General+Introduction

toc =Course Aim= POLS/PHIL/INTP 261 is about the development of __international political theory__. The course aims at an introduction to the development of __Western__ ideas about international affairs starting from ancient political thought. In particular, it aims to show the ideas that have shaped and still shape current thought and practice in __international relations__.

The aim of this general introduction is to provide a framework or reference point for considering and understanding the various writers dicussed in the course. This point of reference is based on pages 1-15 of Brown //et al.//'s text (Brown Chris, Nardin Terry, and Rengger Nicholas. 2002. [|International Relations in Political Thought: Texts from the Ancient Greeks to the First World War]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

=Definitions= Brown //et al.// (p. 1) claim a revival of interest in recent years in the “__classical theory of international relations__” or, synonymously, “__international political theory__”. These authors “define international political theory as that aspect of the discourse of International Relations which addresses explicitly issues concerning norms, interpretation, and the ontological foundations of the discipline [of International Relations]” (ibid.). They indicate that arguably “all theories of International Relations necessarily address” these issues but only “international political theory does so explicitly” (ibid.). They suggest that the revival of interest in international political theory is due to a “renewed engagement between ‘International Relations’ and ‘Political Theory’”, which are two ways of thinking about the world that for much of the last 100 years or so have developed separately (ibid.). Moreover, the authors suggest the renewed engagement between the two emerges from recognition of “the idea of a clear-cut distinction between the ‘international’ and the ‘domestic’”, which for many periods in the past was not the case (ibid.).

Questions

 * 1) What is meant by “international relations” and what is the discipline of International Relations?
 * 2) According to Brown //et al.//, international political theory addresses __explicitly__ issues concerning norms, interpretation, and the ontological foundations of International Relations. What does this mean?
 * 3) What is the discipline of Political Theory and is International Political Theory a sub-discipline of this discipline? Is it the engagement between International Relations and Political Theory that results in International Political Theory?
 * 4) How do International Relations and Political Theory differ as modes of thinking about the world?
 * 5) Apart from international political theory, what are other theories of International Relations? From what Brown //et al.// claim, the other theories do consider issues concerning norms, interpretation, and the ontological foundations of International Relations, but implicitly rather than explicitly. What does this mean? What is the significance of this?
 * 6) What is the issue of a clear-cut distinction between the “international” and the “domestic”? Does it mean that in times gone by, the “international” and the “domestic” have been thought of as being merged into one and the same? When was this?
 * 7) Brown //et al.// (p. 1, last para.) refer to a “second issue” they will address in their text. What is this issue?

=The relationship between modern international theory and clasical texts= Brown //et al.// (pp. 2-6) appear to discuss the difficulties of fitting in the writings of the pre-modern political theorists into current discourse on international relations. The authors’ discussion is fairly difficult to follow, but seems very important if one is to understand the relation between early political thought and modern international affairs.

Questions

 * 1) What are the difficulties in fiiting in the writings of the pre-modern political theorists into current discourse on international relations? Can anyone clarify pp. 2-6 of the text?
 * 2) Brown //et al.// (p. 3, last para.) refer to “realist” theorists and “realism”. What do these terms mean? Why are concepts such as “power” and “interest” (ibid., p. 4, line 14) realist concepts (e.g., “Thucydides is taken to be a realist because he appears to employ characteristically realist concepts such as power and interest in his account of the causes and conduct of the Peloponnesian war” (ibid., p. 4, lines 13-15))? [Note: this becomes clearer later - see the piece on “//system/society//” theme below.]
 * 3) Why do Brown //et al.// (p. 4, lines 7-9) state that “international relations becomes defined by the concerns of the dominant theories of the post-1945 discipline of International Relations”? Where does the canon of texts of early political theorists (e.g., Thucydides, Aristotle) sit in the context of this statement? It appears that the authors are saying that there was no discipline of International Relations pre-1945 and, therefore, earlier writings can only be used to corroborate the field. And, moreover, there is the danger of projecting modern concerns or thoughts when interpreting the pre-modern writers. Is this correct?

=Themes= However, Brown //et al.// (p. 6, lines 3-10) conclude that connections between various political thinkers from different ages across time can be made, despite different political circumstances, with respect to a number of themes or “clusters of themes” concerning international political theory, although not all the themes are relevant to all writers or periods. The authors identify the three most important themes, each consisting of a certain distinction, as follows (ibid., p. 6).


 * “//Inside/outside//” i.e., dealing with relations between collectivities, how collective identities are created, and the demarcation between “domestic” and “international”, if, indeed, there should be one, is a recurrent theme (note that Brown //et al.// state that this “theme raises the most fundamental questions” and “relations between collectivities are at the heart of the matter” – p. 6, last para., line 1 and lines 3-4).


 * “//Universalist/particularist//”, which “refers to the normative orientation of individuals towards ‘their’ collectivity and its relationship to the wider whole”.


