Arguments Against Liberal Internationalism

The Liberal Internationalism perspective is focused on arguments in favor of intervention based on humanitarian grounds. People in support of this idea believe that there is a moral obligation of humans to both end and prevent gross human rights violations on innocent people. Also, it would be argued from this viewpoint, that at times, the use of force and intervention are the only means of protecting and enforcing standards of civilized treatment on people. At times, the oppression can reach such a stage that any national connection between the population and the state has been lost. Therefore, in these situations, the argument of state sovereignty becomes invalid. A utilitarian perspective would argue that interventions are justified because
Weak or absent government institutions in developing countries form the thread linking terrorism, refuges, AIDS, and global poverty’ (---). Fukuyama believes that once democracy is in place, a more stable country will follow: “A lot now rides on our ability not just to win wars but to help create self-sustaining democratic political institutions and robust market-oriented economies.” However, it should be noted that regarding this argument, it is difficult to be certain if a weakened state actually poses a true threat, as well as the issue with who is responsible with making the decision of the level of posed threat
Therefore, this claim means that if a state is either unwilling or unable to protect its own citizens, then it becomes the international communities responsibility to do so (---43---). Considering this, it can be said that the responsibility to protect brought with it a new understanding of state sovereignty, putting emphasis on the state to manage its internal