Analysis Of Liberal International Theory

The review article "Liberal International Theory: Common Threads, Divergent Strands" by Mark W. Zacher and Richard A. Matthew outlines the five different strands of liberal theory- republican, interdependence, cognitive, sociological, and institutional. Each distinctive theory can be analyzed in terms of the conceptions of structure and agency and the three levels of analysis. In other words, each strand can be studied in terms of whether there are influences or institutions limiting the choices and opportunities available or if the individual has the capacity to act independently and to make their own choices. In terms of analysis, an ideology can be studied on whether they look at the individual, the domestic sector, or the system as a whole.

Different from republican liberalism, military liberalists argue that military technology and interdependencies are creating greater international interests in peace and cooperation and that a reduction in the threat of military violence facilitates international economic cooperation. The revolution in nuclear war technology paired with the superpower relations that formed after the Cold War, military liberalism had gained a major surge in popularity. This increase in arms from the fear of war is referred to as a “security threat,” which is a structural dilemma because the influences of other countries are influencing how your country responds with respect to military force. Likewise, this strand is revealing systemic analysis because it is evaluating relations among nations and how actions of certain nations affect the actions of other nations and how they will act within the

This ideology is referred to as sociological liberalism. Sociological liberalists accept that communication flows influence people’s cultures, political identity, and international political integration. The growth in international communications, the rising interest in cultural patterns, and the globalization of businesses are sure to be future points of interest for sociological liberalists. These changes tend to be gradual and their influence difficult to realize. This specific ideology is the most ambiguous because it shows signs of both agency and structure. It shows evidence of structure in the fact that communication patterns and other nongovernmental factors affect a person’s identity, but also agency in the fact that the results are hard to study because of ever-changing human nature and the fact that the changes tend to be gradual. This strand is also ambiguous in the level of analysis that it follows because it studies individuals and how they are affected by nongovernmental aspects, which would be at the third individual level, but also how globalization and international communication affects