Political theory and International Relations: Promised land or exit from Eden?

International Affairs

Volumn 76, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 755-770

  Rengger, Nicholas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0040141598     PISSN: 00205850     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1468-2346.00163     Document Type: Article

References (106)

1. I am grateful for comments on an earlier draft of this essay from Chris Brown, Ian Hall, Caroline Kennedy-Pipe, Mitchell Rologas, Caroline Soper and William Walker.
2. I shall follow the now established convention that 'International Relations' refers to the field of study, whereas 'international relations' refers to the world of events.
3. Included in Herbert Butterfield and Martin Wight, eds, Diplomatic investigations (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1966).
4. Arnold Wolfers and Laurence Martin, eds, The Anglo-American tradition in foreign affairs (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1956). A slightly different version of the essay was also published under the same title as this one, 'Political theory and international relations', in Wolfers's collection of his own essays, Discord and collaboration: essays on international politics (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1962).
5. Arnold Wolfers and Laurence Martin, eds, The Anglo-American tradition in foreign affairs (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1956). A slightly different version of the essay was also published under the same title as this one, 'Political theory and international relations', in Wolfers's collection of his own essays, Discord and collaboration: essays on international politics (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1962).
6. See Steve Smith, 'The forty years detour', Millennium: Journal of International Studies 21: 3, winter 1992, pp. 489-506. This is a review, among other things, of the locus classicus of the evolution of the new normative theory, i.e. Chris Brown, IR theory: new normative approches (Brighton: Harvester, 1992).
7. See Steve Smith, 'The forty years detour', Millennium: Journal of International Studies 21: 3, winter 1992, pp. 489-506. This is a review, among other things, of the locus classicus of the evolution of the new normative theory, i.e. Chris Brown, IR theory: new normative approches (Brighton: Harvester, 1992).
8. See Nicholas Rengger, International relations, political theory and the problem of order: beyond International Relations theory (London: Routledge, 1999). Chris Brown argues (see p. 834) that, independent of its merits as an argument, the book's intention is to move beyond 'IR theory' to political theory and that through its focus on the relatively conventional literatures of IR theory it fails to do this, and that it perhaps should have discussed some of the new 'combined' literatures that I am tracing in this article. However, among other things, my book suggests that thinking through the problem of order would force us to reconceptualize both IR and political theory. Thus moving beyond IR theory would also mean moving beyond the current fashions of contemporary political theory as well. Just what the resulting reconsideration might look like is a story for another occasion, though some hints can be found at the end of this article.
9. This case is developed, both by argument and by example, in Chris Brown, Terry Nardin and Nicholas Rengger, eds, Texts in international relations: from the Greeks to the nineteenth century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming).
10. For good discussions of this see
11. See e.g. the discussions in Michael Joseph Smith, Realist thought from Weber to Kissinger (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1986); Joel Rosenthal, Righteous realists: responsible power in the nuclear age (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1992); A. J. H. Murray, Reconstructing realism (Edinburgh: Keele University Press, 1997).
12. See e.g. the discussions in Michael Joseph Smith, Realist thought from Weber to Kissinger (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1986); Joel Rosenthal, Righteous realists: responsible power in the nuclear age (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1992); A. J. H. Murray, Reconstructing realism (Edinburgh: Keele University Press, 1997).
13. See e.g. the discussions in Michael Joseph Smith, Realist thought from Weber to Kissinger (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1986); Joel Rosenthal, Righteous realists: responsible power in the nuclear age (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1992); A. J. H. Murray, Reconstructing realism (Edinburgh: Keele University Press, 1997).
14. For the best general discussion extant, see Tim Dunne, Inventing international society (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1998). See also the discussions in Caroline Kennedy-Pipe's article in this issue.
15. See especially Martin Wight, International theory: the three traditions (Leicester: Leicester University Press/RIIA, 1991).
16. Especially in Butterfield's. For a good discussion see Ian Hall, 'Butterfield, history and international relations' (unpublished ms).
