In Janus and Minerva, Stanley Hoffman remarked that “international affairs have

been the nemesis of liberalism” 1. The essence of liberalism, he argued, is “self-

restraint, moderation, compromise and peace” whereas “the essence of international
politics is exactly the opposite: troubled peace, at best, or the state of war”. Realists
would conform to this notion and contend that the realm of international relations is
anarchical whereby there is no centralised authority. In the words of Thomas
Hobbes, it is every man against every man 2. Such an environment resembles a state
of war, hence why it is paramount for a state to undertake any decision that is
necessary and in their best interests to ensure their survival. Thus, it can be
submitted that realists often adopt a “the end justifies the means approach” for their
raison d’etat, or reason of state. In fact, Niccolo Machiavelli asserts that morality is a
factor that is second base when it comes to a state leader’s decision-making
process3. In other words, the need to survive requires a state to distance itself from
morality failing which a state’s best interests are neglected.

In consideration of the question, it is important to explore the transition of the

international relations domain. The end of World War I set the ‘great debate’ of
International Relations theory in motion. During this time, realist theory was given a
voice through E.H. Carr’s The Twenty Years’ Crisis4. On the other hand, idealist
theory, which later branched out into classical liberalist theory, was articulated
through President Woodrow Wilson. Wilson envisioned and propounded a set of
ideas through a 14-point program that would later be the cornerstone for liberal
scholars and practitioners who still debate his ideas to this day. Henry Kissinger also
acknowledged that Wilsonian liberalism is the dominant doctrine in American foreign
policy5. However, many realists held the view that Wilsonianism was nothing more
than a utopia. In addition to this, there was a loss of confidence in liberal ideas when
the world witnessed the failure of the League of Nations and thus the international
order as well as collective security as a whole.

1
Hoffman, S. (1987). Janus and Minerva: Essays in the Theory and Practice of International Politics
(1st ed). New York, United States: Routledge.
2
Hobbes, T. (1588-1679). Leviathan. Baltimore, United States: Penguin Books.
3
Machiavelli N. (1469-1527). The Prince. London, United Kingdom: Arcturus Publishing Limited.
4
Carr, E.H. & Cox M (2001). The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939: An introduction to the study of
international relations. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave.
5
Kissinger, H. (1994). Diplomacy. New York: Simon and Schuster.
After World War II, the collapse of great-power cooperation saw realist thought rise
to pre-eminence which continued throughout the Cold War. The animosity between
the United States and the Soviet Union during this period hindered attempts to
displace realist theory from its dominant position. However, when the Cold War
came to an abrupt halt, realists were left confounded and the relevance of realism
was thus questioned. Although it can be argued that the Cold War’s end does not
invalidate the theory of realism, many scholars started to undermine realist views
because it could not anticipate that such a massive rivalry between two superpowers
could draw to a close.6 Liberalism had now gained credibility and assumed a
dominant position on the world stage.

With regards to Hoffman’s statement, it is thus essential to assess the development

and changes of international politics in recent years to displace the notion that
international affairs are inhospitable to liberalism. Antonio Franceschet in Kant and
Liberal Internationalism explained that the development and changes pertain to the
nature of international politics, ideological precepts and the dominant theoretical
assumptions.7

The first change, relating to the nature of international politics, provides an idea of
how the end of the Cold War brought about hope in reviving collective security, the
United Nations and international law as a means to resolve disputes between states.
During this period, democratisation and redemocratisation was rife throughout
Eastern Europe, Latin America, and in the global South. Furthermore, open
economies became the norm and were facilitated by institutions like the World Trade
Organisation (WTO), European Union (EU) and North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA). Also, trading blocs had been dramatically expanding
throughout the world economy. As Francis Fukuyama points out in The End of
History and the Last Man, in its economic manifestation, liberalism is the recognition
of the right of free economic activity and economic exchange based on private
property and markets8.

Franceschet also draws attention to an integral change in the nature of global politics
which is the phenomenon of globalisation. In 1966, David Mitrany in A Working
6
Wohlforth, W.C. (1994-1995). Realism and the End of the Cold War, International Security, Vol. 19,
pp91-129. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2539080.
7
Franceschet A. (2002). Kant and Liberal Internationalism (1st ed). New York: Palgrave
8
Fukuyama F. (1992) The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Macmillan Inc.
Peace System argued that modern states are increasingly bound to other states in
functional working relationships and could no longer exist as autonomous units9. He
highlighted the importance of post-war international cooperation and asserted that
new forms of institutionalised cooperation is vital. In a similar vein, the realm of
functional cooperation has also been discussed earlier in 1958 by Ernst Haas who
provided an account of a “neofunctionalist European integration”. 10 Haas posited that
as advanced societies modernised, they would be driven by functional necessity to
integrate with other societies. He supported this by giving examples of European
integration efforts such as the Coal and Steel Community, European Economic
Community and the European Atomic Energy Community. Therefore, it can be
discerned that in modern times, integration and cooperation between states have
become the standard in international affairs.

