2011
It is certain that liberal theoretical thinkers and their approaches contributed to the studies of international relations (IR) in one way or another. Despite this fact, their different perspectives on theorizing the issues and level of practicalities make us question in what level and understanding they contribute to the studies of IR. Immanuel Kant, Michael Doyle and Daniele Archibugi are just three of the liberal thinkers whose general framework of studies focus on the concepts like democracy and peace in a domestic but also in a global scale. I firmly believe that their liberalism-oriented studies in issues like democracy and peace are their main contribution to the study of IR.
To start with Kant, it is important to underline that what his works tell us is his prescriptive, normative and practical approach. Unlike contemporary theorists’ perspective of a more descriptive and explanatory approach compared to Kant, he uses a language of practicality as an answer to “what ought to be done”. This approach may sound more like a politician’s but he justifies himself by telling that there is a hard line of separation between politicians and philosophers and this line should not be crossed. Due to this separation, he finds the chance to operate in a practical level and still be a theorist not a politician. Thus, this practical and prescriptive approach leads its way to a need for perpetual peace in his arguments. Despite his inclination to a realist understanding while underlining states’ role in the power politics and security issues, he stands firm in his liberal method through supporting concepts like equality, democracy and peace.
What Kant contributes to the theoretical understanding in IR is his approach to the concept of “peace” and its necessary conditions to be real. One of these necessities is republicanism in both state and global level which, according to Kant, is essential for the perpetual peace. He underlines the importance of avoiding wars between states and to achieve this condition he suggests to abolish armies, obligatory military service and foreign debts of states. In addition, he emphasizes that conditions like equality of states, protection of freedom and rights, transition to republican ruling and a federation of states are necessary to achieve peace in domestic and global spheres. The need for a federative and cosmopolitan way of administration among states is one of the most important issues for peace and stability. In my opinion, Kant is more like a constructor of a system, not like an observer or theory maker compared to most IR scholars. As one can claim that concepts of democracy and war can be differently understood in different theoretical understandings (i.e. the definition of war as the armed or unarmed conflict or the definition of democracy in liberal or republican approach). His way of thinking, as he underlines also, is a completion of “what ought to be done” perspective which furthers him from a descriptive approach. However, nobody can deny that his approaches effected many scholars including IR theorists in aspects like possibilities of avoiding war and establishing peace.
Doyle stands in a different but close point to Kant’s. His need to describe the nature of liberalism in the aspects of democracy and peace, and consequent efforts to generate approaches of “what ought to be done” places him in a different point than Kant’s. The question Doyle asks about is the foundation of liberalism and its international implications. He questions the challenges that democratic peace faces. In general he underlines the economical and political grounds and their liberal perspectives that helped democracies to achieve. So, whether they are conservative or social democratic, liberal thoughts are bases for democracy and peace as Doyle argues. According to him, there are four points of necessity for democracy and peace which are judicial equality, representative legislatures, rights for private property and free market. They are all concepts of liberalism and he claims that these domestic forms are sources for similar international understandings. He shares Kant’s arguments that believing in freedom of individuals in domestic level leads to a belief in the sovereignty of states in the international level which, as a result, brings peace and understanding. Doyle’s efforts to describe the conditions and attributes of liberal approach make him more like a theory builder and I find it necessary to be able to do that in order to be able to contribute to IR.
Compared to Kant and Doyle, I believe that Archibugi is the closest liberal thinker to be able to theoretically contribute to IR studies. The concept he chooses is named cosmopolitan democracy and he underlines the importance of three issues: democracy inside nations, democracy among nations and democracy in the global level. To be theoretically valid he first frames the topic of democracy such as its inability to be imposed from outside or its structure of historically shaped form. Then he underlines several points to be able to construct a healthy democracy such as ensuring equality of states, non-interfering their sovereignties and avoiding international conflict. The establishment of democracy brings the peace and the desire for peace is a motivation to establish democracy. In addition, he suggests an international system that embraces democratic states as well as their citizens and NGOs that are to be effective in decision making process. He shows European Union as an example as its members share similar democratic values, respect each other’s territories and support the representation of citizens in, at least, parliamentary level. Then he shows the lacking sides of the United Nations which he thinks is the most probable form to be able construct a cosmopolitan democracy. His way of thinking is clearly theoretical as he defines the ground (democracy) he stands for; he observes a possible example (European Union) for his planned concept; he suggests opinions for a better union of states, citizens and NGOs instead of United Nations. In my opinion, his approach of “what ought to be done” is very well absorbed through his descriptive understanding.
I believe that all three liberal thinkers contributes to the theoretical studies in IR in one way or another. They all have a perspective from concepts like peace and democracy and how to achieve them. Kant, compared to other two, seems to be a more practical and prescriptive thinker who argues about the things that should be done in order to establish peace. Doyle seems to be trying to both describe and prescribe which makes closer to theoretical IR thinking compared to Kant. In my opinion, Archibugi is the closest one to frame the issues of peace and democracy in a theoretical and hypothetical way as he both describes the issues, observes examples and presents new models.
