U5 Notes (ppt)

Liberalism

Liberalism as a Model of Government: A Comprehensive Overview

Liberalism, with its core values of self-restraint, moderation, compromise, and peace, has
become one of the most successful and widespread models of government. There are now
75 liberal democracies worldwide, with significant representation in Europe and the
Americas, and increasing influence in parts of Africa and Asia. However, liberalism has
encountered significant challenges, particularly in international affairs, which Harvard scholar
Stanley Hoffmann described as the "nemesis of liberalism." Despite its internal strength,
liberalism often struggles to adapt its ideals to the complexities of global politics.

Early Liberal Thinkers: Kant, Bentham, and Mill

The roots of liberalism can be traced back to the Enlightenment, where early thinkers like
Immanuel Kant, Jeremy Bentham, and John Stuart Mill laid the intellectual groundwork.
Their focus was on promoting individual liberty, constitutionalism, and the peaceful resolution
of conflicts.

1. Jeremy Bentham: Bentham, known for his utilitarian philosophy, coined the term
“international” in 1780, as he was dissatisfied with the phrase “law of nations,” which
had been used by previous scholars like Emer de Vattel. In his seminal work
Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1780), Bentham proposed a
new concept of international jurisprudence that was grounded in the equality of
sovereign states. His goal was to apply his famous utilitarian principle—the “greatest
happiness for the greatest number”—to the international community. He argued that
judges and legislators should work toward establishing this principle among the
“family of nations.”
2. Immanuel Kant: Kant, a contemporary of Bentham, was equally critical of the state
of international relations, which he described as a “lawless state of savagery.” In
contrast to domestic politics, which was evolving toward rights, citizenship, and
constitutionalism, international politics remained anarchic and brutal. Kant’s vision for
achieving peace among nations was ambitious: it required the transformation of
individual consciousness, the establishment of republican constitutionalism, and the
creation of a federal contract among states that would abolish war entirely. Unlike
previous international lawyers who sought to regulate war, Kant advocated for its
complete abolition. His essay Perpetual Peace (1795) remains one of the most
influential works in liberal internationalism.

Waves of Liberal Internationalism

Liberal internationalism, as an approach to global governance and diplomacy, has

developed through three significant waves:
First Wave: Enlightenment Foundations

The first wave of liberal internationalism can be traced back to Enlightenment thinkers like
Kant and Bentham. Their ideas reacted to the barbarity of international relations at a time
when domestic politics was beginning to embrace liberal ideas like rights, citizenship, and
constitutionalism. Both thinkers envisioned a world where nations could coexist peacefully,
governed by the principles of equality, mutual respect, and shared prosperity.

Bentham, in particular, pioneered new political concepts like “international law” and
“codification,” which aimed to standardize legal practices and promote fairness across
national boundaries. Kant’s vision of perpetual peace required not only the restructuring of
domestic governments into republics but also the establishment of a cosmopolitan order,
where global institutions would play a role in maintaining peace.

Second Wave: Post-World War I Idealism

The second wave of liberal internationalism emerged after World War I and is closely
associated with the "idealist moment" of the interwar period. This phase was marked by the
creation of the League of Nations in 1920, which was intended to prevent conflicts from
escalating into full-scale wars. The League represented a major step forward in
institutionalizing liberal ideals on the international stage. It sought to resolve disputes
diplomatically and avoid the horrors of another world war. Key to the League’s founding
principles was the right of nations to self-determination, a cornerstone of liberal thought that
argued for the sovereignty and autonomy of all peoples.

While the League ultimately failed to prevent World War II, it was a bold experiment in liberal
internationalism and laid the foundation for future global institutions like the United Nations.

Third Wave: Post-World War II Liberal Order

The third wave of liberal internationalism began after World War II and continues to this day.
Following the war, liberal democracies, led by the United States, established a new
international order, epitomized by the creation of the United Nations in 1945. This order
was built on the principles of collective security, human rights, and international cooperation.
Institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the World Trade
Organization (WTO) were created to foster economic stability and development, while
promoting liberal values of free trade and global interdependence.

