Provincialising International Relations through a reading of dharma

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Giorgio Shani ◽  
Navnita Chadha Behera

Abstract This article will attempt to ‘provincialise’ (Chakrabarty, 2000) the ‘secular cosmology’ of International Relations (IR) through an examination of the relational cosmology of dharma. We argue that IR is grounded in ‘secularised’ Judaeo-Christian assumptions concerning time, relations between self and other, order, and the sovereign state that set the epistemic limits of the discipline. These assumptions will be ‘provincialised’ through an engagement with dharma based on a reading of The Mahābharāta, one of the oldest recorded texts in the world. We argue that the concept of dharma offers a mode of understanding the multidimensionality of human existence without negating any of its varied, contradictory expressions. By deconstructing notions of self and other, dharma illustrates how all beings are related to one another in a moral, social, and cosmic order premised on human agency, which flows from ‘inside-out’ rather than ‘outside-in’ and that is governed by a heterogenous understanding of time. This order places limits on the state's exercise of power in a given territory by making the state responsible for creating social conditions that would enable all beings to realise their potential, thus qualifying the principle of state sovereignty that remains the foundation of the ‘secular cosmology of IR’.

Author(s):  
Sean Fleming

States are commonly blamed for wars, called on to apologize, held liable for debts and reparations, bound by treaties, and punished with sanctions. But what does it mean to hold a state responsible as opposed to a government, a nation, or an individual leader? Under what circumstances should we assign responsibility to states rather than individuals? This book demystifies the phenomenon of state responsibility and explains why it is a challenging yet indispensable part of modern politics. Taking Thomas Hobbes' theory of the state as a starting point, the book presents a theory of state responsibility that sheds new light on sovereign debt, historical reparations, treaty obligations, and economic sanctions. Along the way, it overturns longstanding interpretations of Hobbes' political thought, explores how new technologies will alter the practice of state responsibility as we know it, and develops new accounts of political authority, representation, and legitimacy. The book argues that Hobbes' idea of the state offers a far richer and more realistic conception of state responsibility than the theories prevalent today and demonstrates that Hobbes' Leviathan is much more than an anthropomorphic “artificial man.” The book is essential reading for political theorists, scholars of international relations, international lawyers, and philosophers. It recovers a forgotten understanding of state personality in Hobbes' thought and shows how to apply it to the world of imperfect states in which we live.


Author(s):  
Sunil Khilnani

How should India’s rise be understood in the framework of international relations and a changing global order? This chapter assesses India’s jostle for an advantageous position on the world stage through three sets of lenses: the attempt to voice the civilizational values of a nascent nation; the expressions of the economic and developmental needs of a poor citizenry; and the self-professed aims and pursuits of the interests of a sovereign state. It then outlines some of the challenges in defining India’s international position, and explores possible means through which these can be navigated. In order to optimize the rewards of India’s interactions with the global order, deft management of all three approaches is necessary, enabled by a recognition of the fact that its greatest strength lies in the ability to articulate a democratically validated foreign policy.


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 21-23
Author(s):  
Aleksey L. Bredikhin ◽  
◽  
Evgeniy D. Protsenko ◽  

In this article, the authors analyze the amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, adopted in 2020, with a view to their influence on the state of Russian sovereignty and note that the topic of sovereignty is central to these amendments. Researchers conclude that the amendments constitute, first and foremost, the strengthening of the sovereignty of the Russian Federation, the autonomy of state jurisdiction, and the increasing status and role of Russia in the world political system.


