International Political Theory Research Articles

The Illusion of Power and the Disruption of Moral Norms: Thucydides' Critique of Periclean Policy

Scholars in both international relations and political theory have been turning their attention to Thucydides with increasing frequency but with dissimilar questions. We draw on both traditions of inquiry to reexamine Thucydides' view of Pericles. We argue that antithetical reasoning is present in the treatment of Pericles and is manifested in the opposition between the statesman's brilliance and the infelicitous consequences of his statecraft, as become evident in the work as a whole. This antithesis undermines the claim advanced by certain figures in the History, as well as by contemporary realists, that states (statesmen) should not be held to the same moral standards as individuals because to do so subverts their capacity to conduct prudent policy. We propose that Thucydides' work suggests, instead, that it is precisely when the norms of moral conduct are disrupted that states and individuals find it next to impossible to chart a prudent course of action.

DOMESTIC POLITICS, FOREIGN POLICY, AND THEORIES OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

▪ Abstract A significant and growing literature on international relations (IR) argues that domestic politics is typically an important part of the explanation for states' foreign policies, and seeks to understand its influence more precisely. I argue that what constitutes a “domestic-political” explanation of a state's foreign policy choices has not been clearly elaborated. What counts as a domestic-political explanation is defined by opposition to systemic or structural explanations. But these may be specified in several different ways—I spell out two—each of which implies a different concept of domestic-political explanations. If a systemic IR theory pictures states as unitary, rational actors, then a domestic-political explanation is one in which domestic-political interactions in at least one state yield a suboptimal foreign policy relative to some normative standard. Or, if a systemic IR theory pictures states as unitary, rational actors and also requires that attributes of particular states not enter the explanation, then a domestic-political explanation is any one that involves state characteristics other than relative power. Implications of each approach are developed, and examples from the literature are provided. I also address the question of whether there is a sharp distinction between a “systemic theory of international politics” and a “theory of foreign policy,” arguing that there is an important and natural sense in which they are the same.

The Theory of International Politics? An Analysis of Neorealist Theory

In recent years a number of writers have defended and attacked various features of structural, or neo-realist theories of international politics. Few, however, have quarrelled with one of the most foundational features of neorealist theory: its assumptions about the nature of science and scientific theories. In this essay I assess the views of science underlying much neorealist theory, especially as they are articulated in the work of Kenneth Waltz. I argue not only that neorealist theories rest on assumptions about science and theory that have been questioned by postpositivist philosophers and historians of science, but also that the failure to consider the work of these writers yields theories of international politics that are deficient in several respects: they are “weak” theories in the sense that they cannot illuminate crucial features of international politics, they presuppose and sustain a narrow view of power and power relations, they reify practices and relations in the international arena and they offer little promise of producing the sort of “Copernican Revolution” for which Waltz called (or, more modestly, even a minimally satisfactory theory of international politics). In light of these shortcomings, I sketch an alternative approach to the study of international affairs, one that has been termed “prototype studies.” I contend that such an approach provides scholars with a rigorous way of studying international politics, without being a theoretical science.

Universalism, communitarianism and human rights: A reply to Chris Brown

In a recent issue of The International Journal of Human Rights (1/2 Summer 1997) Professor Chris Brown, a scholar distinguished particularly for his integration of the disciplines of international relations and political theory, launched a forceful attack on the idea of universal human rights. This response argues that Professor Brown's attack has three targets ‐ human rights activists, the idea of human rights and the philosophy of liberal universalism ‐ and that it fails in each case. It attacks human rights activists unsuccessfully because it caricatures their beliefs. It fails to undermine the idea of universal human rights because its own ethical theory requires some version of that idea. And it fails to refute liberal universalism because its own supposed alternative is implicitly both liberal and universalist. This article concludes by affirming that the very importance and contested character of the idea of universal human rights entails that serious critiques should be welcomed, and that Professor Brown's attack, though unsuccessful, has opened up an important space for dialogue.

