Liberal Internationalism 3.0: America and the Dilemmas of Liberal World Order

Abstract

Liberal international order—both its ideas and real-world political formations—is not embodied in a fixed set of principles or practices. Open markets, international institutions, cooperative security, democratic community, progressive change, collective problem solving, the rule of law—these are aspects of the liberal vision that have made appearances in various combinations and changing ways over the last century. I argue that it is possible to identify three versions or models of liberal international order—versions 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0. The first is associated with the ideas of Woodrow Wilson, the second is the Cold War liberal internationalism of the post-1945 decades, and the third version is a sort of post-hegemonic liberal internationalism that has only partially appeared and whose full shape and logic is still uncertain. I develop a set of dimensions that allow for identifying different logics of liberal international order and identify variables that will shape the movement from liberal internationalism 2.0 to 3.0.

Liberal peace and peacebuilding: global and local debates in the context of Sri Lanka

“…Since the end of the cold war, liberal peace has become the main policy framework that has been used by the International Community (IC) 4 to engage with and intervene in conflict ridden states as a means for creating global peace by stabilising states and strengthening global markets (Chaudoin et al, 2010;Ikenberry, 2009;Mac Ginty, 2011: p. 5;Sabaratnam, 2011: p. 13). The process of this interventionist engagement is termed liberal peacebuilding:…”

“…Classical liberal political writings, which emerge from the work of the 17 th to 19 th century European philosophers, can be separated from that of the contemporary, or new, liberal peace literature of the 20 th century (for the new discourses see Doyle, 1983;Min Kim & Rousseau, 2005;Paris, 2006;Ikenberry, 2009). The literature on liberal peacebuilding and post-war liberal peacebuilding are subsets within the body of contemporary liberal peace literature.…”

“…Fukuyama, 1992: p. 29. 2. See Ikenberry, 2009;Sabaratnam, 2011: p. 13;Mac Ginty, 2011: p. 5. 3. Despite the different core elements to it, there is one singular essence that can be drawn from classical liberalism that has persisted into the contemporary variations of liberalism.…”

Russia’s Narratives of Global Order: Great Power Legacies in a Polycentric World

“…Each of these entails a narrative, projecting a past, present and possible futures. Additionally, fourth, on the global level, demands for Russian and Chinese spheres of influence counter the US-led conception of a liberal order based on integration into the existing global economy (Ikenberry, 2009). Acceptance of such a narrative would mean that the US will either have to live with this, or challenge this-which could lead to escalation.…”

Democratic international relations: Montesquieu and the theoretical foundations of democratic peace theory

“…26. On the meaning of liberal internationalism, see Ikenberry (2009). On the Bush Doctrine, see Dueck (2003Á4), Hendrickson and Tucker (2005), Jervis (2003) and Monten (2005).…”