1.

A brief introduction of International Relations and World Politics

The contact with the theoretical-academic approach of International
Relations can be both a fascinating and a disappointing exercise. The
literature of this academic-scientific area is marked by a great diversity of
theoretical currents: realist, neo-realist, liberal, neo-liberal, traditionalist,
behaviourist, pluralist, constructivist, structuralist, among others. Its variety
shows, by one side, the richness of perspectives and by the other, theoretical
uncertainties and conceptual confusions often generated by inaccurate
theoretical assignments and reductive classifications.
The theoretical framework of International relations is a valuable
manner of understanding World politics, state and non-state actors and the
functioning of balance of powers among States. Thus, it is essential to begin
with a brief contextualization of 20th and 21st century’s theory of
international relations and studies on World politics.
The international relations domain was introduced in the beginning
of 20th century. In this segment, due to historical events, IR passed by a
period of stagnation until the 1960s. During that time, the contributions of
E.H. Carr in The Twenty year’s crisis (1939) and Hans Morgenthau’s in
Politics among Nations (1948) demonstrate the importance of International
Relations as a subject on the analyses of global politics. The first debate
inside of International Relations was between Realism and Idealism, the last
introduced by Woodrow Wilson in 1919.

The years of the 1930s were marked by the breakdown of the League
of Nations and, consequently, the affirmation of the Dictatorships in Italy,
Germany and Japan. Both events conducted to II World War and Realism
theory becomes the new approach to I.R. International Relations during that
time focused in some important questions such as: the relationship between
international affairs and the problems of racial and ethnic minorities; the
concern for the effects of population change on foreign policies; the relevant
consequences of Nationalism, Imperialism and Colonialism as other
ideologies; the interest for geopolitics and strategic aspect of International
Relations; the begin of economic policies on global scale, the search for
equal economic rights within countries and the vision of the role of public
opinion, national differences and cultural importance on Foreign Affairs.

Hence, the International Relations as a subject during wars period

contributed to update old theories and certainly influenced the creation of
new approaches that, somehow, explained the rapidly change of
International system which had come after 1945. Furthermore, Theories and
approaches to Security and War affairs were introduced due to the fast
development of Nuclear Weapons. Personalities such as Bernard Brodie,
Herman Kahn, Glenn Snyder, Thomas C. Shelling, Henry A. Kissinger and
Albert Wohlstetter had various contributions to new security issues on
International Relations. Therefore, the new security issues included the
international and European Integration; the Alliances and Alignments
(NATO); the Foreign-Policy Decision-making; the Theories about conflict
and War; the study of low-intensity conflict; the crisis management and
International organizations that impacted on World Affairs.

In Cold War period, the interest for International Relations and

World Politics grow and we assist to new changes such as the development
of Social Sciences; the introduction of new concepts and new
methodologies, as behaviour theory; the importance of Cognition, the
Conflict resolution, decision-making, deterrence, development, environment,
game theory, economic and politic Integration, Systems analysis, the
foreign-policy perspective, the International-System-Analyses perspective,
the balance-Power theory and international System perspective to a new
definition of International Relations domain.

In the years of 1970s, Liberalism is developed due to the outdated of

Realism thought. Hence, the globalization, the progress of science and
technology, the importance of International Economy and World
Cooperation evocate the revisionism of Realism theory and the emergence of
Liberal Approach inside of World Affairs. For Liberals, military power is
not the determining factor for each State. Instead, it is also primordial
analysing the social and economic spheres by cooperation among countries.
The Classic Realism introduced by Carr and Morgenthau is reviewed and
developed by Kenneth Waltz in “Theory of International Politics” (1979).
Nevertheless, Liberalism and Neoliberal versus Realism and Neorealism
marked the posterior years. In the late of 20th Century, different theories
were formed such as Constructivism theory, Marxism Theory,
Postmodernism Theory, Critical Theory, Postcolonial Theory, Feminism
theory. Indeed, the theories of International Relations are wide and divided
into different conceptions and views, compost by ideas and ways of acting in
foreign and regional politics.

The Realism-Liberalism debate persists and it is explained by the

balance of powers, which are ruled under the parameters of both theories. In
the end of 20th century, Terrorism, religious and ethnic conflicts, the
breakup of states, the emergence of sub-state and non-states entities, the
widespread weapons of Mass Destruction, the efforts to counter nuclear
proliferation, and the development of International Institutions extended
until nowadays. Likewise, U.S government adopted national security
strategy based on the assumption that the spread of free-market democracies
would contribute to more a peaceful world.

The 11 September attacks are not so important and did not change
the international order, neither the perspective of the new emerging actors
such as Japan, China, and Russia. Also, there was not a loss in their
territories. The World Trade Centre attacks had an impact on U.S. U.S never
has been a country who had suffered by war while he was a dominant power.
Politics certainly influence the conduct of States. For example, the
reconstruction of Europe had an impact in other nations that follow their
policies. Due to the sudden changes, related with the supremacy of economic
and military sphere, the western world is not the most powerful in global
politics, despite this, it still has role in international affairs.

Most of the main problems in International Relations are a

constitutive part and at the same time a consequence of Cold War. The world
is on turbulence, due the conflicts and multiple changes that rapidly
widespread. The idea of a common solution for the World Crisis is barely
unreachable in modern times. This happens because most of the power
 actors have different interests and also their policies are divergent. More
than to solve the crisis is important to understand the emerged
transformation and then find a definitive resolution.

The World is explained by crisis, conflicts and another kind of

threats that menace the international relations. Along with, the multiple
crises are explained by ancient historical factors. Instead, the World changes
are becoming essential for the stability of international order. Also, the
structural change is the most important for world affairs prosperity. The
countries that constitute the World Affairs assist to the World multi-
polarization, without saying that there is a multi-polarized world. There is
not an Asian World and there is not an African World, for instance, not all
western countries are poor or irrelevant to assure the international order.
Inside of Western World, there are important players within the frame of
international relations and geopolitics.

