Review of Friedrich Meinecke, Machiavellism: The Doctrine of Raison d’état and its Place in Modern History (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1957)

2021 ◽  
pp. 317-318
Author(s):  
Martin Wight

Wight praised Meinecke’s Die Idee der Staatsräson, translated as Machiavellism: The Doctrine of Raison d’état and its Place in Modern History, as ‘by any odds the most important and enduring book on international relations published in the 1920s, and perhaps between the wars’. It is, Wight wrote, ‘an essay in the historiography of human thought, a study of how Machiavelli’s principles infiltrated into European statecraft, how thinkers and politicians who most strenuously repudiated him found it necessary to borrow from him, and how the idea of raison d’état developed to guide the greatest statesmen from Richelieu to Bismarck, until it was swamped by the ignorant popular passions of 1918’. Meinecke was preoccupied, Wight observed, with (in Meinecke’s words) ‘that tragic duality which came into historical life through the medium of Machiavellism—that indivisible and fateful combination of poison and curative power which it contained’. Moreover, Wight added, the tension between ‘necessity’ and ‘moral traditions’ has been recognized by some statesmen ‘as the central experience of international politics’. Wight noted that ‘Meinecke, despite his honourable retirement under the Nazis, was infected with the German heresy of idealizing State power and fatalistically abdicating personal responsibility. … Yet it was easier for a Burckhardt or an Acton, in the security of nineteenth-century Switzerland or Britain, to condemn power as evil without qualification.’

2012 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. 66-79
Author(s):  
Nathan Andrews

It has become far too fashionable to adopt a (neo)realist approach to world affairs, especially since this approach purports to deal with the ‘here and now’ of international politics. While this perspective can be seductive and even dominating, it is imbued with certain shortfalls that cannot be left unchallenged. (Neo)realism often presents a world that is anarchic, bound by state power and self-interest. Although these are “real” features of world politics, an exclusive concentration on these aspects alone does not present a comprehensive understanding of what states do and why they do what they do. This paper investigates realism, particularly the realism of Hans Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz, to ascertain the extent to which the assumptions these authors present explain the nature and scope of international relations. The contention is that (neo)realism’s perspective on world affairs is unprogressive, non-transformative, and deterministic of state behaviour, a feature that makes its analysis limited even in capturing the ‘here and now’.


Author(s):  
Steven Harris

At the end of the nineteenth century, the states’-system saw off a challenge from international lawyers and peace advocates who sought saw arbitration as a means to constrain raison d’état and state discretion over the decision to go to war. While there is no evidence that statesmen engaged in a vast conspiracy, the statements and actions of diplomats from all the great powers demonstrate a consistent pattern of opposition to arbitration, restricting its application prior to, at, and after the Hague Conferences. In so doing, they worked to create the appearance of meeting public demand for an alternative to war. It is no surprise, therefore, that arbitration was never a meaningful part of international relations and can hardly be blamed for the descent into war in 1914.


Author(s):  
Jesse Dillon Savage

Abstract Hierarchy in international relations has often been understood as an arrangement with a single dominant state controlling aspects of the subordinate actor's sovereignty. While such arrangements play an important role in structuring international politics, it does not exhaust the forms that hierarchy can take. Very often hierarchies have developed where multiple states jointly claim control of the same sovereign rights of the subordinate state. This paper introduces a new conceptualization of hierarchy where the sovereign rights of the subordinate state are understood as a resource that can be controlled by multiple dominant states. As with other resources, different types of property regimes can be developed to organize access and extraction of sovereignty, such as common property resources regimes. Finally, an explanation of common-pool hierarchy regimes is developed and explored using two case studies: European imperialism in the nineteenth-century China and the scramble for Africa.


Author(s):  
Salah Hassan Mohammed ◽  
Mahaa Ahmed Al-Mawla

The Study is based on the state as one of the main pillars in international politics. In additions, it tackles its position in the international order from the major schools perspectives in international relations, Especially, these schools differ in the status and priorities of the state according to its priorities, also, each scholar has a different point of view. The research is dedicated to providing a future vision of the state's position in the international order in which based on the vision of the major schools in international relations.


2009 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 175-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANTJE WIENER

AbstractThis article proposes a framework for empirical research on contested meaning of norms in international politics. The goal is to identify a design for empirical research to examine associative connotations of norms that come to the fore when norms are contested in situations of governance beyond-the-state and especially in crises. If cultural practices shape experience and expectations, they need to be identified and made ‘account-able’ based on empirical research. To that end, the proposed qualitative approach centres on individually enacted meaning-in-use. The framework comprises norm-types, conditions of contestation, types of divergence and opposition-deriving as a specific interview evaluation technique. Section one situates the problem of contestation in the field of constructivist research on norms. Section two introduces distinctive conditions of contestation and types of norms. Section three details the methodology of conducting and evaluating interviews and presents the technique of opposition-deriving with a view to reconstructing the structure of meaning-in-use. Section four concludes with an outlook to follow-up research.


2011 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 641-660 ◽  
Author(s):  
PETER M. R. STIRK

AbstractAlthough the Westphalian model takes many forms the association of Westphalian and sovereign equality is a prominent one. This article argues firstly that sovereign equality was not present as a normative principle at Westphalia. It argues further that while arguments for sovereign equality were present in the eighteenth century they did not rely on, or even suggest, a Westphalian provenance. It was, for good reasons, not until the late nineteenth century that the linkages of Westphalia and sovereign equality became commonplace, and even then sovereign equality and its linkage with Westphalia were disputed. It was not until after the Second World War, notably through the influential work of Leo Gross that the linkage of Westphalia and sovereign equality became not only widely accepted, but almost undisputed until quite recently. The article concludes by suggesting that not only did Gross bequeath a dubious historiography but that this historiography is an impediment to contemporary International Relations.


2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (04) ◽  
pp. 739-746 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna M. Agathangelou

International relations (IR) feminists have significantly impacted the way we analyze the world and power. However, as Cynthia Enloe points out, “there are now signs—worrisome signs—that feminist analysts of international politics might be forgetting what they have shared” and are “making bricks to construct new intellectual barriers. That is not progress” (2015, 436). I agree. The project/process that has led to the separation/specialization of feminist security studies (FSS) and feminist global political economy (FGPE) does not constitute progress but instead ends up embodying forms of violence that erase the materialist bases of our intellectual labor's divisions (Agathangelou 1997), the historical and social constitution of our formations as intellectuals and subjects. This amnesiac approach evades our personal lives and colludes with those forces that allow for the violence that comes with abstraction. These “worrisome signs” should be explained if we are to move FSS and FGPE beyond a “merger” (Allison 2015) that speaks only to some issues and some humans in the global theater.


2014 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 753-770 ◽  
Author(s):  
VINCENT CHARLES KEATING ◽  
JAN RUZICKA

AbstractHow can trusting relationships be identified in international politics? The recent wave of scholarship on trust in International Relations answers this question by looking for one or the combination of three indicators – the incidence of cooperation; discourses expressing trust; or the calculated acceptance of vulnerability. These methods are inadequate both theoretically and empirically. Distinguishing between the concepts of trust and confidence, we instead propose an approach that focuses on the actors' hedging strategies. We argue that actors either declining to adopt or removing hedging strategies is a better indicator of a trusting relationship than the alternatives. We demonstrate the strength of our approach by showing how the existing approaches would suggest the US-Soviet relationship to be trusting when it was not so. In contrast, the US-Japanese alliance relationship allows us to show how we can identify a developing trusting relationship.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document