Editing International relations theory (section)

==Liberalism==
{{Main|Liberalism (international relations)}}
{{Further|Democratic peace theory|Territorial peace theory|List of wars between democracies|Commercial liberalism|Social liberalism|Republican liberalism|Institutional liberalism|Neoliberalism}}
[[File:Immanuel Kant portrait c1790.jpg|thumb|right|Kant's writings on [[perpetual peace]] were an early contribution to [[democratic peace theory]].<ref>Gartzke, Erik (1998). "Kant we all just get along? Opportunity, willingness, and the origins of the democratic peace," American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 1-27.</ref>]]
The precursor to [[liberal international relations theory]] was "[[idealism (international relations)|idealism]]". Idealism (or utopianism) was viewed critically by those who saw themselves as "realists", for instance [[E. H. Carr]].<ref>Schmidt, Brian C. (1998). ''The political discourse of anarchy: a disciplinary history of international relations'', Albany: State University of new York, p.219</ref> In international relations, idealism (also called "Wilsonianism" because of its association with [[Woodrow Wilson]]) holds that a state should make its internal political philosophy the goal of its foreign policy. For example, an idealist might believe that ending poverty at home should be coupled with tackling poverty abroad. Wilson's idealism was a precursor to liberal international relations theory, which would arise amongst the "institution-builders" after World War I.{{Citation needed|date=August 2023}}

Liberalism holds that state preferences, rather than state capabilities, are the primary determinant of state behavior. Unlike realism, where the state is seen as a unitary actor, liberalism allows for plurality in state actions. Thus, preferences will vary from state to state, depending on factors such as culture, [[economic system]] or [[Form of government|government type]]. Liberalism also holds that interaction between states is not limited to the political/security ("[[high politics]]"), but also economic/cultural ("[[low politics]]") whether through commercial firms, organizations or individuals. Thus, instead of an anarchic international system, there are plenty of opportunities for cooperation and broader notions of power, such as [[cultural capital]] (for example, the influence of films leading to the popularity of the country's culture and creating a market for its exports worldwide). Another assumption is that [[absolute gain (international relations)|absolute gain]]s can be made through co-operation and [[interdependence]]—thus peace can be achieved.{{Citation needed|date=August 2023}}

The [[democratic peace theory]] and interactive model of democratic peace<ref name="interactive">[https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343319883672 Altman, D., Rojas-de-Galarreta, F., & Urdinez, F. (2021). An interactive model of democratic peace. Journal of Peace Research, 58(3), 384-398.]</ref> argue that democracies have fewer conflicts among themselves. This is seen as contradicting especially the realist theories and this empirical claim is now one of the great disputes in political science. Numerous explanations have been proposed for the democratic peace. It has also been argued, as in the book ''[[Never at War]]'', that democracies conduct diplomacy in general very differently from non-democracies. (Neo)realists disagree with Liberals over the theory, often citing structural reasons for the peace, as opposed to the state's government. [[Sebastian Rosato]], a critic of democratic peace theory, points to America's behavior towards left-leaning democracies in Latin America during the [[Cold War]] to challenge democratic peace.<ref>Rosato, Sebastian (2003). "The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory," ''American Political Science Review'', Vol. 97, No. 4, November, pp. 585–602</ref> One argument is that economic interdependence makes war between trading partners less likely.<ref>Copeland, Dale (1996). "Economic Interdependence and War: A Theory of Trade Expectations," ''International Security'', Vol. 20, No. 4, Spring, pp. 5–41</ref> In contrast, realists claim that economic interdependence increases rather than decreases the likelihood of conflict. While the democratic peace theory claims that democracy causes peace, the [[territorial peace theory]] claims that the direction of causality is opposite. In other words, peace leads to democracy. The latter theory is supported by the historical observation that peace almost always comes before democracy.<ref name="HutchisonStarr2017">{{cite book |last1=Hutchison |first1=Marc L. |last2=Starr |first2=Daniel G. |editor1-last=Thompson |editor1-first=William R. |title=Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics |date=2017 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-022863-7 |url=https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.285 |chapter=The Territorial Peace: Theory, Evidence, and Implications|doi=10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.285 }}</ref>

