|
Editorial
Introduction:
A Snapshot of
International Political Theory in Summer 2006
Welcome to this,
the second, issue of The IPT Beacon. We are grateful to readers for the
numerous messages of appreciation received in response to the first, and we
hope this one will be no less warmly welcomed.
Our survey of
articles which were published by June turned up a rich variety of themes
and approaches. If there is
one predominant characteristic of the current work it is that of Òmaking
linkagesÓ - connecting issues and topics that are normally treated as
discrete, or connecting theoretical approaches that are often considered as
alternatives or competitors.
Linkages
of a variety of kinds are made in the excellent special issue of International
Affairs (82.3, 2006) edited by Nick Rengger. This is an
impressive set of articles commissioned from a variety of perspectives on
theorizing world politics in the new century. Some of these look at subdisciplinary areas within
the study of international politics: Amanda Dickins, for instance,
writes engagingly on ÔThe Evolution of International Political EconomyÕ, advocating a
rapprochement between competing schools of IPE, while also putting down a
marker for the importance of the growing global bioeconomy. Others, like Terry Nardin, whose article we
feature (more on which below), take on major substantive themes within
IPT. Discussion of specific
topical issues include Lynn DobsonÕs carefully crafted review ÒNormative Theory
and EuropeÕ and William BainÕs wryly forthright ÔIn Praise of
Folly: international administration and the corruption of humanityÕ. Rengger is to be
congratulated on coordinating the production of an excellent set of lively
and informative papers.
Establishing
linkages between philosophical theory and practical policy is a central
mission of Ethics and International Affairs, and this journal
is, as usual, host to some fine articles of theoretically-informed
reflection on law and policy. The April issue includes an outstanding piece
of applied philosophy on the question of ÔAccountability in International
Development AidÕ, by Leif Wenar (Ethics and International Affairs 20.1, 2006). His
careful and fine-grained analysis shows that problems of inadequate
accountability, within and between international development agencies, are
a much more complex matter than is often supposed. Simply trying to
increase accountability may merely amplify the complexities of development
efforts rather than do any actual good. Only those reforms with real
promise to make aid more effective in reducing poverty should be
encouraged, Wenar argues, and he advances one such proposal. In the same
issue, Margaret
Moore
writes on "The Ethics of Secession in PostInvasion Iraq". This article illuminates the
shortcoming of various theoretical approaches to secession by reference to
the case of the Kurds and Shia.
In the June issue (Ethics and International Affairs 20.2), too, there are
some fine reviews of law and policy making. Particularly interesting is ÒThe Gendered
Dimensions of Conflict's Aftermath: A Victim-Centered Approach to
CompensationÓ by Sara Zeigler and Gregory Gunderson. This argues for a shift from
post-conflict procedures focused on punishing perpetrators to procedures
focused on compensating victims, especially women and children.
Also
arguing for a shift of perspective, but in the context of distributive
justice, is Fiona RobinsonÕs ÔCare, gender and global social justice:
Rethinking Ôethical globalizationÕ (Journal of Global Ethics, 2.1 June 2006).
Robinson highlights what she sees as limitations of a human rights focus
for thinking about global ethics, and she proposes an alternative moral
framework based on a feminist political ethic of care. This gives prominence to neglected
aspects of the global political economy such as the global distribution of
care work and the corresponding patterns of gender and racial inequality.
It serves to highlight the ways in which unpaid or low-paid caring work
helps to sustain a cycle of exploitation and inequality on a global
scale.
Global
distributive justice and the problem of poverty are the subject of a
special issue of Globalizations (3.2, June 2006). This includes a number of
interesting perspectives on its topic, noteworthy among which is Simon CaneyÕs ÔGlobal Justice:
From Theory to PracticeÕ. Caney
seeks to link theory and practice through a wide-ranging examination of the
policy implications of a minimally demanding philosophical conception of
global justice.
The
complex and fertile connections between the normative principles of
cosmopolitanism and the practices of public deliberation are explored by Pablo Gilabert in ÔCosmopolitanism
and Discourse Ethics: a critical surveyÕ (New Political Science 28.1, March 2006).