17. It should be noted that the institutional embodiment of the English school, the 'British Committee for the Theory of International Politics', started by Butterfield and chaired successively by himself, Wight, Hedley Bull and Adam Watson, did produce some work that effectively combined aspects of political thought with international relations. See e.g. Butterfield and Wight, eds, Diplomatic investigations (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1966). It is also true that offshoots of the British committee helped to keep interest alive and published on the area overlapping the two fields during the 1970s and 1980s, cf. Michael Donelan, ed., The reason of states (London: Allen & Unwin, 1978), James Mayall, ed., The community of states (London: Allen & Unwin, 1982) and, rather later, Cornelia Navari, ed., The condition of states (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1991). However, again, a good deal of this was primarily concerned with investigating the specific notions developed by the 'school, especially the notion of 'international society' and tended not to engage with other work going on at the time. Similar reasons better the school's relationship with diplomatic history, as Caroline Kennedy-Pipe's article in this issue makes clear.
18. It should be noted that the institutional embodiment of the English school, the 'British Committee for the Theory of International Politics', started by Butterfield and chaired successively by himself, Wight, Hedley Bull and Adam Watson, did produce some work that effectively combined aspects of political thought with international relations. See e.g. Butterfield and Wight, eds, Diplomatic investigations (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1966). It is also true that offshoots of the British committee helped to keep interest alive and published on the area overlapping the two fields during the 1970s and 1980s, cf. Michael Donelan, ed., The reason of states (London: Allen & Unwin, 1978), James Mayall, ed., The community of states (London: Allen & Unwin, 1982) and, rather later, Cornelia Navari, ed., The condition of states (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1991). However, again, a good deal of this was primarily concerned with investigating the specific notions developed by the 'school, especially the notion of 'international society' and tended not to engage with other work going on at the time. Similar reasons better the school's relationship with diplomatic history, as Caroline Kennedy-Pipe's article in this issue makes clear.
19. It should be noted that the institutional embodiment of the English school, the 'British Committee for the Theory of International Politics', started by Butterfield and chaired successively by himself, Wight, Hedley Bull and Adam Watson, did produce some work that effectively combined aspects of political thought with international relations. See e.g. Butterfield and Wight, eds, Diplomatic investigations (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1966). It is also true that offshoots of the British committee helped to keep interest alive and published on the area overlapping the two fields during the 1970s and 1980s, cf. Michael Donelan, ed., The reason of states (London: Allen & Unwin, 1978), James Mayall, ed., The community of states (London: Allen & Unwin, 1982) and, rather later, Cornelia Navari, ed., The condition of states (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1991). However, again, a good deal of this was primarily concerned with investigating the specific notions developed by the 'school, especially the notion of 'international society' and tended not to engage with other work going on at the time. Similar reasons better the school's relationship with diplomatic history, as Caroline Kennedy-Pipe's article in this issue makes clear.
20. It should be noted that the institutional embodiment of the English school, the 'British Committee for the Theory of International Politics', started by Butterfield and chaired successively by himself, Wight, Hedley Bull and Adam Watson, did produce some work that effectively combined aspects of political thought with international relations. See e.g. Butterfield and Wight, eds, Diplomatic investigations (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1966). It is also true that offshoots of the British committee helped to keep interest alive and published on the area overlapping the two fields during the 1970s and 1980s, cf. Michael Donelan, ed., The reason of states (London: Allen & Unwin, 1978), James Mayall, ed., The community of states (London: Allen & Unwin, 1982) and, rather later, Cornelia Navari, ed., The condition of states (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1991). However, again, a good deal of this was primarily concerned with investigating the specific notions developed by the 'school, especially the notion of 'international society' and tended not to engage with other work going on at the time. Similar reasons better the school's relationship with diplomatic history, as Caroline Kennedy-Pipe's article in this issue makes clear.
