What is an emancipatory peace?

There has been frequent reference to the concept of an emancipatory peace in the critical academic literature on peace and conflict studies in IR, much of it rather naive. It has developed an ecosystem of its own within debates on peace without drawing on wider disciplinary debates. Terms such as ‘emancipation’ and its relative, ‘social justice’ are widely used in critical theoretical literature and were common parlance in previous ideological eras. It was clear what such terms meant in the context of feudalism, slavery, imperialism, discrimination, a class system, nuclear weapons and racism over the previous two centuries. Now it is less clear in the context of changing peace praxis.

Securitizing cyberspace: Protecting political judgment

The contemporary debate in democracies routinely refers to online misinformation, disinformation, and deception, as security-issues in need of urgent attention. Despite this pervasive discourse, however, policymakers often appear incapable of articulating what security means in this context. This paper argues that we must understand the unique practical and normative challenges to security actualized by such online information threats, when they arise in a democratic context. Investigating security-making in the nexus between technology and national security through the concept of “cybersovereignty,” the paper highlights a shared blind spot in the envisaged protection of national security and democracy in cyberspace. Failing to consider the implications of non-territoriality in cyberspace, the “cybersovereign” approach runs into a cul de sac. Security-making, when understood as the continuous constitution of “cybersovereign” boundaries presumes the existence of a legitimate securitizing actor; however, this actor can only be legitimate as a product of pre-existing boundaries. In response to the problems outlined, the article proposes an alternative object of protection in the form of human judgment and, specifically, “political judgment” in the Arendtian sense. The turn to political judgment offers a conceptualization of security that can account for contemporary policy practises in relation to security and the online information threat, as well as for the human communicating subject in the interactive and essentially incomplete information and communication environment.

Sacrificial causalities of nuclear weapons: Takashi Nagai and Albert Wohlstetter

After the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan in 1945, both nations experienced a profound need for a new and encompassing story of what it meant to be Japanese, and to be American, in the permanent nuclear age. This article is a thought experiment to juxtapose the writings and personas of two people who helped their respective societies answer those needs and questions during the early Cold War: Takashi Nagai—medical radiologist, and survivor of the American atomic bombing of Nagasaki, and Albert Wohlstetter—leading American civilian nuclear strategist for the RAND Corporation in the 1950s. Using a combination of mythopeic analysis, biography and illuminative juxtaposition, the study discovers surprising similarities and analogies between the two cases. They each enact and propose interesting variations of sacrificial causalities—claims that human nuclear sacrifices past or promised can bring peace by deterrence now or peace by abolition soon enough. This is an important study now, as both Japan’s nuclear pacifism and the American nuclear umbrella in Northeast Asia are coming under more severe questioning than perhaps ever before.

Nonviolent struggle between norm and technique

Standard stories about the development of the study of nonviolent struggle characterize the maturation of the field as moving from principle to pragmatics, norm to technique. This big story about the field’s development is crystalized in the supposed dichotomy between principled and pragmatic nonviolence; a dichotomy that though common sense for those teaching and researching the repertoires of nonviolent struggle occludes the elision of critical normativity. Through a genealogical retrieval of Gene Sharp’s reading of Max Weber, this article unsettles this story. I argue that the turn to technique in the study of nonviolent struggle is itself a normative turn. Redescribing the turn to technique as itself normative, however, is not enough for a comprehensive description of the dynamics of nonviolent struggle. I develop this insight further by arguing that a recovery of the virtue of prudence, or practical reason, is necessary for a full account of nonviolent struggle.

Restraining the fox: Minimalism in the ethics of war and peace

Peace plays a central role in the ethics of war and peace, but this proves to be an enormous challenge. In a recent article, Elisabeth Forster and Isaac Taylor grapple with this important topic. They argue that certain concepts in just war theory—aggression, legitimacy, and peace—are essentially contested and susceptible to manipulation. Because the rules are interpreted and applied by the very states that wage war, it is as if the fox is asked to guard the chicken coop—a recipe for disaster. To avoid manipulation of the theory and make the goal of peace attainable, they defend “minimalism” in the ethics of war and peace. This paper responds to and builds on their article. After nuancing the analysis, I will argue (a) that their minimalism does not solve the problem since the proposed alternative concept is equally prone to misuse, and (b) that their minimalism is mistargeted. What I propose is to specify and ground the rules of war without raising the standard too high, to disentangle jus ad bellum and jus post bellum and see peace as guiding principle for jus post bellum, and to interpret that in a minimalist way.

