Sir Michael Howard traces the pattern in the attitudes of liberal-minded men and women in the face of war, from Erasmus to the Americans after Vietnam, and concludes that peacemaking is a task which has to be tackled afresh every day of our lives.

Military power is now the main vehicle for regime change. The US army has been used on more than 30 different occasions in the post-Cold War world compared with just 10 during the whole of the Cold War era. Leading scholar Andrew Williams tackles contemporary thinking on war with a detailed study on liberal thinking over the last century about how wars should be ended, using a vast range of historical archival material from diplomatic, other official and personal papers, which this study situates within the debates that have emerged in political theory. He examines the main strategies used at the end, and in the aftermath, of wars by liberal states to consolidate their liberal gains and to prevent the re-occurrence of wars with those states they have fought. This new study also explores how various strategies: revenge; restitution; reparation; restraint; retribution; reconciliation; and reconstruction, have been used by liberal states not only to defeat their enemies but also transform them. This is a major new contribution to contemporary thinking and action. This book will be of great interest to all students and scholars of politics, international relations and security studies.

Liberal democracies very rarely fight wars against each other, even though they go to war just as often as other types of states do. John M. Owen IV attributes this peculiar restraint to a synergy between liberal ideology and the institutions that exist within these states. Liberal elites identify their interests with those of their counterparts in foreign states, Owen contends. Free discussion and regular competitive elections allow the agitations of the elites in liberal democracies to shape foreign policy, especially during crises, by influencing governmental decision makers. Several previous analysts have offered theories to explain liberal peace, but they have not examined the state. This book explores the chain of events linking peace with democracies. Owen emphasizes that peace is constructed by democratic ideas, and should be understood as a strong tendency built upon historically contingent perceptions and institutions. He tests his theory against ten cases drawn from over a century of U.S. diplomatic history, beginning with the Jay Treaty in 1794 and ending with the Spanish-American War in 1898. A world full of liberal democracies would not necessarily be peaceful. Were illiberal states to disappear, Owen asserts, liberal states would have difficulty identifying one another, and would have less reason to remain at peace.

Commencing with Susan Sontag's line that "the only worthwhile answers are those that blow up the questions," ten contributions by UK and US academics critique the "democratic peace" (DP) prescription for inter-state peace of "just add liberal democracy." Contextualizing the DP literature historically and internationally, they call for reassessment of the complex inter-relationships among democracy, liberalism, and war in the global revolution; provide a table summarizing war and democracy by world order periods; and identify directions for future research. Based on US workshops in 1998 and 2000. Barkawi and Laffey are lecturers in international relations, the former at the U. of Wales, Aberystwyth and the latter at the U. of London.--

Examines political philosophies of the classic theorists as a means to understand international dilemmas in the post-Cold War world

For centuries liberal minded men have been horrified by the pain and waste of war. From Erasmus, who saw war above all as a product of stupidity, to the Marxists who see it as a matter of class conflict, they have produced social theories to account for its occurrence and have tried to devise means to end it. Their prescriptions have been various. The central view of the Enlightenment was that wars would end when the ambitions of princes could be curbed by the sanity of ordinary men. At first the commercial classes seemed to be the new force that would produce this happy state, but by the end of the nineteenth century they themselves (the 'capitalists') were being stigmatized as the instigators of war. Similarly, the nineteenth-century liberals at first believed that the rise of the new independent nation-states of Europe would lead to a permanent peace as the wishes of the masses (naturally peace-loving) were able to express themselves. Again, the supposed agents of peace were soon seen as a prime cause of wars. Despite these contradictions there have been certain continuing themes in the search for a means to end wars, and one of the most enlightening things in this book is they way in which it is possible to see how these themes recur in subtly different forms in different periods of history. Professor Howard traces them from the renaissance to our own time, through the social, political and intellectual groups that gave birth to them. Throughout the whole story runs the continuing contrast between those who hoped to find a single cause for the disease, leading to a lasting cure, and those who understood that, in Professor Howard's words, 'this was a task which needs to be tackled afresh every day of our lives'.

"This is a study of the relationship between liberalism, liberal states and peace. Basing his approach on a synthesis of political philosophy and history, John MacMillan explores the concept and manifestations of liberal pacifism, to argue that it is most pronounced when associated with an anti-statist, cosmopolitan form of liberalism. He traces the emergence of a liberal international order and stresses certain key elements such as the rights of the individual in international society, liberal notions of political economy and self-determination, and the area of civil-military relations, in order to show the way in which liberals have regarded peace as a unique primary good. The analysis rests upon a distinction between "liberalism", understood as an evolving ethical discourse, and "liberal states" which may in practice contain a number of ideological strands, some of which - such as statism, nationalism and imperialism - are antithetical both to liberalism and to peace. Through this distinction, MacMillan moves beyond the current understanding that liberal pacifism is manifest only in relations between liberal states, and argues for recognition of a broader eirenic legacy. He defends this claim against the historical record of violence by liberal states, and considers in particular World War I, the South African war, 1899-1902, the Suez war, the French wars of decolonization and the Vietnam war."--Bloomsbury Publishing.