International Relations Democracies and World Order
by
Gabriela Marin Thornton
  • LAST REVIEWED: 19 May 2017
  • LAST MODIFIED: 30 June 2014
  • DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199743292-0067

Introduction

What do we mean by world order? How can world order be defined, and what is the relationship between democracies and world order? Are democracies important pillars of world order? Furthermore, in what kind of world order can human aspirations best be fulfilled? Scholars of international relations (IR) have been wrestling with these questions since the inception of the IR disciple in the aftermath of World War I. It should be stated that from the beginning there has been no consensus in IR over the meaning of the term “world order.” The definition of democracy is also contested among political scientists. The link between democracies and various types of world orders is a matter of dispute, too. Moreover, the literature that defines both democracy and world order is voluminous. Realist scholars tend to conceptualize world order as a system of states in which the distribution of hard power creates various types of orders such as multipolar, bipolar, or unipolar. International political economy and Marxist scholars mostly equate world order with the capitalist global economy. In general, realists, international political economists, and Marxists scholars see the world order as an arrangement of actors such as great powers or economic classes. On the other hand, liberals, constructivists, and globalists view the world order as a process in which states or dominant classes are not the only actors. Various transnational institutions, norms, and values transcend borders and continuously shape world politics. This article is structured as follows: First, it maps out resources that exemplify the link between democracies and world order from President Woodrow Wilson to President George W. Bush. Second, the article provides resources that explore the link between democracy and globalization: a concept that mostly displaced that of world order in the mid-1990s. Third, the article analyzes the link between democracies and various forms of liberal orders. This article devotes considerable space to the world order created by the United States because the United States has been the only great power that has created a world order in which democracy and its promotion has played a central role.

General Overviews

The annotated sources in this section are ground breaking works on world order. Represented here are works coming from: (i) the English School of international relations, such as Bull 1977; (ii) the critical/historical materialist school, such as Cox 1987; (iii) various schools of liberal thought, including Ikenberry 2009 and Slaughter 2004; (iv) the globalization school, such as Held 1995; and (v) the Marxist and deconstructivist school, such as Hardt and Negri 2000. Huntington’s crucial work The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order Huntington 1996) and Peter J. Katzenstein’s A World of Regions: Asia and Europe in the American Imperium (Katzenstein 2005) are also discussed. Bull 1977 argues for a world order that supersedes the anarchical Hobbsian realist system and even supersedes the concept of international society initially advanced by the English School. Bull argues that order should take precedent over justice. Cox 1987 presents us with a different conceptualization of the world order: a world order whose main characteristic is change fueled by the transformation of the global economic system. The connection between the world order and democracy appears superfluous in both works. By contrast, the liberals and the globalists play this connection strongly, albeit in different ways. Ikenberry 2009 sees democracies as an important part of the world order. Slaughter 2004 argues that government networks are the key feature of the world order in the 21st century. Held 1995 goes from classical democracy (within the state) to cosmopolitan democracy (beyond the state), and argues that the meaning of democracy should be rethought in an international society in which the state lost considerable power. Hardt and Negri 2000 define world order as empire. Empire is a specific regime of global relations of (neo)Marxist origins. Democracy is something the empire grows from within. Huntington 1996, contradicting both the realist and the liberal theses, presents us with a vision of post-Cold War order in which wars will be fought not among states but among civilizations. According to Huntington the world order is an order of civilizations. Huntington argues strongly against US efforts to spread democracy. Katzenstein 2005 envisions a world order formed of regions tied to the “American Imperium” and whose cultures play an important role in world politics. Students and scholars of IR will benefit from the works presented in this section.

  • Bull, Hedley. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press, 1977.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Written by one of the most notable IR theorist, the book defines order in world politics, presents order in the contemporary international system as well as alternatives paths to world order. For Bull, the world order is formed from patterns or dispositions of human activity directed toward clearly defined goals.

    Find this resource:

    • Cox, Robert W. Production, Power, and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of History. New York: Columbia University Press, 1987.

      Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Brilliant analysis of the liberal order, the era of rival imperialisms, and the Pax Americana, defined as a hegemonic order. Democracy is not viewed as an important factor of this order. The hallmark of Cox’s world order is transformational change brought about by the capitalist system.

      Find this resource:

      • Hardt, Michael, and Antonio Negri. Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000.

        Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

        In this very provocative book the world order is conceptualized as empire—meaning a specific regime of capitalist global relations. Empire creates potential for resistance and revolution. The multitudes, which represents a global movement with democratic characteristics, will rise against the empire.

        Find this resource:

        • Held, David. Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance. Stanford, CA: Sanford University Press, 1995.

          Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

          Notable work analyzes models of democracy and the formation and displacement of the modern state and introduces the concept of cosmopolitan democracy. The need for cosmopolitan democracy arises from a new international order characterized by multiple and overlapping networks of power that challenge the power of the state.

          Find this resource:

          • Huntington, Samuel P. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon & Shuster, 1996.

            Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

            Preeminent scholar presented a powerful vision of the post-Cold War order in which new wars would be fought not among states but among civilizations. The world order would be based on civilizations. The civilizational order would require the West to abandon the spreading of democracy and strengthen itself culturally.

            Find this resource:

            • Ikenberry, G. John. “Liberal Internationalism 3.0: America and the Dilemmas of Liberal Order.” Perspectives on Politics 7.1 (March 2009): 71–87.

              DOI: 10.1017/S1537592709090112Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

              Preeminent liberal argues that the liberal international order is not a fixed order. It encompasses among other factors open markets, cooperative security, international institutions and the democratic community. It differentiates among liberal internationalism: 1.0 Woodrow Wilson; 2.0 Cold War; and 3.0 post-hegemonic liberal internationalism whose tenants are not clear yet.

              Find this resource:

              • Katzenstein, Peter J. A World of Regions: Asia and Europe in the American Imperium. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2005.

                Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                Katzenstein’s world order is an order dominated by the American Imperium in which regions interact closely. The cultural aspect of world regions is very important in the shaping of the world order as exemplified by Europe and Asia.

                Find this resource:

                • Slaughter, Anne-Marie. A New World Order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004.

                  Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                  Slaughter’s main claim is that government networks are the key feature of the world order in the 21st century. Those networks bolster the power of the state. Slaughter’s new world order requires a new conception of democracy in which uncertainty and unintended consequences should be accepted as facts of life.

                  Find this resource:

                  The United States

                  The following subsections discuss the link between world order and democracy starting with President Wilson. The subsections will survey literature pertaining to (i) President Wilson’s view of world order; (ii) the American attempt to expand its world order during the Cold War; (iii) President H. W. Bush’s “new world order”: (iv) the Clinton era; (v) the second Bush administration; and (vi) democracy in an era of American retrenchment. The choice to allocate significant space to the link between the American world order and democracies has been made because the American world order is the only world order that made democracy into an intrinsic pillar. However, there are differences between the ways in which various American presidents have understood the role of democracy in the world. This will become apparent as the reader immerses him- or herself in the literature surveyed in this section.

                  Wilsonianism

                  The notion of world order became highly significant during Woodrow Wilson’s presidency. Wilson articulated a clear view of the world order intrinsically linked to democratic states. In his speech in front of Congress on April 2, 1917, President Wilson stated: “The world must be made safe for democracy. Its peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political liberty” (Wilson 1917). His view of the world became known as Wilsonianism and has remained very influential in the IR liberal thought until today. Wilson’s view of the world was criticized, defended, and analyzed by authors coming from various disciplines. The failure of Wilsonianism and its tenants after World War I has also remained an important topic of study, too. In a very interesting work, George and George 1964 analyze and explains the failure of the League of Nations and how Wilson’s vision of the world was formed. Knock 1992 in one of the author’s most acclaimed works analyzes in depth Wilson’s link to the American left. Mandelbaum 2004 spells out the three pillars of Wilsonian liberalism—peace (disarmament), free-market economies, and democracies—while acknowledging that Wilson’s ideas originated with Jeremy Bentham and Thomas Paine. Ikenberry 2001 analyzes the failure of the Wilsonian ideals in the interwar period, acknowledging that the preeminence of American power after World War I did not translate in the end into usable leverage for Wilson. Mead 2002 presents the main debates in American foreign policy in which Wilsonians are characterized as missionaries. Cooper 2001, an exceptional study, narrates the story of Wilson’s fight for the League of Nations. Smith 2012 is a comprehensive work that starts with the Wilsonian period and extends beyond the Cold War, strongly defending both Wilsonian principles and Wilson’s view of the world order. Graduate students will benefit mostly from the works presented in this section.