1. LIBERALISM THOUGHT AND NEOLIBERALISM THEORY

1.1. LIBERALISM

The concept of Political Liberalism has changed substantially the

approach of Liberal theory of International relations as well as impacted the
International system structure in multiple ways. It has been relevant its own
contributions in different subjects such sociology, history, economy,
geography and geopolitics. Liberal theory approach to International
Relations study has been considered one of the most effective nowadays in
World Politics. Liberal thought has an intrinsic dependency on Rationality,
Freedom, Human progress, Individual Rights, Democracy,
Constitutionalism, and limitations on power. Likewise, the Liberal theory
has a multirole on other aspects such as economy and society and isn’t just a
part of the political sphere. More than being predominant on the way States
rules their territories, Liberalism search the countries abilities to challenge
the adversities and which measures adopt for not going to war when the
situation, at first sight, demonstrate the opposite, provoking immediately
war.
 1.1.1. Classical Liberalism

Liberalism is a political philosophy and it is also an approach of

International Relations and domestic politics. As a theory, updates and
forward developments were introduced and distinguished by the role of
individuals and State in the last two centuries. Liberalism absorbed most of
the ideas of Classical Liberalism - whereas State had a minimum role in
society and due to the historical environment, individuals were considered
the centre of World Politics. The main thinkers on Liberalism thought and,
which ones had a huge impact on what we call Liberalism theory in
International Relations discipline were John Locke, Hugo Grotius,
Emmanuel Kant and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Other references such as Adam
Smith, John Stuart Mill, Ricardo, and Keynes are also important for the
understanding of the Liberal economy and capitalism approaches.

John Locke (1632-1704) is the pioneer of distinctive liberal ideas.

Undoubtedly, he contributed to the introduction of political liberalism.
According to him, Civil Government obeys the protection of the natural
rights such as the right to life, property, and freedom. The conceptual
framework of Locke’s thoughts is well-expressed in his Second Treatise on
Government (1689). Locke defended the thesis that the human being is free
by nature. In the absence of government, freedom reigns. What
characterizes, therefore, the so-called "state of nature" is freedom, not as
Hobbes intended the war of all against all.

The thesis of the "natural freedom" of the human being is based on

the argument that freedom is not a good granted by a government, by a civil
authority, but it is inherent in human nature itself and therefore inseparable
from the human condition. It is good to clarify here that the "state of nature"
is not, for Locke, necessarily a historical state, which has in fact existed and
can be located and dated. It is an imagined state as opposed to the state in
which there is government and therefore a civil society. Here, the Natural
freedom is expressed in the form of some basic and inalienable individual
rights: the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to property. In fact,
these three rights, in essence, are one: the right to life. To sum up, the state
theorized by Locke, which serves only the interests of the bourgeoisie, which
was found during the Old Regime (in the case of England, Monarchical
absolutism) a major obstacle. Locke's political thinking was the argument
that the bourgeoisie needed to fight against absolutism and gain political
power.

Another distinctive classical liberal theorist and considered the father

of International Law was Hugo Grotius (1583-1645). During Enlightenment,
Grotius works were essential to explain the bunch of laws which States are
obligated to follow. International Law is essential for the equilibrium of the
International system, so, States Power can be controlled and going to war
would not be a direct solution. Grotius conceptions were completely
different than Hobbes, Locke or Kant. The difference lays on the importance
that Grotius gave to Sates-system structure more than political and social
freedom. Grotius was more concerned about International rules among
Nations. Also, most of his writings were about right to war (Ius ad Bellum),
defending the principle of proportionality (Ius in Bello) and how should be
the behaviour and guidance of Nations and Individuals. 1 He considered that
municipal laws were not opposite to International laws. He believed mostly,
it could apply the same laws into Universal context. Although, admitted that
without an International Law system, these laws were improbable to apply in
World Politics.

Classical Liberalism had repercussions in political structure and

social groups, wide spreading into the subjects studied during the “Lights
century”. Locke, Hobbes, Adam Smith, Ricardo, and other liberal theorists
influenced their contemporaries. In this context, the ideas around liberalism
theory were developed by political philosophers, distinguished the role of
Emmanuel Kant to International community concept. Nonetheless, Kant
considered himself as a republican, more than a liberal such as Locke or
Rousseau. However, the paradox of the Kantian conception between

1
BRAUCH, H. Günter, “The Three Worldviews of Hobbes, Grotius and Kant: foundations of
modern thinking on peace and security: Contextual Change and Reconceptualisation of
Security”, in C. Lipchin et al. (eds.), Integrated Water Resources Management and
Security in the Middle East, Springer. 2007.p.567
liberalism and republicanism is exactly in its richness and its possibility of
signification in the current political debate. In Kantian texts, is perceived the
justifications for the determination of freedom, which is the possibility of a
morality of action, in other words, a search for the pursuit of practical ends, a
pragmatic imperative of action for interest, and a categorical imperative as
an ethical law Universal that serves as a brake on interest, that must be
Universal.

The clash between the two meanings, “Kantian liberalism” and

“Kantian republicanism” would indicate the unfolding of the conception of
freedom In Kant, which starts from a rational instance and is directed to a
practical instance, reflected in the surpassing of the moral scope to the
practical formally operated in its philosophical construction. Kantian
Liberalism defined freedom as a projection of ends, and the pursuit of
interest, and Kantian Republicanism meant freedom as adherence to the
moral law and interest in civic duty as a public function.

Rousseau proposes the conception that man is good by nature, being

corrupted by society. In its state of nature, man does not obey conventional
laws, because he does not possess them, but acts according to his instincts.
Private property is a core axis of individual thinking. It is the source of all
the evils of society. The contract, for him, has the function of ensuring that
man is free, not having to suffer by laws that are imposed by others above
him. That is why he said that "man is born free, but everywhere he is
imprisoned." Therefore, the general will plays a fundamental role in the
relationship between the State and society, placing the first as submissive to
the second. To resume, Jean-Jacques is a defender of the concept of
sovereignty. Only when the general will is respected, the law is fair and the
individual is free. However, there is no way to restore natural freedom, only
to approach it. The social pact ended natural liberty, fixed property by
bringing inequality to the benefit of a few ambitious. In this way, man
becomes subject to work, misery and servitude.

