2020 / 4 / 18
Liberalism and Neoliberalism
The debate of origin and development
The concept of "liberalism" is of great importance in philosophical and factual studies from two perspectives:
First: the ambiguity surrounding the term itself and the lack of much perception of its significance and definition.
Second: the clamor evoked, and the great talk about it with and without knowledge at many times.
The Renaissance generation - as it is called - portrayed that the renaissance of the West and the power of its material civilization were due to the embrace of this philosophical doctrine.
This doctrine is distinguished from others by its proximity to the practical application, and its wide and deep concept carries multiple doctrines while remaining on its de-script-ion as an intellectual doctrine.
After the fall of communism as an ideology that threatened Western liberal thought, Western thinkers became so much more liberal that they proclaimed it in every forum and claimed that it is the only human option and employed their intellectual and media energies with political and economic support to transfer this doctrine to the light-;- to all humanity.
Perhaps the most important intellectual product of this great doctrine is the book "The End of History" by Francis Fukuyama, in which he clearly demonstrated his influence this major doctrine (liberalism).
Western liberals have exploited all their great potentials to transfer this doctrine to the far reaches of the world and setting the human life on its foundations and principles through the political and economic power and the employment of means of communication that enable them to address all people and all over the earth.
Perhaps one of the most important results of liberalism in the field of economics is (globalization) and its implications of intellectual content and moral values and civilized patterns-;- and it revolves around Western desire for control in every aspect: military, political, moral, civilizational and economic.
The influence of the Western world on human life has become abundantly clear in all areas of life.
Topic I: The concept of liberalism.
It is difficult to provide a precise definition of liberalism because of its many facets and its evolution from generation to generation.
"A clear and precise definition of liberalism seems to be beginning to be difficult and extremely useless," says David Baldwin. "And in case liberalism is given a precise definition, we find that this definition does not apply to a number of philosophers and thinkers who have a liberal character.
The Lalande Encyclopedia of Philosophy has decided the confusion in the concept of liberalism: "We see through the previous definitions the degree of ambiguity in this diction. It is further confused by its occasional use as a reference to political parties´-or-political tendencies. "
That s why there are different definitions of these concepts, and there is a difficulty in establishing a logical, comprehensive and decisive definition that defines its meaning accurately. Even the derivation of the word "liberal" itself differed: Is it taken from "Liberty", which means free, as it is known´-or-is taken from a Spanish origin?
However, liberalism has a fundamental essence to which all liberals of all ages agree, despite the diversity of their trends and how to apply them as a method of reform and production.
Of that origin, Kenneth N. Waltz says "the essence of liberalism is the emphasis on the importance of the individual and the need to free them of all kinds of control and tyranny, since the liberal aspires to liberate him/ herself from the domination of its two types: the domination of the state (political tyranny), the group (social tyranny). So the historical roots of liberalism are in the movements that made the individual self-sufficient, opposing, in many cases, traditions, customs and authority, refusing to make the will of the individual merely an extension of that of the group.
The most important characteristic of contemporary liberal-classical literature is its excessive interest in freedom, where liberal thought assumes that freedom is the first and main goal the individual is looking for.
There is no absolute answer to the famous philosophical question: What is the optimal life for man? Because everyone has the right and freedom to choose the life style that suits him/ her.
Therefore: the principle of freedom and self-realization of the individual represents a starting point in liberal thought in all its forms, and in all different fields.
The Lelande Encyclopedia states that "this concept is especially indicative of the beliefs that are aimed to increase the individual s freedom, and the beliefs that see the-limit-ation of the role of the state as a basic means to this freedom."
This is not a precise definition of a philosophical doctrine, the concept of which has changed throughout years because of intellectual, political and social fluctuations.
Actually, this term is precisely defined according to the area through which it is seen, and we can define it as follows: Political liberalism, economic liberalism, moral liberalism... and so on, as classified by the Lalande Encyclopedia.
1) ) The formation stage, and its basic concept is that the human being is the actor of choice and initiative.
2) ) The completion stage, and its basic concept is that the wise individual, the owner of his life, his mind, and his work. On the basis of this concept the mental economy that is contrary to the feudal economy and the rational policy based on the theory of contract, and contrary to the flabby despotism policy have been established.
