Advertisement

Liberalism and International Relations Theory

  • Edwin van de Haar
Part of the Palgrave Macmillan History of International Thought Series book series (PMHIT)

Abstract

The four classical liberals had a number of common ideas on the timeless issues of international relations such as war and peace, trade, international law, and the balance of power. This allows for the presentation of a synthesis in the form of a comprehensive classical liberal theory of IR, which is very different from the current accounts of liberalism in IR theory. A caveat applies, though; the preceding analysis only allows the presentation of the contours of the theory. It must be acknowledged that almost any individual element of the theory could be further elaborated, but this would require chapter-length treatments. That is beyond the scope and intention of the present chapter and of this book.

Keywords

International Relation Individual Liberty Spontaneous Order English School Liberal Political Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Tooby, John, and Leda Cosmides. “The Psychological Foundations of Culture.” In The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. Edited by J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, and J. Tooby. New York: Oxford University Press. 1992. pp. 19–139.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pinker, Steven. The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. New York: Penguin Books. 2002. pp. 56–58, 428–431.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thayer, Bradley A. Darwin and International Relations: On the Evolutionary Origins of War and Ethnic Conflict. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. 2004. pp. 263–270.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rosen, Stephen Peter. War and Human Nature. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press. 2005. p. 2.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    See Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London and New York: Verso. 1996.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    Jahn, Beate. “Classical Smoke, Classical Mirror: Kant and Mill in Liberal International Relations Theory.” In Classical Theory in International Relations. Edited by B. Jahn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2006. pp. 178–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 8.
    Wolfe, Christopher. Natural Law Liberalism. New York: Cambridge University Press. 2006. p. 255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 9.
    Also see Lomasky, Loren E. “Liberalism beyond Borders.” Social Philosophy & Policy 24 (1):206–233. 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 10.
    See Fisher, David. “Humanitarian Intervention.” In The Price of Peace: Just War in the Twenty-First Century. Edited by C. Reed and D. Ryall. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2007. pp. 101–117;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Rengger, N.J. “The Greatest Treason? On the Subtle Temptations of Preventive War.” International Affairs 84 (5):949–961. 2008;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elshtain, Jean Bethke. Just War against Terror: The Burden of American Power in a Violent World. New York: Basic Books. 2003; Elshtain. Just War Theory, Rengger. On the Just War Tradition. Google Scholar
  12. 11.
    Higgs, Robert. Against Leviathan: Government Power and a Free Society. Oakland: Independent Institute. 2004;Google Scholar
  13. Higgs, Robert. Depression, War, and Cold War: Studies in Political Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2006.Google Scholar
  14. 15.
    Robbins, Lionel. Money, Trade and International Relations. London and Houndmills, Basingstoke: Macmillan. 1971. pp. 267–272;Google Scholar
  15. Robbins, Lionel. Economic Planning and International Order. London: Macmillan. 1937. pp. 242–268.Google Scholar
  16. 17.
    Hill, Christopher. The Changing Politics of Foreign Policy. Houndmills, Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 2003. pp. 138–143.Google Scholar
  17. 19.
    Also Röpke, Wilhelm. International Order and Economic Integration. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. 1959. pp. 43–56.Google Scholar
  18. 23.
    See Little, Richard. The Balance of Power in International Relations: Metaphors, Myths and Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 24.
    Butterfield, Herbert. “The Balance of Power.” In Diplomatic Investigations. Essays in the Theory of International Politics. Edited by H. Butterfield and M. Wight. London: George Allen & Unwin. 1966. pp. 132–148.Google Scholar
  20. 29.
    See Trebilcock, Michael J., and Robert Howse. The Regulation of International Trade. London and New York: Routledge. 2005.Google Scholar
  21. 30.
    Lai, Deepak. Reviving the Invisible Hand: The Case for Classical Liberalism in the Twenty-First Century. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press. 2006.Google Scholar
  22. 32.
    Sally, Razeen. Whither the WTO? A Progress Report on the Doha Round. Washington: Cato Institute. 2003;Google Scholar
  23. Sally, Razeen. Trade Policy, New Century: The WTO, FTAs and Asia Rising. London: Institute of Economic Affairs. 2008.Google Scholar
  24. 36.
    Barbieri, Katherine. The Liberal Illusion: Does Trade Promote Peace? Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 2005. pp. 121–137.Google Scholar
  25. 39.
    Also Sen, Amartya. Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1999.Google Scholar
  26. 43.
    Rengger, N.J. “Seeing (Double) in the Darkness: The Moral Vision of the Anarchical Society.” In The Anarchical Society in a Globalized World. Edited by R. Little and J. Williams. Houndmills, Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 2006. pp. 39, 45–49; Rengger. Tragedy or Scepticism. Google Scholar
  27. 44.
    Smith, Steve. “Introduction: Diversity and Disciplinarity in International Relations Theory.” In International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Edited by T. Dunne, M. Kurki, and S. Smith. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2007. p. 4.Google Scholar
  28. 49.
