Chapter 2: Theories of International Relations & Zombies

2.3: Liberalism

If realism sees the world as a bar fight waiting to happen, liberalism is the friend trying to mediate before anyone throws a punch. While realism views the international system as a battlefield of competing powers, liberalism offers a more optimistic perspective. In contrast to the conflict-focused view of realism, liberalism emphasizes the potential for cooperation and mutual benefit among states. According to liberal theory, international relations don’t always have to be a zero-sum game. States can work together through diplomacy, trade, and shared institutions to achieve common goals, reduce conflict, and foster peace. By focusing on the ways states can cooperate, liberalism highlights a more collaborative, interconnected world where power is not just about military might but also about influence, attraction, and collective action.

One of the key ways liberalism differs from realism is through its emphasis on soft power. Unlike hard power, which relies on military or economic coercion, soft power involves shaping the preferences and behaviors of others through attraction and persuasion. This can include diplomacy, cultural exchange, and the spread of ideas. Think of how the U.S. exports its culture through movies, music, and brands, subtly shaping how people around the world perceive it. A state’s ability to build alliances, create favorable international norms, and use diplomacy effectively reflects its soft power. For instance, during the Cold War, the U.S. and the Soviet Union competed not only through military might but also through cultural influence, with each side promoting its way of life as more desirable. Soft power reflects the liberal idea that states can achieve their goals not only through force but by making others want to cooperate.

Liberalism also underscores the importance of institutions in fostering cooperation between states. Institutions are the rules, norms, and organizations that structure state behavior in the international system. These can include formal entities like the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, or the International Monetary Fund, as well as informal norms that guide state interactions. Institutions provide a framework for resolving disputes, creating trust, and promoting cooperation. For example, the European Union has created a complex set of rules and institutions that not only facilitate economic cooperation but also prevent conflicts between member states. By providing regular forums for dialogue, monitoring compliance, and offering mechanisms for conflict resolution, institutions reduce the unpredictability and mistrust that often lead to war.

Liberalism envisions the international system as capable of producing positive-sum outcomes, where cooperation benefits all parties involved. In a positive-sum scenario, states aren’t competing for limited resources where one side’s gain equals another’s loss. Instead, they can all benefit through collaboration. Trade agreements, for example, often create positive-sum dynamics where all participating countries can enjoy economic growth, improved standards of living, and access to goods. The success of global trade organizations, like the World Trade Organization (WTO), is rooted in the idea that trade can generate benefits for all involved, as long as there are fair rules in place. This stands in contrast to the zero-sum thinking of realism and demonstrates how, from a liberal perspective, international politics can be about win-win outcomes.

The concept of interdependence is central to liberal thinking as well. Interdependence refers to the mutual economic reliance between states, making conflict less appealing because war would disrupt these beneficial ties. In today’s globalized world, many states are deeply interconnected through trade, investment, and supply chains. The idea is that states are less likely to go to war with their major trading partners because the economic costs of such conflicts would be too high. For example, the deep economic ties between the United States and China, despite political tensions, have likely helped prevent more severe conflicts from breaking out. Liberalism argues that this economic interdependence reduces the likelihood of conflict and fosters peace, as states have more to gain from cooperation than from fighting.

Another important liberal concept is collective security, which suggests that peace can be maintained when states agree to protect one another against aggression. In a collective security system, an attack on one member is considered an attack on all, prompting a united response. The most famous example of this is NATO, where members have pledged to defend each other in case of external aggression. This idea stands in contrast to the balance of power thinking in realism, where states constantly seek to counterbalance potential threats. In a collective security arrangement, the goal is not to prepare for inevitable conflict but to prevent it altogether by deterring aggressors through the promise of a coordinated response.

Finally, liberalism presents the Democratic Peace Theory, which posits that democracies are less likely to go to war with one another. This theory is based on the idea that democratic states share common values like respect for individual rights, open debate, and institutional checks on the executive branch, which reduce the likelihood of rash or unilateral military decisions. Historical data supports this claim, as wars between democratic nations are extremely rare. For example, the United States and Canada, two of the world’s oldest democracies, have enjoyed peaceful relations for over a century. The Democratic Peace Theory suggests that the spread of democracy globally could contribute to long-term international stability and peace, reinforcing liberalism’s optimistic vision of a more cooperative international system.

Liberalism: Fighting Zombies with Friendship and Committees

If realism prepares for a zombie apocalypse by building walls and stockpiling weapons, liberalism is busy organizing a global task force and drafting a “Zombies Without Borders” treaty. Liberalism would focus on cooperation and collective action to combat the zombie threat. Liberals believe that, despite the anarchic nature of international politics, states can work together through institutions and diplomacy to overcome shared challenges. The outbreak of zombies would prompt immediate international collaboration, with states working through institutions like the United Nations or the World Health Organization to coordinate responses, share information, and allocate resources. In World War Z, we see hints of this liberal approach when scientists and governments collaborate to find a cure, emphasizing that cooperation is not only possible but essential for global survival. Check out the following scene from World War Z to see how the UN might use its global cooperative power to respond to a zombie outbreak.

The liberal emphasis on interdependence would be crucial in a zombie apocalypse, reinforcing the idea that no state can survive alone—especially when facing a relentless, borderless threat. Since zombies don’t respect national boundaries, the survival of any one state is directly tied to the survival of others. Even the most fortified nations would quickly realize they depend on global trade for essential supplies like food, medicine, and fuel. Additionally, medical research must be shared to develop a vaccine or cure as quickly as possible, ensuring that scientific breakthroughs benefit all of humanity rather than being hoarded for strategic advantage. Liberalism would also highlight the importance of positive-sum outcomes, where cooperation leads to mutual benefit rather than cutthroat competition. Instead of stockpiling resources and viewing others as threats, states could pool their expertise, infrastructure, and technological advancements to combat the zombie crisis more effectively. One country might develop a treatment, another might have the manufacturing capacity to mass-produce it, and another could provide the logistics to distribute it globally. Rather than descending into chaos and conflict, liberalism suggests that states would recognize their shared interests and work together, proving that even in an apocalyptic crisis, diplomacy, institutions, and cooperation remain essential tools for survival.

Liberalism, with its focus on cooperation, interdependence, and institutions, offers a compelling alternative to the more conflict-driven worldview of realism. However, just like realism, it has its limitations and critics, especially when cooperation fails, or when institutions are unable to prevent conflict. In the next section, we’ll explore constructivism, a theory that highlights the role of ideas, identities, and norms in shaping international relations, providing yet another lens through which to understand global politics.