Liberal internationalism

Liberal internationalism is a foreign policy doctrine that argues that liberal states should intervene in other sovereign states in order to pursue liberal objectives. Such intervention can include both military invasion and humanitarian aid. This view is contrasted to isolationist, realist, or non-interventionist foreign policy doctrines; these critics characterize it as liberal interventionism.

History
Liberal internationalism emerged during the nineteenth century, notably under the auspices of British Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister Lord Palmerston
Liberal internationalism was developed in the second decade of the 20th century under U.S. President Woodrow Wilson

Liberal internationalism emerged during the nineteenth century, notably under the auspices of British Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister Lord Palmerston, and was developed in the second decade of the 20th century under U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. In this form it became known as Wilsonianism.[1]

Theory

The goal of liberal internationalism is to achieve global structures within the international system that are inclined towards promoting a liberal world order. To that extent, global free trade, liberal economics and liberal political systems are all encouraged. In addition, liberal internationalists are dedicated towards encouraging democracy to emerge globally. Once realized, it will result in a 'peace dividend', as liberal states have relations that are characterized by non-violence, and that relations between democracies is characterized by the democratic peace theory.

Liberal internationalism states that, through multilateral organizations such as the United Nations, it is possible to avoid the worst excesses of "power politics" in relations between nations.

Examples

Examples of liberal internationalists include former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.[2] In the US, it is often associated with the American Democratic Party;[3] however, many neo-conservative thinkers in the United States have begun using similar arguments as liberal internationalists and, to the extent that the two ideologies have become more similar, it may show liberal internationalist thinking is spreading within the Republican Party.[4] Others argue that neoconservatism and liberal internationalism are distinctly different foreign policy philosophies and neoconservatives may only employ rhetoric similar to a liberal internationalist but with far different goals and methods of foreign policy intervention.[5]

Commonly cited examples of liberal interventionism in action include NATO's intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina; their 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia; British military intervention in the Sierra Leone Civil War; and the 2011 military intervention in Libya.[6]

gollark: We could make a non-proof-of-work one, thus no wasted electrons.
gollark: Why not?
gollark: We need to make Esocryptocurrency™.
gollark: People can often *see* lots of issues but ignore them.
gollark: I don't know about that.

See also

References
  1. "Stanley Hoffmann, "The Crisis of Liberal Internationalism, Foreign Policy, No. 98 (Spring, 1995), pp. 159–177.
  2. Timothy Garton Ash (2010-01-08). "Timothy Garton Ash: After 10 years Blair knows exactly what he stands for | Comment is free". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2011-09-19.
  3. "Debating Liberal Internationalism". The American Prospect. Retrieved 2017-05-30.
  4. Washington Monthly Online. ""The Neo-Neo-Conservative" by Isaac Chotiner". Washingtonmonthly.com. Archived from the original on 2012-03-29. Retrieved 2011-09-19.
  5. "International Security - Abstract". MIT Press Journals. doi:10.1162/isec.2007.32.2.7. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  6. Ash, Timothy Garton (2011-03-03). "Libya's escalating drama reopens the case for liberal intervention". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 14 June 2013.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.