Introduction to International Relations - Themes of Liberalism

[Music] all that said witta then spent rest of this week we have three major themes liberalism has understood through the philosophies and understandings of human nature liberalism through collective security collective benefit and finally liberalism which comes the closest to defining and great in the international system waltzes third I'm sorry first level of an axis there's three people John Locke a dismissed penalty long term goes with show here finally your nominal cops so these are your three four people then you're going to have to know that are associated with liberal laws Smith to Peter 10 cops let's begin with the understandings of human nature by John Locke as we talked about mankind is by definition and by nature look good with that understanding since Locke there are a set of natural laws in the world that define the way in which humans interact with each other these so-called natural rights and duties which as we talked in the previous slide of two slides before the natural rights of life liberty and property life liberty and property in every society in every civilization Western or otherwise monotheistic or polytheistic all of these societies have some kind of moral code that promotes in some way shape or form these three things life liberty and property all three of which are actively working to prohibit murder slavery and fetched life liberty and property has safeguards against murder slavery and theft that lock is not naive Locke realizes hey this all sounds good but I'm writing in the 1700s there have been a lot of wars since there's going to be a hell of a lot more Wars after the other so what explains violence what explains the outbreak of war what explains people to commit murder slavery and set because these natural laws are subject to normative interpretation normative interpretation how to follow this little train of thought here murder slavery incest happen a mountain happen amid sorry what we're talking about growing fear and uncertainty amid fear amid uncertainty people do horrible things there for the lowest that are enacted either as a way of safeguarding freedoms or prohibiting them are effectively the result of an ambiguous nature of the law or even worse its execution this in big this ambiguity causes the war not man itself so going back to what I was saying for war it's when fear and uncertainty Trump reason justice and all the other good things it is not a conscious decision to make but in this decision when all other resources have been exhausted does this make sense so far I want to turn this into a political philosophy class that these are the things that one has to understand as we move forward through more specific and tangible things probably the best play of juxtaposing this is by noting the differences between John Locke and Thomas Hobbes Thomas Hobbes as we talked in the realist section conceived of this Leviathan this all-encompassing omnipresence political and security apparatus to keep order and stability luck looks at this as the complete opposite whereas Hobbes notes a Leviathan a top-down security address luck promotes the understanding of the social contract Leviathan keeps a man in check the Maya thing keeps a man quite a social contract on the other hand is an implicit pact and agrees much among all participating individuals and which abides by constitutional principles our own Constitution is a social contract oh heck the syllabus for this class is a social contract I is the instructor agreed to abide by certain laws certain rules you as a student agree at least in theory to do the read and do the assignments a constitution does the exact same thing constitution denotes what rights the citizens have as well as the powers invested in government's with this type of understanding within this understanding of the social contract citizens consent to mutual trust and interdependency under the law so live in a set of laws guidelines and restrictions people operate with them the social contract in so many words provides unnecessary playing field in which citizen interaction takes place this is nothing new but can this be applied to the international arena this is something that is still a work in progress can there be an international social contract what Locke and other philosophies say in so many words is yes in theory there is no international social contract today unless you consider the you know the Geneva Convention or the record on human rights to be the closest thing that we have but there is no global Constitution right we don't have a global anthem we don't have a golden flag we ain't going to get one any time soon but that does not mean that states do not abide by certain principles of human rights civil liberties and also just moral codes of conduct it's generally understood in the world today that you just can't March a country you can't March an army into another country because you have nothing else better to do and when happens the country that does so is you know Huson is resounded leakin decks so for instance back in 2003 United States is pushing to intervene in Iraq and you know good number of countries in the United Nations and elsewhere saying you can't you can't do that America is like course we can't we have it all to do whatever we want yes you couldn't you could technically do that but it's still wrong it's still kind of well illegal because if you do it well then everyone can do it