Liberalismo Economico

Chapter 6
Liberalism
tim dunne
Introduction 102
Core ideas in liberal thinking on international relations 104
Liberalism and globalization 108
Conclusion 111

Reader’s Guide
The practice of international relations has not been accommodating to liberalism. Whereas the domestic political realm in many states has witnessed an impressive degree of progress, with institutions providing fororder and justice, the international realm in the era of the modern states-system has been characterized by a precarious order and the absence of justice. The introductory section of the chapter will address this dilemma before providing a definition of liberalism and its component parts. The second section con­siders the core concepts of liberalism, beginning with the visionary internationalism ofthe Enlightenment, through to the idealism of the inter-war period, and the institutionalism that became dominant in the second half of the twentieth century. The third and final section considers liberalism in an era of globalization: in particular, it contrasts a status quo reading of the liberal project with a radicalized version that seeks to promote and extend cosmopolitan values andinstitutions.
Introduction
Although realism is regarded as the dominant theory of international relations, liberalism has a strong claim to being the historic alternative. In the twentieth century, liberal thinking influenced policy-making elites and public opinion in a number of Western states after the First World War, an era often referred to in academic international relations as idealism. Therewas a brief resurgence of liberal sentiment at the end of the Second World War with the birth of the United Nations, although this beacon of hope was soon extinguished by the return of cold war power politics. In the 1990s, liberalism appeared resurgent as Western state leaders proclaimed a new world order and intellectuals provided theoretical justifications for the inherent supremacy of theirliberal ideas over all other competing ideologies. After 9/11, the pendulum has once again swung towards the realist pole as the USA and its allies have sought to consolidate their power and punish those whom they define as terrorists and the states that provide them with shelter.
How do we explain the divergent fortunes of liberalism in the domestic and international domains? While liberal valuesand institutions have become deeply embedded in Europe and North America, the same values and institutions lack legitimacy worldwide. To invoke the famous phrase of Stanley Hoffmann’s, ‘international affairs have been the nemesis of Liberalism’. ‘The essence of Liberalism’, Hoffmann continues, ‘is self-restraint, moderation, compromise and peace’ whereas ‘the essence of international politics isexactly the opposite: troubled peace, at best, or the state of war’ (Hoffmann 1987: 396). This explanation comes as no surprise to realists, who argue that there can be no progress, no law, and no justice, where there is no common power. Despite the weight of this realist argument, those who believe in the liberal project have not conceded defeat. Liberals argue that power politics itself is theproduct of ideas, and, crucially, ideas can change. Therefore, even if the world has been inhospitable to liberalism, this does not mean that it cannot be re-made in its image.
While the belief in the possibility of progress is one identifier of a liberal approach to politics (Clark 1989: 49–66), there are other general propositions that define the broad tradition of liberalism. Perhaps theappropriate way to begin this discussion is with a four-dimensional definition (Doyle 1997: 207). First, all citizens are juridically equal and possess certain basic rights to education, access to a free press, and religious toleration. Second, the legislative assembly of the state possesses only the authority invested in it by the people, whose basic rights it is not permitted to abuse. Third, a key...