This wave saw the triumph of liberal democracy over other political ideologies, particularly
communism. Francis Fukuyama’s famous work The End of History (1989) celebrated the
victory of liberalism, arguing that liberal democracies were more stable internally and more
peaceful externally than illiberal states. Fukuyama contended that liberalism had no
ideological rivals, and that the future of global politics would be dominated by liberal
democratic states.

Critiques of Liberal Internationalism

Despite the optimism surrounding the liberal international order, there are critics who
challenge its assumptions and outcomes. While liberal theorists like Fukuyama celebrated
the peace and stability of liberal democracies, other scholars, like Michael Doyle, pointed out
the aggressive tendencies of these democracies in their dealings with authoritarian states
and stateless peoples. Liberal states, Doyle argued, could be just as prone to military
intervention and coercion as authoritarian regimes, especially when they encountered non-
liberal governments.

Moreover, the liberal order has been accused of maintaining structural hierarchies that favor
powerful states, particularly in the global South. These critics argue that the institutions and
policies that underpin the liberal international order often serve the interests of the most
powerful nations, rather than promoting genuine global equality and justice. For example,
development doctrines and security policies are often seen as tools that reproduce patterns
of dominance rather than alleviating global inequities.

Contemporary Crisis of Liberal Internationalism

The liberal international order that has dominated global politics since 1945 is now facing a
series of challenges that threaten its future. Several key factors contribute to this crisis:

1. Diminishing U.S. Power: As the relative power of the United States declines, its
ability to maintain global stability and manage international risks is also waning. The
U.S. has been the principal architect and guarantor of the liberal order, and its
weakening position leaves a vacuum in global leadership.
2. Rising Powers: Emerging powers like China, India, and Russia are challenging the
dominance of liberal democracies and demanding a greater say in international
affairs. These rising powers often have different views on sovereignty, human rights,
and the role of international institutions, leading to tensions with the established
liberal order.
3. Failure of European Power: There was once hope that Europe could emerge as a
second superpower to support and strengthen the liberal international order.
However, internal divisions within the European Union, economic stagnation, and the
rise of nationalist movements have weakened Europe’s ability to play this role.
4. Return to Sovereignty: In recent years, there has been a resurgence of nationalism
and state sovereignty. Many countries are now prioritizing their own national interests
over international cooperation, making it more difficult to secure support for liberal
internationalist interventions in global conflicts. This shift is reflected in the
decreasing influence of the United Nations and other international bodies in
mediating global disputes.

Future of Liberal Internationalism

If liberal internationalism is truly in decline, it remains uncertain what will replace it. Some
fear a return to the power politics and great power rivalries that characterized the first half of
the 20th century. Just as the League of Nations was powerless to prevent World War II, a
weakened United Nations and liberal order could fail to stop future conflicts between major
powers.

On the other hand, if liberal internationalism can adapt to the changing global landscape, it
may survive and even thrive in the 21st century. This would require global institutions to
accommodate the demands of rising powers while maintaining their commitment to liberal
principles like democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

In conclusion, liberalism has proven to be a highly successful model of government, shaping

domestic politics and international relations for centuries. However, the liberal international
order faces significant challenges in the modern era, as new global powers rise and the U.S.
declines. Whether liberal internationalism will survive or be replaced by a new global order
remains one of the most pressing questions of our time.

Marxism

The analysis of Marxism within the context of International Relations (IR) reveals the
evolving relevance of Marx's ideas, especially after the Cold War and the decline of
traditional Marxist states. Even though communist regimes still held power in countries like
China, Cuba, and Vietnam after the Cold War ended in 1991, their influence on the global
stage had diminished. These countries were no longer seen as a major threat to the
dominance of global capitalism, which symbolized a growing irrelevance of Marxism in
modern IR theory. This view suggested that the future belonged to liberal capitalism, and
Marxism seemed to have reached a dead end.

Marx's Contribution to International Relations Theory

Marx himself did not provide a detailed theoretical analysis of international relations. His key
works, such as Capital, focused on the development of capitalism within national economies,
particularly in 19th-century Britain. However, Marx’s fundamental concepts—such as class
struggle, materialism, and the analysis of the social world as a totality—laid the groundwork
for later Marxist interpretations of international relations. The driving force for Marxist
scholars was the idea that knowledge and scholarship were not neutral but aimed at human
emancipation.