let's be perfectly honest here if you do it just count to ten and Russia's gonna figure out a way of doing it as well or Chuck or any country with a larger monster so when we talk about in the international social contract we're still talking about a set of what's the word I'm looking for conceptual walls conceptual louis conceptual ideas that are not necessarily written down to everybody kind of follows everybody at least understands right with that said how about the nature of war then well as i already in today wars in the liberalist mindset are divided into really two types wars for gain and wars of self-determination wars for gain are considered illegal wrong aggressive barbaric of course were abiding by just universal principles of you know hey respect people's borders stuff but then there is this moral leeway that comes in you know somebody's talking about the rights of citizens the moral imperative to defend freedom and liberty look it's great if you do it at home but it's somewhat hypocritical if you hear someone calling for help over there and waiting for someone else to you know come to the rescue so therefore Liberals make that leap of faith and they say okay all right you kind of got us in this moral paradox this is the one time where it's okay to go to war this is the one time where it's justified in going to war if you go into war on your side is to defend your own freedoms of liberties from someone trying to take an away awesome if you also go to war to help another country defend against a third country taking away their freedoms and liberties that's okay too are just a natural part of man's spirit to be free Wars of rebellion and this is something that Wilson codified watch - I would think his chagrin the wars for self-determination effectively embody the very same principles let's lead the united states colonists to fight against the bridge so who is the United States to deny the rights and self-determination of other countries seeking the same degree of freedoms from absolute empires from Russia from Austria from Germany from the Ottoman Empire from ups Hey in fact states should support actively morally economically heck even militarily in some cases Wars for human rights and civil Ares because if wars are waged in the name of human rights and civil liberties then they can't be wrong now you're probably thinking right about now there's a huge degree of interpretation that comes along with us and at the same time he also is the first time that we've looked at a theory that has role intents and purposes said this is the one time where war is okay it's green light which means of course we'll get to this in the next few weeks that universe wage for quote-unquote humanitarian purposes run a high risk of being amused right case in point every time the United States likes to get itself involved in some foreign entanglements with all these views some kind of rationale that we are liberating the country regime change is the you know nice operative words hey we gave the Iraqis their free I'm sort of a you know we wanted to give the Syrians their freedom but that didn't happen thanks Obama okay we wanted to give the Libyans their freedom and we kind of got muscle ones like that one hey you know how to get the idea or better yet the great examples the book and the ones that works it's basically World War one and World War two right the United States comes in and liberates Europe from the Germans know whatever kind of like that one scene in Return of the King you know the real hero army shows up right at the very end you know like behind them that's us you know do you day well who take that Germany you know how to we the United States is very good of defeating German harvest so we're very good at doing that okay that was considered to be both World War one and World War two we're considered to be Wars of liberation the Korean War was a war of liberation the Vietnam War at least initially was a war of liberation well if you look at the South Vietnamese government you would think a little bit of all right then let's then move to cooperative security in cooperative security and this is where things probably get the most develops forget to hand out the Eagle the tendency for today okay cooperative security can be divided even further into four subcategories transnationalism integration collective action Democratic peace theory no it's a lot of material to this you know absorb but this stuff here probably explains best way in which the modern world works thanks let's the begin transnationalism is a very overarching generalized term that talks about the continued cooperation between two or more states the first thing to understand is that transnationalism does not just recognize that states interact with each other but people interact groups and other organizations religious groups ethnic groups economic interests trade unions political ideologies you have to remember we're talking here already about Europe and North America in the late 19th and early the mid 20th centuries communication takes place not just between ambassadors and embassies in fact these ties here's where transnationalism really fits in these times these relationships can exist alongside or even in competition two official relations between states this is the first time that an IR Theory has openly stated that non-state actors can work in spite of interstate relations this makes sense it's the first time that we actually are built the reality that