In the writings of” On the Social Contract”, Rousseau describes two

stages in the process of transition from the state of nature to the civil state:
first, the beginning of civil society with the institution of private property
and, secondly, Inequalities. The first book of the Contract aims to discuss the
legitimate origin and foundation of political society. Rousseau describes the
natural condition of man in contrast to his social condition, resulting from
these two conditions two forms of freedom (natural and social), and the latter
restricting the freedom of the natural condition of the human being. In short,
the social contract, to be legitimate, must be founded on democracy. For
Rousseau, political power must be wholly in the hands of the people who is,
in fact, the sovereign; 2) to whom, directly, is the approval of the laws; 3) a
government which, in the execution of the laws, is limited to being minister
of the general will.

Justice for the Liberal is given by a certain distributive justice idea,

this means that, for income and for all people which are born, legal equality
must have the same rights in society and for this reason, equal and not only
legal but also a political equality and equal opportunities must be given to
the citizens that form the State. Everyone is equal above the law, have any
privilege or social advantage, and have the same political rights. Loss and
awards, even if different, should be the same for everyone, rewarding the
desire for merit, effort and work conditions and social conditions. The
implementation of industrial capitalism in the 19th century and the
subsequent progress of industrialization seemed to realize the dream of
progress and breakthrough of Western civilization. On the contrary, the
increasingly disaffected for the differences between the disadvantaged
working class was accompanied by the increasing of the production of social
inequalities. These conditions advocate the belief that under industrial
capitalism, all prosperity and freedom will become difficult for liberalism.
Economic individualism has been questioned as much as if it were a
"minimal state" idea. The so-called "modern liberals" began to defend the
idea of an "interventionist state" to correct injustices and social inequalities.
The "State welfare" model, which has grown State’s intervention in many
western countries in the 20th century as an attempt to overcome poverty and
social inequalities for modern liberals, is ready to provide a range of services
such as social security, health care, education among others.
 2.2. NEOLIBERALISM AND FOREIGN POLICY

2.2. NEOLIBERALISM AND FOREIGN POLICY

The relation of Neoliberalism and Foreign Policy is more economical

than political in its conception. Neoliberals concentrated on rational choice
and used many game theoretical models produced from economic norms to
explain World politics. Neoliberalism is a redefinition of classical liberalism,
influenced by neoclassical economic theories and is understood as a product
of classical economic liberalism. In politics, Neoliberalism is a set of
capitalist political and economic ideas that advocates state non-participation
in the economy, where it must be total freedom of trade, to ensure economic
growth and social development in a country. Neoliberals pretend to bring
back the economic liberalism of XIX century, assuming the importance of
Free Trade to the countries worldwide development. Neoliberal policies are
controlled by the most powerful countries such as U.S, China, Russia, and
the European Union which are the founders of Neoliberalism itself.
However, most of the governments take the crisis to provoke wars and
conflicts in favour of free-market.

Neoliberalism approach five main features: Social services guiding

by state companies; to control the media and communication tools; to
expand free market; to invest in the private sector by public sector; to
include the main ideas of classical liberal economy. Neoliberalists claim
that the State is primarily responsible for anomalies on the function of the
free market because their large size and activity constrain private economic
agents. Neoliberalism defends the government's lack of intervention in the
labour market, the policy of privatization of state-owned enterprises, the free
movement of international capital and emphasis on globalization, the
opening of the economy to the entry of multinationals, the adoption of
measures against economic protectionism, the reduction of taxes and
excessive taxes and others. This economic theory proposes the use of the
implementation of supply policies to increase productivity. Also, to improve
the local and global economy is crucial to reduce prices and wages.
Neoliberalism is a chain of thought and an ideology, that is, a way of seeing
and judging the social world or an organized intellectual movement, which
holds meetings, conferences, and congresses. Furthermore, Neoliberals give
significance to Conventions and rules among Nations, in other words, «To
understand the changes in World Politics over the course of centuries, we
need to understand how conventions change».2 Accepting the anarchic
character of States behaviour, Neoliberals insist on the cooperation among
institutions and international organisms.

Inside of Liberal theory, we found multiple theories with liberal

basis, but not liberal in their conceptions. Despite of the differences among
theoretical approach in Liberal theory, rarely disagree on States role in
Global politics. In fact, States are considered the primordial factor to explain
World politics. Liberals shared the idea that «States have been and remain
the most important actors in World Affairs» 3. Over the years, international
system fragmented, thus institutionalism assumes a matchup theory of the
parts that forms Global politics. The pursuance for Global peace, according
to liberals, can be only explained by cooperation and international organisms
that must act to maintain universal security balance. Therefore, Liberals do
not deny the magnitude of States in World Politics, approaching measures
within States dominance to avoid conflicts. Liberals seek to grasp the
changes and dynamics of International framework by analysing different
political systems over new mechanisms and investing on International
organizations and interdependence dealings.

2.2.1. NEOLIBERAL INSTITUTIONALISM.

Kant's cosmopolitan thought inspired yet another branch of the

liberal worldview: the branch constituted by transnationalists, theories of
interdependence, and liberal institutionalism. Worthy of note are the
celebrated works of David Mitrany "A Working Peace System" (1943) and
Karl Deutsch et al. Entitled "Political Community and the North Atlantic
Area (1957), where it was already possible to find the ideas of functional,

2
KEOHANE, R. O., “International institutions and state power: essays in
international relations theory”. Boulder, Westview Press.p.5
3
KEOHANE, R. O.; NYE, Joseph, “Transnational Relations and World Politics: An
Introduction”, in International Organization, vol.25:3. 1971. p.344
technical and economic cooperation as the foundation of a more integrated
international system, which are characteristic of liberal institutionalism.
However, the main theoretical reference is the work of Robert Keohane and
Joseph Nye "power and interdependence (1977)", which was the most
important step for the reformulation of the world's statocentric vision and for
the elaboration of an explanatory model alternative to the realism called
"Complex interdependence".

Liberal institutionalism is a theory and an important component of

International relations. It became well-known during the 1970s, when
Liberals tried to find arguments to criticize the reductive politics character of
Realism theory. Under the methodological framework in building an
international community, the Liberal Institutionalism claims the existence of
international organizations, their role in International order by vis-à-vis
cooperation among countries. In a theoretical way, Liberal institutionalism
can be compared to Idealism, but their mechanisms are more rational than
ideological, not to mention the fact that, historical context is otherwise
distinct, the innovations, balance of powers has changed and the approach to
Liberalism theory expanded into fragmented sub-theories.

Institutions are the necessary alternative for solving collective

problems and respond to the interests of States (Arthur A. Stein, p.209). 4
Institutions can be also created and able to reduce the government costs
under decision-making processes. Thus, it can represent domestic and
foreign policy and contribute as well to the new approach of States Status
Quo position. In the words of Scott Burchill, “Liberals believe that progress
in human history can be measured by the elimination of global conflict and
the adoption of principles of legitimacy that have evolved in domestic
political orders”.5 Obviously, historical context assumed a deep influence in
the liberal thinking. Liberalism and neo-liberalism approach are still
important for the policies conducted by International Organizations such as
IMF, World Bank and NGOs. Besides that, International Economy,

5
BURCHILL, Scott - Liberalism, in Theories of International Relations, ed. Scott Burchill, [et
al....], Palgrave. 2005. p.68
International law and recently Political economy bulk International Relations
paradigm and determined the advent of new concerns to global politics. Yet,
Security and sociological framework rise in the last thirty years.

The collapse of Soviet Union had resulted in a strong change of

World order. The failure of Fukuyama´s assumptions of the New World
Order and the triumph of Liberal capitalism are contested by national,
religious and cultural conflicts that impose barriers to the victory of Liberal
peace-building. In International Relations Theory, Neo-liberalism and Neo-
Realism have important functions concerning the changes and dynamics of
World affairs. For instance, Neoliberals seek how States face threats and
Neorealists are expected to explain the elements that compose and influence
the States conduct. Burchill assumes that, «Neoliberal Institutionalism also
insists on significance of International regimes and the importance of the
continued exploration of the conditions under which they emerge and
persist».6In approaching the concept of institutionalism inside of
International Relations study, we can mention probably the most successful
cases. The first idea is the sense of continuity that leads us to another theory:
Integration theory. Thus, European Union represents the major achievement
on Institutionalism and Integration theory. Secondly, the reciprocity within
States based on common laws and legal rights, thus, G8, European Union
Countries, and other International organisms seem showing this idea very
well. Thirdly, the flow of information and people’s mobilization, provoking
intensively changes on global and regional patterns. Lastly, solve major
conflicts and avoid going to war immediately, by cooperation and
agreements respecting all sides.

The importance of Military Interdependence on World Politics is

inequitable. Indeed, Neoliberals do not contradict its role on International
Relations. Additionally, Neoliberal theorists embrace the “complex
interdependence” as the efficacy method that edges mutual agreements
among governments. They also considered the importance of the
transnational organizations more than governmental institutions.

6
Ibid. p.14
 2.2.2. International System

1. The model of complex interdependence vis-a-vis the

classical realistic model
REALISM INTERDEPENDENCE
THEORY
Actors main Military security is the The objectives of the actors vary
goals dominant goal according to the areas concerned.
Trans-governmental policies are
difficult to define. Transnational
actors pursue their own
objectives.
State policy Military force is the most The specific resources of state
tools effective instrument, and power in each area are the most
economic or other important. In the manipulation of
instruments may be used. complex interdependence,
international organizations are the
main tools.

Agenda Potential changes in the The agenda is affected by

balance of power and
threats to national security
guide the agenda for high
politics issues, strongly
influencing other agendas.
changes in the distribution of
power resources between
different areas; by the position of
international regimes; changes in
the importance of transnational
actors; by linkages with other
issues and their politicization as a
result of increased sensitivity to
interdependence.

International Minor performance, limited International organizations draw

Organization by state power, and the up their own agendas, encourage
importance of military coalitions, and concerted actions
s effective
force. that become political arenas for
role weak states. The ability to choose
a particular organization as a
forum to discuss a topic and
mobilize support can be an
important political resource.

Source: Keohane and Nye (1989), p.37

 Neoliberals and Neorealists share some important views of world
Affairs. For instance, both agree on the importance of States-power on
International System order. Simultaneously, both consider that the
understanding of the structure of the International system has an essential
component for the Conception of World Politics. Indeed, they reinforce the
idea of International System decentralization; this means that the changes
and dynamics of Foreign affairs and international politics provoke a
heterogenic character of International Relations. Constantly, we assist to the
eruption of minor conflicts that widespread to major threats as we see
especially in undeveloped countries. The idea of a political community
seemed in the first years of Global Era not possible to achieve.

Notwithstanding, most liberalists overlooked the conceptions

introduced by the Liberal school during the 1970s. Robert Keohane and
Joseph Nye methodological and conceptual framework on Liberalism
influence most of the decisions taken nowadays. As Keohane refers the
Complex Interdependence Theory developed in the 1970s refers to situations
characterized by reciprocal effects among countries or among actors in
different countries and “…It describes emerging relationships among
pluralist democracies”.7 The introduction of the Complex Independence
Theory to the International Liberalism was important to shape the Neo-
liberalism theory itself. In fact, it focuses on the significance of economics,
society and environmental fields which can promote a successful practice of
Liberal politics. As well, it defends the world changes and their
consequences to World Affairs, viewing Globalization as the major
phenomenon of the end of 20th century. Some of the changes contributed to
the widespread of International Economy and Democracy, where States
could actively participate on World Politics as ever seen, to sum up,
«Reduced costs have enabled more actors to participate in World politics at

7
 greater distances, leading larger areas of world Politics to approximate the
ideal type of complex interdependence».8

Cooperation, institutionalization, complex interdependency,

Standpoint theory, security, War and Peace and political economy have been
analysed by liberals. The main threats have been also on central of World
Politics, whereas, Liberals conceived reduce those conflicts by cooperation
and agreements, by considering not military struggle as the only mean.
Equally, Liberals pretends to continue with Liberal Theory has an alternative
of Realism which renegades human progress, last fundamental for Liberals.
Human progress influences the conduct of States and the widespread of
information and cooperative corporations or organisms contributes to
minimizing the World. I believe we should not conceive the world as a part
of International Politics. Instead, it is required to perceive and accept the
idea that the World is divided into multiple partitions where other domains
matters, not just global politics. Unintentionally, Neoliberalism had led to
the formation of Globalism theory and especially, due the application of
most of neoliberal policies this theory became an ultimate component for IR
scholars. Also, Globalism theory is essential for understand Neoliberalism
itself, mainly the concerns for Interdependence and international cooperation
at global scale.

