Contemporary Liberalism and Security

Contemporary liberalism and Security
World order in the eighteenth century was based on the notion of balance of power and mercantilism. The Peace of Westphalia, the final act that initiated the end of the Thirty Year Wars in 1948 laid the foundations for the contemporary study adopted by liberalist scholars for defining interaction within the international system. The current world order, can be described as relatively stable in the absence of a global conventional World War, but tenable to spikes in economic manoeuvring. The State without adequate regulation and organisation implemented may become reactive as opposed to proactive to the actions of non-state actors, which in turn can affect the ability of the State to maintain stability.

The non-state actors do not necessarily have the interests of the State or the civil community in mind when making decisions based on short-term gains. Liberal democratic States that make decisions based on their national interests, reflective of their society’s interests are predominately made on the basis of long-term gains. Liberal principles for political economy, a study within International Relations that can be attributed to the advancement of liberalism to international liberalism, has its foundations in the movement towards a new world order that can be identified beginning at the 1815 Congress of Vienna. It is at this time that traces have identified significant changes in State structures and social interactions reflective of materialistic and ideological ideals.

Woodrow Wilson with the provision of his fourteen points speech address to the United States’ Congress in 1918 reflected the idea that peace could only be secured by the creation of an international organisation to regulate the international anarchy. He identified that security could not be left to secret bilateral diplomatic deals or a blind faith in the balance of power. He related the idea that peace had to be enforced in domestic society where as for the international domain it required a system of regulation. This allowed for coping with disputes and allowed for an international force that could be mobilised if non-violent conflict resolution failed. (refer Footnote १) The idea was to assure sovereignty but not to guarantee sovereignty if the need was identified to be administered on an international level.

For contemporary liberalism, the political form adopted by the individual State requires significant processing before it can be adequately implemented within the international system. The tenets of liberalism and the requirements it places on governance when dealing with different cultures, societies and traditions provides for a complex arrangement of rules and regulations that do not necessarily allow for the freedom of the individual to be maintained when the security requirements of the community are questioned. Individual States are finding that the tenets of liberalism that have attracted different cultures, societies and traditions to live within their borders have also placed significant burdens on their State systems for maintaining the rule of law. The identity and intentions become blurred when individuals exercise their right to freedom of expression. Freedom of action in relation to a State’s right to sovereignty similarly blurs identity and intention when that same State can choose not to recognise the legitimacy of or provide constructive input to the decision making process of a higher authority।

Footnote
१ Tim Dunne in John Bayliss & Steve Smith, The Globalisation of World Politics: An introduction to International Relations, Oxford, 2005, p186.