(3) The independence stage and its basic concept is the creative initiative of the preservation of inherited rights, and dependence on the slow development, a development from the imaginary mind to the real world.
(4) The isolation stage: its basic concept is that of heterogeneity and objection and leaving the prevailing views, because disagreement and objection keep away from tradition and generate creativity.
The definition of the stages of liberalism is not intended to date the evolution of liberal thought but rather to define the system of different ideas that makes clear the error of giving one definition of this multi-concept philosophy.
Ranzoli observes that this word is used in England especially in the economic sense, while it is almost always used in Italy in its religious and political connotation.
Tocqueville, one of the magnates of the nineteenth century liberalism, tried to define freedom: "The true meaning of freedom includes every person who assumes wisdom, who can behave properly-;- who has rights, and doesn t compromise his right to live independently from others in everything relevant to him/ her and organize his own life as he/ she wants".
Considering freedom as a general concept that leads to conflict and disagreement between contradictory freedoms, Himoun hopes that liberalism will be as opposed to the chaotic theory, and this is a change of the concept of freedom (chaos) "and then the first (liberalism) which is considered as the moral and political theory that aspire to the individual s freedom and at the same time-limit-s the demand´-or-access to these freedoms once they become permissive (In other words, the declaration of rights). On the other hand the chaotic theory can be an image of an individualism that does not recognize any familiar and legal-limit- of an individual s liberty-;- it is the only judge of the individual s rights according to his power."
Liberalism has multiple concepts according to the field in which it is tackled, but these are all united by its excessive attention to freedom, self-realization, looking at freedom as a means and an end in itself.
Liberalism is the "theory of freedom", a theory of multiple motives and different aspects, in varying degrees.
Freedom - as the researcher observes- is a general concept that can mean absolute freedom without specific meaning, and some may want a specific meaning.
But the philosophical concept of this intellectual doctrine is absolute freedom, which is not restricted by-limit-s, except for those which exceed to the freedom of others as to the rule (your freedom ends where the freedoms of others are shown).
Topic II: Liberalism for John Stuart Mill as an example
Mill is considered one of the most prominent western thinkers who played part in liberal philosophy through his book on liberty, which became the main source of neo-liberals thought.
Practically and socially he reflected in liberalism, but not philosophically. He said: "This article does not address the so-called freedom of will, which is contrary to what is called a mistake in the necessity philosophy-;- it is rather a study of civil and social freedom".
Mill addressed the movement of thought and said about religious beliefs: "I cannot say that thinking in the honesty of belief is infallible, but what I say is that the claim of infallibility means forcing others to accept what we see in faith without hearing their opinion, and I cannot claim immaculacy even to protect my most cherished beliefs".
Mill confines freedom so that it cannot be chaotic, saying "Whenever a real´-or-potential harm is inflicted, either for the individual´-or-the public, the act that causes the harm is taken off from the freedom space to catch that of morality´-or-of law."
He also says: "what is peculiar to an individual is his own right, and what is peculiar to society is a right of society."
Topic III: the emergence and evolution of liberalism.
The origin and roots of liberalism
Liberalism has developed through the social changes that swept Europe since the early sixteenth century AD, and the nature of social and intellectual change is that it comes slowly and gradually.
It did not "crystallize as a theory of politics, economy and society thanks to one single thinker, but several thinkers contributed to giving it its basic form and distinctive character.
Liberalism is not Lockeanism (after John Locke 1632- 1704), Rousseau- ism (after John Locke 1712- 1778),´-or-Millianism (after John Stuart Mill 1806- 1873), although each one of them has contributed in giving it its characteristics and features.
According to David Baldwin, "Liberalism in modern Western political thought originated and developed in the seventeenth century, although the two dictions liberal and liberalism were not common before the nineteenth century.
It is clear, therefore, that liberalism in its contemporary form originated with the European Renaissance and then evolved in different ages until the current day.
Some researchers respond attribute the roots of liberalism to the Athens democrats in the fifth century BC, the Stoicist in the early stages of Christianity, and the Protestant reform action.