non-state actors have some kind of impact on cooperation and on mutual dependence the Catholic Church certainly one organization not only in Europe but in South America Latin America South America in fact most religious Catholic Orthodox Islamic wherever you want business groups before the age of Microsoft or Siemens or Mercedes hey does anybody know out there what was the first example in Europe of a modern economic free trade zone first example of an economic free trade zone oh nice very very good the Hanseatic League and for the bonus for the bonus round when did the Hanseatic League exist roughly somewhere between the twelve hundreds to the fourteen hundreds all right from the hundreds to the 1400 the Hanseatic League was a network of northern European cities in what is today Germany Poland Russia Lithuania Norway Sweden Denmark outside the control of any one sovereign or any one religious figure fancy attic lead was first it was the first attempt at a modern-day economic free trade and the important thing reason why I'm saying this is because whatever one of these other countries felt the need to how I don't know flexor muscles go to war whatever it was the commercial interests that were part of the Hanseatic League puts significant pressure on political officials to I am there to think of an alternative to war or if we're going to go to war to wrap this thing up real quick okay so what I'm trying to say here is that transnationalism what's a significant pressure on States to continue cooperation because the understanding is fairly simple greater transnationalism leads to greater guarantees of peace and smaller degrees of uncertainty I mean X that's easy stuff the more you cooperate the more you interact the more you're going to know you know your part that's not you're not gonna be best friends but at the same time you're gonna begin to realize that neutral interests are going to trump self interests not only that just from a feel-good ideological standpoint the bonds that are created by this cooperation will deepen them over time and here's the kicker increase the commitment for states to cooperate that's the kicker increase the commitments for states to continue cooperation don't believe me what's the likelihood of the United States and Canada go it's more funny than realistic right what's the likely go to the United States a cat go it's the likelihood of the United States in Great Britain going to war probably even less likely than the u.s. go to war with Canada okay and why is that well for one thing us british relations are so deeply entrenched cooperation is almost a given that the thought of in a rupturing and cooperation would be met with hostility not just from the Brits but especially from the Americans yeah it's another good example about that for Tony Blair at a fourth twenty bloody had coming what Bush wanted to march into Iraq ten years ago and the rest of your life I mean you really can't do that Great Britain was one of the most vocal supporters of the United States and specifically of the bush regime Bush administration's right later got a lot of flack Blair got a lot of flack out of that he said look the transatlantic relationship these two countries it's too important for me to rupture over some war all right beyond to simply transnationalism integration is part of this understanding and here's probably one of the most tangible cases of where liberalism works over realism and that is economic development and foreign trade what is the best way or one of the best ways of reducing the likelihood of two countries going to war two statistical zero get them to trade with each other get them to act the economically dependence among each other the understanding the relationship between dependency and collaborations a transfers loyalty from the states to the transnational organization leading to economic interdependence II it's a nice highfalutin way of saying that greater interdependence between states will actually create in the minds of citizens a commitment to continue that relationship and if the state thinks differently if the state starts thinking more of its own self-interest the public will actually go against the actions of the states and if it is a democracy the leadership runs a very high risk of being booted out of power something that realists don't consider Apple is the notion of economic interdependence there's a terms of the uselessness it's called commercial pacifism commercial passiveness brought to you largely by Adam Smith The Godfather of capitalism it is amazing ladies and gentlemen it is absolutely amazing to note the influence that Adam Smith is on modern international relations most people is a gun it's all about Marx Marxist but you know the Karl Marx is Karl Marx's copy Cobb is an incredibly incredibly long introduction to the 75th anniversary edition of Adam Smith's motivations Marx is cool but Marx wouldn't even be half the Marx was if it wasn't for Addison the understanding of commercial pacifism is a very simple theory interdependence ii and collaboration from you so no two countries that work together no no two countries that are dependent upon trade with each other go on war with each other and why stab for business it's bad for business what is something that is far more likely to ensure trust and cooperation than a diplomatic agreement market economy you know 100 years ago we're in the middle of World War one in a running joke is that you know every you know 50 