4.a) Idealism in International Relations

Idealism in International Relations
In general parlance on international matters, idealism is a term applied to any idea, goal, or practice
considered to be impractical. Thus eradicating nuclear weapons is considered idealistic, as is substituting
open for secret diplomacy, entrusting international security to the UN, creating an African Union on the
model of the EU, or the global eradication of poverty and injustice. The bases of such judgments are rarely
made explicit, but they usually rest on a pessimistic reading of human nature along with an historical
judgment on the difficulty of peaceably achieving radical change in world affairs.
In the professional study of international relations (IR), the term is generally employed in two ways: one
broad, one narrow. The broad understanding sees idealism as a perennial doctrine or disposition towards
world affairs which can be witnessed in all historical periods where independent political communities
exist in a condition of anarchy i.e. in the absence of central government. Idealism is an optimistic doctrine
which seeks to transcend the international anarchy, and create a more cosmopolitan and harmonious
world order. The narrow understanding sees idealism as intimately tied to the inter-war period (1919-
1939).
It is a doctrine that dominated the first phase of IR theorising, emphasising the growing interdependence
and unity of mankind, and bound-up with the experiment in internationalism that was the League of
Nations.
There is no agreed definition of idealism. Indeed the term is often employed in a rhetorical way,
particularly by realist thinkers, in order to discredit radical or reformist ideas they dislike. As a
consequence various approaches and bodies of thought—cosmopolitanism, internationalism,
liberalism—have frequently been lumped together and labelled idealism, despite considerable
differences between and diversity within them.
According to most accounts, idealists emphasise the power of reason to overcome prejudice and
counteract the machinations of sinister forces. They believe that the spread of education and
democracy—including increasing democratic control of foreign policy—will empower world public
opinion, and make it a powerful force that no government can resist. They view war as a disease of the
international body politic, contrary to the interests of all bar a few special interests and unrepresentative
governments. Arms manufacturers and merchants have frequently been targets of their wrath. Left-
internationalists have also attacked large business corporations for their aggressive pursuit of profit and
disregard of general human welfare. Idealists emphasise the importance of universal bodies such as the
League and the UN in galvanising and organising world public opinion. Through such means, they contend,
it will be possible to eliminate crude power from international relations, substituting research, reason and
discussion in place of national armies and navies. Importantly, idealists tend to stress the existence of a
natural harmony of interests between all peoples underlying the superficially conflicting interests of their
states and/or governments. While accepting that the different peoples exhibit different codes of
behaviour, cultural norms, values, habits and tastes, they contend that human beings are fundamentally
uniform. Regardless of ethnic, social, cultural and religious background, all human beings desire the same
things in terms of security, welfare, recognition and respect. All are bound by a common morality with its
bedrock in basic human rights and the Kantian principle that human beings should be respected as ends
in themselves and never treated as mere means. Many idealists share the belief of Mazzini that there is
no essential incompatibility between nationalism and internationalism. There is a natural division of
labour between nations. Each nation has its special task to perform, its special contribution to make to
the well-being of humanity. If all nations were to act in this spirit, international harmony would prevail.
This doctrine provided the philosophical basis for President Woodrow Wilson’s campaign to put national
self-determination at the heart of the 1919 peace settlement.
One of the main criticisms Carr levelled at the idealists (or ‘utopians’ as he preferred to call them) was
that they underestimated the role of power in international politics and overestimated the role, actual
and potential, of law, morality and public opinion. He was particularly scathing of the idea that reason and
discussion could take the place of armies and navies. Change did not come about, he claimed, through
reason—or at least not reason as conceived by the utopians. Power was a decisive factor in every political
situation, and one could no more abolish power than abolish politics. Power, whether used, threatened,
or held silently in reserve, was an essential factor in international change, and change would only be
brought about by whom or in the interests of whom power could be wielded.
Realists today often criticise the intellectual descendants of inter-war idealists—those e.g. advocating
global governance, cosmopolitan democracy, and much greater power for the UN—on much the same
grounds. They ignore the power and self-interestedness of the independent nation state, the reign of
instrumental (cf. ‘abstract’) reason in international politics, and the emotional appeal of national
sovereignty.
Descendant theories
Idealism proper was a relatively short-lived school of thought, and suffered a crisis of confidence following
the failure of the League of Nations and the outbreak of World War II. However, subsequent theories of
international relations would draw elements from Wilsonian Idealism when constructing their world
views.
Liberalism
Liberalism manifested a tempered version of Wilson's idealism in the wake of World War I. Cognizant of
the failures of Idealism to prevent renewed isolationism following World War I, and its inability to manage
the balance of power in Europe to prevent the outbreak of a new war, liberal thinkers devised a set of
international institutions based on rule of law and regularized interaction. These international
organizations, such as the United Nations and the NATO, or even international regimes such as the Bretton
Woods system, and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), were calculated both to maintain a
balance of power as well as regularize cooperation between nations. (see the separate notes on Liberalism
for detail)
Neo-conservatism
Neo-conservatism drew from Liberalism its intense focus on the promotion of "universal values", in this
case democracy, human rights, free trade, women's rights and minority protections. However, it differs in
that it is less wedded to the importance of preserving international institutions and treaties while pursuing
assertive or aggressive stances which it deems morally worthy, and is willing to use force or the threat of
force, unilaterally if necessary, to push for its goals.

4.a) Idealism in International Relations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4.a) Idealism in International Relations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

4.a) Idealism in International Relations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Idealism in International Relations

You might also like