===Neoliberalism===
{{Main|Liberal institutionalism}}
Neoliberalism, liberal institutionalism or [[neo-liberal institutionalism]]<ref>Sutch, Peter, and Juanita Elias (2006). ''International Relations: The Basics'', New York: Routledge, p. 11</ref> is a more recent branch of liberal international relations theory. Unlike traditional liberal theories of international politics, which focus on individual-level or domestic-level explanations, liberal institutionalism emphasizes the influence of systemic factors. Its proponents focus on the role of international institutions in allowing nations to successfully cooperate in an anarchic international system.{{Citation needed|date=August 2023}}

===Complex interdependence===
[[Robert Keohane|Robert O. Keohane]] and [[Joseph Nye|Joseph S. Nye]], in response to neorealism, developed an opposing theory they dubbed "[[complex interdependence]]." They explain that "... complex interdependence sometimes comes closer to reality than does realism."<ref>{{cite book|last1=Keohane|first1=Robert O.|last2=Nye|first2=Joseph S.|editor-last1=Crane|editor-first1=George T.|editor-last2=Amawi|editor-first2=Abla|title=The Theoretical Evolution of International Political Economy: A Reader|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=RkVTy-YL1ZcC&pg=PA133|year=1997|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Oxford|isbn=978-0-19-509443-5|page=133|chapter=Realism and Complex Interdependence}}</ref> In explaining this, they cover the three baseline assumptions in realist thought: first, states are coherent units and are the dominant actors in international relations; second, force is a usable and effective instrument of policy; and third, there is a hierarchy in international politics.

The heart of Keohane and Nye's argument is that, in international politics, there are, in fact, multiple channels that connect societies exceeding the conventional [[Westphalian system]] of states. This manifests itself in many forms ranging from informal governmental ties to multinational corporations and organizations. Here they define their terminology: interstate relations are those channels assumed by realists; transgovernmental relations occur when one relaxes the realist assumption that states act coherently as units; transnational applies when one removes the assumption that states are the only units. It is through these channels that political exchange occurs, not through the limited interstate channels that are the focus of realist theory.

Moreover, Keohane and Nye argue that there is not, in fact, a hierarchy among issues, meaning that not only is the martial arm of foreign policy not the supreme tool by which to carry out a state's agenda, but that there are a multitude of different agendas that come to the forefront. The line between domestic and foreign policy becomes blurred in this case, as realistically there is no clear agenda in interstate relations.

Finally, the use of military force is not exercised when complex interdependence prevails. In other words, for countries among which a complex interdependence exists, the role of the military in resolving disputes is negated. However, Keohane and Nye go on to state that the role of the military is in fact important with respect to an "alliance's political and military relations with a rival bloc."{{sfn|Keohane|Nye|1997|p=134}}

=== Post-liberalism ===
One version of post-liberal theory argues that within the modern, globalized world, states in fact are driven to cooperate in order to ensure security and sovereign interests. The departure from classical liberal theory is most notably felt in the re-interpretation of the concepts of [[sovereignty]] and [[autonomy]]. Autonomy becomes a problematic concept in shifting away from a notion of freedom, [[self-determination]], and agency to a heavily responsible and duty laden concept.{{Citation needed|date=August 2023}} Importantly, autonomy is linked to a capacity for good governance. Similarly, sovereignty also experiences a shift from a right to a duty. In the global economy, international organizations hold sovereign states to account, leading to a situation where sovereignty is co-produced among "sovereign" states. The concept becomes a variable capacity of good governance and can no longer be accepted as an absolute right. One possible way to interpret this theory, is the idea that in order to maintain global stability and security and solve the problem of the anarchic world system in International Relations, no overarching, global, sovereign authority is created. Instead, states collectively abandon some rights for full autonomy and sovereignty.<ref>{{cite book|last=Chandler|first=David|title=International Statebuilding – The Rise of the Post-Liberal Paradigm|year=2010|publisher=Routledge|location=Abingdon, Oxon|isbn=978-0-415-42118-8|pages=43–90}}</ref>
Another version of post-liberalism, drawing on work in political philosophy after the end of the Cold War, as well as on democratic transitions in particular in Latin America, argues that social forces from below are essential in understanding the nature of the state and the international system. Without understanding their contribution to political order and its progressive possibilities, particularly in the area of peace in local and international frameworks, the weaknesses of the state, the failings of the liberal peace, and challenges to global governance cannot be realised or properly understood. Furthermore, the impact of social forces on political and economic power, structures, and institutions, provides some empirical evidence of the complex shifts currently underway in IR.<ref>{{cite book|last=Richmond|first=Oliver|title=A Post-Liberal Peace|year=2011|publisher=Routledge|location=Abingdon, Oxon|isbn=978-0-415-66784-5}}</ref>