The Promise of Alliance: NATO and the Political Imagination

The nature and function of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) are uncertain now that the alliance has accomplished its primary objective of defending Western Europe from the perceived Soviet threat. Despite uncertainty about NATO's role in the post-Cold War world, its political and military leaders agree that it can continue to play a vital part in enhancing European security and maintaining international stability. This superb analysis explores the evolving functions and future directions of this unique organization, paying particular attention to the political cultures and goals of its member states. The Promise of Alliance is important reading for students and scholars of international relations, foreign affairs, and political theory.

Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics: Erratum

Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics: Erratum

New Realist Research on Alliances: Refining, Not Refuting, Waltz's Balancing Proposition

Realism is both a scientific research program and, more traditionally, a political philosophy. All realists share a pessimistic worldview that posits perpetual struggle among groups for security, prestige, and power and that denies the capacity of human reason to create a world of peace and harmony. Recent research by so-called neotraditional realists does not disconfirm Waltz's balancing proposition. Instead, these works have tended to add unit-level variables in order to transform Waltz's theory of international politics into one of foreign policy. The question is not whether states balance or bandwagon—history clearly shows that they do both—but rather under what conditions states choose one strategy or the other.

Across the Great Divide: Integrating Comparative and International Politics

Research in comparative and international politics often deals with the same questions, such as the nature of war, the conduct of foreign economic policy, and the consequences of different political institutions. Yet there is a pronounced gap between these two subfields of political science. In neorealist theory, this gap is to be expected, since the structure of the international system cannot be reduced to facts about its component units. Given the incompleteness of international relations theory, it rarely provides knowledge that is sufficient to explain the actions of the component units. This theoretical insufficiency provides the motivation to bring theories of domestic and international politics closer together. Three attempts to integrate comparative and international politics are discussed in this article. The first derives from the logic of two-level games as originally advanced by Robert Putnam. The second relies on a special application of second-image reversed theory by Ronald Rogowski in Commerce and Coalitions. The third examines the merging of previously distinctive systems of rules and laws among countries in the European Union. This approach does not rely on a single exemplar (as do the first two) but uses a number of institutional and legal theories to conceptualize the domestification of a regional, international political system. Thus, strategic interaction, the domestic effects of international trade flows, and institutional merging of legal systems provide three quite different metaphors for narrowing the gap between our knowledge of domestic and of international politics.

On Nationality.David Miller

Previous articleNext article No AccessBook ReviewsOn Nationality. David Miller Charles R. BeitzCharles R. Beitz Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Ethics Volume 108, Number 1Oct., 1997 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/233801 Views: 9Total views on this site Citations: 1Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1997 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Menno R Kamminga International Political Theory: Varieties of Moral Discourse, Acta Politica 42, no.44 (Nov 2007): 421–442.https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500193

An analysis of contemporary statehood: consequences for conflict and cooperation

What are the prospects for conflict and cooperation (and ultimately for war and peace) now that the Cold War has ended? The various theoretical perspectives come up with rather different answers. Waltzian Neorealism diagnoses business as usual: anarchy prevails; states will continue to have to fend for themselves. With the current transition from bipolarity toward multipolarity we must even expect more, not less, international conflict. Liberals are much more optimistic: international institutions and liberal democracy can pave the way for significant progress toward a peaceful world. Constructivists are also optimistic: states can develop cooperative relationships; anarchy is not a given systemic constraint. Cooperative anarchies are thus a possibility. In this article, I argue that there is an important element missing from the current debate about prospects for international conflict and cooperation. That element concerns the nature of contemporary statehood. Internation relations theory has tended to treat states as fixed, ‘like units’.This is the well-known formulation by Kenneth Waltz: ‘so long as anarchy endures, states remain like units’. ‘To call states “like units” is to say that each state is like all other states in being an autonomous political unit’. ‘We abstract from every attribute of states except their capabilities.’ Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA, 1979), pp. 93, 95, 99. They are not, of course, and the difference between the main types of statehood amounts to much more than the variation in capabilities noted by Realists and the absence or presence of liberal democracy as analyzed by liberals. There are three different main types of state in the present international system, and an identification of them is necessary in order to appreciate current and future patterns of cooperation and conflict.

