Why Is There No International Theory?

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.

Introduction: Martin Wight and the Political Philosophy of International Relations

This volume of Wight’s collected works brings together various writings concerning the political philosophy of international relations. Wight identified three traditions of thinking about international politics since the sixteenth century—Realism, Rationalism, and Revolutionism, which have become well known thanks to his 1991 posthumous volume, International Theory: The Three Traditions. The current volume includes several works on the same ‘international theory’ theme, some previously published and some never-before-published, with ‘Is There a Philosophy of Statesmanship?’ in the latter category. This volume also includes three essays by Wight on the causes and functions of war in international politics. Wight prepared several papers on legitimacy in domestic and international politics, and this volume features five never-before-published papers on this theme. Wight qualified his orderly analyses of traditions of political philosophy, the causes and functions of war, and principles of domestic and international legitimacy by drawing attention to unpredictable ‘wild card’ factors such as fortune and irony in his paper in this collection entitled ‘Fortune’s Banter’. Unintended, unexpected, and ironical consequences abound in international politics, despite efforts to master the dynamics of history. In view of the many factors behind events, including economic and demographic developments, Wight expressed qualifications about the role of ideas. He nonetheless concluded that ‘in historical retrospect, the philosophies of statesmen do seem observably to colour their policies’.

International Relations and Political Philosophy

This book collects Martin Wight’s works on the theory and philosophy of international politics. It includes classic works, such as “Why Is There No International Theory?” and “Western Values in International Relations,” as well as previously unpublished works such as “The Communist Theory of International Relations” and “Gain, Fear and Glory: Reflections on the Nature of International Politics.” These works encompass four categories: (a) traditions of thinking about international politics since the sixteenth century, (b) the causes and functions of war, (c) international and regime legitimacy, and (d) fortune and irony in international politics. Wight identifies and analyzes three major traditions of thinking about international politics in the West since the sixteenth century: Realism, Rationalism, and Revolutionism, also known as the Machiavellian, Grotian, and Kantian approaches. Wight examines the causes of war highlighted by Thucydides and Hobbes (material interest, fear, and reputation), and considers the functions of war in international politics (such as winning and retaining national independence and upholding the balance of power). Wight reviews the history of dynastic and popular legitimacy as well as post-1945 concepts of international and domestic legitimacy. Finally, Wight considers fortune and irony, including the decision-maker’s frequent rediscovery of the recalcitrance of events. Unintended, unexpected, and ironical consequences abound in international politics. This volume also features eight book reviews by Wight, including his assessments of works by Raymond Aron, E. H. Carr, Friedrich Meinecke, and Hans Morgenthau.

Ideological Concepts in ‘Formalism, Decisionism and Conservatism in Russian Law’ (2021) by Mikhail Antonov

The present review analyses key ideas of professor Mikhail Antonov’s 2021 book on formalism, decisionism and conservatism in Russian Law. This review essay is written in the form of an imaginary dialogue between the reviewer (a political philosopher) and the author (legal philosopher). Its main aim is to explore legal dimensions of Russia’s new ideology of conservatism. Divided into five sections, it covers five conceptual foundations of the book – sovereigntism, statism, collectivism, civilizationism and exceptionalism. This review essay also examines the links between the respective ideas of legal philosophy of Mikhail Antonov and an overview of arguments from the contemporary political and critical international theory, aiming to engage in a critical discussion with the author about Russia’s insecure collective identity.

