Abstract
Liberalism is the great Other vis-à-vis realism — the “historical alternative,” as Tim Dunne puts it1 — set out in counterpart to the traditional pre-eminence of the realist paradigm in international studies. The liberal literature is in fact in precise opposition to realism, so to say, because it reverses the most fundamental premise of realist thought. Realism assumes that violence precedes the emergence of rationality and society, and that the way in which it is handled and managed then determines the nature of both the rational and the social in human affairs. Liberalism, on the contrary, presupposes the existence of an intrinsic sense of rationality and sociability in humans, which exists aside from violence and therefore can limit its sway in the constitution and evolution of society.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Tim Dunne, “Liberalism,” in John Baylis and Steve Smith, eds, The Globalization of World Politics. An Introduction to International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 163.
John Locke, The Two Treaties of Government [1689?] (Edited with an Introduction and Notes by Peter Laslett) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960), The Second Treatise, paragraph 19, p. 280 in this edition. Emphasis in the original.
The second edition of The Critique of Pure Reason, where Kant responds to the reviews addressed to the first version of the text, is the best known one. It was published in 1787. The Critique of Practical Reason was also published in 1787, and grew out of the revisions added to the Critique of Pure Reason. Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Point of View was published in 1784, while Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch came out in 1795. The best compendium of all these texts is Lewis White Beck, ed., Kant: Selections (New York and London: Scribner/Macmillan, 1988). The subsequent excerpts from Kant’s texts are taken from this volume.
See for instance the argument defended in Lewis White Beck, A Commentary on Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason (Indianapolis: Library of Liberal Arts, 1960). Kant opens up the second edition of the Critique of Pure Reason with a “Preface and Introduction” which itself starts with some thoughts on “The Copernican Revolution in Metaphysics.” See Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, in Beck, Kant: Selections, 95.
Wade L. Huntley, “Kant’s Third Image: Systemic Sources of the Liberal Peace,” International Studies Quarterly 40 (1996), 51.
On the importance of this question in Kantian studies, see for instance Steven B. Smith, “Defending Hegel from Kant,” in Howard Lloyd Williams, ed., Essays on Kant’s Political Philosophy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 280–286.
Kant, “On the Common Saying: ‘This May be True in Theory, but It Does Not Apply in Practice,’” in Hans Heiss, ed., Kant: Political Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 90.
David Boucher, Political Theories of International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 272.
Erik Gartzke, “Preferences and the Democratic Peace,” International Studies Quarterly 44, 2 (June 2000), 192.
Jack Levy, “Domestic Politics and War,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18, 4 (Spring 1988), 653.
See also Jack Levy, “The Democratic Peace Hypothesis: From Description to Explanation,” Mershon International Studies Review 38 (1994), 352.
See Melvin Small and David Singer, “The War-Proneness of Democratic Regimes,” Jerusalem Journal of International Relations 1 (1976), 50–69.
See R. J. Rummel, “Libertarianism and International Violence,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 27 (1983), 27–71.
See also R. J. Rummel, “Democracies Are Less Warlike than Other Regimes,” European Journal of International Relations 1 (1995), 457–479.
Erik Gartzke, for example, notes that “Oneal and Russett — together and with other co-authors — provide what is widely regarded as the leading quantitative research program in support of the democratic peace thesis.” Erik Gartzke, “Preferences and the Democratic Peace,” International Studies Quarterly 44, 2 (June 2000), 192.
On Oneal and Russett, see J. R. Oneal and B. Russett, “The Classical Liberals Were Right: Democracy, Interdependence, and Conflict, 1950–1985,” International Studies Quarterly 41, 2 (1997), 267–293;
J. R. Oneal and B. Russett, “Is the Liberal Peace Just an Artifact of Cold War Interests? Assessing Recent Critiques,” International Interactions 25, 3 (1999), 213–241.
Michael Doyle, “Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs, Part 1,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 12, 3 (Summer 1983), 205–254;
Michael Doyle, “Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs, Part 2,” Philosophy and Public A ffairs 12, 4 (Fall 1983), 323–353.
See for instance Michael W. Doyle, Ways of War and Peace. Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism (New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1997), 279.
