Political Liberalism In The United States During The Cold War

The discipline of international relations (IR) is one that has witnessed a multitude of variations and shifts. It has produced a fair amount of debate between academics within the international relations scholarship. Due to a plethora of circumstances scholars have subjected the traditional rationalist theories of neorealism and neoliberalism to critical re-evaluations. As a result, constructivism is a concept that has emerged as an alternative approach to dominant IR theories. It focuses on the importance of state identities in defining and gaining knowledge of state interests, actions and goals. There are theorists who purport that the rise of constructivism allows for a further understanding of another international theory, feminism.

The theories of Liberalism and Hegemonic Stability Theory both sufficiently account for the United States' main motivations for entering war

Bringing states together is the key to worldwide peace and prosperity according to the liberal point of view. Liberalism purposes three ways to unify states: economic activity, spreading democracy, and multi-national institutions. Subsets of liberalism centered on these designs are labeled economic liberalism, Kantian liberalism, and neo-liberal institutionalism, respectively. The unification of states is essential to any form of

The second US grand strategy is liberal internationalism, which defined as a foreign policy doctrine that suggested a state must involve in other states, for instance, in providing military and humanitarian aid and it is really important to us to understand that this kind of policy is very different with the realism, non-interventionism and isolationism. It means the state is more in the middle rather than be realist, non-interventionist and isolationist. “To summarise, liberal internationalism can be defined as an approach to international relations aiming to spread liberal democracy throughout the world in order to bring an end to conflicts” (Dornan, 2011). Most scholars agree that the term of liberal internationalism has been adopted since

The realist and idealist approaches are important in explaining the swinging pendulum path American foreign policy took since WWII. Over the past seventy years, U.S. foreign policy switches between these two approaches. After WWII ended, idealistic U.S. policymakers believed that cooperation between the United States and Soviet Union would transform the world to a more cooperative and peaceful one. This idealistic belief was quickly demolished by the Soviet expansions in Turkey and Greece and the destruction of the hopes of U.S.-Soviet cooperation after WWII. So, U.S. policymakers switched to a realist approach in a

This study of global politics will define the American Realism as a theoretical international relations approach to the problem of U.S. unilateralism and military intervention throughout the world. An exanimation of the post-9/11 era of the Bush Doctrine will define the premise of “realism” as a valid international relations theory that defines the unilateral invasion of Iraq in 2003. This aspect of the Bush Administrations use of military intervention in the 2000s has continued to expand under the Obama Administration. The theory of realism is based on the premise of “self-reliance”, self-interest, and a fear-based form of aggressive policies that have been implemented in unilateral American wars. Realism can provide a foundation for the motivations of the American government to act without global cooperation or diplomacy with other nations, especially due to the massive economic and military power that it wields as the “world’s policeman.” These factors define he conflict-based politics of American military intervention and the unilateral polices that it continues to utilize on a global scale. In essence, an examination of the theory of “realism” in an international relations perspective will define the increasingly problematic American policies of military intervention and unilateralist policies on global politics.

The development of international relations in the ancient world initiated the creation of theories on how the international system works. These theories over time have been backed by evidence and experience. The two theories that were created to govern international relations include realism and liberalism. Each of these theories ultimately have a common goal, which includes protecting the national interest of the state. For many, national interest includes: military security, and influence over other states, to name a few. Since national interest is broad and pertains to many states, it is common for many states to have the same national interest. What would cause them to differ however, is their approach to protecting and governing their

In order for countries to cohesively overcome international barriers, frameworks of ideal political standards must be established. Two of these frameworks constantly discussed in international relations are the theories of Neo-realism and Liberalism; two theories with their own outlook at the way politicians should govern their country as well as how they should deal with others. Neo-realism lies on the structural level, emphasizing on anarchy and the balance of power as a dominant factor in order to maintain hierarchy in international affairs. In contrast, Liberalism's beliefs are more permissive, focusing on the establishments of international organizations, democracy, and trade as links to strengthen the chain of peace amongst

Liberalism can help us better understand world politics by assessing why policies between nations such as NAFTA are implemented. The liberal argument would say that transnational cooperation is not only beneficial to economies, but is required in order to resolve common problems. States are much less likely to start new conflicts with each other if they are economically tied. Additionally, pluralists realised that as capitalism grew, changes in one part of the system had direct consequences on the others.

