Contending Perspectives on the International System 117Woodrow Wilson, as Chapter 3 discussed, this view holds that a liberal international
order governs arrangements among states by means of shared rules and princi ples, simi-
lar to the princi ples that realists see under varying conditions of polarity. But unlike the
realists’ princi ples, this order is an acknowledged order; it is not just patterned be hav ior
or some interconnections. In this order, institutions play a key role. As John Ikenberrry
in After Victory argues, the acknowledged goal of a dominant power in this international
order is to establish rules that are “both durable and legitimate, but rules and arrange-
ments that also serve the long- term interests of the leading state.”^11 To do that, the
dominant power limits its own autonomy and agrees to make credible commitments.
A third liberal view of the international system is held by neoliberal institutional-
ists. Neoliberal institutionalists see the international system as anarchic and acknowl-
edge that each individual state acts in its own self- interest, similar to realist thinking.
But neoliberal institutionalists draw dif er ent conclusions about state be hav ior in the
international system. It may be a cooperative system, wherein states choose to cooper-
ate because they realize that they will have future interactions with the same actors, as
Chapter 3 explains. Those repeated interactions provide the motivation for states to
create international institutions, which in turn moderate state be hav ior, providing a
guaranteed framework for interactions and a context for bargaining. International insti-
tutions provide focal points for coordination and serve to make state commitments
more credible by specifying what is expected, thereby encouraging states to establish
reputations for compliance. Thus, for neoliberals, institutions have impor tant and in de-
pen dent efects on interstate interactions, both by providing information and by framing
actions, but they do not necessarily afect states’ under lying motivations. The interna-
tional system may be anarchic, but cooperation may emerge through institutions.liberals and International system change
International relations theorists are often interested in answering dif er ent questions.
As we just saw, for realists, the core questions surround the issue of whether war is some-
thing we are all stuck with, or something we can, through good policy, transcend and
put behind us. Liberals, too, see the role of states, and peace, as critical features of the
international system. Liberals see change as coming from several sources. First, changes
in the international system may occur as the result of exogenous technological develop-
ments, that is, pro gress occurring in de pen dently, outside the control of actors in the
system. For example, changes in communication and transportation are responsible for
the increasing level of interdependence among states within the international system.
Second, change may occur because of changes in the relative importance of dif er-
ent issue areas. Although realists give primacy to issues of national security, liberals
identify the relative importance of other issue areas. Specifically, in the last de cades of
the twentieth century, economic issues replaced national security issues as the leadingESSIR7_CH04_106_131_11P.indd 117 6/14/16 10:04 AM