The Explanatory Power of Game Theory in International Politics: Syrian–Israeli Crisis Interactions, 1951–87

The present paper assesses the usefulness of game theory in explaining crisis interactions between Israel and Syria. We begin with the simplest game‐theoretic tool for analyzing strategic situations: the one‐shot 2×2 game. By analyzing the various episodes of the protracted Syrian‐‐Israeli conflict as one‐shot 2×2 games, we avoid the multiplicity of equilibria of the infinitely repeated game and the difficulty of specifying an endpoint of a finitely repeated game. The pure strategy Nash equilibria of these one‐shot games are treated as theoretical predictions and are compared with the observed outcomes.

The International Politics of Russia and the Successor States

Introduction - the study of the international politics of Russia and the successor states - definitions, theoretical approaches to the study of international politics, theories of international politics and the collapse of the USSR, the former Soviet Union - its inward and outward orientations. Part 1 Soviet foreign and defense policies during the Gorbachev period: the Brezhnev legacy the new political thinking new thinking in practice - Soviet foreign policy during the Gorbachev period conclusion - the end of the Cold War and the heritage of the Gorbachev period. Part 2 The transition - the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the initiation of the post-Soviet order: economic reform and external economic relations changes in the military the nationalities issue the Communist Party the August coup August-December 1991 - things fall apart. Part 3 The former Soviet Union - its inward and outward orientations: the inward orientation - the Commonwealth of Independent States and Russia's relations with the near abroad the outward orienation - the successor states and the wider world conclusion - the foreign policies of new states. Part 4 Defence and security in the former Soviet Union: controversies over nuclear forces upheaval in conventional armed forces cases studies of disagreement alliances and security interests conclusion. Part 5 Diplomacy and conflict resolution - the Soviet legacy and the challenges of the post-Cold War world: disputes involving open warfare, either between or within the successor states disputed territorial claims involving one or more of the successor states plus an outside party violent conflicts in the Third World the wars in the former Yugoslavia conclusion - confict resolution in the post-Cold War world. Part 6 Post-Soviet external economic relations: the Soviet economy - crawling from the wreckage economic viability interdependence interdependence, integration and the formation of the CIS economic issues and the CIS the former Soviet Union and the international economy conclusion. Part 7 Conclusion - perspectives on the post-Cold War world and the former Soviet Union: prospects.

Theory and Practice in International Politics

Theory and Practice in International Politics

Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics

This article reformulates liberal international relations (IR) theory in a nonideological and nonutopian form appropriate to empirical social science. Liberal IR theory elaborates the insight that state-society relations—the relationship of states to the domestic and transnational social context in which they are embedded—have a fundamental impact on state behavior in world politics. Societal ideas, interests, and institutions influence state behavior by shaping state preferences, that is, the fundamental social purposes underlying the strategic calculations of governments. For liberals, the configuration of state preferences matters most in world politics—not, as realists argue, the configuration of capabilities and not, as institutionalists (that is, functional regime theorists)maintain, the configuration of information and institutions. This article codifies this basic liberal insight in the form of three core theoretical assumptions, derives from them three variants of liberal theory, and demonstrates that the existence of a coherent liberal theory has significant theoretical, methodological, and empirical implications. Restated in this way, liberal theory deserves to be treated as a paradigmatic alternative empirically coequal with and analytically more fundamental than the two dominant theories in contemporary IR scholarship: realism and institutionalism.

The Struggle for a National Identity in Post-Soviet Russia

Though the West welcomed Boris Yeltsin's reelection as president of Russia, Russia's cooperation with, let alone integration into, the West cannot be taken for granted. Yeltsin faces poor health, a parliament still dominated by communists and other opponents of democracy, and a war of secession in Chechnya. Moreover, Yeltsin's own behavior has been erratic. In particular he has shown a willingness to compromise with nationalist and less-than-liberal politicians, including his former national security aid, Alexander Lebed. Given Russia's power and importance, this article addresses the sources of Russia's recent and future conduct. It approaches this task by answering two questions. First, how do Russian political leaders perceive the still new international order in which they find themselves? This question is important, because by knowing the theories of international politics that different leaders hold and their relative influence in policy we can predict (albeit imperfectly) how states will behave in the future. Second, what are the sources of those theories? The origin of the current Russian foreign-policy elite's theories of international relations is intriguing, not only because it can contribute to our understanding of theory formation and development, but because it holds implications for our understanding of international relations in general. Identification of the source or sources of policy makers' thinking about foreign affairs at the very least guides observers interested in explaining and predicting state behavior.' More ambi-