Jean-Paul Sartre, a thinker, mentioned that there is a religious approach in the religious reform movement, saying: "naming a movement in the contemporary Protestantism after liberalism emphasizes the intellectual freedom."
John Locke is considered one of the first liberal philosophers and his philosophy is related to political liberalism.
Evolution of Liberalism:
Liberalism has gone through many phases according to time and place, and its concepts changed as to the different stages-;- and in all its stages there is an emphasis on freedom and giving the individual their freedom without any interference in it.
Here, we can point out two important phases:
First: Classical Liberalism:
John Locke (1704) is considered one of the most prominent philosophers of classical liberalism, and his theory is built on political liberalism. His theory is based on the notion of the social contract in his conception of the existence of the state, which in itself is a demolition of the doctrine of the divine right that the Church leads.
Locke has distinguished himself from other philosophers of the social contract that the authority´-or-the government is restricted by the individuals acceptance of it and therefore the confidence in authority can be withdrawn.
Adam Smith (1790) highlighted economic liberalism as the absolute freedom of property without restriction´-or-interference from the state.
Democracy and capitalism have been formed through this liberalism, the spirit of the doctrine and the basis of its formation, inspired by the slogan of the French revolution "let it work" in economic freedom, and "let it pass" in political freedom. This will be elaborated in the aspects of liberalism.
Topic IV: Neoliberalism.
"Liberalism in the twentieth century has undergone a significant change in its assertions. Since the late nineteenth century, many liberals began to think about the terms of the freedom of seizing opportunities rather than think about the conditions of this´-or-that constraint. They concluded that the role of government was essential at least in order to provide the conditions under which individuals can realize their capacities as human beings.
Liberals today prefer active government regulation of the economy for the public benefit. In fact, they support the government programs to ensure economic security and mitigate human suffering.
Modern liberals believe in giving first priority to individual liberty, but maintain that the government must effectively remove obstacles that hinder the enjoyment of that freedom.
Today, those who support old liberal ideas are called conservatives.
It is observed that the most prominent point in the distinction between the two previous phases is the extent to which the state is free to organize freedoms. In classical liberalism, the state intervenes in freedom, but it must protect it, so that the individuals can achieve their freedom as they like without guardianship.
Contemporary liberalism, on the other hand, has changed this and demands that the state intervene to regulate freedoms and remove the obstacles that hinder individuals to enjoy them.
This is a fundamental point that asserts that liberalism differed from one era to another, from a philosopher to another, and from one country to another-;- and this adds to its ambiguity as previously mentioned.
Liberalism has experienced many other developments, most notably its evolution towards globalization, which has been mainly a liberal trend.
Topic V: Areas of liberalism
Liberalism areas varied according to the human activity-;- since liberalism is a holistic concept of human management and freedom in the realization of this will. From this angle and through this consideration, liberalism can penetrate every human activity.
"Generally, the liberals singularity is that he sees freedom as the origin of true humanity and the stimulus of history," said Robert Cohen, "the best remedy for every deficiency, failure´-or-breakdown."
The most prominent of these areas are the political area and the economic one.
First: political liberalism
According to the Lalande Encyclopedia of Philosophy "Liberalism: Political doctrine believes that it is desirable to maximize the independence of the legislative and judicial authority in relation to the executive and procedural one, and to give citizens maximum guarantees in the face of arbitrariness of government."
Democracy is considered a liberal system that seeks to give an individual their rights, and a kind of scientific application for liberal thought. Joseph M. says "the starting point of liberal thought is not only that it calls for democracy in the sense of participation in governance, but rather it is an individual thought that society is not merely a group of individuals in which each individual seeks to achieve his´-or-her own goals.
As a political system, democracy has given a variety of political freedoms such as: freedom of speech, freedom of thought and expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of protest. It also provides a number of guarantees against the assault on individuals and their freedoms, such as ensuring the accusation, investigation, implementation and defense.
Spencer believes that state -function-s must be-limit-ed to police, justice and military defense in confronting the aliens.
This signifies a claim of the state s absence except for the cases of general protection of society-;- and this is the opinion of the classical liberals. This view has become extinct in neoliberalism, which inclined to consider the individual freedom as the primary goal-;- even with the intervention of the state, whereas the basic doctrine of the classical liberals was to claim the absence of the state whatever its consequences on the individual.