                  • Cooper, John Milton, Jr. Breaking the Heart of the World: Woodrow Wilson and the Fight for the League of Nations. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

                    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                    Exceptional work that describes the Wilsonian world order, its sources, and Wilson’s domestic and international fight for the Leagues of Nations.

                    Find this resource:

                    • George, Alexander L., and Juliette L. George. Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House: A Personality Study. Mineola, NY: Dover, 1964.

                      Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                      This book explains the formation and failure of the League of Nations, Wilson’s friendship with his adviser Colonel Edward M. House, and, most important, how Wilson’s vision of the world was formed. The authors use psychoanalysis to explain how President Wilson’s vision of the world came about.

                      Find this resource:

                      • Ikenberry, G. John. “The Settlement of 1919.” In After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order After Major Wars. By G. John Ikenberry, 117–162. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001.

                        Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                        Analyzes the failure of the Wilsonian order in the interwar period and Wilson’s failure to use military, economic, and financial power to create a post-World War I order reflecting his vision.

                        Find this resource:

                        • Knock, Thomas J. To End All Wars: Woodrow Wilson and the Quest for a New World Order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992.

                          Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                          The book casts light on the development of the ill-fated League of Nations and Wilson’s link to various American political factions. It draws attention to the fact that the enthusiasm of the European public for Wilson’s ideas did not translate into support for them.

                          Find this resource:

                          • Mandelbaum, Michael. “Wilson Victorious.” In The Ideas that Conquered the World: Peace, Democracy, and Free Markets in the Twenty-First Century. By Michael Mandelbaum, 17–44. New York: Public Affairs, 2004.

                            Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                            Mandelbaum spells out the principles of Wilsonianism. He argues that Wilson’s ideas were not original. However, Wilson was the one that introduce them “as the cure for the affliction of war” (p. 28). Even if those ideas did not take roots after World War I they became the hallmark of the post-Cold War order.

                            Find this resource:

                            • Mead, Walter Russell. “The Connecticut Yankee and the Court of King Arthur: Wilsonianism and Its Missions.” In Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World. By Walter Russell Mead, 100–132. New York: Routledge, 2002.

                              Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                              A brilliant discussion of American foreign policy in which Wilsonianism’s proponents are viewed as moral missionaries.

                              Find this resource:

                              • Smith, Tony. “Wilson and a World Safe for Democracy.” In America’s Mission: The United States and the Worldwide Struggle for Democracy. Exp. ed. By Tony Smith, 61–84. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012.

                                Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                Comprehensive work that starts with the Wilsonian period and extends beyond the Cold War. It strongly defends Wilsonianism and criticizes approaches such as Marxism and realism that deemphasize or oppose the spread of democracy.

                                Find this resource:

                                • Wilson, Woodrow. Address to Congress, April 2, 1917. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration.

                                  Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                  On April 2, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson made a speech in front of the Congress in which he declared war on Germany. The speech showcased his vision of the world order: a world of democratic states and the need to make the world safe for such states to flourish.

                                  Find this resource:

                                  The Cold War

                                  The Cold War was a very important period in the history of the 20th century; a period of economic, political, and ideological confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union. During that time, the international system was characterized by bipolarity. All works selected in this section reflect the evolution and the politics of the world order during of the Cold War. To start, most scholars agree that the United States managed to create and maintain its own Pax Americana in its sphere of influence. Lundestad 1986 argues that during the Cold War America created its own empire, albeit one “by invitation.” The United States was invited into a system of Western European alliances by the European governments as well as by their populations because the United States stood for justice and democracy everywhere in the world. Ikenberry 2001 describes the Western order as an order of multilayered institutions and alliances and argues that the Cold War reinforced cohesion among advanced democracies. American hegemony in Europe, according to Ikenberry, was a “reluctant” one. Here Ikenberry’s argument connects with that of Lundestad. Layne 2006, coming from a realist perspective, disagrees with Ikenberry and Lundestad and argues that all institutions created by the United States after World War I and the Cold War, including the strengthening of Western democracies, were created with the sole purpose of American domination of Europe. Hogan 1987 presents an account of US foreign policy toward Europe from 1947 to 1952. In Hogan’s work, European integration is seen as an extension of American domestic and foreign policy. Hoffman 1978 argues that the United States should have made the world order its primary enterprise during the Cold War. Hogan criticizes Kissinger’s balance of power and saw it as incompatible with American democracy. Gaddis 2005 argues that the end of Cold War came about not because of structural factors but because of leadership. Smith 2012 analyzes the US initiatives to promote democracy and human rights during the Cold War.

                                  • Gaddis, John Lewis. The Cold War: A New History. New York: Penguin, 2005.

                                    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                    Brilliant work by a leading historian of the Cold War who argues that containment was a successful policy. The book offers a detailed presentation of the Cold War and emphasizes leadership.

                                    Find this resource:

                                    • Hoffman, Stanley. Primacy or World Order: American Foreign Policy since the Cold War. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.

                                      Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                      One of the leading scholars in IR argued that the main goal of the United States must be to enhance the world order. The book offers general guidance for the United States to establish a world order. The world order that Hoffman advocates is based on US primacy.

                                      Find this resource:

                                      • Hogan, Michael J. The Marshall Plan: America, Britain, and the reconstruction of Western Europe, 1947–1952. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

                                        DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511583728Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                        Exceptional account of US foreign policy toward Europe from 1947–1952. The United States had the expectation of creating Europe in its own image: capitalist markets and democracy. Describes British and French resistance to the American model.

                                        Find this resource:

                                        • Ikenberry, G. John. “The Settlement of 1945.” In After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order After Major Wars. By G. John Ikenberry, 163–214. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001.

                                          Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                          Argues that the Western order was characterized by multilayered institutions and alliances. America was a “reluctant hegemon in Europe” (p. 292). The Allies trusted the United States because the United States was a democracy willing to bind itself to its allies. The United States won the Cold War mainly because of the construction of a democratic club.

                                          Find this resource:

                                          • Layne, Christopher. “The Open Door and American Hegemony in Western Europe.” In The Peace of Illusions: American Grad Strategy from 1940 to the Present. By Christopher Layne, 71–93. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2006.

                                            Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                            Provocative work written by a notable IR theorist who argues that the United States established hegemony in Europe by using the Open Door policy. Institutions created after World War I by the US were created with the purpose of establishing American domination in Western Europe.

                                            Find this resource:

                                            • Lundestad, Geir. “Empire by Invitation? The United States and Western Europe, 1945–1952.” Journal of Peace Research 23.3 (September 1986): 263–276.

                                              DOI: 10.1177/002234338602300305Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                              A classic article written by a renowned historian who argues that the American empire created during the Cold War was an empire “by invitation.” Unlike the Soviet Union, which used force to establish its sphere of influence, the United States was invited by Western European allies to create a transatlantic alliance system.

                                              Find this resource:

                                              • Smith, Tony. “Liberal Democratic Internationalism and the Cold War, 1977–1989.” In America’s Mission: The United States and the Worldwide Struggle for Democracy. Exp. ed. By Tony Smith, 237–300. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012.

                                                Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                Smith defends liberal internationalism forcefully. He investigates how America promoted democracy and human rights during the Cold War.

                                                Find this resource:

                                                The First Bush Administration

                                                The collapse of the Soviet Union during the first Bush administration was a period that could be labeled as “paradise” for most liberal scholars. Liberals rushed to proclaim the beginning of a world order in which democracy and free market economies were victoriously spreading across the world. Fukuyama 1992 heralds the triumph of market economy and liberal democracy around the globe. Krauthammer 1991 signals the beginning of Pax Americana and that of the unipolar moment. The author argues that America had no choice but to lead the world by “unashamedly laying down the rules of world order” (p. 33). President George H. W. Bush, on September 11, 1990, argued that a “new world order” was about to emerge: a world free from threats in which nations share responsibilities for freedom and justice. Conspicuously, the word “democracy” did not appear in the President’s speech. Bush and Scowcroft 1998 argues that their foreign policies were mostly oriented toward international stability and the United States overplayed human rights concerns. Nye 1992 argues that the United States must promote a “new world order” characterized by liberal democracy and respect for human rights. Freedman 1991–1992 analyzes the meaning of the phrase “new world order.” The author claims that, on the one hand, President Bush’s “new world order” appeared to be the triumph of liberalism and free markets; on the other hand, it was presumed that international institutions, particularly the United Nations, will take in a more global active role. Ruggie 1994 makes a different argument and claims that the rhetoric and some of the actions of the policymakers at the end of the Cold War showed an element of continuity with America’s rhetoric and actions at the end of World War I and World War II. A very different interpretation of the “new world order” at the end of the Cold War is presented in the edited volume, Wilson, et al. 1993. Coming from a critical perspective, the essays in this volume analyze the Third World and conclude that the Bush’s “new world order” was not characterized by spreading of democracy but by global economic crisis. As a side note, after the first Bush administration, the term “world order” started being replaced by “globalization,” “global governance,” and “liberal internationalist order.”

