1. Introducing the IR Paradigms 1: Liberalism(s) in IR Prepared for Junior International Politics Class at NENU, Fall 2015

2. Assumptions of Liberal IR States have hierarchies of goals which are flexible. Collective security, prosperity (i.e. GDP growth), and absolute gains are key state goals. Military power not always most important. Other forms like economic & soft power are often more effective at influencing others' behavior. Economics, especially market incentives, often determines political outcomes such as state behavior. The Cold War's end was an “End of History” (Fukuyama), and the world is progressing toward a universal acceptance of liberalism.

3. Contrasts with Realism Cooperation is likely and can be built over time. We should not oversimplify a complicated world. (Parsimony much less valuable than complexity) Reject, sometimes invert the division between “high” and “low” politics (Security & IPE) Domestic factors are more important than the international system. Interstate wars are becoming smaller & rarer, especially since the end of the Cold War.

4. Immanuel Kant & Roots of Liberalism Reciprocity → states develop organizations & rules to facilitate cooperation Popular Accountability (via liberal democracy) → liberal states will be less inclined to war Increased Trade → economic interdependence (& war is BAD for business)

5. Liberal Institutionalism In 1970s USA lost power, while institutions like the UN took on “lives of their own” (Keohane, “After Hegemony”) Massive growth of non-state organizations (IGOs & NGOs) strongly suggests influence independent of powerful states. States voluntarily give up sovereignty to work within UN, WTO, IMF, etc. International law is slowly becoming “binding”

6. Democratic Peace Theory FACT: Liberal democracies do not go to war against each other  Mutual respect & domestic dislike of war → settle conflicts peacefully FACT: Liberal democracies still go to war against illiberal regimes.  Regime change itself may be a strong motivator for liberal states to wage war on illiberal regimes Supporters: Schumpeter, Doyle. Detractors: Rosato, Realists

7. Neoliberalism Neoliberals accept many of Realism's assumptions (i.e. anarchy, state-centrism), but conclude that cooperation can be made more likely in the long term with reciprocity. IR most resembles the game of Prisoner's Dilemma, iterated endlessly. Neoliberalism is the dominant theory in IPE, as seen in the combination of free trade and global capitalism (= Globalization).

8. EXAMPLE: Domestic Coalitions The preferences of powerful groups within the state determine key state behaviors (Moravcsik)  “Internationalizing coalitions” engage the neoliberal, global economy & pursue prosperity/development > nuclear weapons (East Asia, Solingen)  “Internally-focused coalitions” are unstable, distrustful of neighbors, & pursue military strength/nuclear weapons (Middle-East, Solingen)

9. Economic Interdependence Liberalism seeks to replace military competition (i.e. traditional security) with economic competition. The European Union began as a narrow economic community managing key industries. Its expansion and continuation confounds realism. Contrary to Marx, capitalist states NEVER go to war with each other, because war is BAD FOR BUSINESS, especially for MNCs. Is the WTO more successful at managing economic conflict than the UN manages security conflicts? Why/why not?

10. Contradiction within Liberalism (Sorensen) “Liberalism of Restraint”  Liberalism includes a strong value of tolerance of diversity “Liberalism of Imposition”  Liberals believe their values are either universal or superior  Liberalization of the world is a prerequisite for Kant's “perpetual peace”  Liberals impose themselves on other states

11. The USA Is a LIBERAL Hegemon It uses liberal language to promote international law, universal human rights, and globalization However, it is willing to violate international law to spread larger, liberal values (and its own power?) The USA seeks global acceptance of its hegemony by portraying itself as a legitimate leader of the “liberal world order” The USA wishes to equate “liberal” with “benevolent”. Do you agree?