Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

NSP IP #8 Liberal Leviathan Realism: for every neck there are two areas to choke it (Mearsheimer); Liberals: security

dilemma is a problem to manage; an inconvenience (Locke); How? International organizations. Ikenberry is a liberal institutionist; After Victory - how to set up peace after war; How: Rules - set expectations for behavior; Risk mitigation - floor to loss, ceiling to gain; Constraining - limiting great power unilateralism; Communicating - reduce uncertainty; Small power "voice" - feel of power sharing; Citizens expect public goods - if taken away, results in instability; UN - designed to solve the security dilemma; NATO - solution; imbed German power in institution; provide avenue of assurance for Germany to rest of Europe; insurance is US power; Free trade, liberal institutions, international institutions - liberal triumphant; Is US constrained by NATO? How is the leviathan constrained? Primarily selfrestrained but for its own self interest; democratic liberal values value restraint; Interests - if you don't restrain yourself, the others won't play nice; the ideals and values are attractive; restraint reduces costs Liberal part of leviathan is important because not all will act the same way; important that the last two (Britain and US) set the liberal foundation; Series of devil's bargains made: Virginia bound itself in set of rules (articles of confederation), set example; emergence of institutions are evidence that system is not anarchic; absent anarchy, bargains are possible but they must be renegotiated from time to time (which is where we are now); Liberal project - moving domestic liberal construct to international realm; Cultural linkage becomes a problem at the global level; Ceding power is central to this argument - "transform strength into right and obedience into duty" Enemy is not rising powers; it is the problems that will arise because of globalization: rising problems of economic issues, radicalization, disease and disaster, Milieu - partnerships, promoting trade, building infrastructure, promoting democracy; this is Ikenberry's focus;

Positional - counter, undercut, contain, limit; targeted against specific challenger state or group of states; It's not an either-or; it's a balance requirement to determine where to prioritize your investments; a trade-off; Imperial vs benign liberalism Assessing cost of milieu vs positional - very difficult; outcomes are the evaluative lenses; Linking social security to national security - to the extent they are domestically viewed as linked, support exists; What event caused liberal order in US to stick? 1861-65. Ikenberry misses this. Unspoken assumptions: homogeneity of colonial states, now integrated but separate; After Westphalia, nation states are similar despite minor internal differences, and they all want the same... Different theory. China is a "civilization state" - a state grown around a civilization; it is acting like a Westphalian nation state because of the system that exists; Ikenberry thinks nuclear weapons will keep the peace; doesn't banish realism--we can learn to do better in the world we live in; anarchy and hierarchy are on a spectrum, not opposite choices, between which you can move; he wants to more international system to more of the domestic sphere to create international order externally Post-Westphalian world - rise of transnational actor and economic globalization; stopping power of borders has declined; sovereignty vs right to protect; States interfering in other states' internal matters are repeated throughout history; Crisis of authority: globalization (increasing scope of security and economic interdependence), transformation of Westphalia (Unipolarity and change in sovereignty views), response to unconventional threats (US steps away from liberal rules and embraces unilateral action) The crisis is the US leadership: Cold War drove acceptability; now the desire is to reinvigorate the rule-making structure; it has outlived American hegemony; ** Dilemmas: Intl rules vs balance of power, hegemony vs community, authority to act vs capaciyy to act, sovereignty vs human rights, ___________ - whatever the US strategy is going forward must address these dilemmas. Crisis of success (pg 331) - open and rule-based order (basic logic of liberal internationalism) is resilient, unlikely to be overturned by leading and rising states; Crisis is not with the liberal order; crisis of authority is what can potentially lead to instability (eg election of Lincoln);

Ikenberry - EU is not the United States of Europe; Solutions: Diffuse world order US led world order (renegotiated) Breakdown into competing power blocks Three key variables: status of non liberal powers, willingness of US to cede authority, ________ China - need to wrap them up in the institutions but this requires ceding power to them; Power balancing is not going to address all future problems; setting conditions may provide greatest chance for influencing and tackling issues; Universal values in the future will be less western/white caucasian (democracy index 2011) Rawlsian (pg 349) - short term costs are unclear but long term best option is shift from power system to rules system where relative state power is irrelevant; (eg Rhode Island and Texas are treated the same)...a republic/democratic system spread globally US may be less influential; that doesn't change the opportunity to lead, it just means that US has to consider other actors and their influence; Viability? Labor and big business interests are across both parties; this wold involve committing domestic parties to international regulation and competition perhaps to a greater extent; authority is an aid to power...Ikenberry is in favor of protecting our authority; Demographics: decreasing interests in foreign affairs; leading from behind not a popular idea (Libya); If you're tied to international institutions, you can't turn in when times get bad; this is a benefit in the long term;