Author Information
Dana-Maria Farcas, University of Bucharest, RomaniaAbstract
This paper critically reassesses the intellectual trajectory of liberal internationalism, tracing its evolution from Immanuel Kant’s Perpetual Peace (1795) to Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points (1918) and its subsequent institutionalization in the post-World War II order. While Kant’s vision of a peaceful international system was rooted in republican governance, economic interdependence, and legalistic cooperation, Wilson sought to translate these ideals into a framework of collective security and global democracy. However, the failure of Wilsonian internationalism in the interwar period, exacerbated by economic instability, nationalist resurgence, and the structural weaknesses of the League of Nations, demonstrated the fragility of idealist peace theory.
Through a historical-theoretical analysis, this study examines how realist critiques, particularly those of E. H. Carr, Hans Morgenthau, and Carl Schmitt, exposed the limitations of Wilsonian idealism, highlighting the primacy of power politics and the inadequacy of legal-normative constraints in an anarchic international system. Furthermore, constructivist perspectives challenge the static assumptions of liberal institutionalism, emphasizing the evolving nature of global governance and normative legitimacy. The paper also interrogates contemporary challenges to the post-Wilsonian liberal order, including the rise of China, the resurgence of economic nationalism, and the decline of U.S. hegemony.
Ultimately, this paper argues that while Wilsonian internationalism has faced profound structural contradictions, elements of liberal internationalism remain resilient. The study concludes by evaluating whether a Kantian-inspired global order can be reinterpreted for the 21st century or whether a new paradigm beyond liberal universalism is necessary to manage global affairs in an increasingly multipolar world.
Comments
Powered by WP LinkPress