FrontPage     Resources     Concepts:Themes

Kegley Jnr, C.W. and Raymond, G.A. (1999) How Nations Make Peace, New York: St Martins Press and Worth Publishers.

Liberalism

At the heart of liberal theorizing about issues of war and peace is the contention that an unbridled pursuit of national self-interest is destructive. Rather than emphasizing self-help, liberalism ‘seeks to discover ways in which separate actors, with distinct interests, can organize themselves to promote economic efficiency and avoid destructive physical conflict, without renouncing either the economic or political freedoms that liberals hold dear’ (Keohone 1992, p.174). Power, for liberals, resides in adhering to ethical principles. For them ‘international behavior and outcomes arise from a multiplicity of motives, not merely security, at least if security is defined solely in military or strategic terms’ (Holsti 1995, p.44). Following a war, liberal theory counsels against approaching peace making from a zero-sum outlook that permits the winner to extract the greatest possible gains at the loser’s expense, stressing the principle of reciprocity that is predicated on the expectation that behavior sent will be returned in kind. To maximize the prospects for enduring peace, liberal theorists reason that harsh punishments and staggering penalties will backfire, while clemency and compassion will produce cooperation and compliance. [p.21]

Realism

For realists, liberal dreams of peace through conciliation ignore the nasty, brutish facts of international life: The strong dominate the weak, the powerful take advantage of the powerless, and relations between former enemies are determined more by the military might each possesses than by principled concern for each other’s security and status. … Realism believes power trumps principles. To the realist, the road to ruin is paved with utopian hopes about the good will of others or the applicability of morality to the ruthless struggle for power in international relations among [p.22] rival nations seeking self-advantage: ‘States … should not be held to the same moral standards as individuals because to do so subverts their capacity to conduct prudent policy’ (Monoson and Loriaux 1998, p.288). From this realist ethical posture, peace settlements should not be grounded in expectations that an adversary will reciprocate kindness, because defeated states are likely to interpret generosity as weakness and use lenient treaties as an opportunity to resume the pursuit of power. Apprehensive over the possibility that an indignant loser will try to avenge its battlefield humiliation, realists recommend firm settlements as the only reliable method of maintaining postwar peace. [p.23]

…. Liberalism and realism, the two most common theoretical lenses policymakers use when inspecting the political topography of the postwar world, advance diametrically opposed recommendations. Policymakers need a theory backed by evidence that answers the questions of how nations should make peace. Which theory – liberalism or realism – offers the strongest basis for developing policy prescriptions to guide peace making in the wake of war? [p.23]