21. John Rawls, A theory of justice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971).
22. New York: Basic Books, 1977. Second edn 1991; third edn 2000.
23. The literature is so vast that only a couple of representative examples can be referenced here. Perhaps the best known general survey of Just War theory is James Turner Johnson's trilogy Ideology, reason and the limitation of war (Princteon, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976), Just war tradition and the restraint of war (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981) and Can modern war be just? (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1984); Stanley Hoffmann, Duties beyond borders (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1981); Grady Scott Davis, Warcraft and the fragility of virtue (Idaho: University of Idaho Press, 1992). For a discussion of just and unjust wars and its influence see the symposium on it see Ethics and International Affairs, 1997.
24. The literature is so vast that only a couple of representative examples can be referenced here. Perhaps the best known general survey of Just War theory is James Turner Johnson's trilogy Ideology, reason and the limitation of war (Princteon, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976), Just war tradition and the restraint of war (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981) and Can modern war be just? (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1984); Stanley Hoffmann, Duties beyond borders (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1981); Grady Scott Davis, Warcraft and the fragility of virtue (Idaho: University of Idaho Press, 1992). For a discussion of just and unjust wars and its influence see the symposium on it see Ethics and International Affairs, 1997.
25. The literature is so vast that only a couple of representative examples can be referenced here. Perhaps the best known general survey of Just War theory is James Turner Johnson's trilogy Ideology, reason and the limitation of war (Princteon, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976), Just war tradition and the restraint of war (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981) and Can modern war be just? (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1984); Stanley Hoffmann, Duties beyond borders (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1981); Grady Scott Davis, Warcraft and the fragility of virtue (Idaho: University of Idaho Press, 1992). For a discussion of just and unjust wars and its influence see the symposium on it see Ethics and International Affairs, 1997.
26. The literature is so vast that only a couple of representative examples can be referenced here. Perhaps the best known general survey of Just War theory is James Turner Johnson's trilogy Ideology, reason and the limitation of war (Princteon, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976), Just war tradition and the restraint of war (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981) and Can modern war be just? (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1984); Stanley Hoffmann, Duties beyond borders (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1981); Grady Scott Davis, Warcraft and the fragility of virtue (Idaho: University of Idaho Press, 1992). For a discussion of just and unjust wars and its influence see the symposium on it see Ethics and International Affairs, 1997.
27. The literature is so vast that only a couple of representative examples can be referenced here. Perhaps the best known general survey of Just War theory is James Turner Johnson's trilogy Ideology, reason and the limitation of war (Princteon, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976), Just war tradition and the restraint of war (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981) and Can modern war be just? (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1984); Stanley Hoffmann, Duties beyond borders (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1981); Grady Scott Davis, Warcraft and the fragility of virtue (Idaho: University of Idaho Press, 1992). For a discussion of just and unjust wars and its influence see the symposium on it see Ethics and International Affairs, 1997.
28. The literature is so vast that only a couple of representative examples can be referenced here. Perhaps the best known general survey of Just War theory is James Turner Johnson's trilogy Ideology, reason and the limitation of war (Princteon, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976), Just war tradition and the restraint of war (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981) and Can modern war be just? (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1984); Stanley Hoffmann, Duties beyond borders (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1981); Grady Scott Davis, Warcraft and the fragility of virtue (Idaho: University of Idaho Press, 1992). For a discussion of just and unjust wars and its influence see the symposium on it see Ethics and International Affairs, 1997.
29. New York: Basic Books, 1998.
30. She has offered her own reflections on the relationship in her contribution to Ken Booth and Steve Smith, eds, International relations theory today (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1994) and has returned to it constantly. See e.g. her most recent book, New wine and old bottles: international politics and ethical discourse (South Bend: University of Notre Dame Press, 1998).
31. She has offered her own reflections on the relationship in her contribution to Ken Booth and Steve Smith, eds, International relations theory today (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1994) and has returned to it constantly. See e.g. her most recent book, New wine and old bottles: international politics and ethical discourse (South Bend: University of Notre Dame Press, 1998).
32. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. A second edition appeared in June 1999.