                                                • Bush, George H. W. “Toward a New World Order.” Sweet Liberty.

                                                  Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                  Address to Congress and the Nation. Former President Bush argues that the Persian Gulf War represented a window of opportunity for a “new world order to emerge,” an order free from threats in which nations share responsibilities for freedom and justice. Bush acknowledges that this vision of the world was shared by Mikhail Gorbachev.

                                                  Find this resource:

                                                  • Bush, George H. W., and Brent Scowcroft. A World Transformed. New York: Knopf, 1998.

                                                    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                    Detailed account of the first Bush administration foreign policy. Presents the challenges with which the administration was confronted. Claims that the United States was obligated to lead the world and pursue its national interests and international stability within the international community.

                                                    Find this resource:

                                                    • Freedman, Lawrence. “Order and Disorder in the New World.” Foreign Affairs 71.1 (1991–1992): 20–37.

                                                      DOI: 10.2307/20045108Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                      The phrase “new world order” has two interpretations: (i) the triumph of liberalism and free markets, and, (ii) the assumption that the United Nations will take in a global role. The new world is full of challenges. Bush, if reelected, needs to pursue and justify an activist foreign policy.

                                                      Find this resource:

                                                      • Fukuyama, Francis. The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Free Press, 1992.

                                                        Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                        Highly acclaimed and highly criticized work argues that in the absence of a strong opposing ideology, brought about the fall of the Soviet Union, liberal democracies and market economies have triumphed. The end of history is the end of ideological confrontations. In the absence of a competing ideology, the end of history was near.

                                                        Find this resource:

                                                        • Krauthammer, Charles. “The Unipolar Moment.” Foreign Affairs 70.1 (1991): 22–33.

                                                          Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                          Classic work claims that the end of the Cold War and the US victory in the Persian Gulf War marked the beginning of Pax Americana. Unipolarity can be sustainable if the United States does not run its economy into the ground. America has to lay down the rules of world order.

                                                          Find this resource:

                                                          • Nye, J. S., Jr. “What New World Order?” Foreign Affairs 71. 2 (Spring 1992): 83–96.

                                                            DOI: 10.2307/20045126Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                            Important article claims that a new world order had begun—a messy and evolving world order in which America must promote liberal democracy and human rights where it can do so “without causing chaos” (p. 96). The need to maintain alliances and the balance of power is high.

                                                            Find this resource:

                                                            • Ruggie, John Gerard. “Third Try at World Order? America and Multilateralism after the Cold War.” Political Science Quarterly 109.4 (Autumn 1994): 553–570.

                                                              DOI: 10.2307/2151838Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                              Exceptional article which claims that after the Cold War, short of countering external threats to the United States, there was little consensus about US foreign policy objectives and how to pursue them. The new world order rhetoric was resonant with Woodrow Wilson in 1919 and Franklin Roosevelt in 1945.

                                                              Find this resource:

                                                              • Wilson, Richard L., Joel Rocamora, and Barry Gills, eds. Low Intensity Democracy: Political Power in the New World Order. London: Pluto, 1993.

                                                                Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                A critical analysis of the Third World after the Cold War. The conclusion is that we were not dealing with a triumph of democracy, but with crisis created by global economic forces, crisis that could have not been controlled by the countries that the authors analyze.

                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                The Clinton Era

                                                                When it comes to the relation between democracies and world order, the Clinton presidency was very important in two respects: (i) because of its emphasis on democracy promotion, and (ii) because of the introduction of the doctrine of humanitarian intervention. The phrase “new world order” that characterized the first Bush administration’s policy was replaced by concepts such as “the Clinton Doctrine,” “Clinton’s Grand Strategy,” and Clinton’s “democratic enlargement”—all concepts that encapsulated President Clinton’s vision of the world. Brinkley 1997 explains how the Clinton’s administration came up with the phrase “democratic enlargement” to replace George H. W. Bush “new world order.” Dumbrell 2002 analyzes developments between 1993 and 2002 and outlines the tenants of the Clinton Doctrine among which were democratic enlargement and assertive humanitarianism. Cox 2003 analyzes democracy promotion under Clinton and sees it as an instrument used by the Clinton administration to enhance America’s position in the world. Talbot 1996 claims that the Clinton administration made support for democracy promotion abroad one of its priorities. Talbot claims also that when America promotes democracy, US values and national interests reinforce each other. Walt 2000 praises Clinton’s foreign policy and argues that NATO’s intervention in Kosovo was a triumph of humanitarian principles. In contrast with Walt, Mandelbaum and Layne—scholars belonging to different IR theoretical orientations—both criticized Clinton’s intervention in Kosovo and his doctrine of humanitarian intervention (Layne 1999; Mandelbaum 1999).

                                                                • Brinkley, Douglas. “Democratic Enlargement: The Clinton Doctrine.” Foreign Policy 106 (Spring 1997): 110–127.

                                                                  DOI: 10.2307/1149177Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                  Shows how the Clinton administration came up with the phrase “democratic enlargement” to describe the president’s view of the world. Clinton’s entourage decided that “democratic enlargement” must be at the core of America’s mission. NATO enlargement and other various international agreements were also at the heart of the Clinton Doctrine.

                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                  • Cox, Michael. “Wilsonianism Resurgent? The Clinton Administration and the Promotion of Democracy.” In American Democracy Promotion: Impulses, Strategies, and Impacts. Edited by Cox Michael, John Ikenberry, and Takashi Inoguchi, 218–242. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

                                                                    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                    Excellent analysis of democracy promotion under the Clinton administration. Cox denies that Clinton was an idealist and argues that democracy promotion was used only to increase American’s global influence.

                                                                    Find this resource:

                                                                    • Dumbrell, John. “Was There a Clinton Doctrine? President Clinton Foreign Policy Reconsidered.” Diplomacy and Statecraft 13.2 (June 2002): 43–56.

                                                                      DOI: 10.1080/714000309Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                      Defines the Clinton Doctrine and analyzes its development between 1993 and 2001. Determines five candidates for the Clinton Doctrine among which are democratic enlargement and assertive humanitarianism. Argues that dealing with “rogue” states should be considered part of Clinton Doctrine too.

                                                                      Find this resource:

                                                                      • Layne, Christopher. “Blunder in the Balkans: The Clinton Administration’s Bungled War against Serbia.” Policy Analysis 343 (May 1999): 1–19.

                                                                        Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                        Strong criticism of Clinton’s intervention in Kosovo coming from a notable neo-realist. Layne argues that NATO’s intervention in Kosovo was not in America’s interests. He criticizes the “spillover doctrine” that the administration used to justify the intervention.

                                                                        Find this resource:

                                                                        • Mandelbaum, Michael. “A Perfect Failure: NATO’s War against Yugoslavia.” Foreign Affairs 78.5 (September–October 1999): 2–8.

                                                                          DOI: 10.2307/20049444Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                          A criticism of the Clinton’s administration humanitarian intervention in Kosovo. Claims that, besides trying to protect the Albanians in Kosovo, Clinton tried to establish a new doctrine of humanitarian intervention that included the uses of force on behalf of universal values.

                                                                          Find this resource:

                                                                          • Talbot, Strobe. “Democracy and the National Interest.” Foreign Affairs 75.6 (November–December 1996): 47–63.

                                                                            DOI: 10.2307/20047829Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                            Argues that the Clinton administration made support for democracy one of its priorities. Democracy promotion defends America from threats. America’s response to democrats everywhere should be that the United States would be with you as long as you moved in the right direction.

                                                                            Find this resource:

                                                                            • Walt, Stephan M. “Two Cheers for Clinton’s Foreign Policy.” Foreign Affairs 79.2 (March–April 2000): 63–79.

                                                                              DOI: 10.2307/20049641Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                              Written by one of the most notable IR scholars, this article claims that the Clinton administration conducted a successful foreign policy: the administration built a world order rooted in American values, democracy being especially important. Also argues that that NATO’s intervention in Kosovo was a triumph of humanitarian principles.

