Analytical Liberalism and the Iraq War

• In Event: Key Concepts in International Security

Abstract

Liberal IR theory is often regarded as a theory of peace and cooperation, leaving to other approaches the analysis of international conflict and war. Yet, analytical liberalism (Moravcsik 1992, 1997, 2003, 2008) offers a distinctive theory of war that has not to date been subject to empirical evaluation. According to Moravcsik’s liberal theory, war results from strong and conflictual state preferences, reflecting the influence and interests of domestic social groups.
War may arise from inconsistencies between conceptions of national identity and existing state borders or regimes, or between different societies’ political regimes and conceptions of legitimate authority (ideational liberalism); where conquest is a more efficient way for elites to acquire wealth than market exchange, or where force can prevent disruption to transnational markets (commercial liberalism), and when domestic institutions enhance the influence of those whom war benefits (or of highly risk-acceptant leaders) and reduce that of those who bear its costs (republican liberalism). Liberal theory predicts that warring states’ relative preference intensity will mediate the relationship between military power and war outcome. This paper will evaluate the liberal theory of war in relation to the Iraq War, in comparison with alternative realist, constructivist, and bargaining theory explanations.

Author

• Michael L. Lipson, Concordia University