Bruce Russett, Grasping the Democratic Peace. Principles for a Post-Cold War World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 4.
See for instance Michael Doyle, “A Liberal View: Preserving and Expanding the Liberal Pacific Union,” in T. V. Paul and John Hall, eds, International Order and the Future of World Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 41–66.
See for instance David Held, “Democracy, the Nation-State and the Global System,” in David Held, ed., Political Theoty Today (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991),
and David Held, “Democracy: From City—States to a Cosmopolitan Order?,” Political Studies (September 1992).
The quote is from David Held, Democracy and the Global Order. From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995), 227.
See for instance Richard Falk, “Global Civil Society and the Democratic Prospect,” in Barry Holden, ed., Global Democracy. Key Debates (London and New York: Routledge, 2000), 162–179,
and Richard Falk, “Global Civil Society: Perspectives, Initiatives, and Movements,” Oxford Development Studies 26 (1998), 99–110.
More broadly, see Richard Falk, On Humane Governance: Towards a New Global Politics (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995).
Richard Falk, “Global Civil Society and the Democratic Prospect,” in Barry Holden, ed., Global Democracy. Key Debates (London and New York: Routledge, 2000), 165.
On the way in which Smith’s work resonates through later developments in liberal economics and their relation to the American capitalist spirit, see for instance E. Roll, “The Wealth of Nations 1776–1976,” Lloyds Bank Review 119 (January 1976), 12–22
and T. W. Hutchison, “Adam Smith and The Wealth of Nations,” Journal of Law and Economics 19, 3 (October 1976), 507–528.
Adam Smith, “The Theory of Moral Sentiments”, in The Works of Adam Smith, Volume 1 (Otto Zeiler, 1963). See part III, passim.
Glenn R. Morrow, The Ethical and Economic Theories of Adam Smith (New York: Longmans, Green, and Co. 1923), 31.
C. R. Fay, “Adam Smith and the Dynamic State,” Economic Journal 40 (March 1930), 28.
L. Billet, “The Just Economy: The Moral Basis of the Wealth of Nations,” Review of Social Economy 34 (December 1976), 303.
Also see, for example, A. L. Macfie, “Adam Smith’s Moral Sentiments as Foundation for his Wealth of Nations,” Oxford Economic Papers 11 (October 1959), 209–228.
Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (Edited and with an Introduction, Notes, Marginal Summary and Index by Edwin Cannan) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976), Book IV, chapter II.
David Mitrany, A Working Peace System (Chicaco: Quadrangle Books, 1966).
Ernst B. Haas, Beyond the Nation-State. Functionalism and International Organization (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1964).
Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Power and Interdependence. World Politics in Transition (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1977).
Robert O. Keohane, After Hegemony. Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984).
Richard Rosecrance, The Rise of the Trading State. Commerce and Conquest in the Modern World (New York: Basic Books, 1986).
See E. D. Mansfield and J. C. Pevehouse, “Trade Blocs, Trade Flows, and International Conflict,” International Organization 54 (2000), 775–808
and E. D. Mansfield, J. C. Pevehouse, and D. H. Bearce, “Preferential Trading Arrangements and Military Disputes,” Security Studies 9 (1999–2000), 92–118.
See Bruce Russett and John R. Oneal, Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations (New York: W. W. Norton, 2001);
John R. Oneal, Bruce Russett, and Michael L. Berbaum, “Causes of Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations, 1885–1992,” International Studies Quarterly 47 (2003), 371–393.
Erik Gartzke and Quang Li, “War, Peace, and the Invisible Hand: Positive Political Externalities of Economic Globalization,” International Studies Quarterly 47 (2003), 563.
Michael Mousseau, “The Nexus of Market Society, Liberal Preferences, and Democratic Peace: Interdisciplinary Theory and Evidence,” International Studies Quarterly 47, 4 (December 2003), 489.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2011 Pierre P. Lizée
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lizée, P.P. (2011). Competing Universals: Liberalism. In: A Whole New World. Palgrave Studies in International Relations Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230316843_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230316843_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-32757-7
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-31684-3
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)