Why Is There No International Theory?

2021 ◽  
pp. 22-38
Author(s):  
Martin Wight
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
The State ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Historical Interpretation ◽  
Sovereign State ◽  
Perpetual Peace ◽  
International Theory ◽  
Raison D’État ◽  
The Rich

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.

Postmodernism, ethics and international political theory

1995 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 237-250 ◽  
Author(s):  
Molly Cochran
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Political Practice ◽  
Sovereign State ◽  
International Theory ◽  
International Political Theory

A group of writers have taken up Nietzsche's hammer against the constructions of contemporary international theory. Postmodern approaches problematize the dominant understanding of international relations as a world of sovereign states which demarcate inside from outside, order from anarchy, identity from difference. More generally, they challenge the notion of sovereignty as an ahistorical, universal, transcendent concept, be it applied to the sovereign state, the sovereign individual or a sovereign truth. Sovereignty and the dichotomies regulated by its power are mechanisms of domination and closure which limit the play of political practice. It is the aim of these writers to hammer away at these limitations, opening space for plural and diverse practices in world politics.

The Islamic Paradigm of Nations: Toward a Neo-Classical Approach

2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amr Sabet
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Good Life ◽  
International Politics ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
International Community ◽  
The State ◽  
The Good Life ◽  
Classical Approach ◽  
Sovereign State

As late as 1966, Martin Wight could still pose the question: “why is there no international relations theory?” By this he meant the absence of a tradition of speculation about relations between states, family of nations, or the international community, comparable to that of political theory as speculation about the state. To the extent that it did exist, it was marked by “intellectual and moral poverty” caused both by the prejudice imposed by the sovereign state and the belief in progress (Wight 1995: 15-16 &19). Unlike political theory, which has been progressivist in its concern with pursuing interests of state as “theory of the good life”, international politics as the “theory of survival” constituted the “realm of recurrence and repetition” (Wight 1995: 25 & 32). Essentially, therefore, it had nothing new to offer.

Sovereign State or Sovereign Group?

1925 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 475-499 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Y. Elliott
Keyword(s):  
Political Theory ◽  
The State ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
Accurate Description ◽  
Social Forces ◽  
Special Significance ◽  
Sovereign State ◽  
Late Professor ◽  
Political Theories ◽  
Foundation Stone

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.

Ethics and Sovereignty

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Weinert
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
The State ◽  
International Norms ◽  
Ir Theory ◽  
Sovereign State ◽  
The Core ◽  
New Literature ◽  
Over Time ◽  
Power And Authority

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.

Imperien verstehen

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Intellectual History ◽  
The State ◽  
Global History ◽  
Recent Scholarship

How can we understand empires? Why have they exerted such influence throughout history? What are their determining structures and actors? Do we still live in a world of empires? Two decades after the imperial turn, this edited volume explores the state of recent scholarship on empires. It also invites new perspectives on this subject from political theory, intellectual history, global history and international relations, and high-lights not only the diversity of approaches and methods that can currently be used to conduct research into empires, but also their constant development. With contribution by David Armitage, Andreas Eckert, Eva Marlene Hausteiner, Ulrike von Hirschhausen, Sebastian Huhnholz, Ulrike Jureit, Jörn Leonhard, Samuel Moyn, Herfried Münkler, Stephan Stetter und Andreas Vasilache

State Theory in International Relations

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucas G. Freire ◽  
Marjo Koivisto
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
State Theory ◽  
The State ◽  
Ir Theory ◽  
History Of Thought ◽  
History Of ◽  
Social Scientific ◽  
Political Communities

The state is one of the most used terms in international relations (IR) theory, and yet IR scholars influenced by both sociology and political philosophy have complained that the state and the states-system have been inadequately theorized in the field. What does the discipline mean when referring to the state? Why should state theorizing be part of IR at all? Need all state theorizing in IR be “state-centric”? There are two kinds of thinking about the state and the states-system in IR. One strand examines the history of thought about the purpose of the state and the states-system as political communities. Another explains the causes of events and transformations in the state and the states-system. These two approaches to studying the state largely translate to (1) political theory about the state and the states-system, and (2) social scientific theories of the state and the states-system in IR. Recently, both traditions have been significantly revisited in IR, and new productive synergies are emerging.

International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach

1966 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 361-377 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hedley Bull
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Classical Approach ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
The Past ◽  
International Theory

Two approaches to the theory of international relations at present compete for our attention. The first of these I shall call the classical approach. By this I do not mean the study and criticism of the “classics” of international relations, the writings of Hobbes, Grotius, Kant, and other great thinkers of the past who have turned their attention to international affairs. Such study does indeed exemplify the classical approach, and it provides a method that is particularly fruitful and important. What I have in mind, however, is something much wider than this: the approach to theorizing that derives from philosophy, history, and law, and that is characterized above all by explicit reliance upon the exercise of judgment and by the assumptions that if we confine ourselves to strict standards of verification and proof there is very little of significance that can be said about international relations, that general propositions about this subject must therefore derive from a scientifically imperfect process of perception or intuition, and that these general propositions cannot be accorded anything more than the tentative and inconclusive status appropriate to their doubtful origin.

EMPIRE AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IN VICTORIAN POLITICAL THOUGHT

2006 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 281-298 ◽  
Author(s):  
DUNCAN S. A. BELL
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Global Order ◽  
Colonial Empire ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Relationship

This essay surveys recent scholarly work on the political theory of empire and international relations in Britain during the long nineteenth century. It traces the dominant themes and arguments to be found, points to some interpretative and methodological weaknesses, and highlights a number of topics that remain to be explored in detail. I focus on the following: the relationship between liberalism and empire and, in particular, the role played by the idea of civilization in circumscribing liberal claims to universality; the nature and evolution of international law, and the key role that jurisprudential thought played in shaping conceptions of civilization and setting the bounds of legitimacy for imperialism; the vexed relationship between the history of imperial thought and cultural/political history; and the important, though frequently marginalized, role of the colonial empire in the Victorian imperial imagination. Finally, I suggest that areas that remain to be explored in depth include non-liberal visions of international affairs; the role of theology in shaping conceptions of global order; and the balance between the United States, Europe, and the various (and very different) elements of the empire.

Pluralism in international political theory

1992 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 271-281 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert H. Jackson
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
International Society ◽  
Fundamental Question ◽  
International Theory ◽  
International Political Theory ◽  
Basic Distinction ◽  
Hedley Bull ◽  
Better Than

Martin Wight once claimed there was no international political theory worthy of the name. In this I believe he was mistaken. But he also maintained, as Benedict Kingsbury and Adam Roberts put it, that ‘the most fundamental question you can ask in international theory is, What is international society? Hedley Bull likewise drew a basic distinction, as several contributors to the volume edited by J. D. B. Miller and the late R. J. Vincent remind us, between the system of states and the society of states. Each of these volumes takes up Wight's question and explores Bull's distinction in various ways, most of them engaging and enlightening. For an overview of the main approaches and controversies in the study of normative international relations today one could scarcely do better than consult them.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document