In the eyes of all mankind: Interests and independence in Vattelian statehood

Emer de Vattel’s argument that states should be understood as free and independent bodies operating as moral persons in the international sphere is credited with launching a doctrine of sovereignty that hardened national borders against external interference or obligation. It also helped launch one of the world’s first modern states through its influence on the American founding. Vattel’s theory rests upon the critical role of judgment, specifically, the judgment of interests. That doctrine requires that states must always think for themselves, but not only about themselves. Offering some justification for international action, even in the midst of disagreement or war, is what separates civilized from villainous nations for Vattel, and this grounds interests in the communicative habits of an international community. Because the judgment of interests incorporates a communicative element, Vattelian internationalism cannot become exclusively self-regarding, and state interests cannot be entirely contained within national borders. Instead, Vattel’s distinctive combination of independence and interests is set within a global community that makes the fate of outsiders the business of every state.

Proclaiming a prophecy empty of substance? A pragmatist reconsideration of global governance

In 1995, the UN Commission on Global Governance published their “Our Global Neighbourhood” report and the academic journal “Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations” was launched. Both events in retrospect play a significant role in the emergence of global governance thinking and practice in world politics. Despite inherent ambiguities, this idea since then gained massive traction and became both a modality and a heuristic of world politics. Advancing a pragmatist framework, we unpack global governance in terms of the beliefs which underline and guide it. These beliefs are important since they, as rules for action, define the scope of global governance as a theoretical and a political concept. Reconstructing these beliefs directly from the 1995 report, the article highlights the inherent conflations of normative and analytical commitments indicative of global governance. As a projection surface of all kinds, we believe such a reconsideration of global governance is important to (a) reveal the baselines of its thinking and practice, (b) indicate how its normative and analytical ambitions overlap and conflate, and (c) contribute to a more reflective discussion on the idea which explicitly considers its inherent normativity. At the same time, we hope to show the value of a pragmatist framework on beliefs for the study of world politics.

Free states for free citizens!? Arguments for a republicanism of plural polities

The paper assesses the questions if and, if yes, how the republican conception of free statehood can and should inform a compelling understanding of a legitimate post-Westphalian political order. To answer these questions, it, first, reconstructs the foundational arguments of republican internationalists in favour of free states and, second, assesses the points of contention republican cosmopolitans raise. Third, it develops an alternative approach, a republicanism of plural polities: Based on a relational and multi-dimensional understanding of citizenship, the paper questions the strong internationalist reliance on the citizenship-state-nexus and on statehood in general, but also takes issue with cosmopolitans’ neglect of the boundedness of democratic self-determination. A republicanism of plural polities as a multi-perspectival approach to democratic institution-building in and beyond the state is open to constellations of plural polities of different forms and on different political levels while simultaneously recognising the particularity of each ‘free polity’. It thereby adds a new dimension to debates on the political forms legitimate institutions can assume under post-Westphalian conditions and opens avenues for research on inter-polity relations, on more complex constellations of self-rule and shared rule as well as of multilateral decision-making, on sovereignty and independence. The latter are exemplified by reference to the European context.

Approaching the boundary problem: Self-determination, inclusion, and the unpuzzling of transboundary conflicts

In recent decades, decisionmakers have increasingly faced conflicts juxtaposing demands for self-determination and inclusion. Political theorists term this juxtaposition “the boundary problem.” They have offered normative solutions, especially for “just inclusion,” proposing what states owe to exogenous individuals like migrants and refugees. Meanwhile, as I show, legal scholars have developed parallel observations regarding what I term “just exclusion,” concerning how self-determination by sub-state collectives, such as minority nations, interacts with the inclusion rights of members of the majority. I make, first, a descriptive contribution, showing decisionmakers how political theories of “just inclusion” and legal theories of “just exclusion” are complementary, uniting to frame the boundary problem. Second, I make a prescriptive contribution, deploying this frame to lay out a stepwise approach so decisionmakers can more logically work through boundary-problem conflicts.

Recognition, multiplicity and the elusive international

This article argues that the normative promise of recognition theory in International Relations has become increasingly inadequate to the cross-cutting and intersecting issues characteristic of a globalised and fragmented world. Engaging in critical readings of cosmopolitan forms of recognition theory, the critique of sovereignty and Markell’s influential critique of recognition theory, I suggest that the increasing ontological specificity of recognition theory in IR has come at the expense of its ability to develop links between different areas of international politics. The result is a failure to deal with recognition’s simultaneity, or the co-existence of analytically distinct and internally coherent recognition orders that is characteristic of the international. Building on this insight, I argue that a more historically-sensitive and materialist approach to recognition can be grounded in the concept of multiplicity. By opening recognition up to processes of interaction, and not merely reproduction, multiplicity frames the international more clearly as a historical presupposition, rather than a limit, of recognition. Furthermore, placing recognition struggles within the state, international institutions or transnational movements in relation to each other ensures that IR can contribute to the further development of recognition theory by situating recognition struggles at the intersection of different moral geographies.