                                                                              Find this resource:

                                                                              The Second Bush Administration

                                                                              The literature surveyed in this section presents President George W. Bush’s vision of the world and its link to democracies. The literature is geared toward undergraduate and graduate students. It is worth noting that, during the second Bush administration the traumatic events of September 11, 2001, were followed by the beginning of two wars: the war on Afghanistan against Al-Qaida and the war on Iraq. In the light of those events some scholars view the approach of the second Bush administration toward the world as “revolutionary.” Daadler and Lindsey 2005 argues that the revolutionary aspect of George W. Bush’s foreign policy came less from new US foreign policy goals and more from the means employed to achieve them: unilateralism, ad-hoc coalitions to fight terrorism, and an aggressive approach to spreading democracy. Gordon 2006 discusses the fundamentals of the second “Bush Doctrine”: (i) US power is the foundation of the global order; (ii) to fight terrorism the United States must be on offensive and ready to act alone; and (iii) the belief that the United States must spread democracy particularly in the Middle East. Monten 2005 also analyzes the Bush Doctrine. However, Monten comes to a slightly different conclusion. He claims that unilateralism and preemption were not new to US foreign policy. However, where the second Bush administration diverged from tradition was in its particular vehemence with which it adhered to a “vindicationist framework for democracy promotion” (p. 141). Kagan 2008 argues differently. The author claims that the second Bush administration did not bring about any revolution in the US foreign policy. However, protecting US interests such as fighting terrorism and spreading democracy around the world required a global strategy. Drezner 2007 presents a positive view of the second Bush administration. Drezner argues that at the global level the administration made efforts to accommodate new rising powers and promote multilateralism. Jervis 2006 contends that the United States behaved like a revolutionary state because the administration believed that only nondemocratic regimes can sponsor terrorism, and therefore it was right for America to embark on a crusade to transform the world politically. Sørensen 2006 argues that the world order under the second Bush administration was unipolar but “messy.” According to Sørensen a new stable order must be based on democratic liberal principles. Goldsmith 2008 criticizes Bush’s “freedom” agenda and argues that rule-bound democracy was largely produced from within.

                                                                              • Daadler, Ivo H., and James M. Lindsey. America Unbound: The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2005.

                                                                                Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                Provides a compelling analysis claiming that President George W. Bush brought about a revolution in American foreign policy: unilateralism, ad-hoc coalitions to fight terrorism, and an aggressive approach to spreading democracy. The revolutionary changes came from the president himself and could potentially harm the US role in the world.

                                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                                • Drezner, Daniel W. “The New New World Order.” Foreign Affairs 86.2 (March–April 2007): 34–46.

                                                                                  Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                  A more positive view of the second Bush administration; claims that the administration made efforts to include new rising powers and work in a multilateral framework.

                                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                                  • Goldsmith, Arthur. “Making the World Safe for Partial Democracy? Questioning the Premises of Democracy Promotion.” International Security 33.2 (Fall 2008): 120–147.

                                                                                    DOI: 10.1162/isec.2008.33.2.120Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                    Criticizes President George Bush’s “freedom” agenda. Calls attention to two errors in reasoning of the second Bush administration: (i) democracy promotion will not necessarily enhance US security, and (ii) a policy of democracy promotion does not necessarily mean democracy is an attainable outcome because rule-bound democracy is largely produced from within.

                                                                                    Find this resource:

                                                                                    • Gordon, Philip. “The End of the Bush Revolution.” Foreign Affairs 85.4 (July–August 2006): 75–86.

                                                                                      DOI: 10.2307/20032042Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                      Brilliantly discusses the fundamentals of the Bush Doctrine among which the president’s belief that the spreading of democracy is key to world security.

                                                                                      Find this resource:

                                                                                      • Jervis, Robert. “The Remaking of a Unipolar World.” Washington Quarterly 29.3 (Summer 2006): 5–19.

                                                                                        DOI: 10.1162/wash.2006.29.3.5Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                        Notable IR theorist argues that hegemons seek to maintain the international order, not to change it. Bush’s religious convictions influenced his foreign policy and his belief that spreading democracy is in everybody’s interest. Argues that to establish a working democracy is very difficult and it takes a long time.

                                                                                        Find this resource:

                                                                                        • Kagan, Robert. “The September 12 Paradigm.” Foreign Affairs 87.5 (September–October 2008): 25–39.

                                                                                          Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                          Renowned neo-conservative Kagan argues that the second Bush doctrine brought no revolution in US foreign policy. The Bush Doctrine simply provided a useful tool for a strategy designed to advance narrowly defined US national interests.

                                                                                          Find this resource:

                                                                                          • Monten, Jonathan. “The Roots of the Bush Doctrine: Power, Nationalism, and Democracy Promotion in U.S. Strategy.” International Security 29.4 (Spring 2005): 112–156.

                                                                                            DOI: 10.1162/isec.2005.29.4.112Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                            Thoroughly analyzes the fundamentals of the Bush Doctrine and argues that the US power was aggressively employed for political change. The aggressive framework of democracy promotion was what distinguished Bush’s foreign policy from that of his predecessors.

                                                                                            Find this resource:

                                                                                            • Sørensen, Georg. “What Kind of World Order? The International System in the New Millennium.” Cooperation and Conflict 41.4 (December 2006): 393–402.

                                                                                              Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                              Very good discussion of different definitions of world order. Defines the new world order as interregnum. Claims that the world order is a unipolar order and that a policy of imperialist unipolarity encourages American dominance. Argues that a new stable order must be based on democratic liberal principles.

                                                                                              Find this resource:

                                                                                              Democracy in an Era of American Retrenchment

                                                                                              During the Obama administration certain questions have gained momentum and have become the focal point of both academic and policy debates in IR. The questions include: Is American hegemony over? Is the unipolar moment ending, and, if so, what kind of world order will emerge? Is China challenging the Western liberal order? Brooks and Wohlforth 2008 argues that we are still in an age of unipolarity and therefore America can and should wield its power to revise institutions, standards of legitimacy, and economic globalization. Zakaria 2009 presents a different view of the world, which the author calls “the post-American world”: according to Zakaria America is not in decline; it is “the rest” that are rising. US efforts to spread democracy lifted the “rest,” but their emergence will not negatively impact the United States because the world has adopted American cultural and economic values. Ikenberry 2012 argues that in the second part of the 20th century the United States created an unprecedented liberal international order built on consensus rather than on command as the British Empire allegedly was built. However, even if America does not remain the hegemon, the liberal order created by the United States will survive. Kupchan 2012 criticizes the claim that the rise of “the rest” is good for America and claims that rising powers do not seek integration into the American world but seek to adjust the existing world order to their advantage. Mandelbaum 2007 argues that democracy will survive in the 21st century. Nye 2011 argues that although America is not in an absolute decline, its influence will diminish. Therefore, the United States needs to maintain its alliances and to make use of “smart power.” Martin 2012 and Halper 2010 make a total differently argument and claim that American hegemony is vanishing. Martin claims that China is rising as a global power, capable of changing the world order along economic, political, and cultural lines. Halper claims that a “Beijing consensus” is rising and China’s autocratic system and its strategies are changing the world order.

                                                                                              • Brooks, Stephen G., and William C. Wohlforth. World Out of Balance: International Relations and the Challenge of American Primacy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008.

                                                                                                Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                Starts with the assumption that America’s unipolar moment did not end. Concludes that no school of IR has a good answer to the question of why America should feel constrained when it is so powerful. Argues that the United States should use the leverage conferred by its preponderant power to reshape systemic constraints.

                                                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                                                • Halper, Stefan. The Beijing Consensus: How China’s Authoritarian Model Will Dominate the Twenty-First Century. New York: Basic, 2010.

                                                                                                  Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                  China offers help to other countries with no string attached taking precedent over the “Washington consensus” of democracy promotion through economic aid. China’s autocratic system and its strategies are changing the world. As a result, a more autocratic world order will rise with democracy losing ground to authoritarianism.

                                                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                                                  • Ikenberry, G. John. Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012.

                                                                                                    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                    Renowned IR scholar argues that in the second part of the 20th century the United States has created an unprecedented liberal international order. Even if America does not remain the hegemon, the liberal order that it created will survive. In this new world America must pursue a strategy of a liberal leviathan.