. Globalism is “a State of the World involving networks of

interdependence at multicontinental distances”.9 In spite of being connected
with the World itself, Globalism doesn’t imply universality. Globalism is
important to the neoliberal politics, especially, the ones adopted in the last
years of Cold War, where transnational participation and Interdependence
revealed new priorities of World Affairs. Complex Interdependence and
globalism are connected and considered as a cause-effect phenomenon.
Both, consequently, changed the structure of internal politics as well as the
panorama of International Relations. They culminate on high economic,
environmental and social levels of globalism, putting towards back military
8
KEOHANE, ROBERT O.,” Global governance and legitimacy”, Review of International Political
Economy, 18:1. 2011. p.101
9
KEOHANE, Robert O; NYE, Joseph S. (2000) – Globalization: what’s new, what’s not? (And so, what?),
Foreign policy, nº118. p.105.
globalism. As mention above, the military struggle has their importance and
it is unacceptable to deny its significance on International politics. The idea
of power persists as a vital part to understanding the mechanization
systematic of States behaviour. In fact, power is not the ultimate factor on
World Affairs. Globalization provoked the emergence of other foreign actors
and redefined Liberalism not as political ideology, but as a political
economy structural policy.

2.2.3. State

The role of State in domestic and foreign policies increased in the

recent years. Neoliberal policies strengthened the State’s power influence on
either regional or international affairs, through a major economic and social
investment indeed. The concept and functioning of States changed due the
events that succeed in Post-World War II. Under Neoliberalism theory, there
are many components that are important to perceive how this theory
practically work. Neostatism was the name given to correlate Neoliberal
policies and national strategy leading by States.

Accordingly, the increasing of Internationalization and globalization

of economics aroused the interest of neoliberal scholars to reshape and
reconstruct international system and redefine the place that States occupies
in World Politics. In this segment, Neoliberalism emerged initially to
respond to the traditional Keynesian perspective of “Welfare State” crisis
which occurred for instance in East Asia or Latin America in the 50s. The
search for the increment of State power domestically and internationally is a
primordial aim of Neoliberals. They consider that how more States are
involved in society and economics, how more States become weak. State
must be omnipresent, shouldn’t intervene and promote free market
competition as well as incentivise the national security guidance and
participate in private and public sectors. The role of State is crucial to
prevent long-term crisis, for develop partnerships and wage new collective
resources and endow institutions the right to participate on economic and
social interests.
 The Global change has been discussed by many specialists in social
sciences field. In fact, technology, communication and the intercalate
relation between domestic and international activity explains the Global
changes. The main transformation was in the economic sphere, whereas
International economy assumes an important role on flows of money and
investment trade. The companies or enterprises, national or International
create and establish their own strategy. They influence their territory and
have their importance on International Strategy. The affirmation of power
depends on the economic strategies, the competition of International
organizations and companies and the place that the States occupies in
“World Game”. States to guaranty their National Security and Specially
identity must follow a rule. Economy defines the level of power and
technology built the superpower, that’s why the co-relation between
economics and technology is essential if a country pretends to achieve a
certain level of power within a State. For example, if U.S becomes a
superpower, the Middle East regional powers alliances will change, and this
will affect the economy as well as other fields.

The meaning of Nation is something that can not disappear in a short

time. Despite the political and territorial consequences in post-cold war, the
concept of Nation did not disappear. The conflicts around the World
continue. The State is not limited to public sector. Robert Holton assumes
that “Nation States may draw additional resources from inward foreign
investment, allowing the State to maintain and enhance rather than limit
public development”10. The concept of International Economy can be defined
as “terms of exchanges between national economies based within particular
nations”. Thus, economic globalization reacted on the propagation of World
trade among national economies.

2.2.3. State

The role of State in domestic and foreign policies increased in the

recent years. Neoliberal policies strengthened the State’s power influence on
either regional or international affairs, through a major economic and social
10
HOLTON J. Robert, Globalization and the Nation State, in Palgrave McMillan, 2ºedition, U.K, 2011.
p.114
investment indeed. The concept and functioning of States changed due the
events that succeed in Post-World War II. Under Neoliberalism theory, there
are many components that are important to perceive how this theory
practically work. Neostatism was the name given to correlate Neoliberal
policies and national strategy leading by States.

Accordingly, the increasing of Internationalization and globalization

of economics aroused the interest of neoliberal scholars to reshape and
reconstruct international system and redefine the place that States occupies
in World Politics. In this segment, Neoliberalism emerged initially to
respond to the traditional Keynesian perspective of “Welfare State” crisis
which occurred for instance in East Asia or Latin America in the 50s. The
search for the increment of State power domestically and internationally is a
primordial aim of Neoliberals. They consider that how more States are
involved in society and economics, how more States become weak. State
must be omnipresent, shouldn’t intervene and promote free market
competition as well as incentivise the national security guidance and
participate in private and public sectors. The role of State is crucial to
prevent long-term crisis, for develop partnerships and wage new collective
resources and endow institutions the right to participate on economic and
social interests.

The Global change has been discussed by many specialists in social

sciences field. In fact, technology, communication and the intercalate
relation between domestic and international activity explains the Global
changes. The main transformation was in the economic sphere, whereas
International economy assumes an important role on flows of money and
investment trade. The companies or enterprises, national or International
create and establish their own strategy. They influence their territory and
have their importance on International Strategy. The affirmation of power
depends on the economic strategies, the competition of International
organizations and companies and the place that the States occupies in
“World Game”. States to guaranty their National Security and Specially
identity must follow a rule. Economy defines the level of power and
technology built the superpower, that’s why the co-relation between
 economics and technology is essential if a country pretends to achieve a
certain level of power within a State. For example, if U.S becomes a
superpower, the Middle East regional powers alliances will change, and this
will affect the economy as well as other fields.

