Karen_A._Mingst,_Ivan_M._Arregu_n-Toft]_Essentia

88 CHAPTER THREE ■ InternatIonal relatIons theorIes

is: Why? Vari ous liberal explanations provide potential answers. One argument is that
the demo cratic pro cess inhibits aggression; leaders in democracies hear from a multi-
plicity of voices that tend to restrain decision makers and therefore lessen the chance
of war. Another argument is that transnational and international institutions that bind
democracies together through dense networks act to constrain be hav ior. These expla-
nations are based on liberal theorizing. The policy implications are clear: replacing dic-
tators with demo cratic governments could reduce the likelihood of interstate war, a
net benefit to every state in the system of states.
Second, the scholar and former policy analyst Francis Fukuyama sees not just a
revival but also a victory for international liberalism following the end of the Cold
War. He admits that some groups, such as Palestinians and Israelis, and Armenians
and Azeris, will continue to have grievances against one another. But the frequency of
large- scale conflict has been declining over the last 20 years. For the first time, Fuku-
yama argues, the possibility exists for the “universalization of Western liberal democ-
racy as the final form of human governance.”^18 Indeed, the po liti cal scientist John
Mueller makes the liberal argument even more strongly. Just as dueling and slavery,
once acceptable practices, have become morally unacceptable, nations of the developed
world increasingly see war as immoral and repugnant. The terrifying moments of World
Wars I and II have led to the obsolescence of war, says Mueller (see Chapter  8).^19
And Mueller’s observation that war is going out of fashion has recently been expanded

t heory In BrIef lIBeralIsm / neolIBeral

InstItutIonalIsm

Key actors States, nongovernmental groups, international organ izations

V Iew of the IndIVIdual Basically good; social; capable of cooperating

V Iew of the state

States are selfish; have relationships (enduring friends

and rivals); can be good (democratic- liberal) or bad

(authoritarian- autarkic)

V Iew of the InternatIonal

system

Anarchy abridged by interdependence among actors;

an international order

Bel Iefs aBout change Self-^ to possibility of perpetual peace^ interest managed by structure (institutions) leads

m ajor theorIsts Montesquieu, Kant, Wilson, Keohane, Doyle, Ikenberry