Idealism in international relations

Both within and outside of the United States, American president Woodrow Wilson is widely considered an early advocate of idealism and codifier of its practical meaning; specific actions cited include the issuing of the famous Fourteen Points.

Wilson's idealism was a precursor to liberal international relations theory, the particular set of viewpoints arising amongst the so-called "institution builders" after World War II.

In the broader, philosophical sense, this internationally minded viewpoint can be thought of as an extension of the moral idealism advocated by different thinkers during and after the Age of Enlightenment.

That particular era involved multiple prominent individuals promoting a general sense of benevolence and government based upon strong personal character, with international conflict criticized as against the principles of reason.

Although realism in the context of foreign affairs is traditionally seen as the opposite of idealism, numerous scholars and individual leaders in charge of different nations have sought to synthesize the two schools of thought.

[1]Since the 1880s, there has been growing study of the major writers of this idealist tradition of thought in international relations, including Sir Alfred Zimmern,[2] Norman Angell, John Maynard Keynes,[3] John A. Hobson, Leonard Woolf, Gilbert Murray, Florence Stawell (known as Melian Stawell), Philip Henry Kerr, 11th Marquess of Lothian, Arnold J. Toynbee, Lester Pearson and David Davies.

Idealism is centered on the notion that states are rational actors capable of ensuring lasting peace and security rather than resorting to war.

[5] Blum (1956) argues that he learned from William Ewart Gladstone a mystic conviction in the superiority of Anglo-Saxons, in their righteous duty to make the world over in their image.

While he interpreted international law within such a brittle, moral cast, Wilson remained remarkably insensitive to new and changing social forces and conditions of the 20th century.

Lucian M. Ashworth argues, the persistence of the notion that there was a real debate between idealism and realism, says less about the actual discussions of the time, and more about the marginalisation of liberal and normative thinking in the international relations in the post-war period.

[12] Richard Devetak wrote in his international relations textbook:The structure of Carr’s masterpiece revolves around the dichotomy between realism and liberalism.

[13]Idealism proper has been argued to be a relatively short-lived school of thought, and advocates particularly suffered a crisis of confidence following the failure of the League of Nations and the outbreak of World War II.