Diverse cultures and various political systems fuel the complicated relationship between states, making international cooperation a relevant topic of discussion. Political scientists use these discussions to come up with theories that can predict different levels of cooperation, the likelihood that collaboration might occur and what sorts of conditions are necessary to promote higher levels of cooperation between states. Neorealists and neoliberals have developed opposing theories on this topic. Neorealists focus on explaining the anarchic structure of the world to place emphasis on the permanence of conflict. They believe that states should primarily focus on securing survival and security through an economic and military build-up. On the other hand, according to Essentials of International Relations, neoliberals view the world as anarchic and individual states as self-interested, but draw different conclusions about state behavior than neorealists, predicting that they are more likely to cooperate due to the influence of institutions (Mingst and Arreguin-Toft, 117). Neoliberals aim to bring about security and survival while promoting economic gains and believe that cooperation is achievable if states share common interests. In this paper I am going to explain in what ways neoliberalism is more likely promote cooperation in the international system, than neorealism. While neoliberals do not deny the anarchic nature of the international system, they do however believe its

Conflict is something that is inherent in human nature, however when one is dependent on another it reduces the likelihood of conflict. This is apparent in the new world economic and international system. The creation of interdependence not only reduces the probability of war between nations but it allows for more peaceful resolutions. This essay will focus on firstly understanding the way in which economic interdependence is possible (embedded liberalism), highlighting issues of what would happen if this system weren’t in place and finally how this system renders war an unattractive solution. Economic globalization and economic integration does not annihilate conflict but it does reduce the probability of war by providing incentives to dialogue between nations due to economic interdependence.

Liberalism has pacific historic origins as a reaction to the huge casualties and damage caused by the First World War in the western world. It aspires to promote peace through international cooperation. However, this theory simplified international relations too much to the extent that it focused on the great war between western powers.

Social constructivism emerged in the mid-1990s, after the end of Cold War. Although it has been seen as a 'young ' theory in International Relations, it has challenged the two dominant theories – realism and liberalism. It also provided new theoretical openings to understand the International Relations. Social constructivists tried to establish a “middle ground” between rationalism and poststructuralism. Unlike realism, social constructivism claims that material capabilities of states, such as military power, is not the only essential factor in International Relations. It also concentrates on other non-material factors, including identity, culture, ideas, norms, institutions and interests. Moreover, it believes that the interaction of structures and agency is a key in explaining the international politics. However, not every social constructivists agree with the same themes of the theory. There is contestation. According to Ted Hopf (1998), social constructivism can be divided into two categories. The first type is the conventional constructivism, in other words, the 'weak ' constructivism. The second type is the critical constructivism, which is also called poststructuralism. In this essay, I am going to discuss the limitations of the weak form of social constructivism from the perspectives of other approaches, such as the critical constructivism and rationalism. The other approaches can indicate the deficiency of the weak form of social constructivism.

The most suitable International Relations theory for this report is liberalism. As we know, the liberal image of international relations has influenced many theoritical research programs, including democratic peace theory, neoliberal institutionalism, and many more. In part to distinguish themselves from liberal thinkers which focused on new world orders that minimized (or even eliminated) states as major players in international politics, some liberal theorists prefers to use the prefix neo, which captures their view that states and institutions still

Commercial liberalism has important implications for security policy. Governments are aware of the fact that wars, sanctions and other coercive military policies are far more costly than the transnational exchange of goods and services. Consequently, there is a strong economic incentive within society for states to behave cooperatively towards other states and forgo aggressive self-help strategies.