In light of the fact that major wars between democratic nations, which are typically trading partners involved in lucrative import/export arrangements, are relatively rare from a historical standpoint, "liberals argue that economic interdependence lowers the likelihood of war by increasing the value of trading over the alternative of aggression ... (as) independent states would rather trade than invade"4 (Copeland, 1996, pg. 5). Unrestrained liberalism has often been touted by proponents as the prudent path to world peace, even as the world inches closer to a state of open conflict, such as through the Wilsonian foreign policy instituted by President Woodrow Wilson prior to World War I, or the Bush doctrine's fallacious notion of instilling democratic ideals in Iraq by virtue of an outright invasion. In fact, many scholars insist that "the human rights movement was built on a Wilsonian platform, insisting that governments make
4 Copeland, Dale C. "Economic interdependence and war: a theory of trade expectations." International Security 20, no. 4 (1996): 5-41.
specific pledges regarding their treatment of their citizens"5 (Ikenberry, 2009, pg. 107), which is an informative indicator of liberalisms efficacy considering the host of humanitarian issues still plaguing the international community.
Both realism and liberalism were developed to explain one of civilization's fundamental mysteries; to determine the factors which motivate the actions of organized bodies such as independent states? In a world where the village, kingdom, and nation have long transferred the collective will of individual members into international relations, ascertaining the underlying reasons for these often momentous actions is an eminently important task. While the postulations put forth by each model of foreign policy have been routinely tested throughout the course of history, with the regular redistribution of power providing a grand stage for the testing of realist and liberalist approaches, an objective analysis would likely conclude that both philosophies have their respective merits and flaws. It has been said that by "drawing on analyses of human nature, on arguments about the necessary structure of international relations, and on laws of political behavior derived from both of these sources, realists have quite frequently posed as the clear-eyed apostles...
President Obama's remarkable ability to combine his liberal inclinations on humanitarian issues with expertly wielded applications of America's economic and military superiority was presaged in an article published by Harvard Magazine before ballots had been cast in the 2008 election. When professor of international relations Joseph S. Nye Jr. boldly declared that "the old distinction between realists and liberals needs to give way to a new synthesis that you
S.S.R. stands the fact that civil strife is less dangerous if it takes place on the losing side that it is on the winning side (p99). Realists and Their Critics Predictive failure: realism through structural realism failed to predict the fall of the U.S.S.R. And instead foresaw stability in the bipolar system. However, no theory considered the idea of the way in which the Cold War would end. Even so, theorists did
Consistency, coupled by approval generates legitimacy. A government system is only legitimate if it receives the support of plural citizens. Therefore, a good example is Hosni Mubarak's one party, which was illegitimate. Any policy enjoying the majority approval of the citizens is said to be a legitimate policy. In this context, the United States invasion into Iraq has been perceived as illegitimate. This is not because many citizens of Iraq
("U.S. Names Coalition of the Willing," 2003) From the Liberal perspective, the Iraq War is considered to be illegal. This is because, the Bush Administration failed to seek the support of the international community before conducting an invasion. They felt that if the White House had taken a different approach about Iraq and WMD's (mainly allowing more time for inspectors to confirm / deny the existence of such programs). This
S. And many EU countries are seeking to isolate Iran's leaders as pariahs" (Weinthall, 2011, p. 9). Once again, Germany chose to protect its own economic interest and global diplomatic effectiveness rather than kowtow to the interests of its allies. However, perhaps even more galling (at least to the United States and Israel) is the fact that Germany "supported a Lebanese sponsored UN Security Council resolution which condemned Israeli settlement
The administration's disregard for international norms led to the excesses at Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq, and attempts to circumvent congressional oversight over the activities of the Administration backfired. Faced with increasing criticism at home and the inability to stabilize Iraq, the Bush Administration began to temper its approach with realism. The Administration agreed to a bipartisan Iraq Study Group, led by former Secretary of State James Baker and
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now