Liberalism since the Cold War: An enemy to itself?

Review of International Studies

Volumn 25, Issue 5, 1999, Pages 145-160

  Hawthorn, Geoffrey ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85007811299     PISSN: 02602105     EISSN: 14699044     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S026021059900145X     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Robert W. Cox, ‘Social Forces, States, and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory’, in Robert W. Cox and T. J. Sinclair, Approaches to World Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 103.
2. Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1992).
3. James N. Rosenau, Turbulence in World Politics: A Theory of Change and Continuity (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990).
4. John Mueller, and Karl Mueller, ‘Sanctions of Mass Destruction’, Foreign Affairs, 78:3 (1999), p. 43.
5. David Deudney and G. John Ikenberry, ‘The Nature and Sources of International Order’, Review of International Studies, 25 (1999), pp. 179-196.
6. Paul Hirst, ‘The Eighty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1999: Power’, in Tim Dunne, Michael Cox and Ken Booth (eds.), The Eighty Years’ Crisis: International Relations 1919-1999 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 133-148.
7. This is the implication also of Deudney and Ikenberry's argument. ‘Realist theories of balance of power, hegemony, sovereignty, and nationalism’, they argue, ‘fail to capture the core dynamics of the liberal international order’; ‘The nature and sources of liberal international order’. p. 195.
8. For example, Alexander Wendt, ‘Collective Identity Formation and the International State’, American Political Science Review, 88 (1994), pp. 384-396;
9. Commission on Global Governance, Our Global Neighbourhood (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995);
10. Daniele Archibugi, David Held and Martin Köhler (eds.), Reimagining Political Community: Studies in Cosmopolitan Democracy (Cambridge: Polity, 1998).
11. The adjective ‘cosmopolitical’ is from Carol C. Gould, Rethinking Democracy: Freedom and Social Cooperation in Politics, Economy and Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 307-328.
12. James N. Rosenau and Ernst-Otto Czempiel (eds.), Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); Commission on Global Governance, Our Global Neighbourhood.
13. Jürgen Habermas, ‘Three Normative Models of Democracy’, Constellations, 1:1 (1994), pp. 1-10;
14. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy (Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1996).
15. John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971);
16. John Rawls, Political Liberalism, 2nd edn., reprint, 1993 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996);
17. John Rawls, ‘The Idea of Public Reason Revisited’, University of Chicago Law Review, 64 (1997), pp. 765-807.
18. Michael Walzer, Thick and Thin: Moral Argument at Home and Abroad (London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994), p. 4.
19. Onora O'Neill, Towards Justice and Virtue: A Constructive Account of Practical Reasoning (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 113, passim. O'Neill is careful to say that this does not presume the justice or virtue of a world state; it is merely ‘argument to show that, at least in our world, foreigners count’, and why.
20. There is an excellent summary of this state of affairs in James Mayall, ‘Introduction’, in James Mayall (ed.), The New Interventionism, 1991-1994: United Nations Experience in Cambodia, Former Yugoslavia and Somalia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 1-24.
21. Mayall follows Bull's distinction between the ‘pluralists’, upholding the sovereignty of states and international rules and institutions to sustain that sovereignty, and the ‘solidarists’, aspiring to something more. On the effective statehood of the ex-colonial territories, see Robert H. Jackson, Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).
22. Mayall, ‘Introduction’, p. 6, although he is himself sceptical.
23. Mats Berdal and Michael Leifer, ‘Cambodia’; Spyros Economides and Paul Taylor, ‘Former Yugoslavia’; Ioan Lewis and James Mayall, ‘Somalia’; in Mayall, The New Interventionism, pp. 25-58, 59-93, 94-124.
24. A full and illuminating account of the events in Yugoslavia in the first half of the 1990s is Susan L. Woodward, Balkan Tragedy: Chaos and Dissolution after the Cold War (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1995); I am grateful to Helen Thompson for this reference.
25. Marc Weller, ‘The Rambouillet Conference on Kosovo’, International Affairs, 75 (1999), p. 221.
26. ‘Veteran Asian Leader Scorns US policy’, Financial Times, 19 May 1999.
27. Leo Gross, ‘The Peace of Westphalia, 1648-1948’, American Journal of International Law, 42:20 (1948), pp. 20-41.
28. Mueller and Mueller, ‘Sanctions of Mass Destruction’.
29. The phrase is Lee's, ‘Veteran Asian Leader Scorns US policy’. Others believe that China fears the precedent set by NATO's intervention in Yugoslavia in 1999, ‘Anti-NATO Stance Draws Russia and China Together’, Financial Times, 10 June 1999.
30. ‘Diplomat at War’, Financial Times, 15-16 May 1999;
31. ‘Blair Doctrine to Tackle Brutal Regimes’, Financial Times, 23 April 1999.
32. Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political, George Schwab (ed., trans.), with a foreword by Tracy B. Strong, reprint, 1932 (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1996), p. 54. The limiting case, Schmitt notes, is the war fought to end all wars, which ‘degrades the enemy into moral and other categories and is forced to make of him a monster that must not only be defeated but also utterly destroyed. In other words, he is an enemy who no longer must be compelled to retreat into his borders only’, p. 36.
