WEEK #5 (MARCH 21) - THE LIBERAL PARADIGM – I:

LIBERALISM AND FOREIGN POLICY 1

 Themes:

- Historical idealism (from the Stoics to the Briand-Kellogg Pact)

- From idealism to neo-institutionalism
- How do they see human nature and the world?
- What do they seek to explain?
- Key concepts and theories (political regime; interest groups)
- Nationalism
- Wilsonism


 Required reading:
 Bueno de Mesquita, B. and A. Smith (2012), "Domestic Explanations of
International Relations." Annual Review of Political Science 15: 161-181.

1
 WEEK #6 (MAR. 28) - THE LIBERAL PARADIGM – II :
LIBERALISM AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 2
 Themes:

- Key concepts and theories (communication, institutions, interdependence)

- Collective security and its critics (optional)
- The Kantian peace triangle
- Interdependence and international cooperation
- Neo-institutionalism; regimes (Why do States create or join institutions? Institutions and
cooperation)

 Required readings
 LLQHQT: “Quyền lực và sự phụ thuộc lẫn nhau » (Puissance et interdépendance) : 119-125
 LLQHQT « Quyền lực, phụ thuộc lẫn nhau và chù thể phi quốc gia trong » (Milner, 2009): 126-148
(interdependance and non-state actors)
 LLQHQT: “Các tác động yéu ớt của sự phụ thuộc lẫn nhau” (les faibles effets de
l'interdépendance): 94-97
 LLQHQT: “Lời hứa hão của các thể chế quốc tế,” (Mearsheimer’s “False Promise… ”): 149-161.
N.B. : read only part 1 on the critique of neo-institutionalism) (see also Waltz’ text from week 3)
 Keohane, Robert O. & Martin, Lisa L. (1995), “The Promise of Institutionalist Theory”,
International Security 20(1): 39-51 (response to Mearsheimer)

2
 3

CLASSICAL LIBERALISM

3
 Five major paradigms of International Relations
4
Paradigm Systemism Realism Liberalism Constructivism Marxism
Features (Complexity)
Dependent Adaptation Conflicts Cooperation Behavior Exploitation
variable
Multiple States Multiple; ; Multiple ; Social
Unit of actors ; societies; societies ; classes
analysis networks groups Individuals
Nature of Complex Anarchic; Society Constructed Scarcity
the system Hierarchic

Relations Power Interests Ideas Inequalities

Basic (community) (incl. norms &
concept representations)

Resilience Survival ; Common Intersubjective Equity

Goal limit good understanding
conflicts

4
 Key concepts & notions 5

Interest groups Absolute vs relative gains

Communication Zero-sum vs. joint gains
Institutions
Cooperation Norms and principles
Common good Society
Harmony Interdependence (and
globalization)
Regimes
Interest

5
In general, as opposed to the 6
Realists, Liberals believe that…
 There is more order and patterned
behavior in the system than Realists
recognize

 Norms and principles play important roles

to that end

 common interests exist (beyond survival);

it is possible to reconcile the national
interest with the common good

6
 In particular… 7

• States do not always seek to mazimize their

power…
• and are less concerned with relative than with
absolute gains
• Networks of institutions enhance cooperation
• Cooperation = f (common interests & mutual
advantages) & not f (power/threats)
• harmony  there is a universal and easily
identifiable interest

7
 Liberals emphasize the 8
importance of…

- communication

- economic links

- internal factors

- political regimes

- institutions

8
 The Utopian Tradition 9

 Global society  Individuals

 Optimism: reform is possible

Zeno of Kition, 332-262

 Two pillars :
Faith in progress
Faith in reason

9
 10

 basic assumption: harmony of

interests

 aim: abolish or transcend (go beyond)

the interstate system

and build …
a cosmopolitan (one world) order

10
Kant’ s Perpetual Peace 11

The kantian thesis 1724-1804

- Universalist tradition
IR =  >0 game & a coop pb

Interstate conflicts are transient

- Ideological conflicts pit the guardians of an

immanent society against its opponents

- There is a moral imperative to build a cosmopolitan 1795

society. How? => 3 articles (or bases)

11
 Kant’s 3 definitive articles 12

1. States must be Republics (today: « liberal

democracies »)

2. Republics will form a pacific union (see

collective security and democratic peace theories :
next week)

3. the development of a cosmopolitan law

will facilitate exchanges (see interdependence
& neo-institutionalist theories: next week)

12
 1. States must be Republics 13
(today: « liberal democracies »)

