Liberalism Theory (opposition to Realism)

In my previous post, I explained realism, summarized as “the strong do what they want, and the weak suffer what they must” (Melian Dialogue). However, international relations have multiple theories!

“An evident principle runs through the whole program I have outlined. It is the principle of justice to all peoples and nationalities, and their right to live on equal terms of liberty and safety with one another, whether they be strong or weak.”

Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points

Liberalism is in direct opposition to realism. This theory has found problems in the realist theory that do not agree with their argument. 

1. Relations between the US and Canada are among many peaceful relations despite anarchy making it “impossible” for them to occur.
2. The European Union has been able to promote peace and eliminate war successfully.
3. Today’s relations between the US and Great Britain have significantly improved compared to the 19th century. 

Realism does not explain persistent peaceful relations in various parts of the globe.

The basic liberalist idea is that global cooperation is possible even under anarchy. International law and organizations make states interconnected and protect all states, whether they are weak or strong. States willingly engage in these institutions because all states benefit from a predictable and stable world. If states did not want international peace, there would not be any international laws. Because these laws exist, that is evidence that liberalism makes the most sense. Most states consent and reciprocate the laws. 

Furthermore, liberalists claim the democratic peace theory (democratic states tend not to go to war with one another) is evidence that their theory is true for multiple reasons. For example:

1. Democratic politics are based on negotiation and compromise, thus they find it easier to resolve disputes with other states.
2. Democracies have free speech and free press – this makes them more
   transparent; thus, other states are less suspicious and fearful of them.
3. “Audience Costs” result in more honesty: the leaders of democratic states face a “cost” for lying or not doing what they said they’ll do. This gives other states more reason to trust their public statements.
4. Democracies are based on the rule of law. Just as Constitutions make
   democratic politics more rule-bound, democracies are more willing and able to abide by the rules of international law, rules that increase peace and stability.