CC BY-NC-ND
37
III. Международные отношения и мировая политика в начале XXI в.: вопросы теории и практики
O. Ignatkin
MODERN LIBERALISM AND ITS INFLUENCE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
The article dwells on two distinct forms of modern liberalism that one can encounter in modern international relations. The first one is called neoliberal institutionalism, justly relying on the idea of global political and economic institutions, governing world society, whereas the latter bears the sound title of new liberalism that in its turn evokes the grandiloquent and complex ideas of global justice, being an indispensable commodity of the global political system.
Key words: global political economy, international system, international relations, world politics, neoliberal institutionalism, new liberalism, political justice.
The two main ideas are currently outlining the basis of modern liberalism: neoliberal institutionalism and new liberalism1. Neoliberal institutionalism emphasizes the role of international organizations and other political and economic actors, playing more or less essential role on the world arena. As Arthur A. Stein notes: "International politics today is as much institutional as intergovernmental. International institutions can be found in every functional domain an in every region of the world"2. This idea, stemming from the works of prominent liberals indicates the increasing role that international institutions play in the modern world3. Their role has enhanced since World War II, that empowered the political thought with the vision of international institutions leading the world to the condition of interdependence and eventually to a dissolution of military power in the form, nations had been viewing it (in strict zero-sum game)4.
Neoliberal institutionalism presents modern system of liberal values. "The field of international relations responds to real world events and historically has shifted the substantive focus of investigation to re-
© Игнаткин О.Б., 2014
fleet changing reality. Following the First World War and with the creation of the League of Nations and the emergence of international law, the field necessarily focused on international organizations"5. Further A. Stein writes that "during the more than half a century since the end of the Second World War, the field of international organizations has undergone significant changes, captured by the changing terms used to characterize it. What began as the study of international organizations and regional integration took a dramatic turn in the early 1980 what came to be called regime theory and was subsequently rechristened neoliberal institutionalism. The turn consisted of both a broadening of the focus and a specific formulation of the causal logic"6.
As Stein writes in his article, "the original post-1945 focus was on international organizations, concrete entities with physical presence -names, addresses and so on. A typical definition was that of a formal arrangement transcending national boundaries that provides for the establishment of institutional machinery to facilitate cooperation among members in the security, economic, social or related fields"7. Later, "this rather narrow conceptualization was broadened with a focus on regimes, defined as "principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures around which actor expectations converge in a given issue-area"8.
The second critical feature of this intellectual turn, as Arthur A. Stein has shown, was that it rooted the existence of international institutions in the core elements of realist theory: states, power and interests. Rather than argue that regimes were somehow a different feature of international life, that they constituted an alternative way of thinking about international politics, regime theorists accepted the realist view of states as the central actors of international politics, and they accepted the central realist premise that state behavior is rooted in power and interest9.
As James L. Richardson writes, "contemporary liberal institutional theory, originating in an enhanced awareness of interdependence in the 1970th, broke with earlier liberal thought in accepting some of the central assumptions of realist theory and defining itself solely in empirical terms. To the extent that normative presuppositions or implications may nonetheless be discerned, they remain implicit"10.
But why did this theory broke with its tradition? One reason can be applied to the more rigid tradition in political economy that started to ponder on global hegemony theory in international relations. Others argue, that because of the American political ideology in the 1970-1980s turning to the right, and with the appearance of the "Washington Consensus", institutions were more eager to accept pro-market policies, based on the ideas of deregulation and political as well as economic lib-
eralization. This liberalization intellectually and politically sponsored by ideologically conservative groups in effect led to the changing political environment and global political de-institutionalization.
"Neoliberal institutional theorists did not question the prevailing assumption that value judgments have no place in the social sciences -even though they might provide the motive for a scholar's choice of subject matter. This assumption, never uncontested, is now widely questioned, but there is no new consensus on the role of value judgments"11.
Still, J.L. Richardson further admits, "that some empirical concepts have evident normative connotations: Negative terms, such as genocide, terrorism, or totalitarianism provide clear examples, but the positive connotations of peace, security, or order equally convey tak-en-for-granted value judgments (see e.g. Putnam, 2002). Cooperation is one such concept. Even though Keohane (1984) insists that it is not necessarily benign, but can be exploitative, it is often used with positive connotations, as when Arthur Stein (1990, ix) writes of "an era of hope, of the promise of international cooperation", or Keohane (1989, 160) himself contrasts "fragile cooperation" with "persistent zero-sum conflict and warfare". And the regimes studied by neoliberal school are normally assumed to be welfare promoting, not exploitative"12.