33. Subsequent influential treatments of the topic, or ones related to it, would include Henry Shue, Basic rights: subsistence, affluence and US foreign policy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980), 2nd edn, 1996; Onora O'Neill, Faces of hunger (London: Allen & Unwin, 1986); Thomas Pogge, Realizing Rawls (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992); and John Rawls, The law of peoples (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999). For a good general discussion see Chris Brown, 'Review essay: theories of international justice', British Journal of Political Science 27, 1997, pp. 273-97.
34. Subsequent influential treatments of the topic, or ones related to it, would include Henry Shue, Basic rights: subsistence, affluence and US foreign policy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980), 2nd edn, 1996; Onora O'Neill, Faces of hunger (London: Allen & Unwin, 1986); Thomas Pogge, Realizing Rawls (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992); and John Rawls, The law of peoples (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999). For a good general discussion see Chris Brown, 'Review essay: theories of international justice', British Journal of Political Science 27, 1997, pp. 273-97.
35. Subsequent influential treatments of the topic, or ones related to it, would include Henry Shue, Basic rights: subsistence, affluence and US foreign policy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980), 2nd edn, 1996; Onora O'Neill, Faces of hunger (London: Allen & Unwin, 1986); Thomas Pogge, Realizing Rawls (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992); and John Rawls, The law of peoples (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999). For a good general discussion see Chris Brown, 'Review essay: theories of international justice', British Journal of Political Science 27, 1997, pp. 273-97.
36. Subsequent influential treatments of the topic, or ones related to it, would include Henry Shue, Basic rights: subsistence, affluence and US foreign policy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980), 2nd edn, 1996; Onora O'Neill, Faces of hunger (London: Allen & Unwin, 1986); Thomas Pogge, Realizing Rawls (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992); and John Rawls, The law of peoples (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999). For a good general discussion see Chris Brown, 'Review essay: theories of international justice', British Journal of Political Science 27, 1997, pp. 273-97.
37. Subsequent influential treatments of the topic, or ones related to it, would include Henry Shue, Basic rights: subsistence, affluence and US foreign policy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980), 2nd edn, 1996; Onora O'Neill, Faces of hunger (London: Allen & Unwin, 1986); Thomas Pogge, Realizing Rawls (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992); and John Rawls, The law of peoples (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999). For a good general discussion see Chris Brown, 'Review essay: theories of international justice', British Journal of Political Science 27, 1997, pp. 273-97.
38. For discussions see Chris Brown, International Relations theory, and Janna Thompson, Justice and world order (London: Routledge, 1992). The most recent general debate on the topic can be found in Martha Nussbaum, et al., For love of country (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1996).
39. For discussions see Chris Brown, International Relations theory, and Janna Thompson, Justice and world order (London: Routledge, 1992). The most recent general debate on the topic can be found in Martha Nussbaum, et al., For love of country (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1996).
40. For discussions see Chris Brown, International Relations theory, and Janna Thompson, Justice and world order (London: Routledge, 1992). The most recent general debate on the topic can be found in Martha Nussbaum, et al., For love of country (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1996).
41. E.g. F. H. Hinsley, Power and the pursuit of peace (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963); Kenneth Waltz, 'Kant, liberalism and war', American Political Science Review, 1962; Stanley Hoffmann, 'Rousseau on war and peace', in The state of war (New York: Praeger, 1965).
42. E.g. F. H. Hinsley, Power and the pursuit of peace (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963); Kenneth Waltz, 'Kant, liberalism and war', American Political Science Review, 1962; Stanley Hoffmann, 'Rousseau on war and peace', in The state of war (New York: Praeger, 1965).
43. E.g. F. H. Hinsley, Power and the pursuit of peace (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963); Kenneth Waltz, 'Kant, liberalism and war', American Political Science Review, 1962; Stanley Hoffmann, 'Rousseau on war and peace', in The state of war (New York: Praeger, 1965).
44. London: Allen & Unwin, 1970. It is worth pointing out the connections between this book and the English school. Keens-Soper had been a member of the British Committee, Savigear had been a student of Butterfield's.
45. London: Elak Press.
46. See also the debate this sparked between Midgely and Hedley Bull in the British Journal (later Review) of International Studies in 1976.
