Essay \"What Are the Key Elements of Idealist Approaches to International Relations and How `Realistic’ Do You Think Their Proposals Are?\" - Grade 68 PDF

Preview

Summary

WHAT ARE THE KEY ELEMENTS OF IDEALIST APPROACHES TO INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND HOW `REALISTIC’ DO YOU THINK THEIR PROPOSALS ARE?...

Description

POL 223

WHAT

120167627

ARE

THE

Hicham Tohme KEY

ELEMENTS

OF

IDEALIST

APPROACHES

TO

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND HOW `REALISTIC’ DO YOU THINK THEIR PROPOSALS ARE? This essay will explain a framework for non-utopian key elements of idealist approaches of international relations (IR). The fundamental insight by idealists is that states are rooted in national and international civil community, which positively constrains their behaviour (Moravcsik, 2010). This fundament is reformulated as a core assumption that the nature of humans is to be good, peaceful and rational. Idealist key elements to approach international relations are: Human nature, DThe democratic peace theory and Ithe i nterdependency theory. There is a current debate to whether idealist’s approaches are truthful to IR, particularly regarding the effect on global cooperation. It is said that Liberalism has more advantaged over realism for example, because idealism has paradigms that permit a more rigorous empirical testing against realism in the current order of the international system. The purpose of this essay is therefore to analyse the realistic level of idealist approach. Every theory has limitations and it cannot be claimed as fully accurate , for that reason it is also is argued that the key features of idealism stated above are realistic to an extent, there are some considerable limitations: the lack of abstraction in relation toon the concept of “good” to describe the man’s nature;. tThe lack oflittle analysis ofon non-democratic states, just because they are thought consideredunfit to be not respected states;. aAnd hHuman rights are not equally for every state and their definition is not adequate for travelling and adapting over time since is assumed already it may have at problem of the concept b eing a product ofy the West yet being applied asabout the universal law.

HUMAN NATURE IN THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM BY IDEALIST. To be able to use a realistic assumption of international relations from idealists, it is first necessary to remove their assumptions regarding social reality from their normalities perspective. Therefore is needed to exclude all the reference to metaphysical idea of human’s nature, divine will (God), and natural theology. Hence, all the Idealistic arguments that rely on moral persuasion, for the purpose of

POL 223

120167627

Hicham Tohme

this essay. So, the focus will be on the foundation of the rational behaviour of humans. Idealists believes that humans are good, peaceful and rational by nature. Thanks to man's critical reason, the shape of society , individuals come together and organize themselves into dynamic societies grounded in the essentially procedural principles (natural law). To ensure their possibilities to progress hence,

,

consequently, they further organize their societies into a Global Society of Societies, embodying procedural principles as well. Global peaceful interactions are possible because the international system is constructed in an anarchic environment consequently; they are committed to participate in self-help (Moravcsik, 2010). The foundation of the idealist theory of world politics can be express in the form of social actors and their motivations and their relationship between states within the international system. The reason of humans is a core element to seek for domestic society since is believed to be the way to promote and protect their interests (human rights), idealists believe that the possible way to maintain peace between international relations it is through democracy.

DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY Idealists assume that liberal democracies do not fight withamong another liberal democratic nation s (Biddal and Sylvest, 2013), which that believes is called as the democratic peace theory. This is claimed to be true because liberal democracies share a common rational interest, which creates a cooperative international system, keeping in mind that this is based on the idea of human ’s nature. The peace and reason of humans direct attention to the need to remove violence in relations between states. The way only possible way to remove violence and the possibility of conflict/war between states in the international system is through liberal democracy (Buzan, 1984). Hence, if every nation in the world were liberal democratic, insecurity would not exit. Peace is claimed to be a political norm in which peace is respected in democracy. Furthermore Moravcsik in 2010 argued that nowadays the universal condition of politics is globalization, which brings us to the interdependency theoryy among states.

POL 223

120167627

Hicham Tohme

INTERDEPENDENCY THEORY Humans are progressive, due to their nature therefore are always embedded in domestic and transnational societies, which eventually generates global socioeconomic and cultural interaction.

Since, liberalism is related to capitalism

(globalization), the free trade that is established makes the relations between states stronger and greater, then, they will develop strong enough interconnectedness that they will depend on each other economically and since the international system in is in anarchy Doyle in 1997 insisted that “free states those enjoying political and economic freedom, are shown to have considerably less conflict at or above the level of economic sanctions then “no free” states”. . Besides, due to the independenc ey created the systems is considered to be in a non-zero sum game. s Because it is made through free cooperation and rational transnational relations of states where everyone wins and —thus peace can be achieved and human rights can be respected.

HUMAN AND MORAL RIGHTS. A global society, one in balance, overlapping and balanced forms of social and political allegiance, will be most resistant to international conflict and corruption of human rights. Idealists believe that there is a global morality, which is based on universal principles that apply to every state atin their domestic level and within the international system (egalitarian) (Tomuschat, 2008). They believe that humans just because there is humans have fixed rights (mainly freedom) just because there are humans, and that these rights must be enforced through the rule of a law, which is not based on theology and Gods creation (Rawls, 1999). Hence, a universal law should enhance the universal rights, according to idealists. TNoting, that the political systems that seek for the preservation of human rights and freedom areis democratic (Smith, 1999).

POL 223

120167627

Hicham Tohme

THE REALISTIC APPLICATION OF IDEALISM IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS The theoretical

concept of the

democratic peace

theory and the

interdependence theory are very inspirational ., Hhowever, it is arguable in the sense that it can be said that is not the ideal that humans are not always peaceful by nature, but that they are always protective offor they own interests, as how realists will argue. Nevertheless, idealists contest that arguing that states do not contest violently with another state under the interconnectedness because the costs wouldwill be greater than the benefits. The increase in free trade strengthens cooperation because it builds complex layer s of economic interdependency that ensures that states cannot act aggressively without a risking the economic interdependency of members of the international system (Waever, n.d). Hence, thisat results in an increase d global peace strategystate, which aims tofor the prevention of war. It is recognized as a current seen international order; truly states within the international system are interconnected and dependent on the international relations due the free market expansionism and liberal democracy . In the view on the fact that since the end of the Second World War ll, there has been a trend on states to become democracies, for example, Latin American countries, ex USSR members. Besides, insecurity is an immense and complex problem, as uncertainty which is influences every level of daily, lifesubjected to uncertainty across every level , from the individual to global. The fear of violence and wars from a governments makes the world competitive in terms of military power (Buzan, 1984). Thus, the system is dominated by the problem of insecurity , due to the competition among states , especially nownowadays that nuclear technology can create a nuclear holocaust, realists would argue. In spite of this, liberals said that competition in the system is substituted forby the warfare to warranty the economic stability and reduce the chances offor an economic crisis for the good of everyone. (Sevenhuijsen, 2000) Iit is comprehended, that if the global community is in anarchy, the self-regulation ofon capitalism means that state actors or non-state units must work together to make stable the international economy and establish a non-zero sum game for each national economy. If free trade is made by mercantilists, then war will be avoided , according to idealists, because it free trade produces wealth without war. Dolye (1997) adds,

POL 223

120167627

Hicham Tohme

that, since humans are rational, they will peacefully respect other states and allow them to enjoy the benefits of living under the conditions of peace specially if their rights and interests are promoted. A realistic example would be the creation of the EU; the liberal zone of peace has been maintained despite the several conflicts of economic self-interests. However, it can be claimed that is realistic only to the point of its purposes ., Iit created economic dependency , which is believed to promote peace and the preservation of human rights, even when it is often seen that the relationships between the developing and developed nations are unfair and unequal (Dunne, 1995) that does not mean that is not realistic. The aims of the UN are rooted based on idealistic views, in which its accuracy does not depend to whether it is successful or not. The UN has promoted mainly trade in the West ( the markets competing) in which some countries are considered to be exploited by realists, when countries outsource toin other countries to take advantage of the cheaper labour in the developing countries (Jackson, 2009). Other clear example is whetherif the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the ICC that have global impact. Thus idealism has allowed global politics to connect the rights directly with morality (Robinson, 1999). The central idea of idealists that economic interdependence and liberal democracies encourage peace and the protection of human rights remains the same. The assumption of idealists is that, because interdependency creates a political cooperation among the states , the individual’s rights by the spread of democracy can be achieved by the spread of democracy , and then it will make it possible for human rights to be respected.

The spread of democracy and the UN are a realistic

approach of idealists, since it is a current trend.

THE LIMITATIONS OF THE IDEALIST APROACHES. The definition of “good” for the nature of humans is questionable. As with everything in politics, concepts sometimes may fall into a ladder of abstraction. This is the case in relation to the idea offor humans being good by nature. What is the definition used by liberals to claim that humans are good by nature? Is it just, athe beliefve inon peace? And/or Can weis it enough the assumeption that humans are

POL 223

120167627

Hicham Tohme

rational? The moral basis forof idealists is evidently to be unclear. Idealists believe inon the universal law (universal moral principles) which can be established based on the moral grounds of man’s consciousness., Iit is claimed that how can idealists based their assumptions on the goodness of humans, but if they do not define what thethe ‘goodness’ in man is, they just assume it. Can we just assume the nature of human’s to be as simple as that? Is it realistic to assume it? Realists will claim that , Do evidences forof the behaviour of man shows them to as killer, rapes and stealing, and commit terrorism, which they say actually proves that manhe is bad.? TControversially, what about the counter-evidence can be seen, though, inby acts of donations, love, and self-sacrifice.? Is the everyday evidence of crime in the states of the international system a significant proof that the men are bad instead of good? Idealist will claim that there is less crime and so few wars because men, being good, adjust incredibly well to situations that are naturally difficult! (Rosato, 2003) Waltz argues that the evidence given by idealists cannot demonstrate or disprove our conception of man, because what we would make of the facts would reliesy on the conceptions we h oeld. Consequently, he concluded that allegations concerning man’s nature do not provide a non -controversial basis to choose between one type of worldwide order or another. Hence, oOne clear restriction on the idealists’ view of human nature’s view of idealists, is that the normative value of peace, and the question as to whether to answer if it is a truly possible as an aim (Russett, 1995). Nevertheless, one exception toin the democratic peace theory is, the Kosovo war in 1999, when NATO went to war against the Albanian and the Yugoslavian military forces (Waltz and Kenneth, 2000). Thisat proves that the democratic peace theory is not as accurate as idealists claim. But it is acknowledged by (Robinson, 1999)under concerned that any theory in the study of international relations is almost impossible to be proved completely accurate. This theory is claimed to be limited in terms of relevant studiesy of non-democratic states. The approaches of idealists simplye do not bother to analyze and include non-liberal states in their study of international relations because there are not consider ed to be a respected state due to their lack of support for human rights and theirthe irrationality (Martin and Hobson,