Further J.L. Richardson proceeds, that "even the realist theory of hegemonic stability is not value free, but claims that the hegemon provides highly valued public goods, essential for maintaining a liberal international economic order. The attraction of After Hegemony is its persuasive argument that these public goods can be achieved through non-hegemonic regimes. Such evaluative concepts, like "reciprocity" with its connotation of equal exchanges, are very general expressions of commendation. More specific values are signaled in the language on the functioning of regimes: providing reliable information, deterring cheating, providing focal points for coordination, or reducing transaction costs (more generally, "efficiency". These suggest a managerial orientation, an economist's view of administration"13.
The author argues further that "utilitarianism, as employed in neoliberal institutional theory may be construed in this light. It is not the utilitarian framework as such that predetermines the valued outcome -for actors determine their own utilities - but rather its use together with the assumption that states, the relevant actors, are necessarily egoistic and define their individual self-interest in material terms"14.
So is utilitarianism intrinsic in the modern international relations and how we can define the difference between the utilitarianism and modern liberalism that is an agreeably more humanistic political theory?15
Utilitarianism, as it was embodied in the works by J. Bentham and J.S. Mill, argues that the actors, whether they are people, or probably the states are guided by the notions of utility16. Bentham, an English moral philosopher and legal reformer, founded the doctrine of utilitarianism. Its main idea is simply stated and intuitively appealing: The highest principle of morality is to maximize happiness, the overall balance of pleasure over pain. According to Bentham, the right thing to do is whatever will maximize utility. By "utility" he means whatever produces pleasure or happiness, and whatever prevents pain or suffering17.
Mill's writings can be read as a strenuous attempt to reconcile individual rights with the utilitarian philosophy he inherited from his father and adopted from Bentham. His book On Liberty (1859) is the classic defense of individual freedom in the English-speaking world. Its central principle is that people should be free to do whatever they want, provided they do not harm the others. Government may not interfere with individual liberty in order to protect a person from himself, or to impose the majority's beliefs about how best to live. The only actions, for which a person is accountable to society, Mill argues, are those that affect others. As long as I am not harming anyone else, my "independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his body and mind, the individual is sovereign"18.
The more upgraded form of liberalism, the libertarianism, looks at this issue from the point of view of inviolability of individual rights. The prominent authors of libertarianism M. Friedman and R. Nozick argue that, there should be no violation of individual rights, so they impose the condition of unrestrained sovereignty upon individuals19.
"In Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974), - Michael Sandel writes, -Robert Nozick offers a philosophical defense of libertarian principles and a challenge to familiar ideas of distributive justice. He begins with the claim that individuals have rights so "strong and far-reaching" that "they raise the question of what, if anything the state may do". He concludes that "only a minimal state, limited to enforcing contracts and protecting people against force, theft and fraud, is justified. Any more extensive state violates persons' rights not to be forced to do certain things, and is unjustified"20.
J. Rawls' "Theory of Justice" provides an important response for this theory, though it was written in 1971, whereas R. Nozick's book in 1974. John Rawls argues that the main question we might all ask is that the way to think about justice is to ask what principles we would agree to in an initial situation of equality21. The ideas of John Rawls became highly important for political philosophy. They also became essential for
international relations. In his work "Law of Peoples" J. Rawls suggests certain principles that could be applicable to international arena22. The principles are: (1) "Peoples are free and independent, and their freedom and independence are to be respected by other people", (2) "Peoples are to observe treaties and undertakings", (3) "Peoples are to observe a duty of non-intervention", (4) "Peoples have a right to self-defense but no right to instigate war for reasons other than self-defense", (5) "Peoples are to honor human rights", (6) "Peoples are to observe certain specified restrictions in the conduct of war", (7) "Peoples have a duty to assist other people living under unfavorable conditions that prevent their having a just or decent political and social regime (Mutual Aid)"23.
The idea of international ethics, regulating international relations is important in the sense that states are regulated by certain moral norm in order to live in cooperation and peace. But to achieve this goal is important to apply efforts on serious improvements of the political regimes of the states and authoritarian nature of some countries willing to hamper the world's progress and development.
