The intellectual roots of the liberal approach stem from the idealist school, with its intellectual framework built on criticizing and rejecting the fundamental general assumptions of realist theory. Liberal theory took shape through the works of various thinkers such as John Locke, Immanuel Kant, Adam Smith, and others. It is considered one of the most inclined theoretical approaches in the field of international relations toward the value of international cooperation, viewing it as a natural state in international relations, while wars are seen as exceptions. Liberal theory is divided into:
First – Structural Liberalism and the Democratic Peace Thesis:
Foundations of the Democratic Peace Idea:
The concept of democratic peace is based on two main principles:
The first principle is that democratic states do not fight each other. History may provide evidence of this, as no war has been recorded between two democratic states. Proponents of this idea believe that the reasons preventing war between democratic states are due to several factors:
- The first factor is that the decision to go to war in democratic states is not as easy as in non-democratic states. In democracies, the decision to go to war must pass through legislative institutions, which complicates the matter. In contrast, in dictatorships, a decision for war only requires the leader’s approval.
- The second factor is that democracy fosters public awareness, political culture, and social upbringing that reject the collective acceptance of military conflicts and wars with other states.
- The third factor is that there is mutual trust and respect among democratic states because they share the same principles and philosophy, making it unlikely for them to engage in war with each other.
- The fourth factor is that since democratic states have democratic mechanisms for addressing their internal problems, they will also use their democratic tools to resolve external issues.
The second principle is that relations outside the democratic zone are characterized by conflict, meaning that the default in these relationships is the absence of peace, including relations between democratic and non-democratic states. This is based on the belief that “the natural state is one of war, not peace.”
Structural liberalism drew upon the idea of democratic peace, which emerged in the 1980s, arguing that the spread of democracy would lead to increased international security. The idea of democratic peace can be traced back to the research conducted by Small Malvin and David Singer, published in an article in 1976 in the “Jerusalem Journal of International Relations.” They expanded on Immanuel Kant’s 1796 essay, “Perpetual Peace,” where he argued that republican governments tend toward peace, in contrast to authoritarian regimes that pursue their leaders’ desires. This idea was later supported by thinkers like Michael Doyle and Bruce Russett. Michael Doyle emphasized that democratic representation, ideological commitment to human rights, and cross-border interconnectedness are the key elements explaining the inclination toward peace among democratic states. He argued that insecurity is linked to the absence of democratic values and principles, without which the logic of power replaces the logic of reconciliation.
Michael Doyle further argued that Kant outlined three essential elements in his essay that confirm democratic states are less prone to war than non-democratic states:
- Republican democratic representation.
- Ideological commitment to human rights.
- Cross-border interconnectedness.
Liberal thinkers have reconsidered the issue of security from a broader and more comprehensive perspective by involving non-state actors. Security is no longer limited to protection against threats from other states but now also includes threats from other non-state actors within the global order. The liberal conception of security extends beyond the state to include institutional, economic, and democratic factors, which are considered more effective than military action in establishing peace. This is because lower-level policies dictate the security agenda and make cooperation between states inevitable, as highlighted in neoliberalism.
Structural liberalism is based on the following assumptions:
- Individuals and groups within national and transnational civil society are the primary actors in international politics.
- All international political institutions, including the nation-state, represent the interests of some, not all, parts of the society under their rule.
- State behavior, which determines levels of conflict and cooperation internationally, reflects the nature and intentions of the state and its choices.
Evaluation of the Democratic Peace Theory:
- The Democratic Peace Theory failed to address proxy wars, where conflicting powers use third parties to fight on their behalf, particularly during the Cold War.
- Some scholars argue that peace between democracies during the Cold War was the result of shared interests in opposing communism, not democracy itself. They also argue that trade, not democracy, is the cause of peace.
Advocates of the Democratic Peace Theory claim that democratic states resolve their issues with others through democratic mechanisms, unlike dictatorial states that lack such mechanisms. However, this claim is not entirely accurate. History shows that democratic states apply their democratic standards only domestically, while on the international stage, they resort to military solutions when their interests are threatened.
Institutional Liberalism:
Neoliberalism begins with a critique of the realist view of international security, which neglects the role of international institutions in reducing the severity of international conflicts and wars. Realist analysis is centered on statehood, ignoring institutions, which are seen merely as products of state actions. On the other hand, neoliberalism emphasizes that institutions play a critical role in achieving international security and enhancing internal security through powers and mechanisms that allow them to manage certain aspects of domestic issues. These changes reflect the transformations in global politics, where states no longer have absolute sovereignty over their domestic policies.
Institutional liberalism operates on the assumption that the proliferation and increased complexity of international and regional organizations, alongside a denser web of interdependence, will lead to peaceful and cooperative behavior between states and other entities within the international system.
This approach highlights how international institutions can influence the provision of security by spreading specific values or creating patterns of behavior governed by certain laws. Institutional liberalism is linked to an international system with two key conditions: first, there must be mutual interests between states and other actors that can be achieved through cooperation, and second, changes in the degree of institutionalization should significantly influence state behavior.
Institutional liberalism broadens the definition of security, moving away from the military-geographical focus of realism. It stresses the importance of issues such as wealth, welfare, and the environment, while incorporating non-state actors into the equation. Security, therefore, is not just about protecting the state from other state threats but also from non-state threats within the global order. The liberal concept of security is expanded to be “above the state” rather than “below the state,” including institutional, economic, and democratic factors, which are more impactful than military factors in establishing peace. Lower-level policies determine the security agenda and make cooperation between states inevitable.
Institutional liberalism emphasizes building institutions, creating systems, and pursuing absolute gains rather than relative ones. It argues that international institutions can influence state behavior and overcome the effects of anarchy. While institutionalization cannot prevent wars, it can reduce fears of deception and ease concerns that arise from unequal benefits in cooperation. It can also mitigate states’ self-centered tendencies by encouraging them to forego short-term interests for the greater benefits of long-term cooperation. By the early 1970s, liberals had shifted toward giving more attention to international institutions, assigning them roles that states could not handle alone. This shift was driven by the ideas of David Mitrany in the mid-20th century, who advocated for supra-national cooperation to solve shared problems.
References
- The book “Security: A New Framework for Analysis” by Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver, and Jaap de Wilde (1998) is considered a seminal text that outlines the Copenhagen School’s approach to security studies, which incorporates liberal elements.
- The Oxford Research Encyclopedia entry on “Liberalism and Security” by John M. Owen IV provides a comprehensive overview of liberal approaches to international security.
- The article “Liberalism and Security: The contradictions of the liberal Leviathan” by Barry Buzan and Ole Wæver (1998) examines the complex relationship between liberalism and security studies.
- The book chapter “Liberal Approaches” by John M. Owen in The Oxford Handbook of International Security offers an in-depth analysis of liberal perspectives on international security.
- The article “Towards a Critical Securitization Theory: The Copenhagen and Aberystwyth Schools of Security Studies” provides insights into how liberal ideas have influenced critical approaches to security studies.
- Robert Keohane’s work on liberal theories, which identifies three basic types: republican, commercial, and regulatory, is cited as an important contribution to understanding liberal approaches to international relations and security.
- The article “Contribution of Copenhagen school to the security studies” in the journal ODÜSOBİAD offers an overview of how the Copenhagen School, which incorporates liberal elements, has shaped security studies.
- The book section “Securitization theory according to the Copenhagen School” on OpenEdition Books provides a detailed explanation of securitization theory, which draws on liberal concepts.