POL 223

120167627

Hicham Tohme

2010). However, th isat does not dretract from the idea that the approach of idealism does explain the current democratic nature of the world system. The other important element of the idealist s approach is the limitation of the concept of human rights and it lack of travelling and adaptation with history and time (Waever, n.d). Idealism believes that there is a universal morality which grounds universal principles that are applicable to every unit of the international society, which are the roots of international law. For that reason, liberal democratic governments aimare to secure these rights. Constructivists will claim that the social order is socially constructed. And if society demands a welfare state, education or anything they see fundamental for their progress, the international system must ensure them. However, this is not possible based on the assumption of idealists to international law. Human’s rights are granted but they did not specify which ones and moreover rights are culturally subjected even when states are democratic. They do not make human rights to be adapted during time. “The hegemonic vision…. oOf the current American govern emennet contradicts the liberal principles of the new world order …the son has made a “U-turn” from “an internationalist to an imperialist strategy”…. As a consequence… the moral authority which the USA derived from its role as an advocate of the global politics of human rights lies in shreds” (Smith, 1999; Rosato, 2003 and Jackson, 2009). This essay was intended to demonstrate that idealist elements for the approach of international relations are more real istic are than improbable. It is can be concluded, that the relevance of idealists is clear in the current international order due to the visible increase of democracies and international institutions such as UN aiming for human rights, peace and progress promotion. However, there are some limitations, such as a concrete definition of “good” when they refer to man’s human nature. It also expectsexcept too much from humanity, and the assumassumesptions that idealism can eradicate human rights abuses which assumes the ideology to be successful in practise, and which in reality that is highly contested and very improbable. The conception of human’s rights and, goodness areis culturally contested, thoughand it is usually taken to mean what the West thinks on these issues.

It is considered to be a functional approach to study ing international

relations because it does explain trends that are happening, such as the economic

POL 223

120167627

Hicham Tohme

interdependence due capitalism , which can be said to demonstrate the belief that humans are rational because they cooperate for the protection of their interests. The increase inof democracy and liberal democratic institutions isare a realistic element of idealism. Finally ,. iIt can be said that it the theories and elements of idealist ideology are visibleperceived in the current world, but it does not necessarily mean that they areit is successful.

Bibliography Beitz, C. R. (1979) Political Theory and International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Bliddal, H. and Sylvest, C. (2013). Classics of International Relations: Essays in Criticism and Appreciation. New York: Routledge. Brown, C. (1999) ‘History Ends, Worlds Collide’. Review of International Studies (special issue), 25(5) 41–58. Buzan, Barry (1981) ’Naval power, the law of the sea, and the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace’, Marine Policy, 5(3,) 194-204. Buzan, B. (1984). Peace, Power, and Security: Contending Concepts in the Study of International Relations. Journal of Peace Research. 21(2) 109-125. Carr, E. H. (1939) The Twenty-years Crisis: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations, London: Macmillan. Doyle, M. W. (1997). “Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs.” In Debating the Democratic Peace, ed. Michael E. Brown, Sean M. Lynn-Jones, and Steven E. Miller. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Duffield, M. (2007). Development, Security and Unending War: Governing the World of Peoples, Cambridge: Polity Press. Dunne, T. (1995) 'International Society: Theoretical Promises Fulfilled?', Cooperation and Conflict 30(2)125-154.

POL 223

120167627

Hicham Tohme

Gowa, J. (1999) Ballots and Bullets: The Elusive Democratic Peace. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Huntley and Wade L. (1996) “Kant’s Third Image: Systemic Sources of the Liberal Peace”, International Studies Quarterly 40. Jackson, H. (2009) Overview of United States of America’s National Security Strategy 2009: Counterterrorism Policy Recommendations and Implications. School of International Studies, https://dlib.lib.washington.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/1773/4635/TF_SIS495E_200 9.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed 23 November 2013). Layne, C. (1994). “Kant or Cant: The Myth of the Democratic Peace.” International Security, 19 (1)5–49. Martin, H. and Hobson, J. M. (2010) Liberal International theory: Eurocentric but not always Imperialist? Department of political science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Moravcsik , A. (2010) Liberal Theories of International Relations: A PRIMER Chicago: University of Chicago Press. NSS (2002) The National Security Strategy of the United States. Washington, DC: The White House. http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf (accessed 20 November 2013). NSS (2006) The National Security Strategy of the United States. Washington, DC: The White House. http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/ (accessed 20 November 2013). Rawls, J. (1999) The Law of Peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Robinson, F. (1999) ‘Globalizing Care: Ethics, Feminist Theory and International Relations’, Boulder: Wes...