Rosa Luxemburg and Colonialism

Rosa Luxemburg, a prominent Marxist thinker, expanded upon Marx’s work by considering
capitalism in a global context. In her 1913 work The Accumulation of Capital, she argued
that Marx’s analysis of capitalism as a closed system overlooked the significant role played
by the colonies. She proposed that capitalism, to survive, required constant expansion into
non-capitalist areas—colonial expansion was crucial for its continued growth. This theory
pointed to capitalism's need for an external, non-capitalist world to sustain itself.

Lenin and Imperialism

Lenin developed Marxist thought further in the context of international relations. In his 1917
work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Lenin argued that capitalism had evolved
since Marx’s time. He claimed that capitalism had entered a new phase—monopoly
capitalism—where large corporations and imperial powers dominated the global economy.
This stage of capitalism created a two-tier global system, with a dominant core (wealthier
capitalist countries) exploiting a less-developed periphery (colonial and semi-colonial
nations). Lenin's ideas influenced the Latin American Dependency School and thinkers like
Raúl Prebisch, who examined the core-periphery structure more deeply.

Dependency Theory and World-Systems Theory

Raúl Prebisch’s 1949 analysis of the declining terms of trade argued that peripheral
countries, which relied on raw material exports, were disadvantaged in the global economy.
The price of manufactured goods from core countries increased faster than raw materials,
leading to exploitation of the periphery. This core-periphery dynamic was later elaborated by
Immanuel Wallerstein’s World-Systems Theory. Wallerstein expanded on Marxist thought by
incorporating a three-tier system: core, periphery, and semi-periphery. The semi-periphery
played a dual role, exhibiting characteristics of both core and periphery nations, offering
labor that helped stabilize wages in core economies, and becoming home to industries that
could no longer thrive in core countries. Wallerstein critiqued the notion of globalization,
asserting that the contemporary discourse on globalization was a misunderstanding of the
ongoing dynamics of capitalism.

Feminist Contributions to Marxist Thought

Feminist scholars contributed to Marxist analyses of international capitalism by focusing on

the specific roles of women in the global economy. They highlighted how women, especially
in the Global South, are often disproportionately affected by capitalist exploitation,
particularly in industries like textiles and agriculture.

Antonio Gramsci and Hegemony

Antonio Gramsci’s concept of hegemony provided another significant contribution to Marxist

thought in IR. Gramsci, who wrote extensively while imprisoned in Fascist Italy, argued that
the ruling class maintains its dominance not only through coercion but also through the
consent of subordinate classes. This consent is achieved through the spread of the ruling
class’s moral, cultural, and political values, which become accepted as universal truths. This
cultural hegemony is maintained through civil society institutions such as media, education,
and religion. For Gramsci, societal change could only occur through a counter-hegemonic
struggle, where these dominant ideologies are challenged.

Robert W. Cox and the Internationalization of Gramsci’s Thought

Robert W. Cox, a Canadian scholar, transposed Gramsci’s concept of hegemony to the

international level. In his seminal 1981 article “Social Forces, States, and World Orders:
Beyond International Relations Theory,” Cox analyzed how global hegemony operates
through international institutions and economic structures that reinforce the dominance of
capitalist states. Cox's work is part of a broader critical theory tradition, which questions the
fundamental assumptions of mainstream IR theories.
Critical Theory and the Frankfurt School

Critical theory emerged from the work of the Frankfurt School, a group of left-wing
intellectuals who sought to understand the cultural and social dynamics that underpin
capitalist society. Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, and later Jürgen
Habermas were prominent members of this school. They focused on how culture, media,
and bureaucracy contribute to the maintenance of authoritarianism and capitalist dominance.
Habermas, in particular, emphasized the importance of radical democracy as a path to
emancipation. He argued that genuine democracy requires not only the formal mechanisms
of participation but also the dismantling of social, economic, and cultural barriers that prevent
true participation.

New Marxism and Uneven and Combined Development

In recent years, a group of scholars termed “New Marxists” have re-engaged with Marxist
theory, seeking to apply its insights to modern global issues. Justin Rosenberg’s work on
uneven and combined development, for example, draws on Trotsky’s analysis of Russia’s
development. The theory suggests that different countries develop in unique ways,
influenced by their position in the global political economy. This approach has been used to
analyze countries like Iran, where uneven economic development has led to distinct political
trajectories.