    See, for example, Brown. Understanding International Relations, pp. 22–30, 153–157; Koch, K., R.B. Soetendorp, and A. Van Staden. Internationale Betrekkingen. Theorieën en Benaderingen. Utrecht: Aula/Het Spectrum. 1994;Google Scholar
  29. Viotti and Kauppi. Global Philosophers; Jackson, Robert H. and Georg Sørensen. Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2003.Google Scholar
  30. 51.
    See, for example, Freedman, Lawrence. “The Age of Liberal Wars.” Review of International Studies 31:93–108. 2005; Panke and Risse. Liberalism; Williams. Liberalism and War. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 55.
    Long, David. “Conclusion: Inter-War Idealism, Liberal Internationalism, and Contemporary International Theory.” In Thinkers of the Twenty Years’ Crisis: Inter-War Idealism Reassessed, Edited by D. Long and P. Wilson. Oxford: Clarendon. 1995. pp. 302–328.Google Scholar
  32. 57.
    Hill, Christopher. “1939: The Origins of Liberal Realism.” Review of International Studies 15:319–328. 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 58.
    Clark, Ian. The Hierarchy of States: Reform and Resistance in the International Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1989. pp. 212–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 61.
    Martin, Lisa L. “Neoliberalism.” In International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Edited by T Dunne, M. Kurki, and S. Smith. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2007. pp. 109–126.Google Scholar
  35. 62.
    Grieco, Joseph M. “Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism.” In Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate. Edited by D.A. Baldwin. New York: Columbia University Press. 1993. pp. 121–135.Google Scholar
  36. 63.
    Lamy, Stephen L. “Contemporary Mainstream Approaches: Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism.” In The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. Edited by J. Baylis and S. Smith. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2005. p. 213.Google Scholar
  37. 66.
    Keohane, Robert O., and Joseph N. Nye. Power and Interdependence. Cambridge, MA: HarperCollins. 1989. pp. 24–25.Google Scholar
  38. 68.
    Bernstein, Steven. “Power, Social Purposes, and Legitimacy in Global Governance.” In Global liberalism and Political Order: Toward a New Grand Compromise? Edited by S. Bernstein and L.W. Pauly. Albany: State University of New York Press. 2007. pp. 5–7.Google Scholar
  39. 69.
    Ruggie, John Gerrard. “At Home Abroad, Abroad at Home: International Liberalization and Domestic Stability in the New World.” In The Globalization of liberalism. Edited by E. Hovden and E. Keene. Houndmills, Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave. 2002. pp. 99–122;Google Scholar
  40. Also Bernstein, Steven, and Louis W. Pauly, eds. Global liberalism and Political Order: Toward a New Grand Compromise? Albany: State University of New York Press. 2007.Google Scholar
  41. 71.
    Owen, John. M. “How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace.” In Debating the Democratic Peace. Edited by M.E. Brown, S.M. Lynn-Jones and S.E. Miller. Cambridge: MIT Press. 1996. pp. 116–133.Google Scholar
  42. 72.
    Doyle, Michael W. “Kant, Liberal Legacies and Foreign Affairs.” In Debating the Democratic Peace. Edited by M.E. Brown, S.M. Lynn-Jones and S. E. Miller. Cambridge: MIT Press. 1996. pp. 3–27.Google Scholar
  43. 74.
    For example, MacMillan, John. “Immanuel Kant and the Democratic Peace.” In Classical Theory in International Relations. Edited by B. Jahn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2006. p. 52; Doyle. Ways. pp. 251–300;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Oneal, John R., Bruce Russett, and Michael L. Berbaum. “Causes of Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations, 1885–1992.” International Studies Quarterly 47:371–393. 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 75.
    Mousseau, Michael, Håvard Hegre, and John R. Oneal. “How the Wealth of Nations Conditions the Liberal Peace.” European Journal of International Relations 9 (2):277–314. 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 76.
    McDonald, Patrick J. “Peace through Trade or Free Trade?” Journal of Conflict Resolution 48 (4):547–572. 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 77.
    Deudney, Daniel. “Publius before Kant: Federal-Republican Security and Democratic Peace.” European Journal of International Relations 10 (3):315–356. 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 78.
    MacMillan, John. “Liberalism and the Democratic Peace.” Review of International Studies 30 (2):179–200. 2004. p. 180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 79.
    MacMillan, John. On Liberal Peace: Democracy, War and the International Order. London and New York: I.B. Tauris. 1998. pp. 13–22.Google Scholar
  50. 81.
    Owen, John. M. Liberal Peace, Liberal War: American Politics and International Security. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. 1997. pp. 3, 19–20.Google Scholar
  51. 82.
    See, for example, Moravcsik, Andrew. “Liberal International Relations Theory: A Scientific Assessment.” In Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field. Edited by C. Elman and M.F. Elman. Cambridge and London: MIT Press. 2003. pp. 159–204.Google Scholar
  52. 83.
    Doyle, Michael W. “Liberalism and World Politics.” American Political Science Review 80 (4):1151–1169. 1986. pp. 1151–1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 89.
    Keohane, Robert O. “International Liberalism Reconsidered.” In The Economic Limits to Modern Politics. Edited by J. Dunn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1990. pp. 173–185.Google Scholar
  54. 91.
    Moravcsik, Andrew. “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics.” International Organization 51 (4):513–553. 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 93.
    Richardson, James L. “Contending Liberalisms: Past and Present.” European Journal of International Relations 3 (1):5–33. 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Edwin van de Haar 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edwin van de Haar

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations