Tai Lieu Chat Luong International Relations, Political Theory and the Problem of Order At the turn of the millennium, and now after the fall of the Berlin wall, the best way to map the trajectories of contemporary international relations is hotly contested. Is the world more or less ordered than during the Cold War? Are we on the way to a neo-liberal era of free markets and global governance, or in danger of collapsing into a new Middle Ages? Are we on the verge of a new world order or are we slipping back into an old one? These issues are amongst those that have dominated International Relations theory in the late 1980s and 1990s, but they have their roots in older questions both about the appropriate ways to study international relations and about the general frameworks and normative assumptions generated by various different methodological approaches. This book seeks to offer a general interpretation and critique of both methodological and substantive aspects of International Relations theory, and in particular to argue that International Relations theory has separated itself from the concerns of political theory more generally at considerable cost to each. Focusing initially on the ‘problem of order’ in international politics, the book suggests that International Relations theory in the twentieth century has adopted two broad families of approaches, the first of which seeks to find ways of ‘managing’ order in international relations and the second of which seeks to ‘end’ the problem of order.
It traces three specific sets of responses to the problem of order within the first approach, which emphasize ‘balance’, ‘society’ and ‘institutions’, and outlines two responses within the second grouping, an emphasis on emancipation and an emphasis on limits. Finally, the book assesses the state of International Relations theory today and suggests an alternative way of reading the problem of order which generates a different trajectory for a truly global political theory in the twenty-first century.Rengger is Reader in Political Theory and International Relations at the University of St Andrews. He is the author of Political Theory, Modernity and Postmodernity; Dilemmas of World Politics; and Retreat from the Modern. The New International Relations Edited by Barry Buzan University of Warwick and Richard Little University of Bristol The field of international relations has changed dramatically in recent years.
This new series will cover the major issues that have emerged and reflect the latest academic thinking in this particular dynamic area. International Law, Rights and Politics Developments in Eastern Europe and the CIS Rein Mullerson The Logic of Internationalism Coercion and accommodation Kjell Goldmann Russia and the Idea of Europe A study in identity and international relations Iver B.Neumann The Future of International Relations Masters in the making? Edited by Iver B.Neumann and Ole Wæver Constructing the World Polity Essays on international institutionalization John Gerard Ruggie Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy The continuing story of a death foretold Stefano Guzzini International Relations, Political Theory and the Problem of Order Beyond International Relations theory? N.Rengger London and New York First published 2000 by Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005. “To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.Rengger All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Rengger, N.) International relations, political theory and the problem of order: beyond international relations theory? / N. (The New International Relations Series) Includes bibliographical references and index. International relations-Political aspects.
International relations-Philosophy. Political science-Philosophy. International relations-Methodology. Series: New International Relations.1′01-dc21 ISBN 0-203-98345-9 Master e-book ISBN ISBN 0-415-09583-2 (hbk) ISBN 0-415-09584-0 (pbk) For VMH, MWJ, EH who remind me that Aristotle was, as usual, right: Nobody would choose to live without friends, even if he had all other Good things.
Nichomachean Ethics, 115a4 And for HDR 1926–1997 Father, teacher, teller of tales and friend, ‘with whom I shared all the counsels of my heart’. Contents Series editor’s preface vii Preface ix Acknowledgements xv Introduction: International Relations theory and the 1 problem of order PART I Managing order? 36 1 Balance 37 2 Society 72 3 Institutions 102 PART II Ending order? 143 4 Emancipation 144 5 Limits 175 Epilogue: ordering ends? 192 Select bibliography 212 Index 229 Series editor’s preface Political theory and International Relations theory have drifted into a rather odd and unsatisfactory relationship. This has happened despite the role that some classical political theory plays in most introductory courses to IR, where Thucydides, Hobbes, Kant, Rousseau, Bentham, Mill and others are paraded as foundational formulations of the problems of peace, war and international political economy These roots are mostly noted as part of the intellectual history of IR, and occasionally argued over in the context of debates about the validation of more contemporary versions of realist, liberal and Marxian doctrine. But these obeisances do not constitute any kind of coherent contact between the discourses of political theory and IR.
While political theorists have focused more and more on the logical and normative dimensions of what goes on inside the state, IR theorists have turned more and more to the interactions between states and the structures of the international system as a whole. A few brave souls have tried to sustain contact: think of Stanley Hoffmann, Michael Walzer, Michael Joseph Smith and Michael Doyle in the United States; Brian Barry, Chris Brown, Andrew Linklater and Hidemi Suganami in the United Kingdom. But it is probably true to say that most of the core debate in political theory largely ignores the international dimension, and most of the core debate in IR is largely ignorant about the concerns of mainstream political theory. In part the blame for this can be laid at the feet of the usual demons: narrow academic specialization, and the bizarre intellectual barriers erected by both the creation of jargon-based discourses and the institutionalization of disciplines.
But there is a deeper problem of style as well. As Hidemi Suganami (On the Causes of War, 1996) nicely observes, there exists a more general division between those people who find the minutiae of philosophical argument cosmically important to understanding the real meaning of things, and those who see it mostly as irritating nit-picking that distracts from the really important things by posing questions that cannot be answered, and treating them as necessarily prior to dealing with more practical matters. The philosophical mind revels in always finding another logical difficulty, no matter how arcane, that undoes everything that comes before it. This continuous drive towards highly abstract forms of demolition quite quickly bores and frustrates audiences whose concerns are more pragmatic, and who think viii that there are urgent problems that we need at least to get to grips with, if not solve.
In this audacious and thought-provoking book, Nick Rengger tackles this difficult and lamentable state of affairs head on. In the context of a breathtaking survey of the main bodies of thought in the two areas, he argues that the growing alienation of political theory and IR has weakened both, and proceeds to show how they can and must be remarried if either is to have any hope of successfully addressing its agenda. His linking theme is the problem of order, what it is, and how to achieve or avoid it, and how to rediscover the central normative question of politics: how to live well? This is a work that achieves real depth and authority while covering a huge swathe of thinking in a remarkably compact manner. It commends itself for making a sustained argument that should affect how both political theory and IR conduct their business and understand their subject.
On a more mundane level it will also attract because of its wide-ranging literature survey; its short, pithy and incisive summaries of many schools of thought; and its grand tour of the disciplines. For those in IR, it contains both a masterful overview of the discipline (realism, the English school and constructivism, liberalism, critical theory, postmodernism) and a useful crib for all whose training has left them ill-equipped to deal with the currently fashionable impact of philosophy of knowledge questions on debates about IR theory. Preface By temperament and training, I am a political theorist, and as a member of this rather endangered company in the modern academy, I have long agreed with Judith Shklar, surely among the most influential political theorists of the last fifty years, that political theory is the place where history and ethics meet. In our own day, therefore—and whatever may have been true of earlier periods1—this must mean that one of the central sites for that meeting is the increasingly blurred and contested boundary between the ethics and politics of (allegedly) ‘settled’ communities—usually, though not always, states—and the ethics and politics of the relations between such communities.
That distinction, in other words, that usually issues in separate spheres called ‘domestic politics’ and ‘international relations’, respectively Given this allegiance, I have for a long time been primarily concerned to probe both political theory and international relations in terms of their relations with one another, though over the years the balance of my interests has shifted from questions of intellectual history and context to more straightforwardly normative questions. For example, when writing a book about the ‘modernity debate’ in contemporary political theory, as I did a few years ago,2 I made a point of emphasizing the extent to which that debate had ramifications for the way we talk of ‘domestic’ politics—that is to say, as opposed to—‘international’ politics. This trajectory has also, rather naturally, formed the basic staple of my teaching, whether that teaching has been courses that I have specifically offered on political theory and international relations or the more ‘usual’ courses political theorists teach; those courses, that is, on the history of political thought usually known as the ‘canon’. In the latter case, I have usually made a modest attempt to broaden said canon, or at least to suggest that students should bear in mind that the ‘canon’ as currently constructed was developed at a time when the state was seen as (at least) the inevitable political form of the modern age and (more infrequently) necessarily the best one.
Thus, theorists who did not happily fit into the straitjacket of modern reflections about the centrality, even the inevitability, of the state tended not to make it onto the ‘canonical’ list. This is even true for theorists recognized in other contexts as central, even seminal, thinkers, for example Grotius or Leibniz.3 x Given these general interests, however, it is also not surprising that amongst the courses I was asked to teach fairly early on was a course in ‘International Relations Theory’, usually referred to in the inevitable shorthand of the modern academy as ‘IR theory’, and, as always, the best way to learn a subject is to teach it and doing so was a wonderful introduction to the way ‘IR theory’ has/had traditionally been taught. Initially, I was—I have to admit it—surprised at what was traditionally taught in such courses and even more at what was not. Normative questions traditionally did not appear.
Nor really did historical ones. The international system, it would seem, had operated more or less as a repeating decimal from time immemorial—or at least since Thucydides. Before long, however, these features themselves began to intrigue me.