Constructing National Interests

While the concept of `the national interest' has long been central to theories of international politics, its analytical usefulness has also been seriously challenged. I argue that, to be useful in accounting for state action, this concept should be reconceptualized in constructivist terms. I begin with a brief discussion of the conventional, realist notion of the national interest, lodging two criticisms against it. Then, starting from Wendt's recent constructivist interventions, I provide a constructivist reconceputalization of `the national interest'. I argue that national interests are produced in the construction, through the dual mechanisms of articulation and interpellation, of representations of international politics. This process of national interest construction is illustrated with a sketch of the production of the US national interest during the so-called `Cuban missile crisis'.

The Social Contract from Hobbes to Rawls

Preface 1.The social contract and its critics: an overview, David Boucher and Paul Kelly 2.Hobbes' contractarianism: A comparative analysis, Murray Forsyth 3.John Locke: Social contract versus political anthropology, Jeremy Waldron 4.Locke's contract in perspective, Martyn P.Thompson 5.History, reason and experience: Hume's arguments against contract theories, Dario Castiglione 6.Rousseau, social contract and the modern Leviathan, Jeremy Jennings 7.Kant's social contract theory, Howard Williams 8.Hegel's critique of the theory of the social contract, Bruce Haddock 9.Marx and the social contract, Lawrence Wilde 10.Contractarianism in international political theory, John Charvet 11.Women, gender and contract:Feminist interpretations, Diane Coole 12.Gauthier and the contractual basis of morality, Margaret Moore 13.Justifying Justice: Contractarianism, communitarianism and the foundations of contemporary liberalism, Paul Kelly 14.'Economic justice': Contractarianism and Rawls' difference principle, Rex Martin

Kant's Third Image: Systemic Sources of the Liberal Peace

Much recent scholarship has focused upon the apparent absence of war among liberal democratic states-the liberal To help explain the phenomenon, many refer to the political writings of Immanuel Kant, and the central role he envisioned for the liberal republic as the foundation for perpetual peace. Against this view, neorealists contend that Kant, and modern interpreters, overlook the important and unremitting force of anarchy among states. For neorealists, no peace dependent on only the internal pacific disposition of liberal republics can endure. Supporters of the Kantian interpretation respond that properly constituted republics can, in fact, overcome the anarchy among them, and that the present liberal peace therefore challenges the adequacy of systemic theories of international politics. This article argues that to view the significance of the liberal peace as a test of opposing levels of analysis misses deeper issues. Kant's thought

The Moral Politics of Hans Morgenthau

It is argued that, in contrast to traditional interpretations, Morgenthau's theory of international politics is primarily concerned with the normative, and that, in contrast to revisionist accounts, the moral theory he generates is rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition of moral thought. Morgenthau adopts an Augustinian, rather than Hobbesian-Machiavellian, moral framework, reconciling cosmopolitan principles with a recalcitrant reality by representing their relationship as a dialectical tension. This leads him to develop a practical morality which emphasizes the continued application of cosmopolitan imperatives to action, mitigated by a consequentialist orientation which demands that they be applied cautiously and always adapted to circumstances. This generates a political morality which reconciles the imperatives of morality and national survival by asserting that, while the national interest must be protected, it must always be subjected to strict moral limitations. It is therefore concluded that his approach ultimately culminates in a traditional, Judeo-Christian, nonperfectionist ethic.

Hobbes and international relations: a reconsideration

Hobbes has long been a central figure in the theory of international relations. He has also been a badly misunderstood one. While often invoked to support contemporary theories of international politics, Hobbes's thinking actually challenges rational-choice theories, the structural realism of Kenneth Waltz, and the “rationalist” approach of the English school. Indeed, the skeptical foundations of his political vision place him closer to contemporary postpositivist positions, though here, too, his views raise difficult and important questions for such a stance. In general, Hobbes's theory of international relations focuses not upon the determinations of anarchy in any conventional sense but upon issues of knowledge, ideology, and legitimacy in the construction of political orders both domestically and internationally.