Kant’s republican theory of justice and international relations

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 357-372 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terry Nardin
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Global Justice ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
International Justice ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Primary Concern ◽  
Political Realism ◽  
World Government ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Republican Theory

Kant’s primary concern in writing on international relations is how to achieve ‘justice’ ( Recht) between states. This means that instead of reading Kant as a theorist of peace or world government, as IR theorists have usually done, he is better read as a theorist international justice. His view of justice, which identifies it with a legal order that respects freedom as independence or nondomination, is broadly republican. But he equivocates on the possibility of justice at the international level, and this narrows what is usually seen as a wide gap between Kant’s thought and political realism. The paradox his uncertainty reveals is that it is wrong for states to remain in a lawless condition yet impossible for them to escape it so long as they remain independent. An international order cannot generate genuine law because there are no institutions to make, interpret, or enforce it. This means that states are entitled to determine their own foreign affairs. The gap between sovereignty and justice cannot be closed so long as these ideas are defined as they are within the state. The problem is not that a full, secure, and nonvoluntary system of justice that preserves the sovereignty of states is contingently unlikely. It is conceptually impossible. This conclusion poses a challenge to current theories of global justice.

scholarly journals The Foreign Affairs of a State is Based on Its Strength in the International System

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 322
Author(s):  
Burim Mexhuani
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
World War I ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International System ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
World War ◽  
World Government ◽  
Theory Versus ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Legal Policies

Neorealists say that a country's Foreign Affairs is based on its power or position as the power that has a state in the international system. Field of International Relations based on international legal policies and norms; It can be defined by different political perspectives and phenomena, depending on certain theories. Theories are the best determinant of defining policies in the International System. For a long time, in the international system have dominated realistic, liberal and radical theories; After the Second World War for the purposes of explaining or defining international policies, other theories, including neo-realism, were listed. As a structured theory versus reality that defined the theory of alignment for defining political theories in the international system. In International Relations there is no central authority or world government, the state and the international environment is in a state of anarchy, which pushes the states to create the conditions to create an environment where they can survive. Special studies of International Relations theory were spurred especially after World War I and World War II. The neorealistic theory itself contains some elements that differ from other theories and that as its base takes the strength or position of power of states in the international system. Responses to the framework of action, the theories are directed as perimeters to solve the problems of the international system. The international relations system may be positioned in other circumstances when a power is not balanced, depending on the different circumstances of politics and politicians

International relations, philosophy of

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles R. Beitz
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Political Realism ◽  
Special Privilege ◽  
Internal Affairs ◽  
Anglo American ◽  
International Morality ◽  
Intermediate Views

The philosophy of international relations – or more precisely its political philosophy – embraces problems about morality in diplomacy and war, the justice of international practices and institutions bearing on economic welfare and the global environment, human rights, and the relationship between sectional loyalties such as patriotism and global moral commitments. Not everyone believes that such a subject can exist, or rather, that it can have significant ethical content. According to political realism – a widely-held view among Anglo-American students of international relations – moral considerations have no place in decisions about foreign affairs and international behaviour. The most extreme varieties of realism deny that moral judgment can have meaning or force in international affairs; more moderate versions acknowledge the meaningfulness of such judgments but hold either that leaders have no responsibility to attend to the morality of their actions in foreign affairs (because their overriding responsibility is to advance the interests of their constituents), or that the direct pursuit of moral goals in international relations is likely to be self-defeating. Leaving aside the more sceptical kinds of political realism, the most influential orientations to substantive international morality can be arrayed on a continuum. Distinctions are made on the basis of the degree of privilege, if any, extended to the citizens of a state to act on their own behalf at the potential expense of the liberty and wellbeing of persons elsewhere. ‘The morality of states’, at one extreme, holds that states have rights of autonomy analogous to those of individuals within domestic society, which secure them against external interference in their internal affairs and guarantee their ownership and control of the natural and human resources within their borders. At the other end of the continuum, one finds cosmopolitan views which deny that states enjoy any special privilege; these views hold that individuals rather than states are the ultimate subjects of morality, and that value judgments concerning international conduct should take equally seriously the wellbeing of each person potentially affected by a decision, whether compatriot or foreigner. Cosmopolitan views may acknowledge that states (and similar entities) have morally significant features, but analysis of the significance of these features must connect them with considerations of individual wellbeing. Intermediate views are possible; for example, a conception of the privileged character of the state can be combined with a conception of the international realm as weakly normative (that is, governed by principles which demand that states adhere to minimum conditions of peaceful coexistence). The theoretical difference between the morality of states and a fully cosmopolitan morality is reflected in practical differences about the justifiability of intervention in the internal affairs of other states, the basis and content of human rights, and the extent, if any, of our obligations as individuals and as citizens of states to help redress the welfare effects of international inequalities.

