However, as alluded to in the introduction, there are three loose forms of liberalism in international relations. The first, liberal internationalism, with its origins in the eighteenth-century and the enlightenment epoch. Revolved around, the interaction of states. And diplomacy between these powerful national actors. The second, often referred to as idealism, is argued, was never really a thought process, but was more geared towards the ideals of socialism.
Liberalism also shares the idea with realism to use military power to get what they want or need, also military power can be used if other country threatening or bully on the own liberal state. But theoretically liberalism is the theory of peace and development and believes in measuring power through economy, liberal ideas such as freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, gender equality, international cooperation, freedom of speech and press, when with the other hand realism believes in ideas such as conflicts, aggression, militaristic expansions and also they believe that state would act according to their own ideas and needs when liberals believe that state would act according to their populations needs and ideas. But both theories share the idea that without military power state can be destroyed or insulted by another country. I consider myself as a liberal and mostly liberalism is theory which makes me thinking about things that can be changed in aggressive world by liberalism such as equal rights regardless of sexual orientation or to have every woman the same rights as men, through liberalism I also believe in freedom and equal living wage. I have sympathies to liberalism because believe in government actions to achieve equal opportunity and
Defined by the centrality of individual rights, private property, and representative government, liberalism is a domestic theory. Transposed to the international plane, liberals share a common framework or zone of peace with fellow liberals, where they very according to whether property or welfare should guide international preferences and whether the risk of isolation are greater or less than those of internationalism. Foreign policy analyses strive to account for these patterns by focusing on whether individual rights, domestic commercial interests, or a more complicated combination of both, together with republican institutions and international perceptions, shape policy. Moreover, liberalists agree with the realists that states exist under anarchy, but they disagree as to the nature of anarchy. Unlike the realists, liberals do not assume that international anarchy is a state of war – a time wherein, in Hobbes’s phrase, “the will to contend by battle is sufficiently
There are many actors in international affairs which all of them they do contribute to the rich texture of interactions overlaying the basic anarchic structure of the whole world (McGowan, 2006: 39). According to international liberalism, the liberalist state that liberalism hold that interaction between states is not only limited to the political security (high politics) but they also go broader to economic or cultural (low politics), whether they do this trough commercials, firms, organizations or individuals but their aim is for states to interact with each other and to also improve their economies not only their political cultures (Jackson, 2013:
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. There is a long traditional in Liberal thinking about international relations’ characteristic. .
Liberalism has evolved over time and mostly seen because of many ideologies that have either been tried and tested or rejected. According to (Raz 1986) it is a political tradition that has developed and become a more popular political force in the western world. By this concept of liberalism we mean to highlight the essence of freedom and equality as well as justice and fairness for the individual. It places importance on the rule of law, also meaning that the 'pen is mightier than the sword '. In liberalism many other concepts are generated and reborn, although making it a quiet complex and broad ideology it opens one 's eye and gives a clear understanding on what really influences the society; political and economic world at large.
Institutionalists also focus on the free riding problem, which assumes that nations will tend to cheat and not do their part in producing public goods. International institutions, such as the United Nations or World Trade Organization, can help in establishing and sustaining cooperation among states by reducing transaction costs, helping with monitoring (free riding problem), and offering third party mediation. Neorealism and institutionalism have their differences, but they share also some common assumptions. Therefore, both perspectives agree that states are the main actors in international relations, act in rational self-interest, and are faced with anarchy as an obstacle to cooperation. However, neorealists view anarchy as a threat to survival, while institutionalists see it as a threat to cooperation.
As the famous saying goes, “The strong do what they will while the weak do what they must," so let it be with the counties of the world and the role they play in International Politics. Eurocentrism is a concept that places Europe at the centre of the world. Assuming that it is self containing and self representing, the entire world is looked at with Europe at the centre. Eurocentrism bias leads to an illogical understanding of International Relations and makes politics and judgement to incline in the favour of the powerful. In this essay, I will critique the Eurocentric nature of International Relations theory and world politics.
Constructivism in international relations only discusses the underlying theory and the theory of Liberal Realism, but there are several theories approaching agreed by constructivism. Constructivism Realism agrees with the theory that says the world is in anarchy (chaos). Constructivism also said that international relations can be established through conflict and cooperation. So here assessed the importance of existing institutions, namely through regulative and constitutive. Each country needs to comply with the decree.
But the political agenda of providing a common foundation for world governance throughout the world does exist, if only for the sake of the ideal of free trade. As mentioned above, the theory of economic liberalism has a theory of public goods as an imperfect substitute for a theory of the state, and one can at least imagine a similar approach to the discussion of international relations. In short, if a liberal theory of international relations is to apply the theory of the domestic market economy to the international economy, then the suppliers of public goods who are tacitly assumed to exist in the domestic economy should also be assumed to exist in the international economy. The mainstream of existing theory on international relations has in fact ignored this necessary requirement. However, we must consider the question of public