47. Political theories of international relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998).
48. Justice among nations: the struggle for power and peace (Kansas: University of Kansas Press, 1999).
49. See The rights of war and peace (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999).
50. See Stanley Hoffmann and David Fiedler, eds, Rousseau on international relations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991).
51. A history of international relations theory (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1992), 2nd edn, 1998.
52. And, it should be mentioned, the present author. See Brown, Nardin and Rengger, eds, Texts in international relations.
53. For detailed discussions of these tendencies see Brown, International relations theory, ch. 8 and Nicholas Rengger, International relations, political theory and the problem of order: beyond International Relations theory, chs 4, 5.
54. For detailed discussions of these tendencies see Brown, International relations theory, ch. 8 and Nicholas Rengger, International relations, political theory and the problem of order: beyond International Relations theory, chs 4, 5.
55. See especially Rob Walker, Inside/outside: international relations as political theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993); James Der Derian, 'Post theory: the eternal return of ethics in international relations', in Michael Doyle and John Ikenberry, eds, New thinking in international relations theory (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1997).
56. See especially Rob Walker, Inside/outside: international relations as political theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993); James Der Derian, 'Post theory: the eternal return of ethics in international relations', in Michael Doyle and John Ikenberry, eds, New thinking in international relations theory (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1997).
57. Rob Walker, op. cit. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).
58. See e.g. V. Kublakova and A. A. Cruikshank, Marxism-Leninism and the theory of International Relations (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1980).
59. Andrew Linklater, The transformation of political community (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1997).
60. See Doyle, 'Kant, liberal legacies and foreign affairs, parts 1 and 2', in Philosophy and Public Affairs 12, parts 3 and 4, summer and fall 1993, pp. 205-54, 323-53; 'Liberalism and world politics', American Political Science Review 80: 4, 1986, pp. 1151-69. Doyle has updated the argument of this latter article periodically. See also his excellent melding of the historical and the normative, Ways of war and peace (New York: Norton, 1997).
61. See Doyle, 'Kant, liberal legacies and foreign affairs, parts 1 and 2', in Philosophy and Public Affairs 12, parts 3 and 4, summer and fall 1993, pp. 205-54, 323-53; 'Liberalism and world politics', American Political Science Review 80: 4, 1986, pp. 1151-69. Doyle has updated the argument of this latter article periodically. See also his excellent melding of the historical and the normative, Ways of war and peace (New York: Norton, 1997).
62. See Doyle, 'Kant, liberal legacies and foreign affairs, parts 1 and 2', in Philosophy and Public Affairs 12, parts 3 and 4, summer and fall 1993, pp. 205-54, 323-53; 'Liberalism and world politics', American Political Science Review 80: 4, 1986, pp. 1151-69. Doyle has updated the argument of this latter article periodically. See also his excellent melding of the historical and the normative, Ways of war and peace (New York: Norton, 1997).
63. See the articles by Craig Murphy and James Der Derian in this issue.
64. Held's most influential statement of his views to date is in his Democracy and the global order (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995). However, see also David Held and Daniele Archibugi, eds, Cosmopolitan democracy (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1994); Archibugi, Held and Kohler, eds, Reimaging political community (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998); and Held, McGrew, Perraton and Goldblatt, Global transformations (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1999).
65. Held's most influential statement of his views to date is in his Democracy and the global order (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995). However, see also David Held and Daniele Archibugi, eds, Cosmopolitan democracy (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1994); Archibugi, Held and Kohler, eds, Reimaging political community (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998); and Held, McGrew, Perraton and Goldblatt, Global transformations (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1999).
66. Held's most influential statement of his views to date is in his Democracy and the global order (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995). However, see also David Held and Daniele Archibugi, eds, Cosmopolitan democracy (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1994); Archibugi, Held and Kohler, eds, Reimaging political community (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998); and Held, McGrew, Perraton and Goldblatt, Global transformations (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1999).
67. Held's most influential statement of his views to date is in his Democracy and the global order (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995). However, see also David Held and Daniele Archibugi, eds, Cosmopolitan democracy (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1994); Archibugi, Held and Kohler, eds, Reimaging political community (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998); and Held, McGrew, Perraton and Goldblatt, Global transformations (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1999).
