Liberalism is a political philosophy, which approaches the world politics with an

optimistic view, embracing ideas of equality and liberty. The Age of Enlightenment
sets up the liberalism movement by John Locke’s argument that each man has a
natural right to life, liberty and property; according to the social contract governments
must not violate these rights. The images of liberalism: human nature, the state, and
the structure of the system are the causes of war and determinants of peace. The
foundations of liberalism relay on rationality and progress, which leads to plurality of
actors, instauration of republicanism/democracy to overcome conflict. (Baylis, Smith,
Owens, 2011, Chapter 6 - Introduction)

The system of governing arrangement between states defines a new liberal world
order. However, different forces for gaining liberal order exist of which two are the
major elements. One is rooted in classical liberal tradition, the Liberalism of Restraint
that seeks improvement for the basic preconditions: civil society relations, a free
market economy, democratization, and international institutions. The other is
Liberalism of Imposition rooted in modern liberalism, based on these preconditions.
(Ali Rahigh-Aghsan, lecture on ‘Liberalism’s victory or Liberalism’s Challenge?’,
07.02.2013) Further, I will analyze each liberal movement by underlying the
differences and similarities between them.

According to Woodrow Wilson, peace could only be secured through a rational and
intelligently designed international organization that would make it possible to put an
end to war and to achieve permanent peace. On the other hand, liberal
internationalism also includes Liberalism of Imposition by Woodrow when stated that
“the world be made fit and safe to live in” implying that the world has to become safe
before establishing democracy (Williams, Goldstein, Shafritz, 2006, p. 33). He also
argued “a general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for
the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial
integrity of great and small nations alike” (Vasquez, 1996, p. 40). This idea was
behind collective security theory, which acknowledges the need of International
Organizations. Collective security is an approach to peace, which can be both
achievable and indivisible. Claude defines it as “a halfway house between the
terminal points of international anarchy and world governmental” (Williams,
Goldstein, Shafritz, 2006, p. 290) that ‘concerned’ action and agreement while
violence is legitimate only in defending collective security.

Institution building is a Liberalism of Restraint in the sense that power is replaced to

some extent by institutional networks involving rules and moderation. In the
economic sphere, the classical liberal market economy also represents a Liberalism of
Restraint. The current neo-liberal thinking in Western governments promote an open
market economy in a context of free trade, private property and the rule of law creates
an economic realm characterized by reciprocity of giving and taking for mutual
benefit. Political intervention is restricted in order to create the necessary regulatory
framework facilitating free market exchange. (Sørensen, 2007)

Institutional liberalism has been the pursuit of a Liberalism of Restraint by

emphasizing the role of international institutions in promoting cooperation among
states and by reducing the potential lack of trust among states. Institutions help to
create a climate with expectations of stable peace development. The role of
international institutions is to provide a flow of information and opportunities to
negotiate; to enhance the ability of governments to monitor others compliance to
implement their own commitments; and to strengthen the solidity of international
agreements. (Baylis, Smith, Owens, 2011, Chapter 7 – Neo-liberalism)

In order to provide cooperation, the internal law and institutions have to meet two
preconditions. First, if the egoists monitor each other’s behavior and if enough of
them are willing to cooperate on condition that others will cooperate as well, they
may be able to adjust their behavior to reduce discord. In this case, they may even
create and maintain principles, norms, rules and procedures properly designed for
institutions that can help egoists to cooperate even in the absence of a hegemonic
power. (Ali Rahigh-Aghsan, lecture on ‘Liberalism’s victory or Liberalism’s
Challenge?’, 07.02.2013) Second, in the absence of mutual interests, the neo-liberal
perspective on international cooperation would be irrelevant, so they must potentially
gain from their cooperation. However, the idea of international cooperation started
within neo-liberalism approach, which sees ‘institutions’ as the mediator and the
means to achieve cooperation among actors in the system. (Ali Rahigh-Aghsan,
lecture on ‘Liberalism’s victory or Liberalism’s Challenge?’, 07.02.2013)

The main representative of Liberalism of Restrain in neo-liberalism approach, R.

