Class Notes (806,720)
Canada (492,424)
POL208Y1 (477)


5 Pages
Unlock Document

University of Toronto St. George
Political Science
Jean- Yves Haine

LIBERALISM - try to make changes in international system - act its core, liberalism is philosophy of freedom of individual, from constraints, and other individuals, freedom to participate in politics, freedom from fear, and because it is a philosophy on individual freedom the state is servant of this freedom - self-government is the safety from arbitrary intrusion of rulers and other individuals , this intrusion needs to be pushed off, best way to achieve this would be through self-governance, framework to organize and mediate liberties of citizen due process of law, respect for minorities, form of liberal state has many, from laisser-faire to social democracy, from constitutional monarchy to republics, from presidential regime to parliamentary regime, but core of liberal states is that we have the fundamental notion that said government is the best protection against arbitrary intrusion on affairs of individual - in a sense, liberalism is about self-restraint, moderation, compromise and peace - liberalism is more difficult to apply in I.S. than state, the tragedy of liberalism in international affairs is the attempt to project liberalism into world politics, it is difficult encounter b/t liberal ideas and structure of i.s. on one end…many ways seem to be a contradictory, most often it is a tragic story - the project of liberal ideas into i.s. seems nearly impossible, the logic of liberalism is one of other weak individual protected against powerful and mighty, the logic of international affairs is where power rules against the weak, if anarchy is excluded inside the state where we have rule of law, due process, check and balance, self balance, outside the state anarchy remain the main thing regarding relationships b/t state - liberalism is a philosophy where state is the solution, whereby in i.s. the very same state appears to be the problem - moreover, the liberal states inside very often doesn’t behave in a liberal way outside, you can be indeed a democratic regime/state but nonetheless you may compromise your own values when dealing with foreign policy…tempted to project liberal ambitions/ideas by using violent means, by using war and conflict  e.g. napoleon’s attempt by invasion in the name of liberal ideas/freedom where wars were fought for 25 years in Europe, Bush’s invasion on Iraq; difference inside and outside can be very wide o e.g. Canada in Afghanistan, in some instances Canada forego principles that they would apply at home to Afghanistan  war crimes/torture, o liberal state compromise its core liberal values at home in the realm of international affairs, in some instances authority may know that by giving prisoners to Afghanistan (that may torture some prisoners) the same standards , contradiction between trying to create a decent efficient regime in Afghanistan without losing your own liberal values at home, it is a tricky and complex issues - liberal states in international system may be regarded at weak compared to dictatorship or authoritarian regime, because in a liberal regime leaders may face constraint from own political opinion, dictators do not face the same type of constraint therefore they may be better prepared to face realities of international system - during cold war many realists thought U.S.’s policies were too weak to face the Soviet’s regime , being a democracy in a world of power is a huge obstacle to fulfill state interest, same thinking today with rise of China triggers question about the strengths of liberal state in the world economy, some argue that because China has a specific way of government they may indeed better played than democracies in succeeding in international system - always that thinking democracy is fine at home, but international system it is regarded as weakness - the very universality of liberal values seems in question, in fact different culture on the existent, nature, and content of these values, we may consider that the core of liberalism is universal, but the reality from the international system is different o debate in 80s of Asian values with respect to western values o concept of democracy applied differently in different parts of the world, Africa’s definition vs. U.S.A. definitions may be different, likewise for women’s freedom, matters of religion and sacred are also debatable o idea of universally liberalism is contested idea o when the west is trying to export liberalism, they encounter huge problems, and in some cases violent preposition, dilemma about very idea of freedom itself, we are talking about a liberal state, and it implies an “us vs. them”, assumption behind borders, brings ideas that justice is relative not absolute o liberal ideas may be source of restraint at home, but sometime a cause of crusade; e.g. Bush human rights crusade to the middle east 1 - since early 90s, the UN has been very busy in setting up mission trying to solve civic wars around the war to try to ensure human rights are being protected and implemented, and the revival of UN peacekeeping operations and state building operations since 90s is part of agenda of world politics today o un activities in that realm are serious crisis o idea behind humanitarian intervention is an attempt to defend core liberal values outside, same can be said about exporting our sense of justice around the world o consensus on international justice has been attempt din last 50 years, such as creation of international court, and yet that court may be a reality today, that doesn’t mean it is an efficient institution when president of Sudan has been indicted by that court for crimes against humanity, but nothing has been happening, no attempt to arrest Parshir, clearly there is a contradiction in the gap b/t criminal court indicting the president of Sudan and real politics where no one is courageous that indictment in practice by arresting him o from these attempts to project liberal values in international system we can see that liberalism if full of deep dilemmas, how to reconcile liberal values at home and be a defender of national interest outside  e.g. Obama’s regime that is everything but liberal, a leader that repeatedly make liberal statements, and trying