                                                                                                    Find this resource:

                                                                                                    • Kupchan, Charles A. No One’s World: The West, The Rising Rest, and the Coming Global Turn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

                                                                                                      Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                      In an exceptional book Kupchan claims that rising powers do not seek integration into the American world but seek to adjust the prevailing order to advantage themselves. The world order is not anymore unipolar or multipolar. Power is diffused, and the United States needs to understand the new world and adapt to it.

                                                                                                      Find this resource:

                                                                                                      • Mandelbaum, Michael. “Democracy without America: The Spontaneous Spread of Freedom.” Foreign Affairs 86.5 (September–October 2007): 119–130.

                                                                                                        Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                        Mandelbaum argues that, despite the failure of the second Bush administration to promote democracy, democracy will survive in the 21st century. Pressures for democratic change will grow where market economies are adopted with or without the US democracy promotion efforts.

                                                                                                        Find this resource:

                                                                                                        • Martin, Jacques. When China Rules the World: The End of the Western World and the Birth of a New Global Order. 2d ed. New York: Penguin, 2012.

                                                                                                          Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                          Very provocative book argues that American hegemony is vanishing and China is rising as a global power capable to change the world order along economic, political, and cultural lines. China will soon rule the world if it manages to make institutional and cultural improvements.

                                                                                                          Find this resource:

                                                                                                          • Nye, Joseph S., Jr. “Power Transition: The Question of American Decline.” In The Future of Power. By Joseph S. Nye Jr., 153–204. New York: Public Affairs, 2011.

                                                                                                            Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                            The architect of “soft power,” brings us “smart power.” Nye argues that America is not in absolute decline. However, American economic and cultural influence will become less dominant. Therefore there is a need for the United States to maintain alliances and combine hard and soft power into smart power.

                                                                                                            Find this resource:

                                                                                                            • Zakaria, Fareed. The Post-American World. New York: Norton, 2009.

                                                                                                              Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                              Bestselling book that presents an optimistic view of the world. The post-American world is not anymore centered on the United States. “The rest” such as China, India, and Brazil are rising. However, America will remain the global superpower because the world has adopted American cultural and economic values.

                                                                                                              Find this resource:

                                                                                                              Globalization

                                                                                                              Globalization, praised by some scholars and policymakers and criticized by others, remains a very important phenomenon of our time. The four subsections will discuss the phenomenon of globalization. The first section defines globalization as world order. The second section presents the link or lack thereof between globalization and democracy. The last two sections highlight the linkages between globalization and human rights and, globalization and inequalities. The target audiences of the surveyed literature are upper division undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                              Definition

                                                                                                              In the globalization literature, there are mainly three theses: (i) the (hyper)globalist thesis, (ii) the skeptical thesis, and (iii) the transformationalist thesis. Martell 2007 analyzes all three views and offers an exceptional critique of them, with focus on the transformationalist one. Steger 2009 provides a short introduction to the concept of globalization and discusses its economic, political, cultural, and ecological dimensions. In Held and McGrew 2003 various scholars discuss different conceptualizations of globalization. Scholte 2008 conceives of globalization as respatialization of social life, different from ideas of internationalization, liberalization, and westernization. Albrow 1996, a classic work on globalization, defines it in the context of historical transformation and alludes to the formation of a new kind of citizenship. The reference to the creation of a new kind of citizenship connects Albrow with transformationalists such as Held and McGrew. Keohane 2001 defines globalization as “shrinkages of distance on a world scale” (p. 1) and argues that globalization conduces to more international cooperation, an institutionalist perspective that Scholte rejects. Furthermore, Keohane argues for the creation of effective and humane global governance with democratic states having control over international institutions. Al-Rodhan and Stoudmann 2006 compiles various definitions of globalization and concludes that globalization is “a process that encompasses causes, course, and consequences of transnational and transcultural integration of human and non-human activities” (p. 2).

                                                                                                              • Albrow, Martin. “Globalization: Theorizing the Transition.” In The Global Age: State and Society beyond Modernity. By Martin Albrow, 75–96. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1996.

                                                                                                                Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                Classic cross-disciplinary work that defines globalization in the context of historical transformation and alludes to the formation of a new kind of citizenship. Criticizes the view of globalization as a preestablished path to development and the post-modernist view of globalization. Points out the ambiguities in the analytic concept of globalization.

                                                                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                                                                • Al-Rodhan, Nayef R. F., and Gérard Stoudmann. Definitions of Globalization: A Comprehensive Overview and a Proposed Definition. Geneva, Switzerland: Geneva Center for Security Policy, 2006.

                                                                                                                  Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                  Compiles different definitions of globalization. After compilation, the following definition is provided: “Globalization is a process that encompasses causes, course, and consequences of transnational and transcultural integration of human and non-human activities” (p. 2).

                                                                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                                                                  • Held, David, and Anthony G. McGrew. “Part I: Understanding Globalization.” In The Global Transformations Reader: An Introduction to the Globalization Debate. 2d ed. Edited by David Held and Anthony G. McGrew, 51–120. Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2003.

                                                                                                                    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                    In this edited volume preeminent scholars discuss the conceptualization, meanings and theorization of globalization. Globalization is see either as an empire (Marxist perspective), as American power (liberal internationalist world order), or as a simple myth.

                                                                                                                    Find this resource:

                                                                                                                    • Keohane, Robert. “Governance in a Partially Globalized World.” American Political Science Review 95.1 (March 2001): 1–13.

                                                                                                                      Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                      Preeminent IR scholar defines globalization as “shrinkages of distance on a world scale through the emergence and thickening of networks of connections” (p. 1). Argues that globalization creates potential for cooperation. Imagines a partially globalized world that would not be governed by representative electoral democracies.

                                                                                                                      Find this resource:

                                                                                                                      • Martell, Luke. “The Third Wave in Globalization Theory.” International Studies Review 9.2 (Summer 2007): 173–196.

                                                                                                                        DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2486.2007.00670.xSave Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                        Exceptional analysis of the three waves of globalization theory: the (hyper)globalist, the skeptical, and the post-skeptical or transformational wave. Particularly the discussion surrounds the third wave of globalization with its hallmark of economic–territorialization and cosmopolitan democracy.

                                                                                                                        Find this resource:

                                                                                                                        • Scholte, Jan Aart. “Defining Globalization.” World Economy 31.11 (November 2008): 1471–1502.

                                                                                                                          Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                          Brilliant work that defines globalization as respatialization of social life different from ideas of internationalization, liberalization, and westernization. Scholte argues for supraterritorial rather than trans-territorial relations. Supraterritorial includes traveling by plane, global media, global consumption, and a series of transworld simultaneities and instantaneities.

                                                                                                                          Find this resource:

                                                                                                                          • Steger, Manfred B. Globalization: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2009.

                                                                                                                            Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                            An introduction to globalization that will benefit an undergraduate audience. Discusses the economic, political, cultural, and ecological dimensions of globalization and the debates that surround the concept of globalization.

                                                                                                                            Find this resource:

                                                                                                                            Democracy

                                                                                                                            Can democracy be extended beyond borders? Does democracy need a nation-state or can it flourish beyond it? Does globalization weaken national democracies? These are some of the most important questions that the following literature review on globalization and democracy are trying to answer. McGrew 1997 studies the impact of globalization on liberal democracies. The author analyzes how globalization transforms the conditions under which liberal democratic states operate. Held 2006 analyzes various theories of democracy, introduces the concept of “deliberative democracy,” and argues that a model of “cosmopolitan democracy” is best suited to respond to global problems. Leatherman 2005 claims that already transnational democracy is practiced by a series of actors that are forging new community boundaries. Anderson 2002 is the editor of a series of essays mostly dealing with globalization and the European Union. Kuper 2004 calls for “responsive democracy,” a type of democracy defined as a multiform global system. Kuper presents a novel, nonstate theory of global justice and democracy. Falk 1998 focuses on the negative impact of globalization and the efforts of voluntary associations to address them. Stiglitz 2002 presents a sharp critique of globalization, particularly the International Monetary Fund, and Rodrik 2012 explores the limits of economic global cooperation and makes the case for “customizable” globalization.

                                                                                                                            • Anderson, James, ed. Transnational Democracy: Political Spaces and Border Crossings. New York: Routledge, 2002.

                                                                                                                              DOI: 10.4324/9780203464427Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                              Very provocative series of essays mainly dealing with the problems of the European Union and its well-known democratic deficit. Critical of the lack of transnational democracy. Nevertheless acknowledges that globalization presents opportunities for a democracy beyond borders.