years or so Germany invades France it's just a minute well he's things happen what's the likelihood of Germany and France going to war today I mean the two are like Bert and Ernie hey fought for and fought and they actually found out that they love each other you know it's the biggest bromance in Europe okay seriously Germany and France is skipping down the thing oh you don't look together got a guy but again you know all kidding aside you know first of all one of the greatest guarantees of peace between the Germans and the French right after the Second World War what the Shubin plan which we're going to talk about in a few weeks but the Shuman plan was one of the most one of the most thought one of the most far-reaching things like to think about the shubik plan basically says that Germany and France will share in each other's cold and iron ore deposits Germany has done a lot of cold in the West France about a lot of iron ore in the east and guess what happens when you take iron and you heat it up to a certain temperature what did you get chemists what happens I heard it steel right one of the primary backbones of the industrial economy right well the primary things of skyscrapers right steel Francis got this Germany has got that in the olden days one invented the other to get the other two hey guess what wonder twin powers activate boom we've got cooperation and guess what gross what little organization may have heard this organization what organization who has grown out of the Schumann plan the European Union very good Germany doesn't need to invade France because it's already trading with France and here's the other thing if you would make a country that you're doing group of business with last night Czech wars create lots of damage right what ends up happening if the country that you invade gets damaged your own economy sucks it's bad for business is that the only one hey here's one ever wonder why India and Pakistan only wage wars of words over cricket matches or at least among high school kids in Edison not what the records say that okay oh great whatever I was in gym class you know we give you kids in the Pakistani kids are playing basketball each other it's like whoever wins we take beer are they ever gonna go to war with each other course stops because Pakistan and India are huge trading partners and they constantly troll each other on the Internet and when it time when it comes time for cricket forget it no it's bad for business it's bad for both economies hey capitalism is probably one of the best examples of a global development this is where sue Peter comes if it's the little shout out the sugar okay true Peter is basically trying to argue that capitalism is not imperialism imperialism is I come they take your stuff and I just kind of dominant capitalism is sort of like this okay you your your country grows less your country grows castes your country girls cauliflower your country grows radishes your country grows celery your country grows James whatever right now the olden days I didn't say to all of you now we control the agricultural markets the capitalist environment here's what I do I got the business savvy you grow all of your stuff you send it to me you know we're gonna create transatlantic south we're gonna sell it to everybody else you're all gonna pick and grow your own stuff you're gonna make you're gonna keep me percent of the profits I'm gonna take a 20% cut because I'm working anymore yeah and we're all gonna be half okay that's capitalism at least in the Schumpeterian performance okay US trade with Canada Mexico doesn't in things I mean look statistically speaking if we wanted to could we invade and take over Mexico yeah I mean I think you know who knows okay some people is having better to read them before they invade us I spent way way too much time involved in that could we invade Canada oh hell the Canadians would probably apologize oh we're sorry we're such a big country why do we need to we don't eat hay you don't need you know Germany doesn't need to invade Central Europe anymore they can buy it after 1990 remember I said this last time around 1945 oh crap the Germans are coming 1990 oh thank god Germans are coming this time they're bringing money and contracts and they're building factories and stuff hey everybody benefits kind of sort of well okay one possible setback one believes one possible weakness with commercial pacifism and that's fairly certain one the big weakness of commercial pacifism is back economic interdependence II it is assumed to be the primary form of interaction if you believe that economic cooperation is the final say awesome it's going to work but there are already enough countries in the world that choose not to use their economy this one in particular a good chunk of Congress is still raising holy hell because Obama has the audacity to lift the economic embargo against Cuba it's been 50 years he was just about ready to apologize no no he wasn't Obama has the audacity to even consider lifting the economic embargo against Iran and you heard the Republican debate last week or the week before you would know that Iran is basically the most evil thing in the galaxy okay you know we're not the only country that refuses to treat with other countries right other countries are like I'm not three people agree to do something this is really the bottom line about institutional agreements across the board weathers economical political or whatever right transnational