to engage in Afghanistan in the name of stability, real politic, and trying to contain issue of nuclear proliferation…been criticised for engaging in such awful regimes, in applying liberal values in Iran, the assumption is I cannot engage in this regime when it is opposed to everything believed in liberal values, but in the name of national interest and real politic, Obama has tried to engage in a dialogue in Iran…the attempt is to say that I cannot engage in such a regime but pressure in international system to negotiate with Iran, same with china…contradiction b/t liberal values on one hand and constraints of it on the international system on the other  premise of making things better through dialogue even though you can’t talk to people in that regime because of their non-liberal regimes, dilemma that leaders face  double standard critique has been made, and cannot be solved, shows the limit of liberal regimes in world affairs, e.g. why intervene in a certain place but not another - Comte : perpetual peace is a process with 3 steps, 1) you have liberal state that is basically based on citizen consent where rulers are constraint by domestic politics, rulers cannot impose war on their citizens, they need the consent of their population, the liberal state is this safeguard against war wage only by the wish of one ruler, the establishment of a liberal state is first step; 2) the pacification among liberal state, what has been practiced in one liberal state can in fact be agreed among liberal state, which is basically they won’t wage war against each other, you will have slowly emerging a zone of peace among liberal state, and in Comte’s project that zone of peace will eventually become universal, the perpetual peace; 3) because you have zone of peace among liberal state, what will appear after will be a universal community where the community of the people will in fact the best guarantee that peace will remain, it is a process because it if extremely difficult to build zone of peace, even among liberal state, it is not always easy to have peaceful relationships - Notion of secure community is a notion among liberal states there is an implicit agreement that whatever the conflict of interest may rise among them, the use of force will not be used, in secured community where group of states they have decided among themselves there will always be a peaceful way of resolving conflict; negotiations, talk, but not use force o That notion of security community has been developed by Karl Dutch, the way he came up with the idea to look at density and extent of relationships between two countries, and Karl Dutch stared by regarding the level of change of letters, the amount of border crossing between two countries and came up with the idea that the more dense the relationships between the countries that more likely you have a security community comes up, the denser that relationship the less likely the use of force o This notion of security is obvious enough in Canada and U.S.A., not likely that force will be used among these countries, and the European Union, France and Germany that went to war against each other 3 times in a generation this notion of security community represents huge process, o Another translation tension ideas of perpetual peace is the constructivist notion as anarchy as a constructed reality, the basic idea is that countries have reached a stage where the notion of friendship is internalized, not only among societies but also leaders, like something like friends do exist in international relations and that you don’t’ use force amongst France, it’s a constructivist notion because the reality of friendship is constructed among these nations, it is fragile construction, and the very idea of friendship is the opposition of what realist do think about international system, realist would never take for granted that notion of friendship, they would 2 always say that they may be friends now, tomorrow they may become my enemies, and enemy of my enemy are my friends, and this construction can always change, - International law is daily a miracle in the life of nations, there is no world government, the basis of international law is agreement among nations, more and more there is the application at home of international treaty and international law,, one of the most notable development to see how the international system has become regulated, its less and less anarchic and more and more rules that governs international relations - Free trade, globalization as practiced today is the last translation of the ideals of perpetual peace, the world economy suppose to be win-win game, development where the use of force will be unnecessary, where use of force will be seen as counter-productive, the West are leading exporters of arms in the world, hypocrisy between western values and ideals and the fact that they are the number 1 exporter of arms in the world - Interdependence caused by institutions and economic need…neo liberalism by opposition to neo realist (about new thinking inside realism that anarchy is a structure, compels state to behave the way they do, no room for manager, because the structure of the system is based on anarchy all the states in the world will behave in a specific manner, they will all follow the necessity for survival) - Neo liberalism: by bending international institutions you can overcome the structure of anarchy, idea of international institution that in some instances that it is a win scenario to have these institutions, e.g. power of European Union: by pooling resources by giving up some part of your sovereignty you create a community that will promote economic growth, the very institution that you have created will shape your national interest, o feedback effect [national interest will be driven by existent of the institution, and the institution will shape your nature interest], ) sovereignty is shared through supra-institutions, o neo liberalists have an opposite than realists about corporation, the realists will say that crucial question is not about absolute gains but relative gains, from realist perspective they will not enter a cooperation if they other will gain more than me, the neo-liberalists will say it doesn’
More Less

Related notes for POL208Y1

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.