The prospects of globalizing deliberative democracy via electronic media
are canvassed by Brooke A Ackerly in ÔDeliberative Democratic Theory for
Building Global Civil Society: Designing a Virtual Community of ActivistsÕ (Contemporary
Political Theory 5.2 (2006) which reflects on the appropriate design
of an online institution for global civil society that is deliberative,
democratic and attentive to the particular agents engaged in women's human
rights activism.
Another
new dimension to the international agenda is brought within the purview of
normative theory by Adrian J Bradbrook and Judith Gail Gardam in ÔPlacing Access to
Energy Services within a Human Rights FrameworkÕ (Human Rights
Quarterly, 28.2, 2006) This article outlines the significance
of access to energy services in the poverty debate, and proposes a case for
this access as a human right.
Historical
scholarship, too, reveals linkages. Bruce Buchan, in ÔCivilisation,
Sovereignty and War: The Scottish Enlightenment and International RelationsÕ (International
Relations, 20.2, 2006), responds to the recent revival of the
concept of civilisation by suggesting that those who deploy it could
benefit from the nuanced understanding of it to be found in 18th century
thinkers such as David Hume, William Robertson, Adam Smith and Adam
Ferguson. Historical
scholarship can also highlight underlying connections between different
subdisciplinary perspectives. RenŽe Jeffery, in ÔHersch
Lauterpacht, the Realist Challenge and the ÔGrotian TraditionÕ in
20th-Century International RelationsÕ (European Journal of
International Relations, 12.2, 2006), argues that
Lauterpacht, although ordinarily thought of as a legal scholar, made a
significant contribution to the development of International Relations
theory. In showing this, Jeffery also challenges the disciplinary
demarcations taken to divide International Relations and International Law.
The
historical distinctiveness of contemporary international relations is the
focus of Jack
Donnelly, ÔSovereign Inequalities and Hierarchy in Anarchy: American
Power and International SocietyÕ (European Journal of International
Relations, 12.2, 2006). In seeking to understanding contemporary
international order and conceptualise the role of the United States in it,
Donnelly argues that the concepts of hierarchy in anarchy and sovereign
inequality are essential, whereas that of empire is not. In the same journal issue, Helen Thompson examines ÔThe Case for
External SovereigntyÕ, highlighting its role as a constraint on the
justifications for the worldÕs strongest states to go to war.
The
possible justifications for recourse to force are also a topic of the most
recent issue of the yearbook Nomos (XLVII: Humanitarian
Intervention) which, as ever, presents an important set of
articles. As well that of Kok-Chor Tan, which we feature (more on which below), Carla Bagnoli advances a related
argument in more specifically Kantian terms in "Humanitarian
Intervention as a Perfect Duty: A Kantian Argument", while Joseph Boyle provides a nuanced
and illuminating discussion of what natural law has to contribute to the
debate about humanitarian intervention in "Traditional Just
War Theory and Humanitarian InterventionÓ.
Finally,
David
Held,
in ÔReframing
global governance: Apocalypse soon or reform!Õ (New Political
Economy, 11.2, 2006) seeks to instil a sense of urgency about the
critical interconnected challenges facing humanity today - environmental
change, global poverty, nuclear proliferation - and to urge the needed
international collaboration to address them before it is too late.
The quarterÕs featured selection
In light of the current intensification of
interest in the concept and moral significance of terrorism, it is
opportune to be able to recommend the article ÔIs Terrorism
Morally Distinctive?Õ by Samuel Scheffler. Scheffler provides a characteristically thoughtful
answer to the question of his title.
While resisting being drawn too deeply into issues of definition, he
analyses with a careful sense of purpose certain familiar forms of violence
which most people, prior to analysis, would not hesitate to classify as
instances of terrorism. He
finds that the resources of political philosophy are not as well developed
with respect to these forms of political violence as they are for the norms
for regulating stable and affluent societies. While some have addressed the matter from the
perspective of just war theory, Scheffler first approaches it with a novel
deployment of certain insights of Thomas Hobbes. He gives a dispassionate and nuanced account of the
effects that terrorism can have on the fabric of societies subjected to it.
