Capitalism, British Grand Strategy, and the Peace Treaty of Utrecht: Towards a Historical Sociology of War- and Peace-making in the Construction of International Order

2021 ◽  
pp. 107-128
Author(s):  
Benno Teschke
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
Water Policy ◽  
Historical Sociology ◽  
International Order ◽  
Grand Strategy ◽  
Peace Treaty ◽  
Early Modernity ◽  
International Diplomacy ◽  
Long Eighteenth Century

Benno Teschke offers a specific focus on the historical sociology of normative change in the transition from early modernity to modernity in Europe. How can we explain international diplomacy and peace accords from within critical International Relations (IR) Theory? Teschke addresses this question by focusing on the Peace of Utrecht (1713) that concluded the War of the Spanish Succession. It tracks the relations between the domestic sources of the rise of Britain as a great power, the revolutionary transformations of its post-1688 foreign policy institutions, the formulation of a new British grand strategy—the blue water policy—in the context of the War of the Spanish Succession, and its strategic ability to impose through coercive and secret diplomacy a new pro-British ‘normative’ set of rules for post-Utrecht early modern international relations during the ‘long eighteenth Century’ (1688–1815). This British-led reorganization of early modern international order cannot be captured through prevailing IR concepts, including automatic power-balancing, off-shore balancing, hegemony, international society, formal or informal imperialism, or collective security.

The Justification of War and International Order

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
International Order ◽  
Frame Of Reference ◽  
Pertinent Literature ◽  
Modern Times ◽  
History Of ◽  
Early Modern Times

The history of war is also a history of its justification. The contributions to this book argue that the justification of war rarely happens as empty propaganda. While it is directed at mobilizing support and reducing resistance, it is not purely instrumental. Rather, the justification of force is part of an incessant struggle over what is to count as justifiable behaviour in a given historical constellation of power, interests, and norms. This way, the justification of specific wars interacts with international order as a normative frame of reference for dealing with conflict. The justification of war shapes this order and is being shaped by it. As the justification of specific wars entails a critique of war in general, the use of force in international relations has always been accompanied by political and scholarly discourses on its appropriateness. In much of the pertinent literature the dominating focus is on theoretical or conceptual debates as a mirror of how international normative orders evolve. In contrast, the focus of the present volume is on theory and political practice as sources for the re- and de-construction of the way in which the justification of war and international order interact. The book offers a unique collection of papers exploring the continuities and changes in war discourses as they respond to and shape normative orders from early modern times to the present. It comprises contributions from International Law, History and International Relations and from Western and non-Western perspectives.

Capitalism, Jacobinism and International Relations: Re-interpreting the Ottoman path to modernity

2017 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 252-278 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eren Duzgun
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Western Europe ◽  
Historical Sociology ◽  
International Order ◽  
Historical Narratives ◽  
Uneven And Combined Development ◽  
Global Modernity ◽  
Sociological Approaches

AbstractDebates over ‘modernity’ have been central to the development of historical-sociological approaches to International Relations (IR). Within the bourgeoning subfield of International Historical Sociology (IHS), much work has been done to formulate a historically dynamic conception of international relations, which is then used to undermine unilinear conceptions of global modernity. Nevertheless, this article argues that IHS has not proceeded far enough in successfully remedying the problem of unilinearism. The problem remains that historical narratives, informed by IHS, tend to transhistoricise capitalism, which, in turn, obscures the generative nature of international relations, as well as the fundamental heterogeneity of diverging paths to modernity both within and beyond western Europe. Based on the theory of Uneven and Combined Development, Political Marxism, and Robbie Shilliam’s discussion of ‘Jacobinism’, this article first reinterprets the radical multilinearity of modernity within western Europe, and then utilises this reinterpretation to provide a new reading of the Ottoman path to modernity (1839–1918). Such a historical critique and reconstruction will highlight the significance of Jacobinism for a more accurate theorisation of the origin and development of the modern international order, hence contributing to a deeper understanding of the international relations of modernity.