The meaning of Nation is something that can not disappear in a short

time. Despite the political and territorial consequences in post-cold war, the
concept of Nation did not disappear. The conflicts around the World
continue. Most of these conflicts are caused by economic and territorial
disputes. For the economic development, the geographical position is
important. The economy is fundamental but to develop it, it is necessary to
maintain a certain status in World affairs. Nation Sates do still exist and
most of them playing a fundamental role in the development of the
international economy. The State is not limited to public sector. Robert
Holton assumes that “Nation States may draw additional resources from
inward foreign investment, allowing the State to maintain and enhance
rather than limit public development”11. The concept of International
Economy can be defined as “terms of exchanges between national
economies based within particular nations”. Thus, economic globalization
reacted on the propagation of World trade among national economies.

Moreover, we assist to the development of transnational processes

and institutions on a global scale. The economic development has
dramatically changed in last fifty years. U.S and Western Europe and lately,
Japan were the initiators of Global Economy. Nevertheless, the BRICS
started to present higher economic levels and participate in foreign
investment, foreign trade, and Global business organization. For instance,
China emerged as the highest World’s economy by 2003 and the BRICS
showed a 10% expansion of economy by 2007.12 Nation States relation with
the economy is complex but at the same time is essential for the
development of the economy. In Global Economy, some institutional forms
are considered useful to continue the widespread trade and marketing. For
instance, multinational enterprise (MNE) is one institutional form adopted
11
HOLTON J. Robert, Globalization and the Nation State, in Palgrave McMillan, 2ºedition, U.K, 2011.
p.114
12
. Ibid.70
and is also a private corporation that enables the Nation State’s potencies.
Royal Dutch Shell, HSBC Bank, TOYOTA Motors, and Microsoft are some
examples of non-state corporations that are indeed multinational or
transnational companies.13To conclude, Global Economy and Global Politics
are connected and influence the conduct of States.

2.3. DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY

2.3.1. DEFINITION

Democratic Peace Theory is one of the greatest Liberal contributions

for the discussion of War and Peace in World Politics. For instance, U.S
intervention on IWW and the 2003 Iraq War are seen as the two main cases
for the application of this theory. There are some main ideas around
Democracy and Peace and How War and Peace can be connected within
States. Before, it is necessary to understand what War and Peace mean in
order to explain how democratic States can make Peace and avoid immediate
war. Most of the Theorists on Democratic Peace theory defends that the
Democratizing States tend to go war easily than democratic states or liberal
democratic States.

The problem persists on the competition of domestic politics

especially after the breakup of autocratic regimes. 14 Also, Autocratic regimes
tend to go to war comparing to countries that did not pass by political
changes. Democratizing States found some barriers and obstacles mainly the
weakness of democratic institutions and organisms that can promote the
strong political structure of the State itself and at the end provoke disorder
and violence, being the war the easy recourse. Also, the predominance of
political and ethnical groups that influence media and people's mind, thus,
the resistance of social groups that leads to instability. The problem resides
on the fact that political entities are not powerful enough to hold the
boundaries of democratization and its impact on their territories.

13
Ibid.p.65
14
MANFIELD, Edward D; SNYDER, Jack, “Democratization and the Danger of War”, in
International Security, vol.20:3.1995 p.4
 Particularly, in the first decade of the 20th century, during World
War I, Woodrow Wilson played a pioneering role in the reconstruction of the
International scene. Due to the structural constraints stemming from the
'Great War', the international system, the international relations, the new
mentality, the people’s generation became unable to produce a lasting peace
that could be achieved, demanding for the renewal of a new idea, new
mechanisms, the Westphalia State System to prevent a new conflict and
establish a permanent peace and a collective security system.

Democratic Peace theory requires a secular healing based on the

Immanuel Kant's Perpetual Peace Treaty (1795). Since then, the idea of
Democratic Peace has been permeated in the context of international
relations. In the 1980s, the emergence of an academic intellectual debate has
led to the resumption of Kantian thought. For Kant «democratic states
rarely go to war with one another, and that one condition for perpetual
peace lies in the establishment of, or conversion of, constitutional republics
among the nation-states». 15. In those discussions, scientists began to take
reflection on the international politics with the resurgence of the concept of
Democratic Peace Theory. Nevertheless, this denomination was forward by
Michael Doyle in the publication of Philosophy and Public Relations,
whereas Doyle is said that, among the practices of democratic societies and
practices of non-democratic societies there are deep differences.

Doyle based on David Singer University Michigan of the War of the

Correlates Project on the list of Covenant Wars since 1816. 16 Using the list,
Doyle noted that the liberal states had fought almost exclusively against
other liberal states, and in both cases, the liberal states seemed to be
controversial, which was discovered that Liberalism fought only against the
newly established liberal states17. Since the creation of the term by Doyle,
the Theory of Democratic Peace has become a topic of great debate in the

15
MANFIELD, Edward D; SNYDER, Jack, “Democratization and the Danger of War”, in
International Security, vol.20:3.1995 p.3

16
DOYLE, Michael, “Ways of War and Peace”; see also Michael Doyle, “Kant, Liberal
Legacies, and Foreign Affairs”, Part I, Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol.12:3. 1983.
17
DOYLE, MICHAEL W., “Liberalism and World Politics”, in the American Political Science
Review, Vol. 80:4. 1986. p.77
academic world. The contributions of Doyle cannot be deniable; however,
part of his insinuations in issues of territorial distribution and political or
ideological mends weren’t logical enough and certainly we find a lack of
differentiation of its ideas (DORA ION, 91). Thus, we can assume that
Doyle unintentionally contributed to design a new approach of War and
Peace Studies under democratic models, but at the same time, it left open
questions under false assumptions concerning Kant and the theory itself.