The balance of power revisited

1989 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 77-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inis L. Claude
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
Collective Security ◽  
Political Realism ◽  
World Government ◽  
American Scholar ◽  
Theoretical Approaches ◽  
Global Arena

In 1962 I published Power and International Relations, a book in which I undertook to analyse, criticize, and compare balance of power, collective security, and world government, treating these as the three leading theoretical approaches to the management of power in the global arena. Each of these approaches had its band of adulators and advocates who doubtless found my efforts at critical appraisal offensive. For a young American scholar of that era the adoption of an irreverent attitude toward balance of power was particularly problematic, because that approach figured prominently in the prevailing orthodoxy of Political Realism. It would have been safer to assume, rather than to examine, the merits of balance of power. I gave balance of power, like its two competitors, a mixed review.

Justice, Morality, and International Relations: A Critical–Theoretical Reading

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abhishek Choudhary
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Global Justice ◽  
International Politics ◽  
Global Politics ◽  
Normative Commitment ◽  
World Government ◽  
Active Involvement ◽  
Theories Of Justice ◽  
The Creation

The article argues in favor of the concept of justice as a foundational norm of global politics. It looks at the puzzle that why order is preferred over justice. The disregard toward justice is seen as a tool of convenience for fulfilling hegemonic aspirations and avoiding any normative commitment. The order versus justice debate has been in the discipline for long, where different theoretical tradition has offered differing preferences. The article takes a critical–theoretical viewpoint and argues for a more active involvement with the notion of justice to have a humane understanding of international politics. It challenges the cosmopolitan idea of global justice as being a mere reflection of hegemony. The theories of justice rooted in liberalism end up providing another set of meta-narrative. The prescription, thus, is against the creation of a world government. Instead, it argues for installing an ethical and emancipatory dimension to the project.

Global Justice in Lutheran Political Theology

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-58
Author(s):  
Carl-Henric Grenholm
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Global Justice ◽  
Political Theology ◽  
Critical Examination ◽  
Equal Distribution ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Sharp Distinction ◽  
Main Thesis ◽  
Theories Of Justice ◽  
Influential Theory

The purpose of this article is to examine the contributions that might be given by Lutheran political theology to the discourse on global justice. The article offers a critical examination of three different theories of global justice within political philosophy. Contractarian theories are criticized, and a thesis is that it is plausible to argue that justice can be understood as liberation from oppression. From this perspective the article gives an analysis of an influential theory of justice within Lutheran ethics. According to this theory justice is not an equal distribution but an arrangement where the subordinate respect the authority of those in power. This theory is related to a sharp distinction between law and gospel. The main thesis of the article is that Lutheran political theology should take a different approach if it aims to give a constructive contribution to theories of justice. This means that Lutheran ethics should not be based on Creation and reason alone – it should also be based on Christology and Eschatology.

Frieden durch Recht und Öffentlichkeit: Die Hoffnungen und Verwirrungen der ersten Utilitaristen

2020 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 228-252
Author(s):  
Frédéric Rimoux
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
International Relations ◽  
World Peace ◽  
Individual Freedom ◽  
Jeremy Bentham ◽  
Collective Security ◽  
War And Peace ◽  
Political Realism ◽  
International Thought

The international thought of the early utilitarian thinkers Jeremy Bentham and James Mill remains little known and largely misunderstood. Most commentators give them a superficial appreciation or criticize their supposed naivety, in both cases mostly assuming that Mill borrowed his thoughts from Bentham's writings alone. This questionable reception overlooks some essential aspects of Bentham's and Mill's extensive reflections on war and peace, in particular their constant effort to overcome the tension between individual freedom and collective security. In reality, the fertile dialogue between the two thinkers gradually crystallized into an independent utilitarian peace theory centered on law and public opinion as instruments of an ambitious reform of international relations according to the principle of utility. They managed to elaborate a fragile synthesis between liberal principles and considerations of political realism, which grants their utilitarian peace theory a singular place in the historical efforts to systematically define the conditions of world peace.