                                                                                                                              Find this resource:

                                                                                                                              • Falk, Richard. “Global Civil Society: Perspectives, Initiatives, Movements.” Oxford Agrarian Studies 26.1 (1998): 99–110.

                                                                                                                                DOI: 10.1080/13600819808424147Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                Important article that focuses on the efforts of voluntary associations to address the negative impacts of globalization. Explores globalization from below, an overall effort to moderate market logic by reference to values embodied in “normative democracy.”

                                                                                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                • Held, David. Models of Democracy. 3d ed. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2006.

                                                                                                                                  Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                  Major work written by one of the most preeminent scholars of the third wave of globalization. Explores and analyzes classical models of democracy. This edition contains a new chapter on deliberative democracy with focus on citizenship and a chapter on cosmopolitan democracy for a globalized world.

                                                                                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                  • Kuper, Andrew. Democracy beyond Borders: Justice and Representation in Global Institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

                                                                                                                                    DOI: 10.1093/0199274908.001.0001Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                    Makes an argument for what Kuper calls “Responsive Democracy” defined as a multiform global system. Presents a theory of global justice, a theory of democratic representation and a theory of “political and moral ideas.” These three theories form a novel, nonstate theory of global justice and democracy.

                                                                                                                                    Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                    • Leatherman, Janie. “Making Space for Transnational Democracy.” In Charting Transnational Democracy: Beyond Global Arrogance. Edited by Janie Leatherman and Julie A. Webber, 269–287. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.

                                                                                                                                      DOI: 10.1057/9781403981080Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                      Argues that a series of actors are indeed practicing transnational democracy by forging new boundaries of community while searching for shared solutions to challenges such as environmental damage, terrorism, economic globalization, and the crisis of hegemony.

                                                                                                                                      Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                      • McGrew, Anthony G., ed. The Transformation of Democracy?: Globalization and Territorial Democracy. Cambridge, UK: Polity, 1997.

                                                                                                                                        Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                        Important work studies the impact of globalization on liberal democracies. Discusses various models of global democracy including (i) liberal democratic internationalism (“neighborhood democracy”); (ii) radical communitarianism (“demarchy”); and (iii) cosmopolitanism (“cosmopolitan democracy”) that seeks to replace the primacy of power politics with the primacy of democratic decision-making.

                                                                                                                                        Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                        • Rodrik, Dani. The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy. New York: Norton, 2012.

                                                                                                                                          Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                          Important work argues that we cannot have at the same time democracy, economic integration, and national sovereignty. Contends that when the demands of democracy collide with those of globalization, the national agenda should take precedence. Makes the case for “customizable” globalization.

                                                                                                                                          Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                          • Stiglitz, Joseph E. Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: Norton, 2002.

                                                                                                                                            Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                            Nobel Prize winner attacks globalization, particularly the International Monetary Fund. Also presents an analysis of how to improve the economy for the benefit of disadvantaged societies.

                                                                                                                                            Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                            Human Rights

                                                                                                                                            Are human rights under attack, or are they being helped by the process of globalization? This is an ongoing debate that has gathered steam since the 1990s. The following literature review will benefit students interested in the link between globalization, democracy, and human rights. McCorquodale and Fairbrother 1999 claims that the process of globalization creates opportunities and dangers at the same time in the human rights sphere. The authors study the effects of globalization on the protection of human rights through international law. Donnelly 1999 presents a brilliant essay that challenges the idea that democracy, human rights, and development mutually reinforce each other. Brysk 2002 presents a collection of essays that highlights the new challenges that globalization brought about and identifies way to address them. Evans 2005 focuses on the political economy of human rights. The author argues that promoting human rights has been severely weakened under globalization. Nault and England 2011 addresses globalization and human rights in the developing world.

                                                                                                                                            • Alison Brysk, ed. Globalization and Human Rights. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.

                                                                                                                                              Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                              Edited volume includes theoretical analyses by Falk, Donnelly, and Rosenau and addresses globalization’s impact on human rights in areas such as global markets, technology, humanitarian interventions, and women rights. The issue of addressing the challenges of globalization forms part of this important volume.

                                                                                                                                              Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                              • Donnelly, Jack. “Human Rights, Democracy and Development.” Human Rights Quarterly 21.3 (August 1999): 608–632.

                                                                                                                                                DOI: 10.1353/hrq.1999.0039Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                Exceptional article focuses on the tensions among democracy, human rights, and development. Challenges the idea that the three categories are interdependent and that they are reinforcing. Instead, their interaction creates tensions that need to be addressed.

                                                                                                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                • Evans, Tony. The Politics of Human Rights: A Global Perspective. London: Pluto, 2005.

                                                                                                                                                  Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                  Great book examines the impact globalization has on human rights around the world. Claims that the role of the state was weakened by globalization. Globalization constitutes the cause of many human rights violations.

                                                                                                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                  • McCorquodale, Robert, and Richard Fairbrother. “Globalization and Human Rights.” Human Rights Quarterly 21.3 (August 1999): 735–766.

                                                                                                                                                    DOI: 10.1353/hrq.1999.0041Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                    Focuses on Africa; studies the effect of globalization on the protection of human rights through international human rights laws. Also studies the impact of economic processes of globalization on protection of human rights. Claims that the process of globalization creates opportunities and dangers for human rights the same time.

                                                                                                                                                    Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                    • Nault, Derrick M., and Shawn L. England. Globalization and Human Rights in the Developing World. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.

                                                                                                                                                      DOI: 10.1057/9780230316966Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                      Addresses problems of state and human rights, transnational corporations and human rights, and genocide. Highlights the developing world where those problems are gravely exacerbated by globalization.

                                                                                                                                                      Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                      Inequalities

                                                                                                                                                      The following literature review will benefit students interested in the link between globalization, inequalities, and democracies. Dallmayr 2002 argues that globalization creates social inequalities. The author focuses on three types of inequalities created by globalization: power, wealth, and knowledge. Dallmayr proposes the construction of a system of cosmopolitan justice to counter those inequalities. Sandbrook and Romano 2004 brings into the inequity equation new factors. The authors claim that globalization generates conditions conducive to extremist movements, instability, and conflict in poor countries. Navarro 2007, in a collection of essays, questions the tenets of neoliberalism and globalization and claims that the Washington consensus and the Brussels consensus had negative consequences in the countries in which they were applied. Walby 2009, an acclaimed book, studies global processes and economic inequalities, democracy and modernity. The author provides a new way of looking at modernity. Grubber 2011 lies out a research agenda for future oriented globalization research in which the nexus between growth and equity would become the main focus of the literature on development. Freeman and Quinn 2012 claims that financially integrated autocracies with high level of inequality tend to democratize.

                                                                                                                                                      • Dallmayr, Fred R. “Globalization and Inequality: A plea for Global Justice.” International Studies Review 4.2 (Summer 2002): 137–156.

                                                                                                                                                        DOI: 10.1111/1521-9488.00259Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                        Argues that globalization in its present form leads to social inequalities. Studies three types of inequalities: inequalities of power, wealth, and knowledge. Argues for cosmopolitan justice or global democratic justice to counter these inequalities.

                                                                                                                                                        Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                        • Freeman, John R., and Dennis P. Quinn. “The Economic Origins of Democracy Reconsidered.” American Political Science Review 106.1 (February 2012): 58–80.

                                                                                                                                                          DOI: 10.1017/S0003055411000505Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                          Studies the effects of globalization on democratization. It finds that financially integrated autocracies, especially those with high level of inequality, tend to democratize.

                                                                                                                                                          Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                          • Grubber, Lloyd. “Globalization with Growth and Equity: Can We Really Have It All?” Third World Quarterly 32.4 (2011): 629–652.

                                                                                                                                                            DOI: 10.1080/01436597.2011.569324Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                            Claims that we do not know much about globalization’s long-term impact on development. Lays out a research agenda for future oriented globalization research in which the nexus between growth and equity must be situated at the theoretical center of the development literature.

                                                                                                                                                            Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                            • Navarro, Vicente, ed. Neoliberalism, Globalization and Inequalities: Consequences for Health and Quality of Life. New York: Baywood, 2007.

                                                                                                                                                              Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                              Collection of articles by notable scholars that challenges the neoliberal market ideology coming from Washington, DC, and Brussels that has come to dominate the global order, particularly international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, and the technical agencies of the United Nations.

                                                                                                                                                              Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                              • Sandbrook, Richard, and David Romano. “Globalism, Extremism, and Violence in Poorer Countries.” Third World Quarterly 25.6 (2004): 1007–1030.