Conclusion: Marx and Engels on Globalization

Marx and Engels, writing in 1848, foresaw many of the dynamics that characterize modern
capitalism. They noted that the bourgeoisie, by exploiting the world market, had created a
cosmopolitan system of production and consumption, where national industries were
increasingly displaced by global industries. This global interdependence of production,
materials, and consumption mirrored the dynamics of globalization today. Despite the
perceived irrelevance of Marxism after the Cold War, these observations remain relevant for
understanding contemporary global capitalism.

In summary, while Marx did not provide a fully developed theory of international relations, his
ideas on class, capitalism, and imperialism have profoundly influenced the development of
IR theory. Various schools of Marxism, from Lenin’s analysis of imperialism to Wallerstein’s
world-systems theory and Gramsci’s concept of hegemony, continue to offer valuable
insights into the functioning of the global capitalist system. Even in the post-Cold War era,
Marxist thought remains relevant for understanding the inequalities and power dynamics that
shape the modern world.

Realist

The Realist theory is one of the most influential frameworks for understanding international
relations (IR). It focuses on the role of states, the nature of human behavior, and the
structural conditions of the international system, highlighting the centrality of power and
conflict in world politics. Below is an in-depth explanation of the key components of Realism
in IR, covering topics introduced in Dr. Ravi Saxena’s lecture.

What is Realism in International Relations?

Realism views states as the primary and, perhaps, sole actors in international relations.
While other entities (e.g., international organizations, non-state actors) exist, they are
considered subordinate to states. States operate under an anarchic international system,
meaning there is no overarching global authority to regulate or enforce rules among
sovereign states.

Realism stems from a long tradition of thought, tracing its roots back to ancient and modern
political theorists like Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hobbes. Realists argue that the
international system is characterized by competition, and this competition is driven by the
pursuit of power, which is necessary for survival in a world governed by anarchy.

Core Tenets of Realism

1. Statism: For Realists, the state is the most important actor in international relations,
and sovereignty is its defining feature. Sovereignty signifies that a state has ultimate
authority within its territorial borders and over its internal affairs. Realists argue that
no international authority can supersede the power of states, and international
organizations function only as tools of state interest.
2. Survival: The primary goal of any state is to ensure its survival in an anarchic
system. Realists believe that states must always prioritize their national security
above all else. Survival means that states must seek to defend their sovereignty and
territorial integrity, often through military might.
3. Self-Help: In a system of anarchy, states cannot rely on others for their security.
There is no global "police force" to protect them, so they must take measures to
secure themselves. Realists emphasize the idea of "self-help," where each state is
responsible for its own security. This often leads to power maximization and alliances
formed for strategic purposes rather than altruism.

Human Nature and Realism

Realists often see human nature as inherently selfish and power-hungry. They argue that
just as individuals seek to maximize their personal advantage, states, being composed of
individuals, act in similar ways on the international stage. Thus, world politics is marked by
constant bargaining, alliances, and power struggles.

Thucydides (Classical Realism)

Thucydides, an ancient Greek historian, is often credited as one of the earliest Realist
thinkers. His account of the Peloponnesian War emphasizes the inevitability of conflict driven
by the human desire for power. He argued that the struggle for power is a fundamental
aspect of human nature, and this extends to the behavior of states.
Machiavelli (Political Realism)

Machiavelli’s famous work, The Prince, is a cornerstone of Realist thought. He believed that
rulers must be pragmatic and prepared to use deceit, manipulation, and violence to maintain
power. For Machiavelli, political leaders should prioritize state security and survival over
ethical considerations, as human beings are fundamentally untrustworthy, selfish, and driven
by ambition.

Hobbes (Leviathan)

Thomas Hobbes expanded the Realist view by equating the condition of the international
system to the state of nature. In his work Leviathan, Hobbes described the state of nature as
a "war of all against all," where life is "nasty, brutish, and short." Without a central authority,
individuals live in constant fear of violent death. This mirrors international relations, where
states are in a perpetual state of insecurity, always preparing for potential conflict.

