Sept 24 th2012
Two types of liberalism:
Many varieties of Liberalism in the literature.
They all share certain common features.
State is not a unitary actor.
Domestic actors can be important
The ends that the states pursue are flexible and can change
Foreign policy matters
o More than simple survival, the security dilemma
Anarchy is not simply defined in terms of security dilemma
When the security dilemma exists, liberals know of it, but it is
not the main part of the theory that liberals care about.
Room for cooperation (due to different perception of anarchy)
International institutions and organizations matter
o Non-state actors matter
Captured central assumption of most liberals
o The type of regime matters
o Where or not the state is a democracy or a republic
o It’s important for determining what the goals of the
o As a result, how it will act at an international level.
Fairly straight-forward, less representative the state is, the
greater for the potential for conflict—both domestically and
Within the state, the idea is that handful of individuals run the
government, if it’s an aristocracy or a monarchy or a tyranny
of some sort…they will potentially abuse the population.
Non-democratic forms of government do not rule for the
common good Source of potential conflict.
As regards to relations outside of the state, if a handful of
individuals run the government in IR, they will be more
aggressive than their behavior towards others.
o Why is this the case? Self-evident.
o Why would a non-democratic system be more
They do not carry the cost of war. Wars are waged, soldiers are drawn from the
general population, the soldiers and population
carries the cost of war.
Given the high cost of war, military aggression
tends to result from the unrepresentative interest
of the few.
Republican version of highlighting importance of Liberalism.
Is there anything intrinsically belligerent about non-
republic forms of government?
They are inductively derived. From the historical record trying
to abstract generalizations which will apply to the future.
There is nothing wrong with that. It’s problematic…. Kant
(grandfather of Liberalism) and Perpetual peace.
o What is the nature of (AUDIO RECORDING)
Representative institutions allow for the expression of
people’s views and thus avoidance of war, meant to provide
expression of self-determination—idea here is avoidance of
Natural assumption is most people don’t want to fight. We are
not in the desire to dominate…
o Doyle—gets Machiavelli wrong (he’s not a liberal)
Machiavelli is a republican and a neoroman
Ideal is the roman republic
Not a liberal ideal
o For the Republicans, citizen is
an ambitious and driven by
glory—class conflict within the
city or international politics.
You want to harness by
creating assemblies and
senates to reflect the
ideas of those citizens—to
avoid social conflict within
You can take that tension
and turn it to other states,
express through conquest
You all can’t be
None of this has
anything to do with
liberalism. Republican institutions and democracy are not incompatible
Idea of Progress—assumption that history will repeat itself for
Kant’s Perpetual peace
Highlights how individuals allow individuals to peacefully
settle their disputes.
Highlights how citizens are ultimately responsible for political
Kant from Machiavelli
o Bc we have self-determination ( we are responsible for
our own policy decisions) we will be less inclined
towards aggressive foreign policy
o With other responsibilities in form of government.
o Kant is working with the ideas of citizens in liberalism—
citizens have rights and we shall protect them.
Representative institutions, the rule of law and the impartial
judication of disputes.
Individuals want to determine the goals and achieve them—
we want to lead the ―good life‖.
Another reason republicans won’t pursue war is because war
is an obstacle for the ―good life‖.
Republics will defend themselves if they have to.
o Basis of what’s been called ―democratic peace.‖
In terms of IR politics, gov. will foster international
institutions that will provide for the same peaceful resolution
of problems.. at least amongst themselves.
o Expect to see a federation or a league arising.
o Prescriptive aspect of this concept…
Democracies should try to promote and increase
number of republican institutions around the
Individual interests determine the nature of foreign policy.
o Want to achieve their ends
o You vote for your minister of parliament because they
reflect your interests.
o Liberal republicanism that Kant and Doyle talk about is
understood in terms of the ―good life‖ , life, culture and
o Individual interests are expressed in institutions.
o War and peace reflect regime type. **important* They have stood on its head everything the realist
IR politics is being driven by domestic-level politics.
o Regime type determines outbreak of war and peace.
Primarily focuses on types of trade.
Idea is that economic development domestically fosters
incentives for peace.
o Promotes economic ties between nations.
As industrialization got in way, individuals have ot make an
adjustment to the increasing discipline of capitalist
production. 19 century)
o Reward for doing so is the benefits of being productive,
Along these lines, there is a push for political reform.
o Liberal bourgeoisies want some say in how Gov. is run.
o Workers begin to push for the same thing.
o Individuals who are behind, they push for the
extension of franchise or greater democracy.
Greater say in what’s going on politically.
In IR, what beings to happen is that the economic links begin
to be formed between different states based on economic
exchange and the idea of free trade.
o Foster free-trade, regulations and economic restrictions
have to be abolished or lowered. (Free flow of capital,
Promotion of economic liberalism.
Ultimately, what arises is that there are economic interests
that transcend borders… economic interdependence between
Along these lines, interdependence is profitable for the groups
and individuals engaged in it; also profitable for the state—
Ultimately, the extensions of these arguments is that
economic development should be encouraged because they
bring economic well-being to the world.
