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

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.

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.

The thermonuclear revolution and the politics of imagination: realist radicalism in political theory and IR

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 255-274
Author(s):  
Rens van Munster ◽  
Casper Sylvest
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Global Politics ◽  
Practical Relevance ◽  
Public Intellectuals ◽  
Political Realism ◽  
Recent Scholarship ◽  
Lewis Mumford

Both within political theory and International Relations (IR), recent scholarship has reflected on the nature and limits of political realism. In this article, we return to the thermonuclear revolution and the debates it spurred about what was real and possible in global politics. We argue that a strand of oppositional and countercultural thinking during this period, which we refer to as realist radicalism, has significant theoretical and practical relevance for current scholarship on political realism. Indeed, debates during the thermonuclear revolution speak to questions about the nature of realism and whether it is possible to develop a realism that is attuned to progressive or emancipatory ambitions. By focusing mainly on two radical American intellectuals – C. Wright Mills and Lewis Mumford – we show how their responses to the thermonuclear, superpower standoff challenged conventional understanding of realism and utopianism. By harnessing the concept of the imagination, they called into question pre-existing conceptions about politics and reality. The contribution of the article is twofold. First, we argue that realist political theory and IR should pay more attention to thinkers that are not conventionally regarded as canonical but whose writings and politics interrogated the limits and potential of political realism. Second, we demonstrate that the work of such public intellectuals and their calls for cultivating the imagination connect directly to current debates about political realism, including its statist bend and its (purported) conservatism.

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.

International intellectual history and International Relations: contexts, canons and mediocrities

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 341-356 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward Keene
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Intellectual History ◽  
Contextualist Approach ◽  
Crucial Part

This article reviews contextualist methods in intellectual history and discusses some of the specific challenges involved in their application to the study of International Relations (IR) and hence international intellectual history. While the broad thrust of these developments has been highly positive, the article argues that a distinction between classic and lesser works is a crucial part of the apparatus of the contextualist approach, which poses a problem in IR, where the idea of an established canon of great works has historically been less well developed than in the study of Political Theory or Law. As a result, the move towards contextualist methods of interpretation can force authors to restrict their focus onto a newly conceived, and somewhat narrow, canon, with a strongly political and legal flavour. The eclectic range of earlier, albeit less methodologically sophisticated, histories offer considerable resources for defining the scope of new empirical enquiries in international intellectual history, and the article concentrates on early modern journalism as an example of this opportunity.

scholarly journals Reading Charles Beitz: twenty-five years of Political Theory and International Relations

2005 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 361-369 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Rengger
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Intellectual History ◽  
Late Nineteenth Century ◽  
Ir Theory ◽  
International Political Theory ◽  
Late Nineteenth ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Field Of Inquiry

The last thirty years has seen the growth – or, as I should prefer to say, rebirth – of a field of inquiry that for much of the twentieth century was quiescent. That field would now routinely be called international political theory, in part to distinguish it from both political theory in general and International Relations (IR) theory in general, though of course, there are overlaps with both. Roughly speaking that field consists in ethical, historical and philosophical reflection on the manner and matter of international politics. There is a rich body of such inquiries in intellectual history (and not just in Europe) but for a variety of historical and intellectual reasons such inquiries had fallen out of fashion by the late nineteenth century. This situation was reinforced by the simultaneous evolution of the individual disciplines of political science and IR, and in particular by the rise of methodological and epistemological claims in both largely inimical to those earlier sorts of inquiry. Thus, as the story is widely told, ‘political theory’ and ‘IR’, as academic inquiries, followed largely independent paths for most of the twentieth century.

The political theory and institutional history of states systems

1980 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 82-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geoffrey Berridge
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Policy Formulation ◽  
World Politics ◽  
The State ◽  
The Political ◽  
Institutional History ◽  
Recent Past ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Subject

The books which are the subject of this article1 lie squarely (if a little uneasily on the part of Northedge) in the so-called ‘classical‘ tradition of scholarship in International Relations. This tradition eschews both the attempt to explain international politics by aping the methodology of the natural sciences and any interest in saying something of general import about the process of foreign policy formulation. Rather, it finds its “less ephemeral centre” in the rules and institutions which are shared by states and approaches the study of these rules and institutions in a manner at once philosophical and historical. Furthermore, against the cardboard lances of the ‘transnationalists’ it clutches a sturdy shield to the state, insisting that the state has been in the recent past and will remain for the foreseeable future, the principal “centre of initiative” in world politics. In short, this tradition consists in an overriding concern with the political theory and institutional history of the ‘states-system’.

The Premises of Brownson's Political Theory

1954 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 194-211
Author(s):  
Stanley J. Parry
Keyword(s):  
Civil Society ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Intellectual History ◽  
Catholic Church ◽  
Political Thought ◽  
World View ◽  
The State ◽  
The Universe ◽  
The Catholic Church

The theorist's attempt to interpret man's relation to man in civil society inevitably grows from and reflects his deeper conception of man's relation to the universe and to God. Consequently, the ultimate meaning and significance of a political theory can be ascertained only by establishing the precise way in which the theorist's world view has been spelled out in his view of the state. In the case of Orestes A. Brownson this is especially true. In the course of his movement from Transcendentalism to Catholicism he elaborated a metaphysic distinctively his: it summarizes his own intellectual history, his basic thought prior even to his theology, for it is the rationale of his acceptance of the Catholic Church. Our thesis with regard to Brownson's political thought is first, that this same metaphysic constitutes the premises on which he elaborates his political theory and, secondly, that the solution he offers to the ultimate problem raised by that theory is theological since ultimately his basic metaphysic gets completed by his theology. Our task is to indicate how this metaphysic and theology determine the fundamental conceptions of his specifically political thought.

Kropotkin

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Kinna
Keyword(s):  
Political Theory ◽  
Human Nature ◽  
Political Change ◽  
Direct Action ◽  
The State ◽  
Social Analysis ◽  
Mutual Aid ◽  
Special Character ◽  
Revolutionary Politics

This book is designed to remove Peter Kropotkin from the framework of classical anarchism. By focusing attention on his theory of mutual aid, it argues that the classical framing distorts Kropotkin's political theory by associating it with a narrowly positivistic conception of science, a naively optimistic idea of human nature and a millenarian idea of revolution. Kropotkin's abiding concern with Russian revolutionary politics is the lens for this analysis. The argument is that his engagement with nihilism shaped his conception of science and that his expeditions in Siberia underpinned an approach to social analysis that was rooted in geography. Looking at Kropotkin's relationship with Elisée Reclus and Erico Malatesta and examining his critical appreciation of P-J. Proudhon, Michael Bakunin and Max Stirner, the study shows how he understood anarchist traditions and reveals the special character of his anarchist communism. His idea of the state as a colonising process and his contention that exploitation and oppression operate in global contexts is a key feature of this. Kropotkin's views about the role of theory in revolutionary practice show how he developed this critique of the state and capitalism to advance an idea of political change that combined the building of non-state alternatives through direct action and wilful disobedience. Against critics who argue that Kropotkin betrayed these principles in 1914, the book suggests that this controversial decision was consistent with his anarchism and that it reflected his judgment about the prospects of anarchistic revolution in Russia.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document