In the 1950s, Karl Deutsch argued that a form of political community had taken
shape among the Western countries that transformed IR logic. 11 According to
Deutsch, power and security competition had ultimately yielded to a “pluralistic
security community” in which the use of force or the threat of the use of force was
thought to be absurd. As such, countries undertook incentives to form an alliance
with other states as a result of various processes of economic and social exchange
and interaction. In addition, to illustrate that the international affairs are in fact not
inhospitable to liberalism, non-state actors play a pre-eminent role in foreign policy-
making and significantly influence the climate of international affairs today.

Therefore, eventually, liberals began to embrace transnational relations and

interdependence. In Transnational Relations and Politics: An Introduction, Robert
Keohane and Joseph Nye in 1971 laid down the foundation of exploring the role and
significance of non-state actors in the global system. 12 Years later, In Power and
Interdependence: World Politics in Transition, Keohane and Nye propounded the
model of complex interdependence which refers to a transnationalist concept that

9
Mitrany D. (1966) A Working Peace System. Chicago: Quadrangle Books.
10
Haas E.B. (1964) Beyond the Nation-State. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
11
Deutsch K, Burrell S.A, Kann R.A, Lee Jr. M, Lichterman M, Lindgren R.E, Loewenheim F.L, Van
Wagenen R.W. (1957) Political Community in the North Atlantic Area. Princeton: Princeton University
Press
12
Nye J, Keohane R. (1971). Transnational Relations and Politics: An Introduction. International
Organization Vol. 25, No. 3,
assumes that states are not the only important actors. 13 The study shed light on the
rise of international regimes and institutions that compensated traditional military
capabilities. For this reason, complex interdependence grew to become a
fundamental component of the neoliberal perspective and has been used
comprehensively in the analyses of international politics in an attempt to understand
willingness of states to enter into cooperative alliances with one another under
conditions of anarchy and dependence.

Having said that, Keohane and Nye were sceptical on the effectiveness of
international organisations inspired by institutional liberalism but maintained that
these organisations play a certain role of influence in international relations: “In
today’s world, universal international organisations are more valuable as sounding
boards than as decision-making bodies. If the United States listens carefully, but not
naively, these organisations may tell it something about the intensity of, and shifts in
others’ view. These forums do influence the agenda of world politics”.

The increasing number of international organisations is parallel to the increasing

levels of economic, political, social and cultural transactions between individuals,
societies and states. As Lynn H. Miller contends in Global Order: Values and Power
in International Politics, the growth of so many kinds of non-state actors challenges
and even weakens the “state-centric” concept of international politics and replaces it
with a “transnational” system in which relationships are more complex. 14 Ultimately,
these organisations changed the international environment. Therefore, it is crucial to
note that states have become interconnected in a way that is unprecedented and
non-state actors play a much more integral role in a time when liberalism reigns
supreme.

The second set of changes refers to prevailing ideological concepts that puts into
order the understanding of international and global phenomena. These concepts
also provide aid in justifying the activities of individuals, governments, and other
collective identities. To illustrate, it can be argued that the Cold War was an
ideological phenomenon as it was a contest of liberal democracy and Marxism. With
its end, communism was renounced and liberalism triumphed. As Fukuyama
13
Nye J, Keohane R. (1977) Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Boston: Little,
Brown.
14
Miller L.H. (1990) Global Order: Values and Power in International Politics (2 nd ed). Oxford:
Westview Press.
emphasised, liberal democracy is the terminus of mankind’s ideological evolution
and the final form of human government. 15 Subsequently, this marks “the end of
history” as, he posited, “.. for a very large part of the world, there is now no ideology
with pretensions to universality that is in a position to challenge liberal democracy,
and no universal principle of legitimacy other than the sovereignty of people. As
such, liberal principles take predominance in explaining relations among states such
as globalisation and interconnectedness as well as the dynamics and institutions that
mould their interactions.