Post-Eurocentric grand narratives in critical international theory

Critical international theory is confronted with a fundamental ‘problem of orientation’, whose answer defines its capacity to critically analyse world politics. This problem derives from how the capacity for critique is inherently connected with the need to, at least partially, escape time- and space-bound points of view and attain a more cosmopolitan perspective that permits an assessment of the regressive/progressive tendencies of the human past, present and possible futures. The search for this cosmopolitan standpoint of orientation has frequently led to a reliance on grand narratives of human development from the perspective of which critical orientation can be disclosed. However, grand narratives themselves have frequently relied on metaphysical categories and stadial conceptions of history that reproduce forms of Eurocentrism that ultimately undermine their adequacy as means of orientation. A fundamental suspicion of grand narratives and need for ‘reflexivity’ that discloses forms of exclusion embedded in theoretical perspectives have thus become common topics in the field. However, this growing concern with reflexivity is also associated with a tendency for greater philosophical abstraction and a growing gap between theory and practice. This article considers the role of grand narratives in critical international theory and explores the possibility of post-Eurocentric and post-philosophical grand narratives that provide an alternative answer to the problem of orientation and recover the link between theory and practice. With reference to recent developments in the field, namely, the work of Richard Devetak and Andrew Linklater, the article considers the possibility of a historical–sociological approach to grand narratives.

Governmentality and Risk: Managing ‘Ocean Space’

<p>The term ‘fisheries management’ at first glance seems to be a reasonably unproblematic one. It implies that firstly, that there are resources called fish, and secondly, that these resources called fish can be harvested and managed. So far, so good. Next, there is the word ‘convention’. It is a commonly understood word in law in general and there are many conventions in International law and in International environmental law as well. Lastly there is the term ‘sustainable development’, a well-used term in International theory and practice, usually said to mean that although we understand the finite nature of the matter and energy that can be safely used by countries to develop, this can be tempered by putting in place measures and instruments to curb the excesses of human, and by that I mean industrialised, human activity on the environment.</p>

Governmentality and Risk: Managing ‘Ocean Space’

<p>The term ‘fisheries management’ at first glance seems to be a reasonably unproblematic one. It implies that firstly, that there are resources called fish, and secondly, that these resources called fish can be harvested and managed. So far, so good. Next, there is the word ‘convention’. It is a commonly understood word in law in general and there are many conventions in International law and in International environmental law as well. Lastly there is the term ‘sustainable development’, a well-used term in International theory and practice, usually said to mean that although we understand the finite nature of the matter and energy that can be safely used by countries to develop, this can be tempered by putting in place measures and instruments to curb the excesses of human, and by that I mean industrialised, human activity on the environment.</p>

Walter Lippmann, emotion, and the history of international theory

The recent ‘emotion turn’ in international theory is widely viewed as a cutting-edge development which pushes the field in fundamentally new directions. Challenging this narrative, this essay returns to the historical works of Walter Lippmann to show how thinking about emotions has been central to international theory for far longer than currently appreciated. Deeply troubled by his experience with propaganda during the First World War, Lippmann spent the next several decades thinking about the relationship between emotion, mass politics, and the challenges of foreign policy in the modern world. The result was a sophisticated account of the role of emotional stereotypes and symbols in mobilizing democratic publics to international action. I argue that a return to Lippmann's ideas offers two advantages. First, it shows his thinking on emotion and mass politics formed an important influence for key disciplinary figures like Angell, Morgenthau, Niebuhr, and Waltz. Second, it shows why the relationship between emotion and democracy should be understood as a vital concern for international theory. Vacillating between scepticism and hope, Lippmann's view of democracy highlights a series of challenges in modern mass politics – disinformation, the unintended consequences of emotional symbols, and responsibility for the public's emotional excesses – which bear directly on democracies' ability to engage the world.

Toward a Radical IR: Transformation, Praxis, and Critique in a (Neo)Liberal World Order

Can there be a “radical IR?” Scholars have given little attention to the question of the following: where is radicalism in the discipline? I argue that not only is it possible to think about radical international theory, but that it is necessary in the contemporary world. International theorists have to grapple with developments of fundamental change, including the so-described decline of the (neo)liberal international order, transformations in global capital, and an upsurge in populist political movements that advocate for fundamental political change. In approaching the question of radicalism in IR, the article develops a working definition of radicalism as an approach to politics that focuses on the International as a whole, uses theoretical tools from the humanistic sciences to engage in an active politics of fundamental transformation, and deploys methods that are historicist, genealogical, and oriented toward “getting to the root of things.” Additionally, the paper illustrates the virtues and promises of a radical IR by using the case of (neo)liberal world order arguments to show how a radical IR could change the trajectory of these engagements.