The idea of war is seen as being unprofitable, cultivating
these ties of eco development, raising the standard of
living…why would you want to ruin this?
o War is unprofitable
Interrupts economic development/ties
Destroys productivity and commerce
War is irrational (from this perspective) States will learn to stop fighting once they learn how great
the loss of commerce is, in exchange for war.
War makes no sense from a cost-benefit perspective.
Commercial liberalism focuses on economic issues. (Doyle
Note: often thought that these two views, the advent of
republican institutions, and economic liberalism go hand in
o If you encourage both of them, you’re making the world
a better place. You see the tie by Kant, Doyle does this
These two things don’t logically go together.
There is no necessary … between eco
development and democracy.
Things to think about:
What are the ties between political institutions and war and peace?
What are the ties between eco institutionalism and war and peace?
Should we encourage the advent of liberal?
Sept 26 2012
Regarding second essay question:
doyle’s = international liberalism
Kant is a mouth piece of Doyle
he adopted Kant’s theory as his own.
For the anarchy question:
specific or broad specific perspective? BOTH. Easiest way is to focus
on one of the theories we’re talking about and specific writers.
Start off with a characterization then use the readings to elaborate.
be careful about distinguishing classical and neo-realism.
approach that grew in the 80s
o there are as many interpretations of liberalism
(divergence of opinions of these concepts)
o analytical approach of liberalism
response to neo-realism (structural theory that is identified
with theory of realism)…so we have to have neo-liberalism.
evolves out of critique
Highlights the importance of international institutions
o helping to overcome uncertainty in IR uncertainty that goes with security issues or
issues of trade or cultural concerns.
what this means is that the structural
aspect of neo-liberalism: distinguish itself
from the other forms
Sources of foreign policy?
Idea of Anarchy—idea of the security dilemma
Idea of collective goods/ collective action procedures.
Idea of international regimes
IR is defined by lack of hierarchy—no authority or power, role
o settle disputes among actors
o interpreted by realists
o making you insecure makes me secure—arm’s raec
Neo Realists unpack the security dilemma in terms of a
o You can’t depend on others.
o Interests are defined as a self-interest.
o realists tend to discount common interests
o Interest is usually defined in terms of the short-run
Act now, or suffer the consequences.
Neo-Liberalism contests all of this:
o degree of the security dilemma—is it really that bad?
o test of primacy of self interest? Are they not mutually
o contests the presumption toward short term thinking.
o Security dilemma is important but not all incompetent.
o Highlights importance of mutually beneficial goals.
o Tries to indicate how actors can think in terms of the
o What they do is they accept the idea of anarchy—no
hierarchy in IR
does not preclude cooperation.
Often do not stress as formally
do not take into account domestic level of
interpretations as others do..
o despite the condition of anarchy, states do cooperate.
tend to cooperate more than they don’t.
analogy: think about the waiting tables—
asshole who gave you the hard time. This is
how liberal’s approach idea of anarchy. They focus on war, we tend to forget the
instances of cooperation (not sexy ;))
how does cooperation arise?
o in a modern state system,
states don’t die very
frequently—survival is not a big
of a deal as we presume.
May witness regime
changes but the
The security dilemma is
o They ask us to reconsider idea of prisoner’s dilemma
the idea of squealing …
only makes sense is if it’s a one shot game.
non-cooperation only makes sense if
it’s only one interaction.
They conclude that if we extend our
interaction with other actors.. the outcome
will be better.
if we can engage each other
repeatedly, it makes sense to
Structure of preferences..
Defection leads to the third outcome, cooperation
leads to the second best outcome.
Tit for tat strategy—players match each other’s responses.
If one cooperates, other will too—until one decides not to.
Better reflects what happens in IR.
o states do cooperate
until someone stops cooperating
then they both stop.
Doesn’t tell us WHEN they will cooperate.
The principle that plays is the idea of reciprocity… states
respond to each other in a reciprocal manner.
o As long as the response is a good one, the cooperation
will continue as long as possible.
and can be extended for long-term.
Liberals acknowledge the security dilemma- but do not
consider it the hallmark of IR
o cooperation is contingent upon what other actors do.
o in the long run, cooperation pays off. Collective goods—goods or ends that all actors can enjoy
without sacrificing anything.
o ends that are not zero sum
o do not join one party for the expense of another.
o ex. Clean air, public parks, police protection—goods
that everyone can enjoy without suffering.
o Regarding provision of collective goods there are
problems that attend the enjoyment:
there are incentives to enjoy it a bit more than
who provides collective goods?
at the domestic level, the gov’t
provides it. (has regulations for clean
water, and air, and security)
IR level is provided by ?
if all can enjoy it, why contribute?
What’s the incentive to help provide the
Issue of the free-rider
why contribute when you can enjoy
something for free?
Someone who benefits from the
provision of the collective good
without paying or contributing
o free-riding wins itself to a form
ultimately, it impacts the