Liberal Optimism Essay

When George Washington presented his farewell address, he urged our fledgling democracy, to seek avoidance of foreign entanglements. However, as the world modernized, and our national interests spread, the possibility of not becoming involved in foreign entanglements became impossible. The arenas of open warfare and murky hostile acts have become separated by a vast gray line. Even today, choosing when and how to use US military force remain in question. The concept of national isolationism failed to prevent our involvement in World War I. Global trade has interconnected the US to regions of the globe as never before. Throughout the world, situations occur that the United States government has to decide if it is in our national interest to intervene with military force.

As in the US, the concept of liberalism meant to social liberalism, while in other areas it is still the original meaning of classical liberalism. Conceptually, liberalism emphasizes the individual rights people. Many advocates of freedom support greater intervention by the state to the free market, often in the form of anti-discrimination legislation, education. These fundamental human rights to which all people by liberals supported the right to live in liberty, and religious

Slavery in Haiti during the late eighteenth, and early nineteenth century was a very contentious issue. The sugar farms in Haiti accounted for much of the French economy, and slaves were necessary to farm sugar at the rate that they did. Haiti alone had 800,000 slaves, which was good for most in the world. Additionally, the sugar plantations had dangerous working conditions, and a high death rate. Toussaint L’Ouverture was born a slave on one of the plantations and given an education, something that most slaves did not get. He then rose among the ranks of his plantation and eventually became a manager of the plantation. Toussaint became soldier in the army, and gained the respect of the slave community. After being a soldier he supported the

Carl Schmitt’s claim that politics is fundamentally distinct from other spheres is persuasive on the premise that the core of politics consists on the friend/enemy theory with each side of the conflict posing a perceived existential threat of violence to one another. However, his argument is less persuasive when he uses this premise to critique liberalism because he does not provide an alternative solution to his criticism. Schmitt contends that, “the political must rest on its own ultimate distinction, [and] the specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is between friend and enemy” (Schmitt 26). Schmitt defines a political or public enemy as a collective group that poses an existential threat of violence, “the real possibility of physical killing” (Schmitt 33). Therefore Schmitt contends the political cannot exist without violence, or the threat/possibility of violence.

The movie “Independence Day” gives a lot of insight on how the decisions are made by the elite policy maker aka “the government officials”. These officials are influenced by many reasons for the actions they take. Some are making decisions based on their liberal ideals while others follow different ideals such as realist ideals. The clash between two different ideals in the movie showed the effectiveness of each of them. Liberal ideals are a form of an identity and they are really hard to be implemented on. Liberals Ideals constrain the policy makers to settle on balanced choices under circumstances where worldwide participation is required to anticipate worldwide emergency.

Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter states that, "all member states shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, nor in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations” . It is therefore a unilateral agreement signed by member states against the use of force when dealing each other. World events however since the signing and ratification of the UN Charter have indicated that states who are signatories to the charter continue to use force against each other for various reasons. Some 25 years after the writing and ratification of the charter one cannot doubt that states have used force and sought to justify it through individual or collective self-defence claims, as well as humanitarian claims in furtherance of national agendas and to increase territory. This no doubt may have been what frustrated Franck into the stance that Article 2(4) was in its grave.

Liberal is a paradigm which is a belief in the positive uses of government to bring justice, equality of opportunity, peace and looks more to the nature of state. Liberalism is a philosophy based on the belief about the ultimate value of individual freedom and the opportunities for human progress. Liberalism is talking about rationality, moral autonomy, human rights, democracy, opportunity, and choice that built upon commitment to the principles of freedom and equality.