68. See e.g. the most recent book by John Mueller, Capitalism, democracy and Ralph's pretty good grocery.
69. See Nicholas Onuf, World of our making: rules and rule in social theory and internationa lrelations (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1989); Friedrich V. Kratochwil, Rules norms decisions: on the conditions of practical and legal reasoning in international relations and domestic affairs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989); John Gerard Ruggie, Constructing the world polity: essays on international institutionalization (London: Routledge, 1997); Alexander Wendt, Social theory of international politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
70. See Nicholas Onuf, World of our making: rules and rule in social theory and internationa lrelations (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1989); Friedrich V. Kratochwil, Rules norms decisions: on the conditions of practical and legal reasoning in international relations and domestic affairs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989); John Gerard Ruggie, Constructing the world polity: essays on international institutionalization (London: Routledge, 1997); Alexander Wendt, Social theory of international politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
71. See Nicholas Onuf, World of our making: rules and rule in social theory and internationa lrelations (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1989); Friedrich V. Kratochwil, Rules norms decisions: on the conditions of practical and legal reasoning in international relations and domestic affairs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989); John Gerard Ruggie, Constructing the world polity: essays on international institutionalization (London: Routledge, 1997); Alexander Wendt, Social theory of international politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
72. See Nicholas Onuf, World of our making: rules and rule in social theory and internationa lrelations (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1989); Friedrich V. Kratochwil, Rules norms decisions: on the conditions of practical and legal reasoning in international relations and domestic affairs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989); John Gerard Ruggie, Constructing the world polity: essays on international institutionalization (London: Routledge, 1997); Alexander Wendt, Social theory of international politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
73. Earlier overviews tended to see this as a debate between cosmopolitans and so-called 'communitarians'. See Chris Brown, International Relations theory and Thompson, Justice and world order. 'Communitarian' critics of cosmopolitanism, though real enough, are only one variant of a range of 'particularist' criticisms.
74. Earlier overviews tended to see this as a debate between cosmopolitans and so-called 'communitarians'. See Chris Brown, International Relations theory and Thompson, Justice and world order. 'Communitarian' critics of cosmopolitanism, though real enough, are only one variant of a range of 'particularist' criticisms.
75. I have borrowed these terms from Kim Hutching's excellent International political theory (London: Sage, 1999). They echo the earlier terminology of Charles Beitz, who referred to 'moral' and institutional cosmopolitans.
76. Consequentialists (such as Singer) and Kantians (such as O'Neill and Doyle) are moral, but not political cosmopolitans. There are also less well-discussed versions of cosmopolitanism in international political theory. For example, the Christian humanism of the current Pope as reflected in his encyclicals and apostolic letters is an interesting and powerful form of cosmopolitanism with a profound contemporary influence, yet it has been little discussed in contemporary international political theory in comparison to the more 'academic' consequentialist and deontological forms. A good discussion can be found in George Weigel, Witness to hope: the life of John Paul II (New York: HarperCollins, 1999).
77. Chiefly those realists who share the normative standpoint of classical realists like Morgenthau.
78. This would include English school writers such as Wight and Bull and political communitarians such as Michael Walzer and Mervyn Frost. See, in addition to works already mentioned, Frost's Ethics in international relations: a constitutive theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
79. I have borrowed this term from Charles Beitz. See his 'Afterword' in Political theory and international relations, 2nd edn. See also his essay 'Social and cosmopolitan liberalism', International Affairs 75: 3, July 1999. The principal social liberal for Beitz, and in his view the most prominent critic of cosmopolitan liberalism, is John Rawls, as he articulates his (social) liberal theory in The law of peoples (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999).
80. I have borrowed this term from Charles Beitz. See his 'Afterword' in Political theory and international relations, 2nd edn. See also his essay 'Social and cosmopolitan liberalism', International Affairs 75: 3, July 1999. The principal social liberal for Beitz, and in his view the most prominent critic of cosmopolitan liberalism, is John Rawls, as he articulates his (social) liberal theory in The law of peoples (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999).