Princes’ Justifications of War in Early Modern Europe: The Constitution of an International Community by Communication

2021 ◽  
pp. 65-80
Author(s):  
Anuschka Tischer
Keyword(s):  
Early Modern ◽  
International Law ◽  
Public Discourse ◽  
International Order ◽  
The Political ◽  
Early Modern Europe ◽  
Power Politics ◽  
Early Modernity ◽  
The Public ◽  
Modern Europe

Anuschka Tischer starts out with the historical analyses of the book by elaborating the dialectic of war discourses and international order in early modernity: according to Tischer, nearly every prince in early modern Europe came up with a ‘just reason’ when going to war. Whereas the theory of international law represented academic opinions, the political justifications offered the official view which fed into the public discourse. By referring to a general international law in their war declarations (and counter-declarations), the belligerent parties shaped the pattern of today’s modern international law. However, the early modern justifications represented the political and social values of pre-revolutionary Europe. While international law was regarded as universal, the European Christian powers distinguished between wars in and outside of Europe. The chapter reveals the contradictions inherent in this distinction by analysing how princes in early modern Europe justified their wars, which norms and orders were accepted, and how far international law was the result of elaborate discussions and power politics. Tischer’s findings are picked up by Hendrik Simon in his contribution on the nineteenth-century discourse of war and international order.

The Tribute System and the World Imagined in Early Modern East Asia

2021 ◽  
pp. 030582982110506
Author(s):  
Ji-Young Lee
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
East Asia ◽  
East Asian ◽  
International Order ◽  
Rightful Place ◽  
The World ◽  
Tribute System ◽  
International Systems ◽  
Oriented Approach

The field of international relations has long treated the Westphalian system and states in the territorial sovereign sense as the standard or ‘normal’ in IR. The World Imagined by Hendrik Spruyt boldly challenges this habit as the biases of our times and instead brings non-European historical international systems into their rightful place in our study of international order and international relations theorising more generally. Unpacking Spruyt’s discussion of ‘the East Asian interstate society’, the article argues that an in-depth examination of what is known as a ‘tribute system’ and early modern East Asian historical orders richly illuminates the book’s arguments on the heterogeneity and diversity of order-building practices. It also argues that from a practice-oriented approach, the experience of early modern East Asia presents a compelling case that legitimation holds the key to explaining order building processes at both the domestic and international levels, with legitimation at these two levels working in tandem.

scholarly journals Bürgerliche Revolution, Staatsbildung und die Abwesenheit des Internationalen

2005 ◽  
Vol 35 (141) ◽  
pp. 575-600 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benno Teschke
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
Crucial Role ◽  
Historical Sociology ◽  
Early Modern History ◽  
Late Medieval ◽  
American Tradition ◽  
The Face ◽  
Anglo American

This article traces the Marxist debate on the concept of ‘bourgeois revolution’ and criticises attempts within orthodox Marxism to salvage the concept in the face of the historiographical revisionist critique. It then introduces into the Anglo-American tradition of Political Marxism and argues that while scholars of this orientation have presented a powerful renewal of Marxism and re-interpretation of late medieval and early modern history, they have failed to systematically incorporate international relations into their reconstructions of early modern revolutions and state-formations. The article demonstrates how the international played a crucial role in shaping the respective trajectories of national developments, exemplified with reference to England and France, and concludes by arguing the case for a theoretical re-integration of the role of international relations into Marxist Historical Sociology.

The 1945 World Order – Process with «Open» Continuation

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 52-79
Author(s):  
V. T. Yungblud
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International Relations ◽  
World Order ◽  
International Order ◽  
International Terrorism ◽  
Bipolar Structure ◽  
Political Processes ◽  
The World ◽  
Post War ◽  
The Cold War

The Yalta-Potsdam system of international relations, established by culmination of World War II, was created to maintain the security and cooperation of states in the post-war world. Leaders of the Big Three, who ensured the Victory over the fascist-militarist bloc in 1945, made decisive contribution to its creation. This system cemented the world order during the Cold War years until the collapse of the USSR in 1991 and the destruction of the bipolar structure of the organization of international relations. Post-Cold War changes stimulated the search for new structures of the international order. Article purpose is to characterize circumstances of foundations formation of postwar world and to show how the historical decisions made by the leaders of the anti-Hitler coalition powers in 1945 are projected onto modern political processes. Study focuses on interrelated questions: what was the post-war world order and how integral it was? How did the political decisions of 1945 affect the origins of the Cold War? Does the American-centrist international order, that prevailed at the end of the 20th century, genetically linked to the Atlantic Charter and the goals of the anti- Hitler coalition in the war, have a future?Many elements of the Yalta-Potsdam system of international relations in the 1990s survived and proved their viability. The end of the Cold War and globalization created conditions for widespread democracy in the world. The liberal system of international relations, which expanded in the late XX - early XXI century, is currently experiencing a crisis. It will be necessary to strengthen existing international institutions that ensure stability and security, primarily to create barriers to the spread of national egoism, radicalism and international terrorism, for have a chance to continue the liberal principles based world order (not necessarily within a unipolar system). Prerequisite for promoting idea of a liberal system of international relations is the adjustment of liberalism as such, refusal to unilaterally impose its principles on peoples with a different set of values. This will also require that all main participants in modern in-ternational life be able to develop a unilateral agenda for common problems and interstate relations, interact in a dialogue mode, delving into the arguments of opponents and taking into account their vital interests.