Institutional Cosmopolitanism

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Current System ◽  
Political Repression ◽  
Moral View ◽  
Political Justice ◽  
Global System ◽  
World Government ◽  
Emerging Issues ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Institutional Order

Is a global institutional order composed of sovereign states fit for cosmopolitan moral purpose? Cosmopolitan political theorists challenge claims that states, nations, and other collectives have ultimate moral significance. They focus instead on individuals: on what they share and on what each may owe to all others. They see principles of distributive justice—and increasingly political justice—applying with force in a global system in which billions continue to suffer from severe poverty and deprivation, political repression, interstate violence, and other ills. Cosmopolitans diverge, however, on the institutional implications of their shared moral view. Some argue that the current system of competing sovereign states tends to promote unjust outcomes and stands in need of deep structural reform. Others reject such claims and contend that justice can be pursued through transforming the orientations and conduct of individual and collective agents, especially states. This volume brings together prominent political theorists and international relations scholars—including some skeptics of cosmopolitanism—in a far-ranging dialogue about the institutional implications of the approach. The contributors offer penetrating analyses of both continuing and emerging issues around state sovereignty, democratic autonomy and accountability, and the promotion and protection of human rights. They also debate potential reforms of the current global system, from the transformation of cities and states to the creation of some encompassing world government capable of effectively promoting cosmopolitan aims.

Foreign Affairs Federalism in the European Union

2019 ◽  
pp. 331-351
Author(s):  
Robert Schütze
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
Treaty Of Rome ◽  
Formed Part ◽  
Mixed Agreements

The European Union was born as an international organization. The 1957 Treaty of Rome formed part of international law, although the European Court of Justice was eager to emphasize that the Union constitutes “a new legal order” of international law. With time, this new legal order has indeed evolved into a true “federation of States.” Yet how would the foreign affairs powers of this new supranational entity be divided? Would the European Union gradually replace the member states, or would it preserve their distinct and diverse foreign affairs voices? In the past sixty years, the Union has indeed significantly sharpened its foreign affairs powers. While still based on the idea that it has no plenary power, the Union’s external competences have expanded dramatically, and today it is hard to identify a nucleus of exclusive foreign affairs powers reserved for the member states. And in contrast to a classic international law perspective, the Union’s member states only enjoy limited treaty-making powers under European law. Their foreign affairs powers are limited by the exclusive powers of the Union, and they may be preempted through European legislation. There are, however, moments when both the Union and its states enjoy overlapping foreign affairs powers. For these situations, the Union legal order has devised a number of cooperative mechanisms to safeguard a degree of “unity” in the external actions of the Union. Mixed agreements constitute an international mechanism that brings the Union and the member states to the same negotiating table. The second constitutional device is internal to the Union legal order: the duty of cooperation.

scholarly journals What constitutes successful covert action? Evaluating unacknowledged interventionism in foreign affairs

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Rory Cormac ◽  
Calder Walton ◽  
Damien Van Puyvelde
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Conceptual Model ◽  
Golden Age ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Social Construct ◽  
Covert Action ◽  
Socially Constructed ◽  
State Activity

Abstract Covert action has long been a controversial tool of international relations. However, there is remarkably little public understanding about whether it works and, more fundamentally, about what constitutes success in this shadowy arena of state activity. This article distills competing criteria of success and examines how covert actions become perceived as successes. We develop a conceptual model of covert action success as a social construct and illustrate it through the case of ‘the golden age of CIA operations’. The socially constructed nature of success has important implications not just for evaluating covert actions but also for using, and defending against, them.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document