Michael Doyle
Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs
Section I: Liberalism is neither purely patriotic or "peace-loving", as many scholars and diplomats perceive liberalism to be. It is distinct from both realism and the realist perception of liberalism because it is not inherently peaceful but is based on the probability of consistent similarities in states' intentions. These similarities increase the possibility of peace but do not guarantee peace.
Section II: Liberalism depends on negative freedoms positive freedoms, and democratic participation to guarantee the preceding freedoms. Negative freedoms include freedom from arbitrary authority, freedom of conscience, free press, free speech, equality under the law, and the right to hold and exchange property without fear. Positive freedoms include social and economic equality and equal education, health care, and employment. Democracy will ensure these rights are protected because the authority will be held accountable to an educated, free public, addressing Kant's problem with mutually opposing private attitudes. Doyle deems four principles essential to the success of liberalism: equality of civil rights, representative sovereigns with consent from the people and a lack of external authority, recognition of property, and freedom from strict control by bureaucracies in the economic sphere.
Section III: Since states represent morally autonomous citizens, there are mutual advantages to respecting right rights of one another to form a cooperative relationship between liberal democracies. Empirical evidence proves that constitutionally secure, liberal, democratic states do not go to war with each other. Doyle combats the realist argument that anarchy in the international system will inevitably lead to conflict by providing examples of peaceful scenarios that realism can neither predict nor account for. Realists cannot account for the recurring peace between liberal democracies and the lack of peace between non-liberal governments because realism holds that the type of government does not affect the international state of affairs. Social determinants also have an effect of international relations that only liberalism can explain. Liberal peace is not dependent on regional attributes, historical alliances, or friendships. While realism claims that the peace between liberal states is merely the result of the lack of conflicting interests, it cannot explain why liberal democracies do not have conflicting interests.
Section IV: Liberalism leads to peace because liberal democracies respect the individual opinion which is generally opposed to war, unlike absolutist monarchies. The individual citizens in a society bear the burden of war and therefore prefer to avoid it while a monarch is separate from these burdens. A monarch is more inclined to go to war than the individual citizens. Therefore, a liberal democracy which depends on the individual opinion will not be inclined to go to war. International law guarantees respect between states, further increasing the likelihood of peace because states will be held accountable to the public. Cosmopolitan law creates economic incentives for states to cooperate because, under principles of liberalism, international markets create interdependence with liberal principles as the foundation for each state's economic success.
Section II: Liberalism depends on negative freedoms positive freedoms, and democratic participation to guarantee the preceding freedoms. Negative freedoms include freedom from arbitrary authority, freedom of conscience, free press, free speech, equality under the law, and the right to hold and exchange property without fear. Positive freedoms include social and economic equality and equal education, health care, and employment. Democracy will ensure these rights are protected because the authority will be held accountable to an educated, free public, addressing Kant's problem with mutually opposing private attitudes. Doyle deems four principles essential to the success of liberalism: equality of civil rights, representative sovereigns with consent from the people and a lack of external authority, recognition of property, and freedom from strict control by bureaucracies in the economic sphere.
Section III: Since states represent morally autonomous citizens, there are mutual advantages to respecting right rights of one another to form a cooperative relationship between liberal democracies. Empirical evidence proves that constitutionally secure, liberal, democratic states do not go to war with each other. Doyle combats the realist argument that anarchy in the international system will inevitably lead to conflict by providing examples of peaceful scenarios that realism can neither predict nor account for. Realists cannot account for the recurring peace between liberal democracies and the lack of peace between non-liberal governments because realism holds that the type of government does not affect the international state of affairs. Social determinants also have an effect of international relations that only liberalism can explain. Liberal peace is not dependent on regional attributes, historical alliances, or friendships. While realism claims that the peace between liberal states is merely the result of the lack of conflicting interests, it cannot explain why liberal democracies do not have conflicting interests.
Section IV: Liberalism leads to peace because liberal democracies respect the individual opinion which is generally opposed to war, unlike absolutist monarchies. The individual citizens in a society bear the burden of war and therefore prefer to avoid it while a monarch is separate from these burdens. A monarch is more inclined to go to war than the individual citizens. Therefore, a liberal democracy which depends on the individual opinion will not be inclined to go to war. International law guarantees respect between states, further increasing the likelihood of peace because states will be held accountable to the public. Cosmopolitan law creates economic incentives for states to cooperate because, under principles of liberalism, international markets create interdependence with liberal principles as the foundation for each state's economic success.
Liberalism and World Politics
Schumpeter's Liberal Pacifism: Because only small sections of societies such as war profiteers and aristocrats profit from war, a liberal democracy would not allow for war. The majority in society suffers economically in wartime because free trade depends on equal access to resources. Imperialism and warmongering gets in the way of this kind of expansion. In a free market, most of society would be opposed to imperialism and therefore liberal democracies will avoid war out of mutual economic benefit. Because only a small section of society stands to gain from war, democratic capitalism will eventually result in peace. Doyle points out the flaw in this argument, claiming that it does not account for non-economic incentives such as ideology. Schumpeter also assumes that all humans are rationally seeking material welfare, disregarding ruling, and that states go through mutual, homogeneous linear evolution towards liberalism.
Machiavelli's Liberal Imperialism: Republics allow for successful imperial expansion and the survival of a state. Liberty results from competition and compromise between the senate, consuls, and tribunes and the popular veto because people have the natural urge to dominate. Therefore instead of attempting to dominate each other and creating discordance within the state, the people allow the state to survive by dominating surrounding states through expansions, increasing the quality of life for all the citizens. Doyle calls this idea into question with the peaceful, successful history of liberal, democratic pacifism.
Kant's Liberal Internationalism: The peace between liberal states and the aggression between liberal and non-liberal states can be explained by three pre-requisites for "Perpetual Peace": republican constitutions, a peaceful federation of free states, and cosmopolitan law protecting free citizens of the world. Like Schumpeter, the desires to the civilian population will prevent unnecessary war, but, unlike Schumpeter, wars can be fought for just, ideological causes to promote freedom and liberal ideals. Liberal federations will reinforce these ideals and create a distrust for non-liberal states, encouraging liberal tenets in these states. Cosmopolitan law and material incentives will also reinforce the desire to promote peace.
Machiavelli's Liberal Imperialism: Republics allow for successful imperial expansion and the survival of a state. Liberty results from competition and compromise between the senate, consuls, and tribunes and the popular veto because people have the natural urge to dominate. Therefore instead of attempting to dominate each other and creating discordance within the state, the people allow the state to survive by dominating surrounding states through expansions, increasing the quality of life for all the citizens. Doyle calls this idea into question with the peaceful, successful history of liberal, democratic pacifism.
Kant's Liberal Internationalism: The peace between liberal states and the aggression between liberal and non-liberal states can be explained by three pre-requisites for "Perpetual Peace": republican constitutions, a peaceful federation of free states, and cosmopolitan law protecting free citizens of the world. Like Schumpeter, the desires to the civilian population will prevent unnecessary war, but, unlike Schumpeter, wars can be fought for just, ideological causes to promote freedom and liberal ideals. Liberal federations will reinforce these ideals and create a distrust for non-liberal states, encouraging liberal tenets in these states. Cosmopolitan law and material incentives will also reinforce the desire to promote peace.