such as Deutsch.
• Samuel Huntington argues that interdependence
increases cultural friction.
Institutional Liberalism
• Institutional liberals argue that international
institutions make cooperation easier and far more
likely.
• An international institution is an international
organization such as NATO or the European Union.
• It can also be a set of rules which govern state action
in particular areas, such as aviation or shipping.
• These sets of rules are often called ‘regimes’. Often
the two go together – the international trade regime is
primarily shaped by the WTO.
• However, sometimes, there are regimes without
formal international organizations, such as the law of
the sea.
Regime theory 1
• A regime is defined by Krasner as
• ‘a set of explicit or implicit principles, norms,
rules, and decision making procedures
around which actors expectations
convergence in a given issue-area’.
• This definition is intentionally broad, and
covers human interaction ranging from formal
organizations (i.e. OPEC) to informal groups
(i.e. major banks during the debt crisis).
• Note that a regime need not be composed of
states.
Regime theory 2
• International institutions promote
cooperation between states and help to
reduce the lack of trust and fear
• These are two of the biggest problems
associated with anarchy.
• Regime theory states that cooperation
in anarchy is possible without a
hegemon because there exists a
‘convergence of expectations’.
Regime theory 3
• Keohane argues that international regimes can
therefore increase the probability of cooperation.
• 1. Regimes provide information about the behavior of
others by monitoring the behavior of members and
reporting on compliance.
• 2. By institutionalizing cooperation, regimes can
reduce the cost of future agreements. By reducing
the cost of reaching an agreement, regimes increase
the likelihood of future cooperation. (e.g. GATT)
• 3. Regimes generate the expectation of cooperation
among members. By creating the belief that
interaction will continue for the foreseeable future,
regimes increase the importance of reputation and
allow for the employment of complex strategies.
Republican Liberalism
• Liberals believe that there are basically only two
different types of state in the international system.
• These are democracies and non-democracies.
• If this is true, it follows that three types of dyadic
relationship are possible.
• 1. Non-democracy – non-democracy.
• 2. Non-democracy – democracy.
• 3. Democracy – democracy.
• Can you give me examples of wars for each of these
dyadic types of international relations?
Democratic peace 1
• Republican liberalism is based on the claim that
liberal democracies are more peaceful than other
types of political system.
• Republican liberals argue that democracies do not
fight each other.
• This is known as the “democratic peace” theory.
• This argument was first made by the German
philosopher Immanuel Kant. More recently, writers
such as Dean Babst, Michael Doyle and Bruce
Russett have updated the theory.
• Because of democratic peace theory, liberals are
optimistic about the long-term prospects for world
peace.
Democratic peace 2
• War is one of the most serious problems in the
international system.
• If democratic peace theory is true, then it provides us
with a way to break the realist cycle.
• This also suggests that domestic politics DO matter.
– The domestic politics of a state dictate the
international relations which that state is capable of
engaging in.
• Moreover, the number of democracies in the world is
increasing, and, if democratic peace theory is correct,
this suggests that the number of conflicts will reduce.
• Theoretically, if all of the countries in the world
became democratic, then the threat of war would
disappear.
Reasons for the democratic peace 1
• According to Doyle, there are three reasons
why democracies do not fight each other.
• 1. Democracies have domestic political
cultures based on the principle of peaceful
conflict resolution.
• Democratic governments are controlled by
their citizens, who will not support the idea of
war with another democratic country.
• 2. Democracies hold common moral values
which lead to the formation of a “Pacific
Union” or a “zone of peace”.
• This is based on the common moral
foundations of all democracies.
Reasons for the democratic peace 2
• 2. continued… Peaceful conflict resolution at the
domestic level is seen as morally superior, and this
attitude is transferred to relations between
democracies.
• Freedom of expression and free communication
promote mutual understanding across political
boundaries.
• 3. Peace between democracies is strengthened by
economic cooperation and interdependence.
• The economies of countries in the zone of peace are
complexly interdependent (Keohane and Nye).
Paul’s 6 arguments about democracy:
• Democracies do not fight wars against each
other.
• Democracies do not experience famines.
• Democracies do not commit democide.
• Democracies have better human rights
records than non-democracies.
• Democracies have higher living standards
than non-democracies.
• Democracies are more economically
productive than non-democracies.
Prospects for the Zone of Peace
• The end of the Cold War contributed to what
Samuel Huntington has referred to as the
“third wave” of democracy.
• This led to initial post-Cold War optimism.
• Most liberals argue that there is a democratic
zone of peace among the consolidated liberal
democracies of Western Europe, North
America Japan, South Korea and Australasia.
• However, the continued expansion and
consolidation of this zone is far from assured.
• There are many interesting debates about
how best to promote democracy. (My later
classes).