2.3.2. DEMOCRATIZATION AND GLOBAL SECURITY

The democratic state model seems to be extremely important in terms

of securing these ethical principles and their fundamental rights. Democracy
guarantees citizens a non-democratic system and cannot provide a set of
basic rights. Only a democratic government can provide the maximum
freedom to self-determination, by living under its own laws. The explanation
for democratic peace is fundamentally based on the combination of the
following propositions: democratic institutions place constraints on political
leadership to combat other democracies; the norms shared by democratic
states make democracies seem peaceful and non-threatening; Democracies
tend to encourage economic interdependence, which reduces the likelihood
of war. The purpose of democratic peace encourages the hope of a new era
in international relations. For Huntington18, democracies constitute, for the
first time in history, most states in the international system. Consequently,
the norms that govern their relations have more opportunities than once been
the dominant norm of international relations. Normative explanations for
democratic peace theory express the fact that democracies outsource their
domestic political norms of tolerance and commitment to other democracies.
Conflicts between democracies are resolved through compromise instead of
through elimination of adversaries. This generalization has not escaped the
attention of political leaders, especially the American, who have assumed
that democracy can become the best antidote to war.

Democratization is a broad and systematic process of replacing,

reforming or creating democratic governments. The process of
18
HUNTINGTON, Samuel P., The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth
Century, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.p.34
democratization is separated into two distinct phases: democratic transition
and democratic consolidation. The democratic transition is the phase of
transformation of culture and government institutions according to the
democratic model. Democratic consolidation includes lasting measures that
help the survival of democracy. The consolidation corresponds to the
constant operability of the democratic government.

From a security standpoint, the Democratic Peace Theory proposal is

wide. Security depends on the incentive of liberal institutions, and security
policy should be the expansion of long-term goal liberalism. Peace roads
should include liberal tendencies in non-liberal states in the short run, and
promote the building of a democratic system, respect, human rights and the
development of civil society.

Moral freedom is the duty of treating others as beliefs, righteous

treatments, and ethical issues. This is the first principle of rights and
institutions created for this reason. Some writers try to explain the behaviour
of democracies with a constructivist interpretation that focuses on the
normative aspect of explaining the patterns of friendship and hostility
between the established liberal theory and states as a consequence of the
interaction between these social states.

Democratic Peace has been named as “Liberal Peace” by many

proponents of Peace and War studies of international relations discipline.
Democratic Peace involves different constraints and tends to be associated
with Democracy. The initially fundament of this theory was introduced by
Emanuel Kant suggesting a Republic Form of Government led by a form of
Sovereignty, Democracy or other similar. As above, Liberal or Democratic
States are those able to avoid war because both shared common rules and
similar political interests. On the contrary, Authoritarian or new democratic
States tend to go war. Russell separated two types of causes of Democratic
Peace based on two different models: the normative model and the Structural
model.
 The normative model affirms that «Democracies do not fight each
other because norms of compromise and cooperation prevent their conflict
of interest from escalating into violent clashes».19The Structural model
assumes that the «complex political mobilization processes impose
institutional constraints on the leaders of two democracies confronting each
other to make violent conflict unfeasible». 20 Beside these two models, we
found in Russell work other potential causes for the importance of the
practice of Democratic Peace.

According to Russet:

 «Rich States do not fight one another because they have for
more to lose than to gain by doing so».21
 «Rapidly growing States would harm themselves by engaging
in conflict against other rapidly growing States».22
 «Alliance agreements – a) Relative lack of conflict and
complete absence of war between democracies. b) Both
political constraints and democratic norms provide reasonably
good explanations of why democracies rarely fight each other
c) the relationship between institutional constraints and
measures of dispute and war occurrence is not a robust as the
relationship between measures of democratic norms and the
dependent variables».23

In democratic states, the rules for political commitment and non-use

of international violence are used to facilitate the interaction between
democratic political leaders. The inter-subjective reciprocity logic explains
the role of knowledge in the building a democratic culture.

The process of democratization may be characterized by instability

due to the emergence of political groups with conflicting interests, to

19
MAOZ, Z. and B. Russet, ‘Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic
Peace, 1946-1986’, American Political Science Review, 87 (1993), p.624.
20
Ibid.624
21
Ibid.p.626
22
Ibid.p.626
23
Ibid.p.636
threatened elites mobilizing masses under the banner of nationalism, and
because state authority is weak and unstable, the state may take contours of a
failed state. A failed state is totally unable to maintain itself as a member of
the international community and presents serious internal problems that
threaten its coherence or enormous challenges in its political order.

The problem with failed states is that they persist as a focus of

instability for countries Regional stability and international peace. This
means that the problems of the failed state are not limited to its borders. In
addition to these threats to stability and security, a failed state or ways to be
is the ground conducive to internal or external subversions. A transnational
actor, or a quasi-state, can act more or less freely within or near its borders to
promote its agenda. These activities can lead to the destabilization of the
entire region, and for this reason, an internal issue immediately becomes a
regional and even a global problem. Another very important aspect of failed
states relates to the issue of human rights, constantly being violated in this
environment. The suffering of refugee populations, especially children, as
happened in Somalia and Bosnia comes immediately to remembrance.
Populations suffering from the chaos and anarchy of a collapsing
government, or the brutal authoritarianism of an autocratic regime trying
desperately to keep law and order, as were the cases in Rwanda and Haiti,
are worthy of the attention of the International Democratic community.
Since the end of the Cold War, failed states have probably become the most
important problem of the international order.

Failed states violate human rights, cause humanitarian disasters,

cause massive waves of emigration and refugees, and attack neighbouring
countries. Since 9/11, it has also become clear that they harbour international
terrorists who can cause significant damage to the interests of the West. The
September 11 attacks highlighted a different kind of problem. Afghanistan
was so weak that it could be controlled by a non-state agent, al-Qaeda, and
serve as the basis for its terrorist operations. If we exclude Iraq, the terrorist
attacks that took place in 2002 and 2003 in Mombasa) In Bali (Indonesia)
and in Riyadh (Saudi Arabia) highlighted the fact that al-Qaeda continues to
seize the opportunities granted by states with poor governance.
 The role of Democratic Peace Theory in the re-implementations of
the post-conflict has greatly influenced the redefinition of the architecture of
the international system in recent years. For this reason, local complexities
have first introduced standards in response to new threats that will affect the
nature of peace operations, which have begun to develop medium and long-
term policies in fragile inner environments.