Notes
1 One should note the necessity of understanding the fact, that a great number of works is devoted to liberalism, still it may be possible to identify certain books and articles, devoted to both ideas. See on neoliberal institutionalism: Brzezinski Zb. Second Chance. The Presidents and the Crisis of the American Superpower. N. Y.: Basic Books, 2007; Bull H. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. N. Y.: Columbia University Press, 1977; Keohane R. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984; Idem. International Institution and State Power. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1989; Keohane R, Nye J. Power and Interdependence. Boston, MA: Little Brown, 1977; MearsheimerJ. Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War // International Security. 1990. № 15; Idem. The False Promise of International Institutions // International Security. 1994/1995. Winter. Vol. 19. № 3; Neorealism and its Critics / Ed. by R. Keohane. N. Y.: Columbia University Press, 1986; Nye J.S.Jr. The Paradox of American Power. Why the World's Only Superpower Can't Do it Alone. N. Y.: Oxford University Press, 2002; Idem. Soft Power. The Means to Success in World Politics. N. Y.: Public Affairs, 2004; Richardson J.L. The Ethics of Neoliberal Institutionalism // The Oxford Handbook of International Relations / Ed. by C. Reus-Smit, D. Snidal. N. Y.: Oxford University Press, 2010; Stein A.A. Neoliberal Institutionalism // Ibid; on new liberalism: Doyle M.W. Liberalism and World Politics // The American Political Science Review. 1986. Dec. Vol. 80. № 4;
GaddisJ.L. We Know Now: Rethinking Cold War History. N. Y.: Oxford University Press, 1997; Huntington S.P. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991; Moravcsik A. The New Liberalism // The Oxford Handbook of International Relations; Russett B. A Neo-Kantian Perspective: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations in Building Security Communities // Security Communities / Ed. by E. Adler, M. Barnett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998; Rawls J. The Law of Peoples with "The Idea of Public Reason Revisited". Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999; Simpson G. The Ethics of the New Liberalism // The Oxford Handbook of International Relations; Slaughter A.-M. A New World Order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004; Waltz K.N. Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979.
2 Stein A.A. Op. cit. P. 201.
3 The organizations may vary dramatically ranging from global IGOs (Intergovernmental Organizations) to NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) to local community groups. A.A. Stein writes that "modern reality consists of an alphabet soup of institutions, that includes the United Nations (UN), World Trade Organization (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF), Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), European Union (EU), Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and so on". See: Stein A.A. Op. cit. P. 201.
4 The work by R. Keohane and J. Nye "Power and Interdependence" runs in details about the dissolution of power in the transnational world. But, definitely, the work by J.S. Nye Jr. "Soft Power. The Means to Success in World Politics" analyzes the main differences between military/political, economic and cultural (soft) power. See: Keohane R, Nye J. Op. cit.; Nye J.S. Jr. Soft Power.
5 Stein A.A. Op. cit. P. 202.
6 Ibid.
7 Plano J.C., Olton R. The International Relations Dictionary. 2nd ed. Kalamazoo, MI: New Issues, 1979. P. 288. Quoted in: Stein A.A. Op. cit. P. 203.
8 Krasner S.D. Structural Causes and Regimes Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables // International Organization. 1982. № 36. P. 185. Quoted in: Stein A.A. Op. cit. P. 203.
9 Emblematic of the convergence implied in this formulation is the fact that the critical contributions to regime theory are in a special 1982 issue of International Organization, which was edited by a prominent realist Steven Krasner. Quoted in: Stein A.A. Op. cit. P. 203.
10 RichardsonJ.L. Op. cit. P. 222.
11 Ibid. P. 225.
12 Ibid. P. 226. The references on the works "After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy" and "International Institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations Theory" by R.O. Keohane, "The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays" by H. Putnam, "Why Nations Cooperate: Circumstance and Choice in International Relations" by A.A. Stein: Keohane R.O. After Hegemony...; Keohane R.O. International Institutions and State Power; Putnam H. The Collapse of the Fact // Value Dichotomy and Other Essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002; Stein A.A. Why Nations Cooperate: Circumstance and Choice in International Relations. Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University Press, 1990.
13 Ibid. The quoted work is: Keohane R.O. After Hegemony.
14 While Keohane (1984, 125) allows for explanation other than in terms of "narrowly defined self-interest", he sees this as limited to "relatively small spheres of activity. Quoted in: Richardson J.L. Op. cit. P. 226. The reference on R.O. Keohane's work in the footnote is: Keohane R.O. After Hegemony.
15 One might definitely argue, that there is no such a consensus, still in the political theory many scientists believe that deontological liberalism represents a more advanced form of the political liberalism. On different debates: Sandel M.J. Justice. What's the Right Thing to Do? N. Y.: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009.
16 On the modern excellent description of different theories of liberalism refer to: Sandel M.J. Op. cit.
17 Ibid. P. 34.
18 MillJ.S. On Liberty (1859) / Ed. by S. Collini. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Ch. 1. Quoted in: Sandel M.J. Op. cit. P. 49.
19 The classic books that became so popular in Russia as well are: Friedman M. Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, 1962; Nozick R. Anarchy, State and Utopia. N. Y.: Basic Books, 1974. The work of the Austrian economist F.A. Hayek also belongs to the libertarianism: Hayek F.A. The Constitution of Liberty. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, 1961.
20 Nozick R. Op. cit. P. IX. Quoted in: Sandel M.J. Op. cit. P. 62.
21 Rawls J. Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971. Quoted in: Sandel M.J. Op. cit. P. 140.
22 See: Rawls J. The Law of Peoples.
23 Ibid. Quoted in: Shapcott R. International Ethics // Baylis J., Smith S., Owens P. The Globalization of World Politics. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. P. 203.