2021 ◽  
pp. 22-38
Author(s):  
Martin Wight

In this essay Wight explained why there is no set of classic works regarding relations among states—what Wight terms ‘international theory’— analogous to the rich political theory literature concerning the state. In addition to works on international law, four categories of effort have populated the field: (a) those of ‘irenists’ advocating mechanisms to promote peace; (b) those of Machiavellians examining raison d’état; (c) incidental works by great philosophers and historians; and (d) noteworthy speeches and other writings by statesmen and officials. International theory works have been ‘marked, not only by paucity but also by intellectual and moral poverty’, because of the focus since the sixteenth century on the modern sovereign state, with the states-system neglected. Moreover, while there has been material and organizational progress within states in recent centuries, international relations have remained ‘incompatible with progressivist theory’. People who recoil from analyses implying that progress in international affairs is doubtful sometimes prefer a Kantian ‘argument from desperation’ asserting the feasibility of improvements and ‘perpetual peace’. Wight concluded that ‘historical interpretation’ is for international relations the counterpart of political theory for the state.


1925 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 475-499 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Y. Elliott

The late Professor William A. Dunning is reported to have said of the recent political theories which attempt to replace the conception of state sovereignty by some pluralistic grouping of social forces, that they were “radically unintelligible.” It is hard for political theorists who have been accustomed to regard the conception of sovereignty as a foundation stone and a sort of “rock of ages” for their faith to be told (as one is every day, more or less) that the anti-intellectualistic type of a sociological basis is the only valid one for juristic structure. For that, according to the old rationalistic conceptions of analytical jurisprudence, is indeed to base sovereignty upon shifting sands and to deprive law of any special significance of its own by equating it with social reactions of the most indeterminate character. But the anti-intellectualistic trend of modern political theory indignantly denies this charge. The assumption, it counters, that any legal center of reference can be final in its authority or in its right to command is an outworn Hegelianism, discredited by practice and theory alike. Law is too much a thing of fictions to be taken seriously in its claims, when it pretends to be giving an accurate description of facts in the abstract terms of a pretended right on the part of the state to be the sole author of enforceable commands and the only rightful claimant of men's ultimate loyalty.


Author(s):  
Matthew Weinert

Literature concentrated on sovereignty’s location laid the groundwork for the distinctive sort of ethical detachment that has characterized sovereignty in international relations (IR). While it is customary to refer to sovereign absolutism as linking a logic of prerogative with sovereignty, mainstream IR theory has reproduced its own variation on the theme and done little until recently to decouple the two. Yet beginning in the late 1970s, the literature began to entertain the idea that interdependence and globalization impede, constrain, corrode, or diminish the core assumptions of sovereignty: the centralization of power and authority, the supremacy of the state, the state’s capabilities to achieve its objectives, and the degree of permissiveness afforded by an anarchical system. Put differently, the space within which sovereignty could operate unencumbered rapidly diminished in size and scope, and the sovereign state, by losing control over various functions, was becoming incoherent at minimum, and irrelevant at maximum. If these arguments focused on a narrow question, then a new literature emerged in the mid to late 1990s that focused on, and questioned, sovereignty as authority. Moreover, the debates about globalization underscored sovereignty’s disjunctive nature. Yet by linking it so closely with material structures and factors, the literature generally elided consideration of the constitutive effect of international norms on sovereignty and the ways the institution of sovereignty has changed over time.


Author(s):  
Адибекян ◽  
Oganes Adibekyan

Strengthening of world nations merging together within existing states happens along withthe formation of ethnic groups. These foreign parts of nations form for various reasons, but independently the associations of members of these groups have to be in a relationship with a native country as well as with the citizens of their country of resettlement. Self-governing bodies of the Diaspora, authorities of native state and of the state of residence form a triangular system, where each side holds friendliness, or hostility, or indifference. Three components with three different attitudes form different combinations, knowledge and consideration of which in certain cases obtain political significance. Some views are independent of those parties. Some are managed, generated. They are affected by international relations in the world. Variability may Not be excluded. All this is a subject for clarification in specific studies of selected nations and their diaspora, selected countries. The fundamental consideration of the positions of the Diaspora inbetween the authorities of the two countries ismethodologically valuable.