Keohane argues that the world became more pluralistic in terms of actors involved in
international interactions and that these actors became dependent on each other, which
represents an expansion of international law explained by complex interdependence.
(Baylis, Smith, Owens, 2011, Chapter 7 – Neo-liberalism)

Moving towards Liberalism of Imposition that aims to enforce a certain set of rules on
the behavior of member states in order to make the world safe for democracy and
liberal ideology. The rules resonate with the principle guideline of liberalism: all
humans are fundamentally equal, all share an interest in pursuing well-being, freedom
is required, peace is required for freedom, war should only be used to bring about
peace. Moreover, the core idea sustain that democracies never go to war with one
another because the liberals believe that individuals are fundamentally the same.
However, if a state has enlightened citizens and liberal-democratic institutions is not
enough for it to belong to the democratic peace: if its peer states do not believe it is a
liberal democracy, it will not be treated as such. Liberalism is cosmopolitan, however,
liberals think that all people and nations are not free. There should be a perfect set of
rules for people to live by and the government should focus more on their citizens
needs. (Owen, 1994)

Theories of the democratic peace are divided into structual and normative theories.
Structural accounts atttribute the democratic peace to the institutional restraints within
democracies; chief executives in democracies must gain approval for war from the
cabinet members or legislatures, and ultimately from the electorate. Normative theory
says that the cause of democratic peace is that democracies believe it would be unjust
to fight one another; they practice the norm of compromise. However, normative
theory neglected to take perception into account. Liberal ideas are the source behind
the distinctive foreign policies of liberal democracies, but liberalism's ends are life
and property, and its means are liberty and toleration.
Liberalism of Imposition states for positive liberty, for actively solving problems of
underdevelopment, lack of liberty, and absence of human rights. Making the world
safe for democracy while conducting humanitarian intervention for seeking to bring
economic development through aid combined with political and economic
conditionality. (Owen, 1994) However, attempts to impose liberalism on a nation
have had two commonalities: first that the imposition stands in direct contrast to
liberal ideals; and second that the attempt to impose liberalism has failed. Wars
between United States and Iraq, and Afghanistan are examples of failed attempts to
impose western liberal styles of economics and government. Because Liberalism of
Imposition may ignore the constitutional limits, there is a possibility for illiberal
liberalism to occur. As Rhodes argues, a genuine liberal order must grow from within
and cannot be imposed by outsiders. (Owen, 1994)

Democratic peace has been the pursuit of Liberalism of Imposition and has been
implemented many times by democratic regime change. Democracy by military
intervention is another way led by the phrase “fight them, beat them and make them
democratic” (Russett, 2005, p. 398). However, military interventions in this purpose
were realizable only if the invaded state had some liberal core ideas or as Germany
and Japan who were poor analogue in order to establish democratic peace, still there
is no guarantee of democratic result. Friendly interventions usually support a favored
government, while hostile interventions produce regime change actions that covers
war, peacekeeping, humanitarian missions, border control, etc. Military intervention
by IGOs seek for peace enforcement and peacebulding actions in order to establish
democratic regimes by military means and rebuilding the physical and administrative
structure of the country. Non-military interventions by IGOs are the UN peacebulding
initiatives, which include democratization as a goal. (Russett, 2005)

The distinction between Liberalism of Restraint and Liberalism of Imposition as

Søresen (2007) explain is that Liberalism of Restraint upholds state’s autonomy and
the right to self-determination, whereas Liberalism of Imposition envisages duty to
intervene in other state’s domestic affairs whenever liberal values (like freedom and
justice) are in peril. A liberal value paradigm is highlighted once there is a very thin
line that sets aside legitimate humanitarian interventionism from undisputable “liberal
imperialism” (Søresen, 2007, p. 371).
In conclusion, I think that the best way for analyzing contemporary international
relations would be a perfect equilibrium between Liberalism of Restraint and
Liberalism of Imposition. However, I am aware that such thing would be very
difficult to achieve, almost impossible, so to answer the question, I would lean
towards Liberalism of Restraint because international organizations, especially those
whose membership is mainly composed of democracies, are especially likely to
succeed in promoting democracy.

Reference List

 Ali, Rahigh-Aghsan (07.02.2013) lecture on ‘Liberalism’s victory or

Liberalism’s Challenge?’, Malmö University

 Baylis, John – Smith, Steve – Owens, Patricia (2011) The Globalization of

World Politics – An introduction to international relations, 5th edition, Oxford
University Press:
 Dunne, Tim – Chapter 6 – Introduction
 Lamy, L. Steven – Chapter 7 – Neo-liberalism

 Owen, M. John (Autumn, 1994) International security,Vol. 19, No.2

 Russett, Bruce (2005, p. 398) International studies perspective: Bushwhacking

the Democratic Peace

 Sørensen, Georg (2007, p. 371), ‘After the Security Dilemma: The Challenges
of Insecurity in Weak States and the Dilemma of Liberal Values’, Security
Dialogue, 2007, vol. 38

 Vasquez, John (1996, p.40) Classics of International Relations, 3rd edition,

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
 Williams, Phil – Goldstein, M. Donald – Shafritz, M. Jay (2006) Classic
Readings and Contemporary Debates in International Relations, 3rd edition,
Wadsworth, Cengage Learning:
 Claude, L. Inis, Jr. – Chapter 30, p. 290 – Collective security as an
approach to peace
 Woodrow Wilson – Chapter 3, p. 33 – The Fourteen Points