Rousseau

Though Rousseau is sometimes seen as a departure from classical Realism, he is included

because of his views on the state of war. Rousseau argued that the anarchical nature of the
international system, rather than human nature, fosters insecurity, fear, and conflict between
states. Thus, while individuals may seek peace, the structure of the international system
traps them in a state of war.

Conflict and Cooperation in Realism

Realists argue that conflict is at the heart of international relations. While cooperation is
possible, it is always precarious, as states must constantly guard against betrayal or conflict
arising from competing interests. Unlike Liberal theories that emphasize cooperation and
interdependence, Realism sees diplomacy and alliances as temporary mechanisms aimed at
preserving state interests, often to balance power.

Neorealism (Structural Realism)

In the 1970s, a new strand of Realism, known as Neorealism or Structural Realism,

emerged, largely through the work of Kenneth Waltz. Waltz's Theory of International Politics
introduced a more scientific approach to Realism, focusing on the international system’s
structure rather than human nature as the driving force behind state behavior.

Neorealism places greater emphasis on the anarchical structure of the international system.
In this view, the lack of a central governing authority compels states to engage in self-help
behavior, focusing on maximizing security rather than power for power's sake. Neorealists
argue that the distribution of power among states determines the nature of the international
system—whether it is unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar.

John Mearsheimer and Offensive Realism

John Mearsheimer, a proponent of offensive realism, takes Waltz’s Neorealism a step further
by arguing that states are not just concerned with maximizing security; they actively seek to
maximize their power relative to other states. Mearsheimer’s Tragedy of Great Power
Politics posits that states can never be sure of other states’ intentions, leading them to
continuously seek dominance. The ultimate, though unattainable, goal for any state is to
become the global hegemon.

Neoclassical Realism

Neoclassical realism, championed by scholars like Fareed Zakaria and Gideon Rose,
introduces unit-level variables like leadership, state identity, and domestic factors into Realist
analysis. While Neoclassical Realists accept the importance of the international system’s
structure, they argue that internal factors, such as a state's perception of power or its
political leadership, also shape foreign policy behavior. For example, post-Cold War politics
reflect not only structural shifts but also changes in leadership and domestic priorities within
key states.

The Realist Tradition: Historical and Contemporary Relevance

Realism is often considered the dominant theory of international relations because it

provides a powerful explanation for the constant state of conflict in global politics. Major
historical events such as World War I, World War II, and the Cold War serve as key
examples where Realist principles can be observed in action. Both World Wars debunked
the Idealist or Liberal belief in cooperation and peace as deterrents to war. Realists argue
that national interests, security, and power trump efforts at cooperative global governance.

Realism in the Post-Cold War Era

After the Cold War, scholars debated the transition from a bipolar world dominated by the
U.S. and the Soviet Union to a unipolar or multipolar system. Neorealists have suggested
that the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of multipolarity would alter the "rules of the
game." In the contemporary context, rising powers like China and Russia challenge U.S.
hegemony, leading to renewed concerns over great power politics.

Criticism of Realism

Realism has been critiqued on several grounds, including:

1. Empirical Criticism: Realism's state-centric view is seen as outdated by some,

given the rise of non-state actors (e.g., international organizations, multinational
corporations, terrorist groups) and global challenges (e.g., climate change,
pandemics) that cannot be solved by individual states alone.
2. Normative Criticism: Critics argue that Realism’s focus on power and survival can
justify immoral or unethical state behavior. Realists contend that in the face of
existential threats, ethical concerns are secondary, but critics question whether there
are limits to what states can do in the name of survival.
3. Self-Help Criticism: While Realists argue that self-help is an inevitable consequence
of anarchy, critics point out that there are instances where states have chosen
collective security arrangements (e.g., NATO, the European Union) to address
shared threats.
Conclusion

Realism continues to shape international relations theory because it offers a pragmatic lens
through which to view the chaotic and often conflict-ridden nature of global politics. Its focus
on power, survival, and the anarchic international system provides a powerful explanatory
framework, especially in times of conflict and rivalry. However, Realism’s emphasis on state
sovereignty and self-interest is increasingly challenged by global issues that require
collective action, as well as the growing influence of non-state actors and international
institutions.