2003 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 332-349 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Chandler

Cosmopolitan international relations theorists envisage a process of expanding cosmopolitan democracy and global governance, in which for the first time there is the possibility of global issues being addressed on the basis of new forms of democracy, derived from the universal rights of global citizens. They suggest that, rather than focus attention on the territorially limited rights of the citizen at the level of the nation-state, more emphasis should be placed on extending democracy and human rights to the international sphere. This paper raises problems with extending the concept of rights beyond the bounds of the sovereign state, without a mechanism of making these new rights accountable to their subject. The emerging gap, between holders of cosmopolitan rights and those with duties, tends to create dependency rather than to empower. So while the new rights remain tenuous, there is a danger that the cosmopolitan framework can legitimise the abrogation of the existing rights of democracy and self-government preserved in the UN Charter framework.


2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 113-129
Author(s):  
V. A. Avatkov

The article considers the role of ideology and values in the formation and implementation of the current foreign policy of the Republic of Turkey. Taking into account the increasing role of regional actors such as Turkey in international politics, studying their tactics and mechanisms of influence on the global political environment is necessary to explain the further transformation of the international system.The study reveals the strengthening role of the ideology and values in world politics in general and in individual states, such as Turkey, in particular. Under the rule of the Justice and Development Party headed by the current President R.T. Erdogan the country began a gradual transition from «Kemalism», which includes the preservation of secularism, ProWestern democratic values and a gradual departure from the Ottoman heritage, to a more conservative domestic and foreign policy, characterized by the strengthening of Islamist and nationalist sentiments, as well as the transition to the policy of «neo-Ottomanism», «neo-pan-Turkism». The return of the idea of «aggrandizement» of the country to the official political discourse has affected the conduct of Turkey's foreign policy towards both the regional states and the world arena as a whole.The Republic not only began self-restoration as an autonomous actor of international relations in the eyes of the key world powers, but also started to spread its own values and ideas among the population of both the Middle East and among the states which constitute a national interest for Turkey (Russia, the post-Soviet space, etc.), thus influencing them at various levels and involving them in its orbit of influence – both politically, economically and from a humanitarian point of view.Using «hard power» abroad no longer meets the current Turkey’s policy. Instead it relies on forging humanitarian ties, combining initiatives in the cultural, educational and scientific fields to achieve a long-term influence. The Republic of Turkey is trying to spread the following values among the world community:«Justice». International relations must be just and fair. For Turkey it means conformity with its national interests.«Religious fatalism». Government actions both at home and abroad are legitimized through references to religion and fate.«Democratic values». The Republic of Turkey considers itself the most democratic state in the world and contrasts itself with “Western democracies”, which, according to the Turkish leadership, are spreading hegemony rather than democracy.«State-centrism» and collectivism. The interests of the state, society, and especially the Muslim Ummah, are placed above the values of the individual.«Traditional values». Given the Islamization and conservatism of Turkish society as a whole, traditional values also begin to play a major role in the general political discourse of the state.«Culture». Turkey also makes adjustments to the concept of «culture» in very inclusive terms, presenting its culture as a «melting pot» that can turn anything into Turkish.«Respect». In the eastern tradition, it is customary to show respect to elders, as well as neighbors and guests. Turkey uses a demonstration of respect in foreign policy instrumentally and pragmatically. An example of this is the address of the President of Turkey in relation to the leaders of other states: Nursultan Nazarbayev – «aksakal» of the Turkic world, Vladimir Putin is a «dear friend».


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura McAlpine

This MRP seeks to illustrate why and how states circumstantially employ their sovereignty in regards to international forced migration. My thesis is, that states, dependent on their degree of sovereignty, are negligent in their capacity to accommodate refugees. In pursuing this thesis, I examine state sovereignty from the International Relations framework and conceptualize sovereignty as a derivative of the state. Furthermore, I situate ‘the state’ with political realism; and align its opposing paradigm, political idealism, with the United Nations. Using qualitative measurements of state sovereignty, I find that although states have signed international agreements that hold them accountable to facilitate in the resettlement of refugees when international conflict ensues, states claim that because refugees threaten security, as well as the economic, political, social integrity of the state, they cannot and will not accept them. Key words: sovereignty, the state, refugees, International Relations, the United Nations


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document