33. Chris Hedges, ‘Kosovo's Next Masters?’, Foreign Affairs, 78:3 (1999), pp. 24-42.
34. ‘Nothing to Worry About, Says NATO', The Independent, 15 May 1999.
35. First estimates are that perhaps 2,000-3,000 people had died in Kosovo before the war began; by its end, perhaps 6,000 Serb soldiers, 2,000 Serb civilians and 100,000 Kosovars might have done so, ‘Messy War, Messy Peace’, The Economist, 12 June 1999, pp. 17-18.
36. Schmitt, The Concept of the Political, p. 79.
37. The Concept of the Political, p. 49.
38. ‘Veteran Asian Leader Scorns US Policy’. Michael J. Glennon, ‘The New Interventionism’, Foreign Affairs, 78:3 (1999), pp. 2-7, is one who accepts that it was proper so to use it.
39. Schmitt, The Concept of the Political, pp. 70.
40. John Williamson, ‘Democracy and the “Washington Consensus”’, World Development, 21 (1993), pp. 1329-1336.
41. Robert Wade, ‘Japan, the World Bank, and the Art of Paradigm Maintenance: The East Asian Miracle in Political Perspective’, New Left Review, 217 (1996), pp. 3-36.
42. World Bank, Governance and Development (Washington, DC: World Bank, 1992). In a lecture in Cambridge in 1999, the President of the World Bank took pleasure in his account of how he had managed to persuade his board that corruption was a social rather than political problem, a problem, accordingly, that the Bank could address.
43. Christopher Tremewan, The Political Economy of Social Control in Singapore (London: Macmillan, 1994);
44. Garry Rodan, ‘Elections without representation: the Singapore experience under the PAP’, in Robert H. Taylor (ed.), The Politics of Elections in Southeast Asia (Cambridge: Woodrow Wilson Center Press and Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 61-89.
45. This is the argument of Thomas L. Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree (New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 1999). The image of closed doors and open windows is Barry Eichengreen's.
46. Roberto Mangabeira Unger, Democracy Realised: The Progressive Alternative (London: Verso, 1998), pp. 68-69, 120.
47. Geoffrey Hawthorn, ‘Civil society, development and politics in the South’ in Sudipta Kaviraj and Sunil Khilnani (eds.), Civil Society: History and Possibilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming).
48. John Ruggie, ‘Multilateralism: The Anatomy of an Institution’, in John Ruggie (ed.), Multilateralism Matters: The Theory and Praxis of an Institutional Form (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), p. 31.
49. Alexandre Kojève, Introduction to the Reading of Hegel (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1980), pp. 159-161;
50. Robert Pippin, ‘Being, Time and Politics: The Strauss-Kojève Debate’, in Idealism as Modernism: Hegelian Variations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 233-261;
51. Perry Anderson, ‘The Ends of History’, in A Zone of Engagement (London: Verso, 1992), p. 324.
52. Quoted by Andrew Gimson, ‘The Green Man's Burden’, The Spectator, 19 June 1999, p. 14.
53. ‘Annan Urges Role for UN’, Financial Times, 20 May 1999.
54. It is argued that ‘sovereignty’ is not sensibly seen as an all or nothing affair (Christopher W. Morris, An Essay on the Modern State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 172-227). But whatever the arguments for qualifying it, it allows itself, once these arguments are accepted, to be overridden.
55. Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996).
56. For instance Unger, Democracy Realized, pp. 84-86.
57. There is an excellent account of the senses that have been given to ‘civil society’ and the incoherent expectations that its advocates have had of it in Lawrence Hamilton, ‘Deconstructing “Civil Society”: Institutions, Practices, Roles’, unpublished Paper (Cambridge, 1999).
58. There is a good review of these positions, which the authors describe as liberal, realist and cognitivist, in Andreas Hasenclever, Peter Mayer and Volker Rittberger, Theories of International Regimes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). In their case for a new ‘structural liberalism’ in ‘The Nature and Sources of Liberal International Order’, Deudney and Ikenberry emphasise the second, adding that the advantages can be absolute as well as relative, and the third.
59. ‘An enemy exists only when, at least potentially, one fighting collectivity of people confronts a similar collectivity. The enemy is solely the public enemy, because everything that has a relationship to such a collectivity of men, particularly to a whole nation, becomes public by virtue of such a relationship’, Schmitt, The Concept of the Political, p. 28.
60. Niccolò Machiavelli, Sergio Bertelli (ed.), Il Principe e Discorsi Sopra la Prima Deca di Tito Livio, vol. 1 (Milan: Feltrinelli, 1961), p. 136.
61. quoted by Sebastian de Grazia, Machiavelli in Hell (Brighton: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1989), p. 198.
62. John P. McCormick, Carl Schmitt's Critique of Liberalism: Against Politics as Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 249-289. In 1936, Schmitt ended his association with the National Socialist government. By 1944, he appeared to have accepted what in the 1930s he had denied; McCormick, pp. 300-1.
63. Friedrich Nietzsche, Keith Ansell-Pearson (ed.), Carol Diethe (trans.), On the Genealogy of Morality, reprint, 1887 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 61-62.