173
paragon of vices only on international levels, but must be avoided at individual level12. From all indication, we could see that power is crucial to the realist lexicon and traditionally, has been defined narrowly in military strategic terms. Yet irrespective of how much power a state may possess, the core national interest of all states must be survival like the pursuit of power, the promotion of the national interest is according to realist an iron law of necessity.
In the concluding part of this realist‟s opinion, this work helps Coady to affirm that realism is the dominant theory of international relations. Why? It provides the most powerful explanation for the state of war which is a regular condition of life in the international system. Let us see the other side of idealism (pacifism).
174
Narveson‟s muddled argument for some kind of logical self-contradiction in pacifism has been successfully dismantled by others, so all I shall say here is that it relies crucially upon the premise that if one has a right, it then follows logically that one has a further right to do whatever may be necessary to prevent infringements of the original right 15. In the case of pacifism, the application of this idea is that if you have a right not to have violence done to you, then you may do
“whatever is necessary to prevent violence being done to you. But surely it is sometimes necessary to deploy violence to prevent violence being done, and hence the pacifist is allegedly involved in absurdity in holding both that you have the right not to have violence done to you. And that it is impermissible to use violence to prevent infringement of your right. But the absurdity is in Narveson‟s premise.
What you can morally do to prevent violations of your right is never determined by mere efficacy of means. If someone is about to violate your property rights by stealing a battery from your open motor car and the only way you can prevent him is by shooting him then the efficacy of the means is at odds with its morality.
And this is true of more substantial right consider the idea that we are entitled to engage in rape if it is necessary to prevent rape. As we saw earlier, if the most effective (or even only) way of defeating an enemy is by attacking innocent people, then it is at least not obvious that this is morally allowable. Certainly, its permissibility is not entailed by what it means to have a right.
175
There is another feature of Narveson‟s critique that is more important for our present purpose, and that is his narrow definition of pacifism. Like many others, he treats pacifism as a personal doctrine about the use of any form of violence. No doubt some pacifists held that it is always wrong to use violence, and others that it is always wrong to use extreme or lethal violence, but pacifism is (as many writers including some philosophers are increasingly insisting) primarily advancing a thesis about war. In its simplest terms, the thesis is that war is a very bad thing and that we should do our utmost to avoid it.
Although realism is regarded as the dominant theory of international relations, liberalism has a strong claim to being the historic alternative. In the twentieth century, liberal thinking influenced policy making elites and public opinion in a number of western states after the „first world war‟, an era often referred as idealistic.
The striking argument is “How do we explain the divergent fortunes of liberalism in the domestic and international domains? While liberal values and institutions have become deeply embedded in Europe and North America, the same values and institutions lack legitimacy worldwide. To invoke the famous phrase of Stanley Hoffman, “international affairs have been the nemesis of liberalism. The essence of liberalism, Hoffman continues, is self-restraint, moderation, compromise and peace, whereas, the essence of international politics is exactly the opposite troubled
176
peace, at best or the state of war. This explanation comes as no surprise to realists, who argue that there can be no progress, no law, and no justice, where there is no common power. Despite the weight of this realist‟s argument, those who believe in the liberal project have not conceded defeat. Liberals argue that power politics itself is the product of ideas, and crucially, ideas can change. Therefore, even if the world has been inhospitable to liberalism, this does not mean that it cannot be re-made in its image.
In their concluding part idealism the contribution made by this work is that the idealist‟s tradition in political thought goes back at least as far as the thinking of John Locke in the late seventeenth century. From then on, liberal ideas have profoundly shaped governments and citizens. Idealism or liberalism is a theory of both government within states and good governance between states and peoples worldwide. Unlike realism, which regards the international as an anarchic realm, liberals seek to project values of order, liberty, justice and toleration into international relations. The high water mark of liberal thinking in international relations was reached in the inter-war period in the work of idealists whose belief that warfare was an unnecessary and outmoded way of settling disputes between states. Domestic and international institutions are required to protect and nurture these values. But note that these values and institutions allow for significant variations which accounts for the fact that there are heated debates within
177
liberalism. The liberals disagree on fundamental issues such as the census of war and what kind of institutions are required to deliver liberal values in a decentralized multicultural international system. An important charge within liberalism or idealism, which has become more pronounced in our globalized world, is between those operating with a positive conception of liberalism, who advocates interventionist foreign policies and stronger international institutions, and those who decline towards a negative conception, which places a priority on toleration and neo-international. Pacifists are devoted to peace. This work will go straight to x-ray the content of Coady‟s notion on ideal peace.