The third set of changes as contended by Franceschet involves the dominant

theoretical assumptions and categories exclusive to the discipline of International
Relations. Theoretical evolution is a constant occurrence and would clearly give rise
to changing political realities and ideological trends. For instance, during the Cold
War, liberal internationalism was arguably defeated by the school of realism, which
was the pre-eminent theory in the 20 th century. The theory was seen to be consistent
with the Cold War scenario as it provided explanations for war, imperialism,
alliances, impediments in cooperation as well as other related international
phenomenon. However, the cessation of the Cold War brought about more diverse
discussions on international issues such as the environment and ethnic conflicts.
Moreover, at this point, the agenda had largely shifted from military competition to
domestic welfare, environmental protection and economic competitiveness due to
the spread of democracy and changes in international norms. 16 When the Cold War
ceased, and with the collapse of communism, the theory of democratic peace
seemed like a no-brainer. Scholars began to accept that liberal thought was superior
all along and that shared international norms based on universal ethical principles
was not so far-fetched and utopian.

In essence, the three changes as established by Franceschet adequately explains

that the dominant theory in international relations shifted from realism to liberalism.
In so doing, one can argue that the world has embraced liberal theory and shaped its
connections around it. Thus, it would be incorrect to assume that global affairs are
inhospitable against liberalism.

15
Fukuyama F. (1992) The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Macmillan Inc.
16
Mutuku C. (2017) Evolution of International Relations Theory. Grin Verlag.
G. John Ikenberry opines that with the United States’ rise as the global hegemon
post the Cold War era, liberal ideas began to gain more traction. 17 Ikenberry notes in
Liberalism in a Realist World: International Relations as an American Scholarly
Tradition that despite liberalism having roots in the 19 th century Enlightenment taking
place in Europe, the enduring issues of International Relations are in fact universal.
These issues include, but are not limited to, “sources of war and the condition of
peace, the rise of the nation-state and Westphalian sovereignty; the changing
character of anarchy and power, the relationship between international politics and
international economics, the role of law and institutions in managing conflict and
interdependence and the emerging significance of non-state actors and transnational
civil society”.

Ikenberry acknowledged that in the 20 th century, the United States has become the
world’s most powerful nation and thus plays a crucial role in shaping the global
system. He listed four factors contributing to the character and evolution of the
American field of International Relations. The first factor is that the emergence of the
United States as a global superpower throughout the 20 th century set the initial
foundation and became a point of departure for the field of International Relations
and its substantive theoretical orientation. Evidently, discourse on matters relating to
hegemony and globalisation usually revolve around the United States’ position as
superpower. Secondly, the United States is a country that practises liberal
democracy with, Ikenberry points out, a society that celebrates liberal ideals and
aspirations. He maintains that this contributes greatly to the theories and debates
forming the core of the field of International Relations. Thirdly, the events that
transpired throughout the 20th century have also been a significant aspect of theories
and debates in the American discipline of International Relations. Some of these
events are the failure of the Treaty of Versailles, the world wars, as well as the Cold
War. Fourthly, American International Relations has also been largely shaped by
intellectual and institutional shifts in the social sciences which comprises social
science methods such as formal, quantitative and qualitative methods.

Based on Ikenberry’s account of the field of International Relations and how he

maintains that the global stage is continually shaped by the leading hegemon, the
17
Ikenberry G.J. (2010). Liberalism in a Realist World: International Relations as an American
Scholarly Tradition, International Studies Vol. 46 pp 203-19. Retrieved from
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/002088171004600213.
United States, it can be inferred that liberalism is a theory that is inevitably dominant
in the world today due to American dominance. The United States has been known
to promote democracy to lesser societies and implement liberal principles in doing
so. As the sole superpower, it has immense and unequalled power in international
economics. Thus, it can be observed that American leadership in international affairs
is something that naturally will influence and control the course of events abroad. In
fact, American leadership on the world stage is something that current President Joe
Biden feels the need to restore after a tumultuous presidency under Donald Trump. 18
Hence, it is evident that the role of the United States as global hegemon, a nation
that practices and preaches liberal democracy, arguably puts liberal values on a
pedestal and has cast realism as a theory aside. Furthermore, history illustrates that
the United States launches military interventions towards autocratic and
undemocratic nations with concerning regularity and justifies it as “the promotion of
democracy”.19