81. I have borrowed this term from Charles Beitz. See his 'Afterword' in Political theory and international relations, 2nd edn. See also his essay 'Social and cosmopolitan liberalism', International Affairs 75: 3, July 1999. The principal social liberal for Beitz, and in his view the most prominent critic of cosmopolitan liberalism, is John Rawls, as he articulates his (social) liberal theory in The law of peoples (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999).
82. See the critiques of Michael Shapiro, David Campbell and Rob Walker especially.
83. E.g. Elshtain.
84. The establishment in 1995 of an 'International Ethics' section in the International Studies Association is an indication of this, though there is also a danger in such developments, as Chris Brown has noted, and as I discuss below. For Brown's warning see his 'International ethics: fad, fantasy or field', Paradigms 8: 1, summer 1994, pp. 1-12.
85. Though he is not usually considered 'a political theorist' let me cite Thucydides in support here. See his discussion of inter alia, Corcyra, Corinth and Melos in his History.
86. For a good, and largely typical modern example, see Hedley Bull, ed., Intervention in world politics (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986).
87. See e.g. R. J. Vincent, Non intervention and the international order (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1974).
88. For representative sample works see Walzer and Hoffmann cited above; Ian Forbes and Mark Hoffmann, eds, Political theory, international relations and the ethics of intervention (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1993); Michael Ignatieff, The warriors honour: ethnic war and the modern conscience (London: Chatto & Windus, 1998); Nicholas J. Wheeler, Saving strangers: humanitarian intervention and international society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).
89. For representative sample works see Walzer and Hoffmann cited above; Ian Forbes and Mark Hoffmann, eds, Political theory, international relations and the ethics of intervention (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1993); Michael Ignatieff, The warriors honour: ethnic war and the modern conscience (London: Chatto & Windus, 1998); Nicholas J. Wheeler, Saving strangers: humanitarian intervention and international society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).
90. For representative sample works see Walzer and Hoffmann cited above; Ian Forbes and Mark Hoffmann, eds, Political theory, international relations and the ethics of intervention (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1993); Michael Ignatieff, The warriors honour: ethnic war and the modern conscience (London: Chatto & Windus, 1998); Nicholas J. Wheeler, Saving strangers: humanitarian intervention and international society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).
91. Many of the publications of the 'Ethikon institute' engage in this sort of activity - though it often has a contemporary rather than a historical focus. See e.g. Tarry Nardin, ed., The ethics of war and peace: religious and secular perspectives (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996).
92. See Michael Oakeshott, 'Rationalism in politics', Rationalism in politics and other essays (London: Methuen, 1962). With 'International Relations theory' as it is usually conceived, there is another and very common usage of 'rationalism'. This term, initially coined by Robert Keohane, is largely meant as a methodological designator, referring to methods that draw their inspiration from economics, e.g. rational choice theory and a range of related quantitative approaches. Keohane uses it to distinguish his chosen methodologies from those (he calls them 'reflectivists') that dispute these methods - principally constructivists, critical theorists, post-structuralists and some feminists. As I understand it, Keohane's rationalism is merely one recent and currently influential version of the general intellectual fashion that Oakeshott is describing, but Oakeshott's rationalism comes in many other guises as well.
93. Oakeshott, Rationalism in politics, pp. 4-6.
94. See Rengger, 'Modernity, practical reason and the moral life: two pathways'. Keynote lecture to the Modernity and Moral Identity conference organized by Helsinki University and the Finnish Academy in August 2000 (publication forthcoming).
95. See, for particularly apposite and recent examples, James Scott, Seeing like a state (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998); Stephen Toulmin, Cosmopolis (Chicago., IL: University of Chicago Press, 1992). They would not necessarily agree with Oakeshott nor he with them, except on the narrow point about the relationship between knowledge and politics.
96. See, for particularly apposite and recent examples, James Scott, Seeing like a state (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998); Stephen Toulmin, Cosmopolis (Chicago., IL: University of Chicago Press, 1992). They would not necessarily agree with Oakeshott nor he with them, except on the narrow point about the relationship between knowledge and politics.