The moral significance of terrorism is encapsulated in Kantian terminology:
Ôwe might say that the primary victims are treated not just as means to an
end but as means to means: that is, they are treated as means to the end of
treating the secondary victims as means to ends.Õ The article also develops
a distinction between terrorism and state terror: the latter uses violence
not to disrupt order but to stabilize an existing social order. Scheffler
is aware that the kind of order sustained by state terror may be thought
not to constitute order in a normatively acceptable sense, and he gives
careful consideration to this line of objection in order to maintain what
he believes is an important distinction.
Careful
analysis of another live question relating to the use of violence is
provided in Kok-Chor TanÕs ÔThe Duty to ProtectÕ. TanÕs question is whether humanitarian
intervention, as well as being a right, is also a duty. The careful
analysis serves to support a powerful core argument. This is that if it is
permissible to override the ideal of sovereignty in order to put an end to
serious human rights violations, then it is also permissible to override
the right of neutral states simply to stand by while such violations
occur. This implies a duty to
intervene. And if that duty is ÔimperfectÕ, this does not mean it is not a
stringent duty; rather, it means the onus is on all well-ordered states to
coordinate appropriate action, which realistically implies establishing a
permanent humanitarian defence force. Alert to the objection that military
personnel in a democracy should not be expected to give their lives for foreigners,
Tan advances several counterarguments.
The
duty to protect plays a pivotal role in the article ÔInternational
Political Theory and the Question of JusticeÕ by Terry Nardin. While reflecting
on the general role of theory in relation to international politics, Nardin
also introduces a specific novel proposal. At the heart of political theory, he observes, is the
idea of justice, but it figures within two distinct contexts in
international relations. Just War (JW) theory global Distributive Justice
(DJ) have generated extensive but quite separate literatures. The JW literature, Nardin says, is
characterized by longevity, robustness, coherence and a high degree of
consensus - characteristics he finds lacking in the DJ literature. His proposal is to link the two by
drawing some strengths of JW to DJ. Specifically, noting that the JW
literature is largely about conduct whereas DJ literature is about
possession, Nardin suggests thinking of economic justice in terms not of
distributing ÒstuffÓ but of principles to govern peopleÕs conduct. If the
key JW principle of a Kantian respect for persons is strong enough to
justify a requirement of intervention against overt violence - on the
grounds that simply standing by is an affront, not only against humanity,
but against justice - then there should be recognition of a comparable duty
to protect against non-violent harm. ÔTo do nothing while people starve or
suffer from curable diseases is not merely inhumane; it fails to respect
those people as human beings by making their well-being a matter of
indifference.Õ This presents a challenge to think about what kinds of
institutional counterpart to TanÕs humanitarian defence force might
discharge the duty to protect in the sphere of economic justice.
ÔGlobal Justice
and the Distribution of Natural ResourcesÕ by Tim Hayward, meanwhile, is
located firmly within the distributive justice literature. But while it is emphatically
about ÔstuffÕ, its central
argument is that debates hitherto about its just distribution have not
attended sufficiently to the nature of the stuff in question. Hayward argues that even those
political theorists who have attributed a distinctive role to natural
resources in their theories of global justice, have not fully thought
through the implications of doing so.
Taking issue variously with Charles Beitz, David Miller, Thomas
Pogge and Hillel Steiner, Hayward maintains that the most appropriate way
to conceive of natural resources in the context of global distributive
justice is in terms of Ôecological spaceÕ. He emphasises how the institutional conduct of our
global political economy effects a severe maldistribution of access to
ecological space, whereby its overuse by some effective violates othersÕ
human right of access to the means of a decent life.
The
fact that conflict over resources is one of the perennial causes of
violence, war, and oppression suggests a complementary hypothesis to
NardinÕs: that protecting against the harms of violence has as an integral
component the securing of equitable access to the earthÕs resources. Whether that aim is best construed
in terms of access to Òecological spaceÓ, of course, may be a matter for
debate.
Iris Marion Young
In this issue we include a page of
tributes to Iris Marion Young, whose untimely death following a battle with
cancer was announced this Summer.
Unaware of her grave condition at the time, we commended her article
ÔResponsibility and Global Justice: A Social Connection ModelÕ in our
inaugural issue. This outstanding article gives but a glimpse of a
lifetimeÕs immense contribution to political theory. The page in honour of Iris Marion
YoungÕs life and work will remain open to the addition of further tributes.
|