agreements work if and only if all participating members agree to play by the proverbial rules of the game right if you agree to cooperate you're gonna cooperate it's almost sounds too simplistic but there's a lot of cases where other things get in the way okay good Chuck the Middle East does not want to have anything to do with history simply because it's yeah Israeli economy overshadows almost all of them combined small little people there it is hey no we're not trading with it right because they're Jews here's an interesting tidbit prior to the Second Intifada right up to the ongoing rides we started god it's hard to believe this is now 15 years going September of 2000 when the Second Intifada happened in between the first and the second this little brief period with the 1990s cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians was actually going in there I'm saying a positive recive direction we're a small period of time reality businesses and Palestinian businesses were boarding with each other why because pain we're right next to each other let's trade less by let's do this let's do that to the point where just prior to the uprising both Israelis and Palestinians were wondering why were we fighting all these years beforehand this makes so much more sense and then somebody did something stupid it's not worth getting into at this point anymore and well that's just not happening so commercial pacifism disregards other more potent ideologies which are still out there political religious cultural that's not to say that political religious and cultural are detrimental but if it gets in the way if it supersedes economic commercial pacifism does have its limits and in the remaining time that we have we can have a 410 yeah okay cool in the remaining time that we have we notes Democratic peace theory our final thing and we'll pick up with this on Wednesday Democratic peace that he brought to you by Emanuel cops never find peace nary our DDT for short very similar understandings to commercial pacifism no two democracies go to war with each other that's kind of like the end evolutionary results no two democracies go to war with each other it's the closest thing that we have in the social sciences to almost becoming the law if you think about it over the past two or three hundred years there's only two possible outliers only two possible outliers anyone want to take a guess at what these two possible Wars might have been what's that fit them to the second world war against two well generally against the Soviet Union so they get a free pass I could see your point but Finland's never really attacked Brinkworth Soviet Union but not that not that I we want to take this to possible cases the falkland is one potential case where her majesty her gratitude for might not her magnum enemy Margaret Thatcher decided to preserve what was left in the British Empire and he made the Falklands the sheep are safe although the Falklands get kind of a b-minus c-plus on that for two reasons one Argentina wasn't really democratic back then and some would even argue that Great Britain under Section was but aren't the Falkland war is one however Argentina was not really a consolidated democracy but good what was the other it was a little bit more office that was the more obscure that's good what's the other give you a hint we were involved in it we were involved in it we're not nope know your clothes war of 1812 war of 1812 and again the woman the outline of gear was the United States it's probably not the most democratic at the point I largest because of the fact that we still had this one institution that kind of flies in the face of democracy slavery I think then they gained Great Britain also but they're but these are kind of you know this is nitpicky but if you think about almost every other case when a country goes Democrat they don't go to war with other democracies not just because of economic reasons also because of ideological reasons now I'm gonna get going two things one I wouldn't necessarily say that was a war as it was simply a regime change you know they didn't even know what hit them until after we kind of did that and number two here's where things get a little dodgy a lot of those governments that were overthrown you could say we're far more democratic than what we put in in their place what according to the United States it was considered to be some some form of communist authoritarian just okay the understanding and I'll leave you with this and we'll take up with this on wet wick Democratic peace there may be the greatest argument for how peace perpetual peace can be achieved but the road to perpetuate peace follows the understanding that has more States become democracy the like the less likelihood war gross cool not bad how do countries become democracies we can sit around and wait and wait and wait and wait wingless wait or we can kind of speed things up a little bit which means that sometimes the road piece is oftentimes riddled with war out of the warm water it's a nice place to stop we'll finish up with Democratic peace theory on Wednesday [Music]

Channel: Michael Rossi Poli Sci

Views: 12,243

Keywords: rutgers, rutgers university, international relations, political science, michael rossi, undergraduate, academia, democratic peace theory, liberalism, john locke, adam smith, capitalism, institutionalism, cooperation, education, poli sci

Id: TDDsvFuU6WQ

Length: 39min 25sec (2365 seconds)

Published: Sun Oct 29 2017