                                                                                                                                                                DOI: 10.1080/0143659042000256869Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                Argues that in poor countries globalization generates conditions conducive to extremist movements, instability, and conflict. Yet, in other countries globalization has a different effect and it is conducive to growth and stability. The authors claim that the difference in paths lies in “contingent institutional and class processes.” (p. 1007)

                                                                                                                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                • Walby, Sylvia. Globalization and Inequalities: Complexity and Contested. London: SAGE, 2009.

                                                                                                                                                                  Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                  Focuses on North America and Europe; dismantles conservative versions of system theory and provides a new way of looking at modernity and at ways in which democratic states construct inequality. An important model for understanding social chance.

                                                                                                                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                  The (Neo)Liberals

                                                                                                                                                                  Generally liberalism encompasses three main currents: (i) (neo)institutionalism; (ii) the democratic peace whose proponents are sometime called “liberal ideologues”; and (iii) economic liberalism. (Neo)institutionalists are mostly preoccupied with international institutions and their effect on anarchy. The world order that they envision is one in which international intuitions contribute greatly to the world peace and have the potential to influence, for the best, domestic conditions within (un)democratic states. The core thesis of the democratic peace theorists is that democracies do not go to war with each other. The end game here is the achievement of zones of peace or, if possible, of an entirely peaceful world formed from democratic states. Economic liberalism usually claims that economic interdependence leads to peace. In other words, a world whose economies are highly connected is more likely to be peaceful. Very few IR scholars belong to those schools of thought in their pure forms. In most literature we find those schools combined. However, all liberals reject the realist assumption that anarchy cannot be mitigated at least one way or another. The following three sections surveys literature pertinent to the (neo)institutionalist, the democratic peace, and the economic liberal orders. For economic liberalism see also the section on Globalization: Inequalities. This survey will benefit advanced IR undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                  The (Neo)Institutionalists

                                                                                                                                                                  This section surveys sources that address the link between international institutions, peace, and democracy. After Kenneth Waltz’s Theory of International Politics, the neoinstitutionalists’ camp has come to recognize that anarchy is a condition of the international system. However, institutionalists are convinced that states that work through international institutions can create a world in which the effects of anarchy, mainly war, can be mitigated, and therefore war will not occur so often. Moreover, some of the liberal institutionalist scholars test the claim that international organizations not only mitigate the effects of anarchy but may also secure democracy around the world. Keohane and Martin 1995 criticizes the anti-institutionalism of the neorealist scholar John Mearsheimer. The authors argue that international institutions that operate on the basis of reciprocity are a component of lasting peace. Keohane, et al. 2009 replies to the criticism that international institutions impact domestic democracies in a negative way. On the contrary, these authors argue, multilateral international institutions can enhance the quality of internal democracy. Pevehouse 2002 conducts a study in which the author finds that, from 1950 to 1992, membership in regional international organizations correlates with transition to democracy. Pevehouse and Russett 2006 proposes a theoretical framework that focuses on the contributions of intergovernmental organizations to conflict resolution. Barnett and Finnemore 2004 engages the topic of “global bureaucratization” and its link to democratic accountability, and Mansfield, et al. 2002 introduces an economic element into the analysis by arguing that democratic countries are about twice as likely as autocratic ones to form preferential trade agreements.

                                                                                                                                                                  • Barnett, Michael, and Martha Finnemore. Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2004.

                                                                                                                                                                    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                    Leading political scientists discuss what “global bureaucratization” means for democratic accountability. They argue that, once established by states, international organizations take a life of their own.

                                                                                                                                                                    Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                    • Keohane, Robert O., Stephen Macedo, and Andrew Moravcsik. “Democracy-Enhancing Multilateralism.” International Organization 63.1 (January 2009): 1–31.

                                                                                                                                                                      DOI: 10.1017/S0020818309090018Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                      Important defense of multilateral international institutions by leading IR scholars. They argue that multilateral international institutions can enhance the quality of democracy within states and spell out standards to be used to evaluate the reforms of international institutions.

                                                                                                                                                                      Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                      • Keohane, Robert O., and Lisa L. Martin. “The Promise of Institutional Theory.” International Security 20.2 (Summer 1995): 35–51.

                                                                                                                                                                        Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                        Leading insitutionalist scholars criticize John Mearsheimer’s realist view of institutionalism. They argue that in a world constrained by state power international institutions are undeniable components of lasting peace. However, those institutions have to operate on the basis of reciprocity.

                                                                                                                                                                        Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                        • Mansfield, Edward, Helen Miller, and B. Peter Rosendorf. “Why Democracies Cooperate More: Electoral Control and International Trade Agreements.” International Organization 56.3 (Summer 2002): 477–514.

                                                                                                                                                                          DOI: 10.1162/002081802760199863Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                          Claim that interstate cooperation on commercial issues depends on the political regime types of the engaged states. Democratic countries are about twice as likely as autocratic ones to form preferential trade agreements.

                                                                                                                                                                          Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                          • Pevehouse, Jon C. “Democracy from the Outside-In? International Organizations and Democratization.” International Organization 56.3 (Summer 2002): 515–549.

                                                                                                                                                                            DOI: 10.1162/002081802760199872Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                            Valuable article addresses the lack of theoretical and empirical evidence for the claim that international organizations have the ability to secure democracy around the world. Finds that membership in regional international organizations only correlates with transition to democracy from 1950 to 1992.

                                                                                                                                                                            Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                            • Pevehouse, Jon C., and Bruce Russett. “Democratic International Governmental Organizations Promote Peace.” International Organization 60.4 (October 2006): 969–1000.

                                                                                                                                                                              Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                              Leading scholars propose a theoretical framework that focuses on the contributions of a particular kind of intergovernmental organization to conflict resolution and state socialization to peaceful behavior.

                                                                                                                                                                              Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                              The Democratic Peace Theory and its Critics

                                                                                                                                                                              This section maps out literature on the democratic peace theory and targets undergraduate and graduate students. The literature presents the world view of the democratic peace theorists and the main critiques of democratic peace theory. The democratic peace theorists are preoccupied with the relationship between war and democracies. They believe that democratic states do not go to war with each other, and therefore world peace can be obtain if all states become democratic. Russett 1993, a preeminent work, spells out the democratic peace theory and argues that peace is a product of democratically shared norms. Doyle 1986 analyzes the differences between liberal pacifism, liberal imperialism, and Kant’s internationalism. Owen 1994 attempts to remedy the critique that the democratic peace theory lacks theoretical foundation. Owen argues that liberal ideas cause liberal democracies to tend away from war with one another and the same idea push these states into war with illiberal states. Huth and Allee 2002 develops an analytical and empirical study and concludes that the democratic peace theory holds because, among other factors, democratic leaders are accountable to domestic institutions. However, Oneal and Russett 1999 finds that democracy, economic interdependence, and international organizations together reduce the likelihood that states will go to war with each other, which is a modification of the original democratic peace theory. Strong criticism of the democratic peace theory comes generally from realists. Layne 1994 argues that power calculations and not democracy is the key variable that stops war. Rosato 2003 scrutinizes the logic of the democratic peace theory and points out its flaws. Thompson 1996 raises the very important question of whether peace antecedes democracy or the other way around.

                                                                                                                                                                              • Doyle, Michael. “Liberalism and World Politics.” American Political Science Review 80.4 (December 1986): 1151–1169.

                                                                                                                                                                                DOI: 10.2307/1960861Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                Preeminent liberal analyzes the differences between liberal pacifism, liberal imperialism, and Kant’s internationalism. Concludes that liberal states are different (i.e., they are peaceful).

                                                                                                                                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                • Huth, Paul K., and Todd L. Allee. The Democratic Peace and Territorial Conflict in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

                                                                                                                                                                                  Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                  An impressive analytical and empirical study, the book seeks to explain the validity of the democratic peace theory. It concludes that the democratic peace theory holds because, among other factors, democratic leaders are accountable to domestic institutions and democracies are prone to find common interests in the international arena.

                                                                                                                                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                  • Layne, Christopher. “Kant or Cant: The Myth of the Democratic Peace.” International Security 19.2 (Fall 1994): 5–49.

                                                                                                                                                                                    DOI: 10.2307/2539195Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                    Notable neorealist scholar tests competing explanations of international outcomes offered by the democratic peace theory. Finds that power calculations and not democracy is the variable that stops war. Argues that from a realist perspective that the democratic peace theory reversed the linkage between international systemic constraints and domestic political institutions.