The Conservative party led by Stephen Harper has been in power for the last nine years. It is time for a real change so, I would vote for the Liberals. The Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau has promised to better the lives of the middle class families, reform our immigration system and will involved in climate to the benefit of all Canadians. Under the liberals, the present 22% tax rate for annual income between 44,701 and 89,401 will be cut down to 20.5%. A new tax bracket f 33% will be imposed on those with taxable income over 200,000 a year 29% tax will be imposed for those earning below 138,000 and 200,000.Justin Trudeau said “we can do more for the people who need it, by doing less for the people who don’t”. This budget is friendly to the middle class income families

The Twenty Years’ Crisis 1919-1939: An Introduction to the study of International Relations, the book for which E.H. Carr is perhaps most remembered was written just prior to the outbreak of World War Two (WWII). This particular work of Carr’s is primarily a study of the fundamentals of International Relations, which is exemplified especially by the events of the two decades before 1939, the year the book was published. In the Twenty Years Crisis, E.H. Carr explores the interplay of the worldview between Utopians and Realists. Carr’s work examines why the League of Nations and the peace as implemented by the Treaty of Versailles failed, ultimately resulting in WWII. Broken into two sections, the book’s first is of a theoretical approach and

Realism or political realism prioritizes national interests and security concerns in addition to moral ideology and social reconstruction. The term is often associated with political power. The term is often associated with political power. Realism believes that the state is the main actor of the most important in determining the direction of a country. This means there is no term mentioned as an International Organization but merely the State. Realism also believes the State is deciding on the future of the people. In connection with it, the state is certainly confident that whatever actions are correct and appropriate, even if it is done by means

Knowing how the world and Americans view themselves, it is important to consider how we will fit into America’s future. Personally, my optimism for the future coincides with how most Americans were in 2013. With the recent terroristic horrors going on and the 2016 election, I am probably more pessimistic than what the public was like three years ago. There have been very few positives that has been happening in the current state of our world and all the negativity spreading around makes everything seem bleak.

As an International Relations Liberal, my answer to the Rodney King question of “Can’t we all just get along?” is a resounding yes, but with an asterisk. Realists assert that human nature is the underlying root of warfare and point to the discouraging statistics on the number of wars and their casualties. Since human nature cannot be changed, humans and their societies will always have the willingness for violence. In opposition to that view,

Humanitarian intervention is a term that is familiar to most colonialist and liberals alike before and after the colonial period. The slave trade had its positives and negatives on different individuals across the world. The pre-colonial period witnessed the emergence of humanitarian intervention mainly fuelled by the slave trade across Europe. The new practice was popularized through a couple of methods including military humanitarian intervention. Sovereign states are entities that have a single governing power which governs a particular geographical region and citizens, who are considered to be permanent residents (Shaw, 2003; Jasentuliyana, 1995). It is accepted that these states have that have power and jurisdiction over their territory can conduct business with any country they choose to without consent from any other nation since they are not dependent or subject to anyone (Wheaton, 1836). This critical review will look at whether force should be used against sovereign states for humanitarian reasons. This paper will discuss what some authors who are proponents of Intervention Theory have to say and then discuss what some authors who oppose interventions have to say on the topic.

The current work is meant to explain the differences and similarities between the most dominant theories in international relations, Realism and Liberalism, both theories have some similarities and differences but much more important and interesting is to discuss and explain what differs and makes similar both theories.

Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism, two of the most influential contemporary approaches to international relations, although similar in some respects, differ multitudinously. Thus, this essay will argue it is inaccurate to claim that Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism have far more similarities than differences. On the contrary, it will contend that there are, in an actual fact, more of the latter than there are of the former on, for example, the nature and consequences of anarchy, the achievement of international cooperation, and the role of international institutions. Moreover, it will be structured in such a way so as to corroborate this line of argument. In practice, that is to say, this essay will first and foremost explain what is meant by Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism. It will then hone in on a similarity of crucial importance, namely that both are in agreement that the international system is structured anarchically. The rationale behind this is twofold: firstly, anarchy lays the foundations upon which both theories are built and, secondly, it is from this similarity that fundamental points of contention come to light. For example, although there is consensus that the international system is structured anarchically, neo-realists and neoliberals hold differing views on the nature of anarchy: the former argues that anarchy is all-encompassing whereas the latter contends that