It is certain that liberal theoretical thinkers and their approaches contributed to the studies of international relations (IR) in one way or another. Despite this fact, their different perspectives on theorizing the issues and level of practicalities make us question in what level and understanding they contribute to the studies of IR. Immanuel Kant, Michael Doyle and Daniele Archibugi are just three of the liberal thinkers whose general framework of studies focus on the concepts like democracy and peace in a domestic but also in a global scale. I firmly believe that their liberalism-oriented studies in issues like democracy and peace are their main contribution to the study of IR.
To start with Kant, it is important to underline that what his works tell us is his prescriptive, normative and practical approach. Unlike contemporary theorists’ perspective of a more descriptive and explanatory approach compared to Kant, he uses a language of practicality as an answer to “what ought to be done”. This approach may sound more like a politician’s but he justifies himself by telling that there is a hard line of separation between politicians and philosophers and this line should not be crossed. Due to this separation, he finds the chance to operate in a practical level and still be a theorist not a politician. Thus, this practical and prescriptive approach leads its way to a need for perpetual peace in his arguments. Despite his inclination to a realist understanding while underlining states’ role in the power politics and security issues, he stands firm in his liberal method through supporting concepts like equality, democracy and peace.
What Kant contributes to the theoretical understanding in IR is his approach to the concept of “peace” and its necessary conditions to be real. One of these necessities is republicanism in both state and global level which, according to Kant, is essential for the perpetual peace. He underlines the importance of avoiding wars between states and to achieve this condition he suggests to abolish armies, obligatory military service and foreign debts of states. In addition, he emphasizes that conditions like equality of states, protection of freedom and rights, transition to republican ruling and a federation of states are necessary to achieve peace in domestic and global spheres. The need for a federative and cosmopolitan way of administration among states is one of the most important issues for peace and stability. In my opinion, Kant is more like a constructor of a system, not like an observer or theory maker compared to most IR scholars. As one can claim that concepts of democracy and war can be differently understood in different theoretical understandings (i.e. the definition of war as the armed or unarmed conflict or the definition of democracy in liberal or republican approach). His way of thinking, as he underlines also, is a completion of “what ought to be done” perspective which furthers him from a descriptive approach. However, nobody can deny that his approaches effected many scholars including IR theorists in aspects like possibilities of avoiding war and establishing peace.
Doyle stands in a different but close point to Kant’s. His need to describe the nature of liberalism in the aspects of democracy and peace, and consequent efforts to generate approaches of “what ought to be done” places him in a different point than Kant’s. The question Doyle asks about is the foundation of liberalism and its international implications. He questions the challenges that democratic peace faces. In general he underlines the economical and political grounds and their liberal perspectives that helped democracies to achieve. So, whether they are conservative or social democratic, liberal thoughts are bases for democracy and peace as Doyle argues. According to him, there are four points of necessity for democracy and peace which are judicial equality, representative legislatures, rights for private property and free market. They are all concepts of liberalism and he claims that these domestic forms are sources for similar international understandings. He shares Kant’s arguments that believing in freedom of individuals in domestic level leads to a belief in the sovereignty of states in the international level which, as a result, brings peace and understanding. Doyle’s efforts to describe the conditions and attributes of liberal approach make him more like a theory builder and I find it necessary to be able to do that in order to be able to contribute to IR.
Compared to Kant and Doyle, I believe that Archibugi is the closest liberal thinker to be able to theoretically contribute to IR studies. The concept he chooses is named cosmopolitan democracy and he underlines the importance of three issues: democracy inside nations, democracy among nations and democracy in the global level. To be theoretically valid he first frames the topic of democracy such as its inability to be imposed from outside or its structure of historically shaped form. Then he underlines several points to be able to construct a healthy democracy such as ensuring equality of states, non-interfering their sovereignties and avoiding international conflict. The establishment of democracy brings the peace and the desire for peace is a motivation to establish democracy. In addition, he suggests an international system that embraces democratic states as well as their citizens and NGOs that are to be effective in decision making process. He shows European Union as an example as its members share similar democratic values, respect each other’s territories and support the representation of citizens in, at least, parliamentary level. Then he shows the lacking sides of the United Nations which he thinks is the most probable form to be able construct a cosmopolitan democracy. His way of thinking is clearly theoretical as he defines the ground (democracy) he stands for; he observes a possible example (European Union) for his planned concept; he suggests opinions for a better union of states, citizens and NGOs instead of United Nations. In my opinion, his approach of “what ought to be done” is very well absorbed through his descriptive understanding.
I believe that all three liberal thinkers contributes to the theoretical studies in IR in one way or another. They all have a perspective from concepts like peace and democracy and how to achieve them. Kant, compared to other two, seems to be a more practical and prescriptive thinker who argues about the things that should be done in order to establish peace. Doyle seems to be trying to both describe and prescribe which makes closer to theoretical IR thinking compared to Kant. In my opinion, Archibugi is the closest one to frame the issues of peace and democracy in a theoretical and hypothetical way as he both describes the issues, observes examples and presents new models.
No comments:
Post a Comment