Talk:Liberal international relations theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
How about citing a source or two before debating merging articles guys. 131.247.153.14 18:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge with Liberal institutionalism
These are clearly the same thing. This article is more extensive but I favor that title. Anyone else want to weigh in? savidan(talk) (e@) 09:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- They're not really the same thing. Liberal institutionalism is the mix between Liberal international relations theory and Institutionalism in international relations. Liberal institutionalism is the same thing a Neoliberalism in international relations--those two should be merged. —thames 14:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Liberal institutionalism is a branch of Liberal international relations theory and therefore should be added into the 'Liberal international relations theory' section, making sure to distinguish it from other varients of Liberalism (ie idealism, liberal internationalism). It is not the same thing as neoliberalism in international relations, this would be neoliberal institutionalism, and again this is just a variant of neoliberalism, as is neoidealism or neoliberal internationalism. However you are both right in that the definition offered here on Wikipedia for liberal institutionalism covers elements of both Liberal and neolibereral IR theory. - (Tom Kennedy, 1200, 5th April, 2006).
- Well, that clears that up... I think. Thanks Mr. Kennedy.—thames 21:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that these articles should not be merged...they are truly different subjects (as a matter of fact, I'm studying the differences between them right now for an I.R. exam tomorrow! Ahh!)
Liberal Institutionalism is closer to neoliberalism than liberalism. Actually, when addressing the tenats of the paradigm, Liberal Institutionalism is closer to neorealism then liberalism both hold the anarchic structure of the international system, states as unitary actors, and security being the primary objective of all states. They really differ only in that Liberal Institutionalism holds that institutions participate actively as actors where Neorealist hold that while institutions help create the context all states act on in the international arena, states still uphold primacy as the unitary actor of any significant importance. (David Wassman, 11 Oct 2006)
This article sucks. Who are the prominent liberal thinkers, and what did they contribute? Anything? Or did a guy on Wikipedia just come up with all of this himself?
The idealism article says that liberalism is a descendant of Idealism. In this article, idealism is described as a strand of thought that has emerged from liberalism. Hmmm. 139.80.123.34 (talk) 07:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
