The reading that I want to discuss, is the fourth chapter of the Dunne textbook, on Liberalism. I picked this one because I felt it really expanded my knowledge of liberalism from POLI 260. It was useful for the course in that liberalism is one of the main theories of IR, and therefore a fairly important concept to understand.

The chapter focuses quite a bit on the thoughts of Immanuel Kant, who believed that natural self-interest could allow individuals to take action to bring peace. More specifically, Kant suggests that in order to overcome the security dilemma, the following is needed: democracy, economic interdependence, and international law and organizations. Under the democratic peace theory, democracies will refrain from using force against other democracies. Therefore, the more democracies that exist in the world, the more peace there will be. Economically important trade serves as an incentive to maintain peaceful relations amongst countries. The international organizations serve as peace promoters under this philosophy. The text uses the creation of the European Union as a case study. Following World War II, the European leaders felt it was the failure of democracy that caused the war, hence the need to re-establish democracy. They understood that in order to thrive economically, they needed a market bigger than just one country, hence the economic integration. This increase of free trade needed regulations and international institutions. I thought this case study was interesting, as previous to reading this chapter I struggled to find an example of liberalist IR actually happening in the world.  It seems easier, or that more examples are available for realist theory.

The text also describes the difference between the dyadic perspective and the monadic perspective, two terms of which I had not been aware. The dyadic perspective describes the relationship between two actors, usually states. For example, if these two actors share the same democratic values they will not go to war. The monadic perspective refers to republican states’ aversion to war. The text seems to favour the dyadic perspective, stating that it includes domestic political interactions as well as the interactions between two states, whereas the monadic perspective ignores the interactions with other states.

The final thing I found interesting and useful about this chapter with the notion of the democratic peace theory being a self-perpetuating system. I think this is where I find that liberalism loses credibility as a good theory. As the text points out, states that are already at peace tend to need fewer restraints on democracy. So if its easier to have democracy in a peaceful state, and the theory is that democracy creates peace ends up in an endless cycle. Personally, I think that it is hard to actually prove the validity of the democratic peace theory, because democracy is too narrow a factor. Democracy and peace could occur simultaneously without one causing the other.

All in all, I began reading this chapter as a sceptic of the potential of liberalism, and emerged more informed, but still not convinced that the democratic peace theory is not self-perpetuating.