2.3.3. PEACEMAKING PROCESSES

In terms of Democratic Peace, the UN is seen as favouring the

maintenance of the internal order and the stability of the international
system, because it has to take advantage of the democratic state model. The
Political commitment such as the UN, focus on basic responsibilities to
citizens, accountability, freedom of expression and respect for human rights.
However, peace buildings are the module on bureaucratic democratic
standards of United Nations peacekeeping operations for development, and
these rigid standards, principles, and rules of procedure may lead to
inconsistencies in performance in local contexts. On the other hand, the
Theory of Democratic Peace has had a great impact on the process of
institutionalization of the mechanisms of conflict resolution, especially in the
post-conflict reconstruction period.

Peace-making is an important component of World Peace and so,

crucial to the study of this theory. Discussing peace making proposals
evocates surely two different kinds of Peacemakers: UN peace making and
Peace-making Organisations. Nowadays, it is proved that UN peace making
that was popular during Cold War do not assume the same role due to the
internationalization of political economy. Though, Peace-making was a
priority to keep the balance of powers divided between URSS and U.S and
avoiding a possible global scale war. Certainly, we assisted to the increasing
of observer missions and traditional peace making more than
multidimensional or Peace enforcement. In those days, multiple
organizations and known institutions endow somehow for maintaining
global Peace. Besides, those organisms are involved in Peace-making
campaigns and their own remises passed already the levels of UN
 mechanisms on the global scale. In any case, Peace-making is still a relevant
issue inside of International Relations debate. Nevertheless, the World is on
change, bringing up new challenges and at the same time, various factors
contribute to unbalance the duration of Peace. Peace-making process is
harder to proceed in the 21st century. The duration of Peace is widely
affected by outcome of war, by the establishment of enforcement peace, by
intern conflicts, by ideological and ethnic different groups that cause
division of society or even economic development that tends to put it up the
two-effect of maintaining peace or going to war.24

2. NEOLIBERAL ASSUMPTIONS TOWARDS LEBANON FOREIGN

POLICY

Middle East politics have been an important thematic for

International Relations Scholars. Concerning to foreign policy studies,
Middle East is a challenge, and at the same time, an "headache" for
Neoliberals, where we assisted to the failure of most of Neoliberal policies
around the region in recent years. The spill-over of Neoliberalism resulted in
the strong idea that Neoliberalism wouldn’t be successful in solving the main
Middle East conflicts, and adopting another theory would be conclusive.
Despite of this, Neoliberalism had significant victories in few Middle East
countries and helped to rebuild their economies in short period of time.

Neoliberalism which served U.S foreign policy under Ronald Regan

mandate and prosecuted by Bill Clinton during the 1990s, revealed
unsystematically practical when Bush assumed the Presidency of United
States. The years 1990-2000 impacted Middle East political economy and
provoked the continuity of the existential conflicts. However, we cannot
deny that, economically, Neoliberalism is a valuable trade and business
methods theory of developing states economy, which if well-managed will
give the chance of domestic investment and willing to political system and
policy structure organization. The Neoliberal perspective approaching
Middle East can be defined by main four features: political pre-emption,
Democratization of Arab countries, nation-building as a strategic tool and
24
FORTNA, Virginia P. (2004) – “Does Peacekeeping keep Peace? International Intervention and the
Duration of Peace after Civil War”, in International Studies Quarterly 48, pp. 269-292.
leadership relying on International organizations. Firstly, the premier aim is
not by military intervention, expecting that international politics can solve
the ongoing conflicts. Then, by campaigns, propaganda and some
economical help, persuade Arab World to adopt democracy, this because
neoliberals believe that democracies or a similar system can avoid war and
promote global peace. Thus, national and international strategy in Middle
East would resolve most of conflicts and by international leadership beyond
multilateral alliances, political, economic and strategic resolutions could be
achieved.

Lebanese Neoliberalism cannot be understood just by joint of

policies. Neoliberalism in Lebanon was not the Neoliberalism applied in the
west. Most of Neoliberal policies in Middle East were conducted by IMF
and World Bank, which were essential players in reconstructing their
economies towards Neoliberal assumptions. Though, Lebanon did not
experience those international economic investments, such as, Egypt, Jordan,
Tunisia or Morocco. Instead, Lebanon economic reconstruction under
neoliberal model was a difficult task, due its political instability and its high
economical debt that became a priority of Lebanese Government lead by
Rafiq Hariri. Hariri introduced a set of neoliberal policies, inspired
neoliberal models of urban governance and redevelopment, as well as, put
effort on privatisation.

3.1. Lebanese politics and main policies

Lebanon is at the centre of Middle East conflicts maintaining its

borders with Israel and Syria. Michel Aoun is the actual president since
October 2016. In Lebanon, power-sharing is the main political system,
where parliament is fragmented among eighteen religious groups recognized
by Lebanese government. The parliament is constituted by 128 seats, held by
Muslims (Shiite and Sunnis) and Christians (Maronites). It is constituted by
seven main parties divided into two blocs: 8 March and 14 March. The 8
March belongs to Pro-Syrian, Iran backed up parties, Hezbollah and
Christian Free Patriotic Movement Party. The 14 March represents the Sunni
Muslim community such as the Future Movement Party, the Lebanese
forces, Kateab party and other Christian parties.

A part of this, it can be referred that Lebanon due disagreement and

political instability stayed without president for more than one year and the
situation of nowadays tend to increase this disorganization of Lebanon
politics. In recent years, the Shiite community became politically strong, due
the precision of the ongoing regional power conflicts. From all political
parties, Hezbollah is the most powerful around Shiite community and it’s
seen as a potential domestic political and military power, not just in Lebanon
as well as, in Middle East region. Hezbollah owns 12 seats in the parliament,
belonging to 8 March bloc which holds 57 of 127 total seats and its alliance
with Syrian Regime and Iran backwards could influence Lebanese politics in
the future