Concepedia

Publication | Closed Access

Liberalism and World Politics

1.1K

Citations

38

References

1986

Year

TLDR

Liberal states are generally peaceful yet also prone to war, creating a separate peace while simultaneously providing liberal justifications for aggression. The study reexamines the traditional liberal claim that governments founded on respect for individual liberty exercise restraint and peaceful intentions in foreign policy. The author analyzes three liberal traditions—Schumpeter’s democratic capitalism, Machiavelli’s classical republicanism, and Kant’s liberal republicanism—to explain liberal pacifism, imperialism, and internationalism. Despite contradictions between liberal pacifism and imperialism, the author concludes that liberalism leaves a coherent legacy in foreign affairs, with differences rooted in conceptions of the citizen and the state.

Abstract

Building on a growing literature in international political science, I reexamine the traditional liberal claim that governments founded on a respect for individual liberty exercise “restraint” and “peaceful intentions” in their foreign policy. I look at three distinct theoretical traditions of liberalism, attributable to three theorists: Schumpeter, a democratic capitalist whose explanation of liberal pacifism we often invoke; Machiavelli, a classical republican whose glory is an imperialism we often practice; and Kant, a liberal republican whose theory of internationalism best accounts for what we are. Despite the contradictions of liberal pacifism and liberal imperialism, I find, with Kant and other democratic republicans, that liberalism does leave a coherent legacy on foreign affairs. Liberal states are different. They are indeed peaceful. They are also prone to make war. Liberal states have created a separate peace, as Kant argued they would, and have also discovered liberal reasons for aggression, as he feared they might. I conclude by arguing that the differences among liberal pacifism, liberal imperialism, and Kant's internationalism are not arbitrary. They are rooted in differing conceptions of the citizen and the state.

References

YearCitations

Page 1