97. The phrase actually used in the report is 'international' public good. But it is clear that the context is global. For an excellent, though clearly hyper-rationalist, discussion of this idea in general, see Inge Paul, Isabella Grunberg and Marc Stern, eds, Global public goods (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999).
98. To use an example I have referred to before (in International Relations, political theory and the problem of order pp. 180-81), both Stephen Krasner, in criticizing what he refers to as 'postmodernism' in IR theory, and David Campbell in defending what he calls 'political criticism', argue that their work represents a way of intervening in debates about policy choices. Different ways of course, but nonetheless both see their work as a contribution to the world of practice.
99. Sen introduced the notion of capability in his 1979 Tanner lectures at Stanford (Equality of what?) and has elaborated subsequently across a range of works in economics and philosophy and public policy. He has been joined in this by a number of scholars, the most prominent of whom is probably Martha Nussbaum See especially Sen, Choice, welfare and measurement (Oxford: Blackwell, 1982); The standard of living (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985); and 'Justice: means versus freedoms', Philosophy and Public Affairs 19, 1990. See also Sen and Nussbaum, eds, The quality of life (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994); and Sen's recent Development as freedom (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999).
100. Sen introduced the notion of capability in his 1979 Tanner lectures at Stanford (Equality of what?) and has elaborated subsequently across a range of works in economics and philosophy and public policy. He has been joined in this by a number of scholars, the most prominent of whom is probably Martha Nussbaum See especially Sen, Choice, welfare and measurement (Oxford: Blackwell, 1982); The standard of living (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985); and 'Justice: means versus freedoms', Philosophy and Public Affairs 19, 1990. See also Sen and Nussbaum, eds, The quality of life (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994); and Sen's recent Development as freedom (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999).
101. Sen introduced the notion of capability in his 1979 Tanner lectures at Stanford (Equality of what?) and has elaborated subsequently across a range of works in economics and philosophy and public policy. He has been joined in this by a number of scholars, the most prominent of whom is probably Martha Nussbaum See especially Sen, Choice, welfare and measurement (Oxford: Blackwell, 1982); The standard of living (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985); and 'Justice: means versus freedoms', Philosophy and Public Affairs 19, 1990. See also Sen and Nussbaum, eds, The quality of life (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994); and Sen's recent Development as freedom (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999).
102. Sen introduced the notion of capability in his 1979 Tanner lectures at Stanford (Equality of what?) and has elaborated subsequently across a range of works in economics and philosophy and public policy. He has been joined in this by a number of scholars, the most prominent of whom is probably Martha Nussbaum See especially Sen, Choice, welfare and measurement (Oxford: Blackwell, 1982); The standard of living (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985); and 'Justice: means versus freedoms', Philosophy and Public Affairs 19, 1990. See also Sen and Nussbaum, eds, The quality of life (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994); and Sen's recent Development as freedom (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999).
103. Sen introduced the notion of capability in his 1979 Tanner lectures at Stanford (Equality of what?) and has elaborated subsequently across a range of works in economics and philosophy and public policy. He has been joined in this by a number of scholars, the most prominent of whom is probably Martha Nussbaum See especially Sen, Choice, welfare and measurement (Oxford: Blackwell, 1982); The standard of living (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985); and 'Justice: means versus freedoms', Philosophy and Public Affairs 19, 1990. See also Sen and Nussbaum, eds, The quality of life (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994); and Sen's recent Development as freedom (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999).
104. See David Crocker, 'Functioning and capability: the foundations of Sen's and Nussbaum's development ethic', in Nussbaum and Johnathan Glover, eds, Women, culture and development (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995).
105. Sen's original lectures, on which Development as freedom was based, were originally given at the invitation of the President of the World Bank, James Wolfensohn.
106. At some level this has already happened in political theory more generally. See, for a slightly exaggerated but good discussion, Janet Coleman's Henry Tudor memorial lecture, reprinted in History of political thought, 1999.