Classical liberals disagreed with democrats in who has the right of general legislation. Democrats see the majority as the ones who decide, initiate and hold power. Liberals are concerned with protecting the individual from harm, and this is the task of law instead of stressing the right of others in favor of the majority, and these are the points of conflict between them.
But liberalism differed in the contemporary reality from what it used to be.
The new trend can be called neoliberalism and this is justified as a result of the non-conformity of the traditional liberalism with the evolution of the world, and this is why neoliberalism is created that is appropriate to the new conditions of society, namely, post-World War II liberalism.
The difference between them in relation to politics is:
The role of the state in the new perspective must be greater. It has the primary task of determining the legal framework for the institutions in which the economic activity takes place. The neo-liberals have defined the role of the state, which must be performed as follows:
1. To do its best against inflation and deflation.
2. Moderately and sequentially-limit- monopoly power.
3. Only nationalize monopolies that cannot be privatized.
4. To afford all public services.
5. Equally provide opportunities and resources.
6. Apply impact planning to minimize the potential risks.
7. Apply central planning where structural change is required.
8. Intervene when there is a defect in the mechanics of the market.
Second: economic liberalism
Economic liberalism: "An economic doctrine that sees that the state should not assume industrial jobs, nor trade -function-s, and that it is not entitled to interfere in the economic relations between individuals, classes´-or-nations. This is what is usually meant by economic liberalism.
It is noted that this definition is based on classical liberalism prior to the great transformation of the new liberalism as it will come. Economic liberalism is closely related to political liberalism. Liberals believe that the best ruling system of a government is the minimum one. They see that economy organizes itself if it is left alone-;- and that government regulation is not necessary. The most prominent of liberal economic systems is "capitalism", whose main ideas have been arranged by economist Adam Smith in his book The Wealth of Nations.
Among the freedoms that liberals demand is the freedom of movement of money and trade, freedom of labor, the freedom of contract, and the freedom to practice any profession´-or-economic activity, following the famous slogan of the French Revolution, "Let it work, let it pass".
What governs the economic rules of the game and its values is the supply and demand market without any government restriction´-or-labor -union-.
The worker has the freedom to work´-or-leave exactly as the capital owner is absolutely free to employ the number he needs with the wage he wants.
But we have already mentioned that the liberal concept changed and neoliberalism emerged on the surface after the Second World War because of the crushing economic crises and the depression of the concentration of capital and the emergence of large industrial monopolies, the collapse of the gold exchange base and the crisis of the labor revolutions in Germany, which made governments intervene to revive economy-;- and consequently the liberal ideology changed by asserting the importance of government intervention to regulate markets.
The author of "Wild Liberalism" described how the state intervened to revitalize the economy and reform the market. At this stage, the classical liberalism was extinguished-;- and since reality diminished the fact that market can reform itself, neoliberalism strongly came up to surface.
In the above-mentioned book liberal economy, self-empowerment was prolonged, and neo-liberalism was actually criticized for the decline of economic prosperity achieved by capitalism after the Second World War. Economic growth began to decline, unemployment and disrupted power rates rose, and productivity growth deteriorated.
Perhaps the most significant new development in contemporary liberalism is the "liberalism of globalization" and its intellectual significance: a return to classical liberalism as a concept. One of the most prominent features of globalization is the alleviation of government intervention in the transfer of money across borders and political fences to achieve the highest profits. In practice, the liberal philosophy has been applied through the political policeman who protects this ancient idea in the Western conscience.
Economy has become a political means of control and transfer of civilized cultures among nations. Therefore, the economically powerful is politically powerful. That is why Western countries are convinced of this philosophy while watching the effects of capitalism on poor peoples. In the economic game, countries can fall and while others weaken.
The intellectual root of globalization is the absence of states sovereignty over their borders and their citizens, as well as their lack of control over the free economic system demanded by classical liberals.
At the Davos Economic Forum in February 1996 German central bank president Hannas Titmar said "The majority of politicians are still unaware that they are now under the supervision of financial markets,´-or-rather under its control and domination."
