Internatioal Liberalism And Nuclear Security The Foundations

It was not until the eighteenth century that the international system can be identified with a movement towards liberalism as a political ideology. The world order up until the eighteenth century was based on the notion of the balance of power and mercantilism. The Peace of Westphalia, the final act that initiated the end of the Thirty Year Wars in 1648 provided a structural basis through the allocation of States and State sovereignty. For liberal scholars it also provided a base for theoretical analysis in the defining State and civil society interaction within the international system.

The concept of balance of power still prevailed with liberalism, but it aligned the actors to having goals for the international system as opposed to pursuing individual self-interests, providing a moderately stable international system. The bleakest times for the international system can be attributed to the interpretations of the realist school of international relations theory where States are identified as the primary actors in the international system. Their primary role or action is to maximise their power within the system. Identifying their roles as being of self-interest meant any interaction was for maximum self-benefit with little regard for the benefits attributed to the other actor. (Refer footnote १)

Eighteenth century British and French scholars started to identify liberalism as a new form of political philosophy to define the international political system and the international political economy। The writings of Hobbs, Locke, Smith, Kant, Rousseau, Wise and Smith provided the underlying ideology that can be attributed to both classical and modern liberal thought. These scholars have many ideas in common, identifying with freedom, equality and the rule of law yet their interpretations vary considerably. The variation of interpretation for theorising the political system has been carried throughout the various scholarly writings on liberalism. Their interpretations of how in application liberalism has influenced the advancement of the international system have not necessarily reflected how international liberalism should be constructed that assures the sustainability of the international environment or global society. They are more associated with the freedoms of the individual in the present as opposed to the future. It is only through the sustainment of the international environment or global society that the freedoms of the individual can be assured for the future.

Footnote
1 Michael Nicholson, Formal theories in International Relations. 1990. Cambridge. pp. 26-33This analysis of behaviour leads the way to security studies being entangled within international relations as there is a view that conflict is inevitable whether admired or not. Security consists of the attitudes of the mind and the games that the mind plays. The concept of the Prisoners Dilemma and the Prisoners Dilemma super game identifies with the behaviour of self-interest and that applied to either conflict or cooperation. Dependent on the number of players, cooperation can provide for equal distribution of gains for each player where as conflict allows for an unequal distribution of gain with the more powerful player (State) gaining the most. The self-interest of the player (State) is dependent on its position with regards to power or in relation to technological arms races, its position with regards to innovation. In accordance with the basic Prisoners’ Dilemma matrix, ultimately innovation held by one player places significant strategic advantage to that player. If both players have the innovation then the cost to both players is significantly high placing them both in a significant disadvantage to if they had both not pursued the innovation. This would be difficult to ascertain as governments have a tendency to want to deceive each other, a behaviour that is not conducive to effective implementation of international liberalism for the nuclear issue.