International Liberalism Theory

Inter content Liberalism TheoryLiberalism ViewsLiberalism earned its recognition in the 18th century from westerly political philosophy where German writer Immanuel Kant and French author Baron de Montesquieu determined its relevance to world(prenominal) politics. In the 19th century, British philosophers John Stuart dweeb and Jeremy Bentham wrote about liberalism as it affected the world. Many international leaders examined the elements of liberalism in their policies and wrote about them applying them to international situations. Liberalist views have a positive factor that battalion, countries and governments arsehole influence together to solve their occupations and make peace within the world.Liberalism TheoriesSome liberalism theories show there are many challenges that have not been overcome that would ease the paroxysm of the world. Liberals view international relations as cooperative, constructive efforts between countries and governments to aid poor nations to promo te global welfare and economic stability. However, liberalists also think in promoting capitalism and economic prosperity through global democracy, self-regulation of the markets, equality, liberty and restricted governmental control. Modern liberalism supports coordinating both relegate and non-state relations to promote global peace and improve the political, economic and social situations around the world (Burchill, 2001, 54-69, 9-10).International LiberalismLiberals are optimistic about the role of the organization. International organizations include not single intergovernmental organizations IGOs but also nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Liberals also see international organizations as shaping the international landscape. International organizations include not only intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) but also nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that can have both public and private functions. (Doyle, 1995, 74-77).Governments are important because they have indepen dent and indirect influences on the domestic and foreign policies of states. Cooperation between state governments is needful for organizations to chance upon their goals. The nature of international relations combines conflict and cooperation between states and non-state organizations because they rely on one another. Competing interests can control or lobby the government to achieve their goals. Liberals are also concerned about the individuals compound because they are part of the society. There are many organizations other than the state that believe in the realist improvement and focus on the nation-state, while liberal thinking analyzes the individual person.Liberals view the international world as it deals with each other through global plow agreements, travelers visiting or studying abroad, and international institutions like the United Nations, where no governmental control from the realists point of view does not quite whirligig all the different contexts of daily li fe. Liberals feel that realists view nations as warring forces that try to balance power through force. However, that is not the liberalist view (Doyle, 1995, 60-65).Liberalism Among NationsLiberalists believe an international society that can work together with all countries can help them solve their problems. This involves international trade between nations, and a different outlook where rowdiness is not useful and wars should end so people can work together and live in peace. Liberals feel that realists make countries out to be ceaselessly conflicting with each other, and never getting along or having a balance of power.Liberals view the future as full of growth and emancipation that entrust make the differences between international and domestic politics lead to a universe that has no borders. Environmental problems are an example of how the world is all in the same situation, no matter how developed or wealthy their nation is. However, realists that that the Middle East m ay be the exception to the rules, since there may ceaselessly be political problems there due to oil profits and the threat of Muslim terrorism to countries like the US (especially after the problems with the World Trade summation hijackings and the fact that 16 out of 19 of the terrorists were from the Middle East) (Brown, 2005, 4-8).The US believed Iraq needed government intervention to ensure the stability of their society because through liberalism, they would be satisfactory to achieve peace. No getting mixed in the internal affairs of states should be a basic international law. The US was willing to get involved in Iraq because they saw an opportunity to appear to be helping them solve their problems and also gain military presence within the Middle East. Without outside interference, the Iraqi situation might have become much worse, according to the US, since Saddam Husseins dictatorship was overpowering the poor people and destroying their economy. Neoliberalists believe d that the US could assault and gain cooperation with the Iraqi people so the states issues would be resolved. (However, now everyone knows that the US only wanted to gain control of Iraqis oil supply) (Brown, 2005, 153, 155, 158, 255). comparison Liberalism to Realism and Idealism TheoriesThe liberalism and realness theories involved in domestic politics suggest that the use of force by various groups often leads to the government assay to maintain power through media intervention, turning the public against the attackers, and a show of sympathy by the rulers to gain the publics support and sympathy. The major assumptions of realism explain that the Saudi government and the terrorists are the only significant players in the situation, that military force is the principal method of solving problems, and that the overall security of the sylvan is the key objective that must be achieved. The main concept behind liberalism is that there is a balance of power that must be kept at al l times between the governing parties and those who they are trying to please.The liberalist view explains how war is only needed in seriously dangerous circumstances, not for the nurture of universal community or for the growth of the economy. In a country like Saudi Arabia, the religious Matawas feel the Saudi government is being influenced and controlled by America and the United Nations to conform to their societys rules or risk losing oil contracts and other business negotiations (Nathanson, 2002, 48-52).When applying these theories of realism and liberalism to countries with political problems, it helps to explain how their internal difficulties would be very complex to find solutions for. Saudis internal political problems relate to what exactly is a legitimate use of force, and when is it acceptable to apply it. The Matawas mat that since the government was not listening to their protests concerning the changing policies that would open up the nation and allow for a totall y new society to develop, that bombing innocent people was the just method of retaliating (Voegelin, 1974, 3-8, 205).Although liberalism is a more positive and helpful theory, realism is the most popular concept in international politics where the worst problem is war and military force, and the major characters involved are the countries or states themselves. Realists believe that liberals overstate the difference between international politics and domestic politics, since realists see the state of war as only needed under very critical circumstances, and liberals refuse to see the benefits of economic independence, growth and development of international global communities. Realists believe that states do not always go to war, and they have many other options, such as peace and trade between nations (Brown, 2005, 4-7, 45).While realist views emphasize continuity, permanency and stability within the society, liberal views stress change is needed, especially in the Middle Eastern r egion, since the world is said to be moving past lawlessness to a better overall situation that desires world peace. Combining continuity and change is the best overall solution, however, the mixture of both liberalist and realist views would have to involve mend human behavior, which is almost impossible, especially on an international and political level that depends on unethical governments for their decision-making.Idealists believe international relations should focus more on the actual causes of global conflicts and how they can be changed for the better. Idealists look for ways to improve the situations, and create peace and stability within all nations. Idealists want to reduce illiteracy and inequality in the world and allow for more education and job opportunities. They want to rid the world of poverty and starvation, and fight against liberalists who believe the situation is may be difficult or cannot be resolved without the help of governments (Voegelin, 1974, 120-127) .ConclusionLiberalists feel the alliances and contacts that manage to be formed across borders (like the UN and USA getting involved during global conflicts) form a global society that represents a non-warring world that must exist alongside the warring world. Liberalists feel that realists overstate the differences between national and global politics as a state of war, which concentrates only on the worst part of the situation. Liberalists believe that realists overlook the growth and development of economic independence and the progress of a international society. However, countries at war find resolutions and negotiate their way back into society with the help of others, and their economies can then succeed.REFERENCESteins, J. (2004). ledger entry to International Relations, Perspectives and Themes. London Longman.Doyle, M. (1986) Liberalism and World Politics. The American Political Science revue, Vol. 80, Issue 2.Solomon, B. (1998). Warriors for change. National Journal, Vol . 30, Issue 21.Burchill, S. (2001). Theories of International Relations. London Palgrave Macmillan.Brown, C. (2005). Understanding International Relations. London Palgrave.Voegelin, E. (1974). Liberalism and its History. The Review of Politics, Vol. 36, Issue 4.Scruton, R. (1996). Idealism, A Dictionary of Political thought. UK MacMillan.Nathanson, S. (2002). Idealism World Book. UK Pearson.Das, R. (1999). Politicism and idealism in state theory. Science and Society, Vol. 63, Issue 1.Groody, D. (2002). Border of Death, Valley of Life. UK Rowan and Littlefield Publishing.