Why?
1) Prudence;
2) rulers change (personal animosities less important)

this evolution toward this form of regime is inevitable:

- unity is needed to face external threats (unity and mobilization of
resources)
- needed to limit individual ambitions

13
 SO Liberals will emphasize…
14
 the importance of the national distribution of power
(concentrated? shared? diffused?...)

 the importance of the values embodied by the institutions

and society in general

 the importance of domestic politics (competition among

interest groups to define the national interest)

=> States’ FP will vary depending on the nature of their

political regime

14
 15

 Democracies supposedly are

inherently peace-oriented

=> Wilsonism, wilsonian FP

 universal peace rests on

democracy
1856-1924; President
of the USA 1913-1921

15
Robert Lansing, Woodrow Wilson’s Secretary of State (1915-1920):

« Germany is too much a prey to personal ambition, to a spirit of

aggression and to greed for territory and political domination, the curse of
the world in the past, to be an honest partner in an organization devoted to
international peace. Such a militaristic government as rules over Germany
would be an undesirable member in a Peace League.
The one hope of a League for Peace is in imposing as a qualification of
membership that a nation shall possess democratic institutions which are
real and not merely nominal. A League of Democracies would, in my
opinion, insure unity of action and the faithful performance of obligations.
Democracies are not treaty breakers, they possess sensitive national
consciences, they are guided by principles of justice and morality in their
intercourse with one another, and they are not aggressive or improperly
ambitious. All peoples abhor war and desire peace. Through democratic
institutions the popular will finds expression. » (Dec.3, 1916. Lansing Diaries, quoted in
Buehrig, E. (1955), Woodrow Wilson and te Balance of Power, Bloomington, Indiana U Press, p.139.

16
 Testing Kant : Are liberal 17

societies more peaceful?

 Historically no. Liberal democracies (France, UK,

USA, Israel) have waged many wars against non-
liberal democracies (not to mention colonial wars
for the first three of them, along with
authoritarian regimes (ex. Russia, Germany)

 BUT could they be more peaceful toward

each other ? => Pacific Union

17
 WEEK #6 (MAR. 28) - THE LIBERAL PARADIGM – II :
LIBERALISM AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 18
 Themes:

- Key concepts and theories (communication, institutions, interdependence)

- Collective security and its critics (optional)
- The Kantian peace triangle
- Interdependence and international cooperation
- Neo-institutionalism; regimes (Why do States create or join institutions? Institutions and
cooperation)

 Required readings
 LLQHQT: “Quyền lực và sự phụ thuộc lẫn nhau » (Puissance et interdépendance) : 119-125
 LLQHQT « Quyền lực, phụ thuộc lẫn nhau và chù thể phi quốc gia trong » (Milner, 2009): 126-148
(interdependance and non-state actors)
 LLQHQT: “Các tác động yéu ớt của sự phụ thuộc lẫn nhau” (les faibles effets de
l'interdépendance): 94-97
 LLQHQT: “Lời hứa hão của các thể chế quốc tế,” (Mearsheimer’s “False Promise… ”): 149-161.
N.B. : read only part 1 on the critique of neo-institutionalism) (see also Waltz’ text from week 3)
 Keohane, Robert O. & Martin, Lisa L. (1995), “The Promise of Institutionalist Theory”,
International Security 20(1): 39-51 (response to Mearsheimer)

18
2 – Formation of a pacific union 19

respect

dynamics of cooperation
l

19
Testing Kant: Do Liberal societies 20
tend to form a Pacific Union?

 democratic peace theory

Pro: Doyle, Singer, Russett,
Maoz
Con: Mearsheimer, etc.
Why?

20
 3 types of criticisms
 1) methodological: arbitrary classification; year-to-year
observations of dyads not independent…

 2) other contextual variables may matter more (ex.

common interest in unity during the cold war, or economic
interdependence)

 3) the transition from an authoritarian to a democratic

regime is associated with a greater risk of war

21
Testing Kant : are democracies 22
more likely to form alliances?

Yes but
1) former allies are more likely to be
at war in the future and
2) democracies are less likely to be
at war with each other
 puzzle

22
3 – Cosmopolitan law 23

= right of access,
commerce, and
protection

 commerce adds a
material incentive

23
 24
So, there are two steps:
 1) a confederation of republics forming a
pacific union

2) advent of a cosmopolitan society

and 3 sources of peace:

prudence (from republicanism)
respect (values)
commerce (interests)

24