What Are Doyle's Arguments Against Domestic Liberalism?

1327 Words6 Pages
This essay contends that Doyle’s neo-Kantian argument—that liberalism has overcome the security dilemma posed by international anarchy—is flawed because it fails to provide a causal link that explains how liberal domestic rights and institutions translate into an international liberal peace. First, I will outline the freedoms and institutions Doyle claims all liberal states agree upon, and therefore, have domestically. Then I will ventriloquize Doyle’s argument that domestic liberalism has led to an expanding zone of international peace because it has created mutual respect and trust which solve the security dilemma created by international anarchy, even if only between liberal states. The argument is based on three, interrelated sets of rights—domestic,…show more content…
As Doyle accurately points out, “constitutionally secure liberal states have yet to engage in war with one another (213). The foundation of liberalism, for Doyle, is the principle of individual freedom; subsequently, “this principle has generated rights and institutions” (206). Liberalism is characterized by a commitment to three sets of rights: rights of negative freedoms, rights of positive freedoms, and rights to democratic representation. Negative freedoms limit “arbitrary authority” while positive freedoms “promote the capacity and opportunity for freedom” (206-7). Thus, negative and positive freedoms allow for individual freedom. The third right, democratic participation and representation, limits governments from encroaching on the individual autonomy the first two rights…show more content…
Doyle explains that “the cosmopolitan right to hospitality permits ‘the spirit of commerce’ sooner or later to take hold of every nation, thus impelling states to promote peace and to try to avert war” (231). In other words, both economies are likely to benefit from economic ties that are driven by market forces instead of coercion and thus would not allow war to get in the way of such a beneficial arrangement. Ultimately, Doyle specifies that all of these sources of law—constitutional, international, and cosmopolitan—must be together to “connect the characteristics of liberal polities and economies with sustained liberal peace”

    More about What Are Doyle's Arguments Against Domestic Liberalism?

      Open Document