The position of the State in the international system from the perspective of major schools of thought in international relations

2019 ◽  
pp. 79
Author(s):  
Salah Hassan Mohammed ◽  
Mahaa Ahmed Al-Mawla
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Politics ◽  
International System ◽  
International Order ◽  
The State ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The Status ◽  
Future Vision

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.

Kantian Project of Perpetual Peace in the Context of Modern Ethical and Political Concepts of War

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-100
Author(s):  
Arseniy D. Kumankov
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
French Revolution ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Democratic Peace ◽  
Peace Treaty ◽  
Liberal Democracies ◽  
Democratic Peace Theory ◽  
Perpetual Peace

The article considers the modern meaning of Kant’s doctrine of war. The author examines the context and content of the key provisions of Kant’s concept of perpetual peace. The author also reviews the ideological affinity between Kant and previous authors who proposed to build alliances of states as a means of preventing wars. It is noted that the French revolution and the wars caused by it, the peace treaty between France and Prussia served as the historical background for the conceptualization of Kant’s project. In the second half of the 20th century, there is a growing attention to Kant’s ethical and political philosophy. Theorists of a wide variety of political and ethical schools, (cosmopolitanism, internationalism, and liberalism) pay attention to Kant’s legacy and relate their own concepts to it. Kant’s idea of war is reconsidered by Michael Doyle, Jürgen Habermas, Ulrich Beck, Mary Kaldor, Brian Orend. Thus, Doyle tracks democratic peace theory back to Kant’s idea of the spread of republicanism. According to democratic peace theory, liberal democracies do not solve conflict among themselves by non-military methods. Habermas, Beck, Kaldor appreciate Kant as a key proponent of cosmopolitanism. For them, Kant’s project is important due to notion of supranational forms of cooperation. They share an understanding that peace will be promoted by an allied authority, which will be “governing without government” and will take responsibility for the functioning of the principles of pacification of international relations. Orend’s proves that Kant should be considered as a proponent of the just war theory. In addition, Orend develops a new area in just war theory – the concept of ius post bellum – and justifies regime change as the goal of just war.

scholarly journals Racism and Antiracism in the Liberal International Order

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Zoltán I. Búzás
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Racial Inequality ◽  
Racial Diversity ◽  
International Order ◽  
Interdisciplinary Studies ◽  
Racial Equality ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Current Regime ◽  
Novel Concept ◽  
Comprehensive Framework

Abstract Formal racial equality is a key aspect of the current Liberal International Order (LIO). It is subject to two main challenges: resurgent racial nationalism and substantive racial inequality. Combining work in International Relations with interdisciplinary studies on race, I submit that these challenges are the latest iteration of struggles between two transnational coalitions over the LIO's central racial provisions, which I call racial diversity regimes (RDRs). The traditional coalition has historically favored RDRs based on racial inequality and racial nationalism. The transformative coalition has favored RDRs based on racial equality and nonracial nationalism. I illustrate the argument by tracing the development of the liberal order's RDR as a function of intercoalitional struggles from one based on racial nationalism and inequality in 1919 to the current regime based on nonracial nationalism and limited equality. Today, racial nationalists belong to the traditional coalition and critics of racial inequality are part of the transformative coalition. The stakes of their struggles are high because they will determine whether we will live in a more racist or a more antiracist world. This article articulates a comprehensive framework that places race at the heart of the liberal order, offers the novel concept of “embedded racism” to capture how sovereignty shields domestic racism from foreign interference, and proposes an agenda for mainstream International Relations that takes race seriously.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document