                                                                                                                                                                                    Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                    • Oneal, John R., and Bruce Russett. “The Kantian Peace: The Pacific Benefits of Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations: 1885–1992.” World Politics 52.1 (October 1999): 1–37.

                                                                                                                                                                                      DOI: 10.1017/S0043887100020013Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                      Preeminent scholars show that democracy, economic interdependence, and international organizations reduce the likelihood that states will go to war with each other. However, the authors find that some realist variables such as distance and power reduce the likelihood of war too.

                                                                                                                                                                                      Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                      • Owen, John M. “How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace.” International Security 19.2 (Fall 1994): 87–125.

                                                                                                                                                                                        DOI: 10.2307/2539197Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                        Preeminent scholar points out one critique of the democratic peace theory: it lacks theoretical foundation. In an attempt to remedy this, he argues that liberal ideas cause liberal democracies to tend away from war with one another, and the same ideas push these states into war with illiberal states.

                                                                                                                                                                                        Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                        • Rosato, Sebastian. “The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory.” American Political Science Review 4 (November 2003): 585–602.

                                                                                                                                                                                          Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                          Scrutinizes the logic of the democratic peace theory. Claims that, even if there are reasons to believe that there is peace among democratic states, this peace may not be caused by the democratic nature of these states.

                                                                                                                                                                                          Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                          • Russett, Bruce. Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993.

                                                                                                                                                                                            Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                            Argues that democratic states almost never fight with each other. Claims that peace is the product of democratically shared norms. New democracies that rose after the Cold War may compromise the democratic peace because of internal ethnic conflict. Discounts the fact that peace could be a product of international institutions.

                                                                                                                                                                                            Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                            • Thompson, William R. 1996. “Democracy and Peace: Putting the Cart before the Horse?” International Organization 50.1 (Winter 1996): 141–174.

                                                                                                                                                                                              DOI: 10.1017/S0020818300001697Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                              Raises the highly important question of whether peace antecedes democracy or the other way around. Analyzes four historical cases that illustrate how regional primacy issues preceded the development of democracy and either undermined or facilitated democratization processes in major powers. Concludes that more studies should be done.

                                                                                                                                                                                              Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                              Economic Liberalism, International Regimes, and Trade

                                                                                                                                                                                              Economic liberalism envisions a world primarily characterized by economic interdependence. Economic interdependence is believed to create a more peaceful world and in some cases to help foster democracy. Gilpin 2001 points out that markets are embedded in social and political structures. Great powers make the international rules and benefit from them. Keohane 1984 in an excellent work studies international economic regimes and claims that the order already established by international economic regimes will survive American hegemony. Ruggie 1982 makes a somewhat similarly argument: postwar regimes built for money and trade will survive. Blyth 2002 argues that economic ideas have an important impact on politics. Dorussen and Ward 2010 claims that trade networks are pacifying. In the same vein, Lupu and Traag 2013 argues that indirect trade relations reduce conflict.

                                                                                                                                                                                              • Blyth, Mark. Great Transformations: Economic Ideas and Institutional Change in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

                                                                                                                                                                                                DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139087230Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                Significant work shows how economic ideas impact the political sphere, by analyzing economic and political change in United States and Sweden between 1920s and 1990s.

                                                                                                                                                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                • Dorussen, Han, and Hugh Ward. “Trade Networks and the Kantian Peace.” Journal of Peace Research 47.1 (January 2010): 29–42.

                                                                                                                                                                                                  DOI: 10.1177/0022343309350011Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                  Argue that trade networks are pacifying. Direct and indirect linkages matter. Since World War II a security community of trading states was created.

                                                                                                                                                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                  • Gilpin, Robert. Global Political Economy: Understanding the International Economic Order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001.

                                                                                                                                                                                                    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                    Brilliant work by an exceptional international political economy scholar argues that markets are embedded in social and political structures. States will remain powerful actors. International rules are made by great powers which benefit from them. Academics, students of IR, and the general audience will benefit greatly from this book.

                                                                                                                                                                                                    Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                    • Keohane, Robert O. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984.

                                                                                                                                                                                                      Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                      Outstanding book that studies international economic regimes and patters of cooperation and discord. The main claim is the order created by international regimes will survive even if American hegemony dissipates.

                                                                                                                                                                                                      Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                      • Lupu, Yonatan, and Vincent A. Traag. “Trading Communities, the Networked Structure of International Relations, and the Kantian Peace.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 57.6 (December 2013): 1011–1042.

                                                                                                                                                                                                        DOI: 10.1177/0022002712453708.Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                        Argues that indirect trade relations reduce the probability of conflict because the interruptions to trade in the case of conflict creates high costs for states involved in trading communities.

                                                                                                                                                                                                        Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                        • Ruggie, John Gerard. “International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order.” International Organization 36.2 (Spring 1982): 379–415.

                                                                                                                                                                                                          DOI: 10.1017/S0020818300018993Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                          Addressing the world of actual international economic regimes, in an exceptional article Ruggie argues that the Pax Britannica and Pax Americana cannot be equated and that the postwar regimes built for money and trade will survive.

                                                                                                                                                                                                          Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                          The Liberal Internationalist Order

                                                                                                                                                                                                          The liberal international order is the result of a doctrine that argues for the simultaneous advancement and creation of international institutions, liberal economic practices, collective security, and spreading of democracy. In other words, it is a foreign policy strategy that advances all liberal concepts at the same time. Highly mistrusted and criticized by realist scholars, liberal internationalism is the bread and butter of liberal American and British strategists. This section maps out works that target undergraduate and graduate students. Lang 2008 presents a view of Hobson British liberal institutionalism that mostly is equated with imperialism. Deudney and Ikenberry 2012 offers a history of American liberal internationalism including the authors’ interpretation of what America—for the good of the world—should do to remain at the apex of international power. Mandelbaum 2004 analyzes the elements of liberal order: political and economic institutions, and security arrangements conducive to peace. Dueck 2003–2004 refutes the argument that George W. Bush’s foreign policy was different from that of his predecessors starting with President Wilson. In Dueck’s opinion, for about one hundred years American foreign policy was highly informed by liberal internationalism. Dunne and McDonald 2013 claims that liberal internationalism has received little attention in IR and tries to situate it in the discipline. Hoffman 1995 points out toward the crisis of liberal internationalism. See also the section Wilsonianism.

                                                                                                                                                                                                          • Deudney, Daniel, and G. John Ikenberry. “Democratic Internationalism: An American Grand Strategy for a Post-Exceptionalist Era.” Working paper, Council on Foreign Relations, International Institutions and Global Governance Program, November 2012.

                                                                                                                                                                                                            Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                            A history of American liberal internationalism written by two preeminent scholars in search of a recipe that can keep America at the top of the world. Their prescriptions include the deepening and strengthening of democratic states and the buttressing of collaboration among democratic states.

                                                                                                                                                                                                            Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                            • Dueck, Colin. “Hegemony on the Cheap: Liberal Internationalism from Wilson to Bush?” World Policy Journal 20.4 (Winter 2003–2004): 1–11.

                                                                                                                                                                                                              Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                              Compelling view of US foreign policy starting with President Wilson and ending with President George W. Bush. Argues that the US foreign policy during this entire period was influenced by liberal internationalism.

                                                                                                                                                                                                              Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                              • Dunne, Tim, and Matt McDonald. “The Politics of Liberal Internationalism.” International Politics 50 (2013): 1–17.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                DOI: 10.1057/ip.2012.25Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                                Written by two significant IR scholars, this article locates and analyzes liberal internationalism in IR. It makes the case that liberal internationalism should be situated at the intersection between normative and practical concerns.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                • Hoffman, Stanley. “The Crisis of Liberal Internationalism.” Foreign Policy 98 (Spring 1995): 159–177.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  DOI: 10.2307/1148964Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Preeminent IR scholar argues that liberal internationalism apart from delivering goods has created two important problems: the formation of a zone of irresponsibility in the economic realm and the domestic backlash against interdependence.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  • Lang, David. Towards a New Liberal Internationalism: The International Theory of J. A. Hobson. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Makes an important contribution to the understanding of British internationalism by analyzing Hobson’s political, social, and economic thought. Scholars and students of IR will find it very useful.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                    • Mandelbaum, Michael. The Ideas That Conquered the World: Peace, Democracy, and Free Markets in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Public Affairs, 2004.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Argues that the liberal order will survive in the 21st century. Examines in historical context elements of liberal order: political and economic institutions and security arrangements conducive to peace. The book adds to transition theories.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      back to top

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Article

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Up

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Down