The leaders of the world in the next phase (globalization) will be the capitalists, and the supervisors of the big economic institutions.
Globalization is based on an economic theory recommended by a number of economic experts and consultants. They do it willingly for those who are responsible for the management of the economic policy as the best approach (neoliberalism)-;- and with the slogan (what market produces is good, and the intervention of the state is bad.)
These are the signs of the reconstruction of classical liberalism and the return to it after the change witnessed after the Second World War..
War is a term which has many definitions, and a term which is marked with chaos and has preposterous consequences. The question regarding the possibility of eliminating war´-or-war being an inevitable feature of the international system is a constant source of debate, particularly between the different scholars supporting contrasting international theories. The two key contrasting theories in this regard are that of liberalism and realism (Tudovic, 2015). This is furthered by the developed of neo-liberalism and neo-realism. Followed by this is the theory of constructivism which provides another aspect to this debate. This discussion is focused on this very debate and would show that war is an inevitable aspect and would always be present in the international system.
Liberalism is the very first international relations theory where an attempt was made to give a solution to the permanence of the war in the world. The Classic Liberalism makes the promise where the democratic peace theory applies. In other words, the democracies do not fight in any manner, with each other. This results in the democracies of the world living without any war. The merits of this theory, even in troubled circumstances were highlighted by Immanuel Kant, where he deemed the peace treaties as truces, and where the ultimate goal was to build up perpetual peace (Beddow, 2017). However, this theory has been criticized by the scholars supporting realism. Merkel stated that this theory only referred to the consolidate democracies as such democratic institutions carried on their way in the manner as has been described in this theory. And he believed that this opened up another debate on the need of distinguishing between a consolidated and an unconsolidated democracy (Hawkins, 2017).
The liberal theorists are of the view that global politics is based on the concept of cooperation and harmony which means that war and conflict are not inevitable, but occur only for particular reasons. The core of liberalism is stemmed in the belief of reasoning and progress as a possibility. The individuals are deemed as moral creatures in this viewpoint, who are not just power seekers, making the liberals, believed that global politics could conform to the ethical theories instead of being passed on the political ones (Turner, 2013). The liberals also present the three manners in which any war can be contained. The first manner is by allowing free trade which assists in the establishment of economic interdependence amongst different states, which makes war as an unimaginable notion. This is because of the established global understanding between the trading partners. Another aspect is that international institutions can be created in order to make certain that the international rule of law is present, which would help in the replacement of unstable balance of power politics in a system where there is collective security. Lastly, the democratic governments could also reduce the propensity of war as the democratic states often use the techniques of negotiations and compromise to resolve a particular matter (Williams, 2013).
Despite this standing, one cannot deny that war and conflict could still take place, as they are associated with factors like imperial structures, authoritarian rule and the rise of economic nationalism, among the other things. Thus, a contrasting view presented by the realist theorists proves to be of assistance. The view purported by the realist theorists is that war is a constant feature of the international politics (Moffat, 2017). This is because the people are ethical flawed and narrowly selfish, and have the intention of attaining an advantage for themselves and in doing so, no regard is given to the needs of others. There is a lust for power in addition to the desire of dominating others and these features are ineradicable from the human nature. This means that the international politic comes down to the struggle of war, where there is a war against everyone. The key goal of each state is promotion of national interest where they try to attain relative gain in the international scenario. Thus, international politics is inevitably a kind of politics of power, where the war is used as the state policy’s instrument. The propensity is further strengthened through the anarchical nature of global system where without a powerful standing over the sovereign states, the states are forced to rely on self help for attaining security, owing to hostility, mutual fear and suspicion (Pashakhanlou, 2017). The anarchical system’s dynamics make the stability in long run, along with the cooperation at an international level, a difficult and almost impossible task to achieve. And even when there are temporary periods of stability and peace, these are only carried to maintain the balance of power, which inevitably is hampered by one´-or-other international incident (Elman & Jensen, 2014).