It would thus be appropriate to cast light on the mechanisms of collective security,

which arguably operates like a domestic law enforcement. Collective security
ensures member states are protected on the basis of a legal commitment of mutual
assistance. When one of its member states are threatened, its allies intervene and
annihilates the aggressor. Two of the most prominent collective security institutions
today are the United Nations Security Council and the North Atlantic Treaty
Organisation (NATO). A prime example would be the Korean war, in which the
United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 83 and called for all its
members to support South Korea against North Korea with all they can spare, but
not so far as to declare war albeit that was practically the case. The Gulf War is also
a textbook example of the United Nations Security Council utilising the collective
security mechanism to confront a rogue state. The United Nations Security Council
increased pressure on Saddam Hussein’s regime after its invasion of Kuwait, first
demanding withdrawal then imposing economic sanctions and a blockade.
Resolution 678 gave Saddam Hussein’s troops until 15 January 1991 to withdraw,

18
De Witt, M. (2021). Stanford scholar Colin Kahl is Biden’s pick for under secretary of defense for
policy, Stanford Today. Retrieved from https://news.stanford.edu/today/2021/01/05/biden-picks-colin-
kahl-secretary-defense-policy/.
19
Meernik J (1996). United States Military Intervention and the Promotion of Democracy, Journal of
Peace Research Vol. 33 pp 391-402. Retrieved from http://www3.nccu.edu.tw/~lorenzo/Meernik
%20Military%20and%20Democracy.pdf.
after which it authorised the use of “all necessary means” to remove them from
Kuwait.20

One can submit that this mechanism relates heavily to the liberal doctrine of
cooperation. In fact, former United States President Barack Obama asserted his
strategy of returning to multilateralism and international cooperation, as highlighted
in the Washington Post: “In a commencement speech to the graduating class at the
U.S. Military Academy at West Point, the president outlined his departure from what
Bush had called a ‘distinctly American internationalism’. Instead, Obama pledged to
shape a new ‘international order’ based on diplomacy and engagement. Obama has
spoken frequently about creating new alliances, and of attempts to repair the U.S.
image abroad after nearly a decade in which Bush’s approach was viewed with
suspicion in many quarters”.21 Therefore, it is trite to note that if the realist theory of
international relations assumed prevalence in this era, then states are not likely to
cooperate with each other for mutual benefit as they can only rely on themselves.
This validates that the mechanism of collective security is a prevailing liberal concept
that encourages cooperation and integration.

In addition to the arguments above, the death of state sovereignty can also be cited
in proving that liberalism is in fact, flourishing. International law has paved the way
for supranational legal institutions such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as
well as the International Crime Court (ICC). When states place faith and adherence
in international law, its jurisdiction transcends borders and further gives states an
obligation to observe such law as they have entered into a legally binding agreement
with other states. As von Martens puts it, international law represents “the mutual will
of the nations concerned”.22 From a realist point of view, international law is deemed
to have little to no significance and seeks to ascertain why it is states have to obey
international law. Realists assume that states act according to what they perceive to
be in their own power interests and that international law is incapable of moderating
those interests to any significant degree. As Shirley V. Scott explains in her article
20
Gingras A.T. (2010). Pre-emptive Peace: Collective Security & Rogue States in the 21 st Century.
Uppsala Universitet, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
21
Shear M.D. (2010). At West Point, Obama Offers New Security Strategy. Washington Post, Politics.
Retrieved from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/22/AR2010052201586.html.
22
Koskenniemi M (2006). Georg Friedrich Von Martens (1756-1821) and the Origins of Modern
International Law. International Law and Justice Working Papers, Institute for International Law and
Justice New York University School of Law.
International Law as Ideology: Theorising the Relationship between International
Law and International Politics, since law is not theorised in terms of power, realism
has difficulty in accounting for occasions when a powerful state obeys international
law against its apparent political interests and why states with little power in the
international system nevertheless participate willingly in the international legal
order.23

When Hoffman commented that “international affairs are inhospitable to liberalism” in

1987, perhaps the climate of global affairs at the time resonated with this statement
perfectly. However, in a globalised world, this comment seems almost absurd and
incongruous owing to the fact that, as aforementioned, open economies and trading
blocs are the international norms, transnational organisations are widespread,
international law is consistently relied upon, the United Nations and other
organisations have a significant level of influence and authority, democracy is
championed and the world has ultimately become interconnected and
interdependent. Also, to reiterate, the United States is the supreme hegemon thus
the norms and ideas that it preaches have an effect on all states of the world.
Perhaps, in this day and age, a more fitting statement would be “international affairs
are inhospitable to realism”. Although it cannot be argued that realism remains an
essential theory in the study of International Relations, one does wonder if there is
still room for it.

23
Scott S.V. (1994). International Law as Ideology: Theorising the Relationship between International
Law and International Politics. European Journal of International Law, pp. 313-325.