Key elements of last week- states, anarchy, survival, security and/or power, self-help is fundamental to
achieving these goals of security and power. Conflicts are occurring very often.
Liberals- there’s not a lot of conflict among nations. Why? Intervention, diplomacy solves these issues. Claim
that you can overcome and mitigate anarchy. Not necessarily bleak.
1. What the LiberalAgenda is?
2. How it relates to IR?
1. What the Liberals say
The state is the guardian of fundamental freedoms. Arbitrary rules and influence are protected. Self-government
mediates between liberties of citizens. Liberal state creates inst to enforce these protections, checks and
balances, the due process of law, protection of minorities. Form of liberal states can be quite different- laissez-
faire, to monarchy, to capitalism, to presidentialism- in essence, the core of all is the guardian of your liberties
against undue influence. Aworld of moderation and self-restraint, forced to settle disputes through inst. Problem
is about the projection of that into the realm of foreign affairs.
Difficult to projection. Fails on many accounts. The logic of liberalism is one of the weak individual protected
against the mighty. The logic of intl affairs is one where power rules against the weak- the opposite of what’s
going on inside.Anarchy remains outside state borders, between states. Liberalism is a philosophy whereby the
state is a solution, international relations- the very same state becomes the problem. You can have liberal values
inside, but when you touch FP you may behave in a very illiberal way. Some scholars argue that liberal state will
be immediately weak in an intl platform. Dictatorships can spend more on their military than keeping civilians
happy, for instance- accountability issues- whereas liberals are accountable and cannot spend on military if
democratically unsupported. Can rob the civilians. Strong dictators are more able to play the game of intl
politics. Liberals are weak and accountable.
Universality of liberal values may be in question. HR issues- try to render a specific values as universal, but
many may not recognise these as their own. Liberal state remains a state at least, the state quickly separates “us”
and “them”- a citizen, and a non-citizen. Liberal as a social restraint; engine for restraint can become one for
battle- the defence of justice and liberal values- can become an element of disorder. The realists don’t talk about
justice. Kissinger: justice is a matter for the state, not among states- the US recognises china because it is a
geopolitical body- outside my consideration. Once you put justice in the system, you get disorder- not a matter
for outsiders. Domestic and intl liberalism don’t fit together.
• (1) Liberalism began with Kant’s perceptual peace- a specific pattern of intl relations, relations
aong states- clearest account of liberal body and type of IR you can expect. Kant believed
perpetual peace could be achieve in three steps (1) domestic liberalism- start inside, (2) move into
a federation of likeminded states whereby the law inside is expanded and the differences between
citizens and non-citizens don’t matter because you live in a confederation.As far as protection and
security are concerned, everyone has similar rights in terms of protection (2) extension of that
confederation renders force and probability of conflict useless. Starts with domestic-it’s a process.
Kantian logic means war itself is always part of the process- some element will always want to be
more powerful. Equality between states may not be valued in-itself.
• (2) Kantian perpetual peace developed into democratic peace theory: democratic states do not
fight each other. Domestic characteristic of a unit changes the system. They may fight against other
type of state but not amongst one another. OR, security community- similar states (maybe not all
democracies) but they share expectation among themselves- share relation