Apart from these classic theories, there have been other theories which have contributed to the debate of war being inevitable´-or-not. The classic theory of liberalism transitioned to the concept of neo-liberalism, which came into being in the 1970s. As per this theory, the states are the main actors in the global politics. This theory purports that the states continue to exist even in anarchy but they behave in a rational manner. This theory still covers the basics of liberalism, where the states are deemed to be interested in their own welfare and they cooperate with others, only to improve their gains (Blakeley, 2009). Yet, at the same time, they fear the sucker’s payoff and cheating. In terms of sucker’s payoff, as per this theory, the states fear that in order to benefit them, another state can cheat them. And still, the focus remains on cooperating with each other owing to the tragedy of commons. This theory states that for minimizing the loss, there is a need to collaborate with others. So, for avoiding a situation of war, the neoliberal institutions lower their costs of negotiating, they facilitate issue linkages in order to increase the negotiation frameworks and also increase the international interactions between the states (Solingen, 2014).
A constructivist approach offers further insights to this debate. This approach provides that anarchy is summed up on the claim that ‘anarchy is what states make of it’. This means that the individuals act towards objects which include the other actors, where the particular object means something for them. Thus, anarchy is dependent upon the meaning which a particular state attaches to the term anarchy, and the same can result in different meaning of anarchy by different states (Dornan, 2011). This theory provides that the behaviour of the state is shaped by its social norms, its ethical beliefs and identities. The practices and the ideas of the individuals shape and force the view towards any aspect. So, a particular state may define war as a necessity and another can define as an act of sin. A key aspect of this theory lies in the objective reality of the world lying in the eyes of the beholder (Beck, 2011).
On the basis of the different ethical theories elucidated above, one the key goal of this discussion has been attained. It has been established, that despite the international theory applied, war is something which is inevitable. Some may deem it as a necessity and the others may deem it as a seldom occurrence, but no theory can deny the presence of war in the international context. This is particularly true in the present day global context, which is filled with chaos and uncertainty, thus strengthening the approach presented by the neo-liberals. At any such instance where one state construes the other as a threat, a war can break out, and no amount of negotiations can stop this inevitable occurrence.
Peace is something which nearly every nation strives for. But in the globalized world, where there are nearly no boundaries, the actions undertaken by one state have a huge impact over the other states, and it creates ripple effect in the international peace. In order to uphold this peace, there is a need for international cooperation of the states, which is sustained over a long period of time. However, this is easier said than done and there are a range of obstacles which hinder the likelihood of sustained international cooperation (Lemieux, 2013). In the following parts, these very obstacles have been highlighted, particularly in the context of the need for collective action by the states.
Since the Cold War ended, there have been a number of arguments amongst the nations where it has been shown that there is a possibility of attaining international cooperation. The nations cooperate on voluntary basis and the same can be abandoned at they will (Cooper, 2016). The international cooperation has been institutionalized through global governance and the best case scenario shows the nations trying to solve the global problems through accountability and the agreement enforcement of the states. When it comes to cooperation, Keohane assumed a conflictive policy situation to be the beginning of a cooperative agreement. In order to line up the preferences of the states, the policy adjustments are then made through negotiations. Upon the policies being compatible for all the parties, the cooperation is attained. However, this definition by Keohane highlights a key obstacle, the need for the preferences of each of the states being attained, which is not an easy take to achieve (Lengfelder, 2017).
A major obstacle to international cooperation, which is a constant one, is the society itself. There is distrust, competition and a constant angst between the states, for losing out in comparison to the other state, which-limit-s cooperation. This can be strengthened through the sucker’s payoff concept provided under neo-liberalism (Lieberman & Fry, 2015). The states continuously try to overcome their disadvantage by increasing transparency in the information distribution and by creating the surroundings where there is more certainty and thus, cooperation is facilitated by the states. Though, this requires the state to lose their sovereignty to a certain extent, which often becomes the source of defiance, leading in cooperation not being attained. The nations which are focused over the international cooperation have grown to learn and to tolerate some´-or-other kind of intervention in the domestic politics for instance, the European -union-. And gradually, the states are learning that international cooperation is rewarded by security, benefits, stability and transparency, which would be hard to obtain in the global context (Lengfelder, 2017).
