1. What role does liberalism play within
security studies?

2. Defining terms:
 ‘Liberalism’ (in international relations); “[The] theory [advocating]
Government between states and peoples worldwide. .. Liberals seek to
project values of order, liberty, justice and toleration into international
relations.” (Baylis/Smith/Owens).
 Security studies; theories and ideas aimed towards understanding the
concept of security in international relations, and envisioning theories for
increased security in the international context. ‘Security’ meaning the
“[presence] of threats to acquired values, and in a subjective sense, the
absence of fear that such values will be attacked.”

3. The main standpoints of liberal
internationalists:
 “A rising tide lifts all boats” ; an international atmosphere of all-
encompassing progress is in the interests of all states, rather than alienating
one state from others through competition for power.
 “Democratic peace theory”; Immanuel Kant hypothesised that democratic
republics will eventually reach a perpetual peace with one another.
 Emphasis on free international trade; the theory of this concept is that once
companies from differing states begin to trade, the ties between states
become closer, decreasing the likelihood of war and economic aggression.
 International constitutionalism; abolishing the “state of nature” (Hobbes) in
international politics; establishment of international lines of communication,
treaties and etc to make international relations a (theoretically) logical,
constitutional process instead of an anarchic, unpredictable non-system.

4. Liberals and Global Security in Action
 The first serious attempt to institute a constitutional international system was
done in the aftermath of the first world war, in the form of the League of Nations.
As should be expected from it having been forged in the aftermath of by far the
bloodiest conflict in (at that point) Western history. The LON acted successfully in
some areas, such as halting a Greek-Bulgarian conflict in 1925 amongst some
other achievements. For better or for worse, the LON is the forebear of our
present international constitutional arrangements (the UN, EU etc).
 By furthering the liberalisation of international trade, liberalism in international
politics has arguably created a pax financia, eloquently expressed in Thomas L
Friedman’s ‘Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention’, the theory that no to
countries which are host to a Mcdonalds restaurant would go to war (later proved
false). States with tight grips over their economies have greater capacity to use
their economies aggressively than liberal ones.

5. Liberals and Global Security in Action
(continued)
 Liberal internationalists have historically lobbied for ‘self determination’, whereby
de jure countries should be themselves self-governing states, rather than be
ruled through an empire of many peoples. The theory is that a self-determined
democratic state will not aggressively seek expansion, as the populace
recognise the state’s territory as their own and borders are clearly identifiable
and will not support their governments in wars of expansion.
 The most recent example of self-determination in international relations is that of
the new state of Kosovo; by (through the UN and EU) establishing the new state
on the ‘cultural boundaries’ in ‘old Serbia’ a clearly identifiable region becomes
an autonomous state. The theory is that the Kosovar people will not be subject to
genocide in the future, now that they are ‘self determined’ in their own state, and
that the likelihood of future conflict in the region is now lowered, due to mutual
recognition of territory (presently a problem, as Kosovo is not recognised by
Serbia or several other states) and the preservation of national borders and
military forces.

6. Criticisms of Liberal Internationalism in
Global Security
 Liberalism has been criticised in its handling of international security issues in
several respects. Firstly, is the accusation that international security
preservation by federalised international institutes is unworkable. This is not
an unsubstantiated viewpoint. The 1934 Italian invasion of Abyssinia was
essentially unpunished. The League of Nations’ sanctions did not extend to
important commodities (specifically oil), and Italy ignored all opposition until it
conquered all of Abyssinia (whatever sanctions against Italy there were had
been halted upon cessation of the war). More recently, the UN opposition to
the American-British invasion of Iraq was ignored and yet it proceeded with no
consequences. The capacity of international institutions to prevent war, it
seems, is limited to weaker states, and cannot prevent a determined effort by
powerful states to prevent conflict.

7. Criticisms of Liberal Internationalism in
Global Security
 Israel, amongst other states, can be
interpreted as opposing international
liberalism on the grounds that it sees it as
detrimental to its security. Firstly, that (they
interpret) the UN is biased against Israel
and opposing actions they see vital to their
security (eg, invasions of Lebanon and
other military expeditions supposedly
important to their security), and perhaps
most pertinently their blockade of the Gaza
strip. Though the UN opposes it on
humanitarian grounds, Israel’s government
is adamant that it is necessary in order to
prevent attacks from non-state actors.
"Due to the UN's unvarnished belligerence toward it, in recent years a
consensus has formed in Israel that there is nothing to be gained from
cooperating with this openly and dangerously hostile body.“ – Caroline Glick,
journalist.

8. In Summary;
 Liberalism, for better or for worse, has profoundly affected
the way in which states act in matters of security in its
establishment of international institutes (effectiveness/lack
of effectiveness is debatable).
 The growth of international trade (globalisation) has
certainly led to the lack of inter-state conflict since WWII.
 Self-determinative state building theoretically increases
international security by decreasing war.

9. Questions for consideration:
 Is our present international system adequate in
terms of ensuring global security from non state
actors, or is it unsuitable for such an aim?
 If all states were to decrease regulation in terms of
trade from within their borders to abroad, would we
see a general lessening in international conflict and
tension?