In the international relations theory, realism has been a dominant force since the Second World War. The realist assumption is that anarchy helps in fostering conflict and competition amongst the states and shows their willingness to cooperate (Cox, 2016). Anarchy is not deemed as chaos and instead is deemed as the ordering structure whereby the participants seize and defend their resources. The cooperation is thus precluded owing to the non-existent centralized institutional authority. As the states are sovereign, they simply cannot cede the ultimate control to any supranational sovereign and as a result of this, a guarantee to adherence of their promises cannot be made. Though, through liberalism, realism was challenged. The emphasis in liberalism was made towards the effectiveness and significance of the institutions, which allowed cooperation amongst the states. However, by 1970s the tensions and conflicts were so evolved that the propositions of the realists was proved right and the liberal institutionalism was undermined. Though, this led to the birth of neo-liberalism which supports and accepts the presence of anarchy in the international context (Mir, 2014).
The assumption of realists is central to the theories of cooperation amongst the states. As there is a lack of central authority for enforcing the international agreements, there is a temptation with the states to exploit each other and also a fear of being exploited is raised. Realism sees the global politics in light of higher conflict than as is done in the neoliberal institutionalism. In the view of realists, the global politics is a constant struggle for dominance, survival and advantage. Neoliberals provide that there is no doubt a presence of conflict, but there is more to international politics. And so, by working towards mitigating the effects of anarchy, production of mutual gains and avoiding shared harm, the international cooperation can be attained. In the view of neoliberals, cheating impedes cooperation amid the prudent egoistic states. And that this barrier can be overcome with the help of international institutions. The states are no longer the rational, unitary and deciding actors. In the modern states, there is a presence of multiple channel access, which has led to the weakened grip of central decision-makers in the international policies (Mir, 2014).
So, the states are no longer focused on the overcoming the obstacles of security and power. Even with the presence of nuclear weapons and the weapons of mass destruction, the war has been made a costly affair and there would thus be hesitation amongst the states for these instruments to be used against them as these hold exceptional destructive power. Instead of this, there is an increase in the economic relations amongst the states which has allowed them to be more interdependent, which helps in achieving the national goals of price stability, growth and full employment. This has led to the democracies becoming welfare states where the focus is on economic growth, social security, instead of prestige and power, which helps in attaining international cooperation (Mir, 2014).
To further overcome the obstacles of power and security, the states opt for agreements and treaties. A leading one in this regard is the United Nations Charter, which provides that where any of the member states continue to disrupt peace, the Security Council would be taking actions against such state, through land, sea and air forces, in the means which are required for restoring´-or-maintaining international security and peace (United Nations, 2017). This cooperation is applied to the democratic nations in the global state which favours negotiations over the demonstrations of hard power through war. Even though the capacity of war is still present, but a capacity does not necessarily translate into certainty. The stalemate of cyber-warfare and nuclear weapons between USA and China shows that both the nations are awaiting the move off other. And yet, none of these are moving towards a war, owing to the international cooperation where collective actions have been taken to ensure peace (Mazanec & Thayer, 2014). And in a step towards this, an example of ISIS can be highlighted, where the world has taken a united stance to eradicate the Islamic radicals, in order to continue with the world peace and cooperation amongst the states (Payne, 2014).
Thus, it can be summarized from the above discussion that there are two key obstacles which are faced by the nations when it comes to the likelihood of sustained international cooperation. These two are power and security, and are coupled with factors like a possible threat, a fear, and self-centred objectives of the state. However, through the theories discussed above, particularly the neo-liberalism, it becomes clear that the states are moving towards long term sustained cooperation, in order to continue their growth, instead of opting for war, which is a costly affair. And in order to ensure this long lasting cooperation, collective actions are taken by the states, a leading example of which is the UN Charter, which is focused on ensuring peace amongst the different nations. Thus, there is a possibility of long lasting international cooperation, through collective actions.
Beck, T.K. (2011). The Eye of the Beholder: Violence as a Social Process. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 5(2), 345-356.
Beddow, A. (2017). Immanuel Kant and the Myth of Perpetual Peace. Retrieved from: http://nationalinterest.org/feature/immanuel-kant-the-myth-perpetual-peace-22087
Blakeley, R. (2009). State Terrorism and Neoliberalism: The North in the South. Oxon: Routledge.
Cooper, A. F. (Ed.). (2016). Niche diplomacy: Middle powers after the Cold War. New York: Springer.
Cox, R. W. (Ed.). (2016). The new realism: Perspectives on multilateralism and world order. New York: Springer.
Dornan, M. (2011). Realist and Constructivist Approaches to Anarchy. Retrieved from: http://www.e-ir.info/2011/08/29/realist-and-constructivist-approaches-to-anarchy/
Elman, C., & Jensen, M. (Eds.). (2014). The realism reader. Oxon: Routledge.
Hawkins, R. (2017). Is War an Inescapable fact of International Politics?. Retrieved from: http://www.academia.edu/5092833/Is_War_an_Inescapable_fact_of_International_Politic
Lemieux, F. (Ed.). (2013). International Police Cooperation: Emerging issues, theory and practice. Oxon: Routledge.
Lengfelder, C. (2017). International cooperation as a stepping-stone to a world government. Retrieved from: http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/brookings-audit/international-cooperation-stepping-stone-world-government
Lieberman, H., & Fry, C. (2015). Understanding the-limit-s of Competitive Processes. Submitted to-limit-S2015.
Mazanec, B.M., & Thayer, B. (2014). Deterring Cyber Warfare: Bolstering Strategic Stability in Cyberspace. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mir, S.A. (2014). Realism, anarchy and cooperation. International Journal of Interdisciplinary and Multidisciplinary Studies, 1(8), 164-167.
Moffat, F. (2017). Is war and conflict an inevitable feature of global politics?. Retrieved from: https://getrevising.co.uk/grids/is-war-and-conflict-an-inevitable-feature-of
Pashakhanlou, A. H. (2017). Fear in Realism and Beyond. In Realism and Fear in International Relations. New York: Springer International Publishing.
Payne, S. (2014). United against Isis: Which countries are doing what?. Retrieved from: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/united-against-isis-who-s-doing-what-9756460.html
Solingen, E. (2014). Comparative Regionalism: Economics and Security. Oxon: Routledge.
Tudovic, J. (2015). Are wars inevitable?. Retrieved from: http://www.iapss.org/wp/2015/01/21/are-wars-inevitable/
Turner, F. (2013). The democratic surround: Multimedia and American liberalism from World War II to the psychedelic sixties. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
United Nations. (2017). Chapter VII. Retrieved from: http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-vii/index.html
Williams, A. (2013). Liberalism and War: The Victors and the Vanquished. Oxon: Routledge.
Chapter one-;- Intellectual roots of realism and liberalismº
1. Classical realism.
2. Classical Libreralism .
Chapter two-;- The new assumptions of realism and liberalism in the face of post-positivismº
1. Realism and its new theses.
2. Librelalism and it’s new theses.
3. Rational theories and their new synthesis in the face of critique of postmodern theories.
Chapter three-;- Neo-structuralism and its role in adjusting the balance of international politics.
1. The historical theory of powerism.
2. The moralism theory of politics (Trojans(.
3. Colonialism and self philosophy (Hegemony - expansionism).
Chapter four -;- Convergence in the concepts of analysis of neo-realism and neo-liberalism in the light of post-Cold War inputs-;-
International System, (Analyses unite).
Balance of power.
Collative security & Interdependence.
Chapter five-;- Procedural and practical aspects of the convergence between neo-realism and neo-liberalism in the contemporary theories of international relations (Trends & Transformations)-;-
1- Collective security.
2. International cooperation.
3. Soft power.
4. Democratic peac
Chapter six-;- Merger process of International Integrationn.
Chapter siven-;- Zero equation in international relations.
1. Political economy and zero-sum gam
2. Sustainable development (difficulties and obstacles)
3. International conflicts (The road to the Hell)
Chapter eight-;- world politics ( Prospects and perceptions).
1. Globalization and Weightlessness.
2. Polarization and conditions of continuity.
3. Security organization and the challenges of the present moment.
4. Global terrorism between the hammer of international law, and the anvil of national tyranny.
Chapter nine-;- The United State of America )Lessons from the past(-;-
1. Oil wars (first & second Gulf War).
2. Slap 9/11.
3. New chessboard (China and the next role).
4. State of theology.