 * “//System/society//”, which concerns the quality of contacts between collectivities, the role of norms and power, and the possibility that relations can be managed or even governed.

By way of an example of how Brown //et al.//'s thematic approach can be used as a reference point when reading the text, consider the ancient thought writers (Chapter 2 of the text). The authors (p. 17) state that ancient thought (the thought of ancient Greece and Rome) has much to offer the study of internationl relations with respect to three issues, which are related to the first theme (or cluster of themes) i.e., "//inside/outside//":


 * the way in which the classical period established—and questioned—distinctions between insiders and outsiders (this relates to the first of the three themes presented above);


 * the way in which this distinction is taken to generate, and limit, moral obligations between individuals; and


 * the ways in which this distinction is taken to generate, and limit, obligations between collectivities

Questions

 * 1) The above themes are discussed on pp. 6-12 of the text. These themes are important because they provide reference points or a framework for considering //all// the writers covered by Brown //et al.//, i.e., they act as the links between the political thoughts read in the text and international political theory / international relations. Put differently, the political thinkers, throughout all periods, covered by the text should be analysed in relation to one or more of the three themes to understand their contributions to international political theory. To get a thorough understanding of these themes, provide further insights.

=Detailed discussion of themes= Brown //et al.// then make a number of important points about each of the three themes as follows.

//“Inside/outside”//

 * “[A]lthough international political theory addresses relations between separate collective entities, such entities are not necessarily autonomous, territorial political units” (p. 7, second para.). For example, consider the situation of the Roman empire (p. 6, last para.). Types of unusual situations where “international relations” have occurred include between the inhabitants of cities in classical Greece and medieval universities. “The key notion here is that individuals find themselves part of a collectivity with an identity which distinguishes them from others; international political theory emerges when the nature of this identity and its relationship to others becomes a matter for reflection” (p. 7, second para.).


 * The first theme which is addressed by a number of the writers presented involves both intra-collectivity “international relations” as well as the more conventional notion of relations between collectivities (p. 7, second para.).


 * “[C]onventional political theory explores the development of community within a collective context which is taken for granted, [while] international political theory focuses more self-consciously on the way in which one particular notion of collective identity comes to dominate others in the creation of separate communities, and the relationship between this process and the process of relating to external others” (p. 8, second para.).


 * “[A] collection of texts in international political theory should not be restricted to writings on the external relations of collectivities; there is a place also for the study of the internal constitution of collectivities by these external relations” (p. 8, second para.), e.g., (1) the genesis of the Greek //polis// seems to have been to provide defence against an external enemy and (2) there is a place for the study of international relations //vis-à-vis// empires, which are singular political authorities.

Questions

 * 1) What is the “sense in which //all// politics is ‘international’”? (p. 7, last para., lines 2-3).

//“Universalist/particularist”//

 * While the first theme (or perhaps cluster of themes) both establishes and questions the inside/outside distinction, the second cluster of themes relates to characteristic __normative__ orientations towards this distinction (p. 8, last para.). At the heart of this “are a number of possible different accounts of where the moral center of the individual ought to be located, what rights and duties individuals who inhabit different collectivities can claim of each other, and an obvious contrast here is between universalist and particularist thinking” (ibid.).


 * For universalists, their identity as part of a wider whole (which is often, but not always, defined in religious terms) is more significant than their membership of a local collective body, such as a state or city (p. 9). “This was the attitude of the post-classical Greek philosophy / religion of the Stoics, who contributed their word for the universe (//cosmos//) towards the creation of a synonym for universalist: cosmopolitan” (ibid.). Some universalists have desired creating a universal political order (i.e., a world government of some kind). Others (including the Stoics) have defined their universalism in moral rather than institutional terms.


 * On the other hand, particularists are principally aligned “to local as opposed to universal notions of identity, or, more accurately, refuse to see the claims of the universal as, even potentially, in opposition to the claims of the local” (p. 9), e.g., the positions of the Greeks at the time of the //polis// and of the majority of modern-day nationalists.


 * While capturing a large part of the content of the cluster of themes under the second theme, the universalist/particularist dichotomy understates the importance placed by some thinkers on the “civilizational” (p. 9). For instance, the classical Greeks, while giving their primary allegiance to their fellow citizens in the //polis// with whom they shared the rites and ceremonies of their //polis//, also drew a clear distinction between fellow Greeks, with whom they shared, for example, a common language, and the “barbarians”, who were unable to speak Greek and, therefore, were not part of Greek civilisation. Thus, the orientation of the individual between inside and outside is more complex than it seems //prima facie//.

//“System/society”//

 * The third theme is less concerned with the individual than “different conceptions of the rights and duties owed to one another by the collective entities themselves rather than by their members” (p. 10), i.e., the third theme concerns “the international political theory of the rights and duties of collectivities” (p. 11). Like with the orientations of individuals (see the second theme), there is a number of possible positions put forward in the past under this theme.


 * “One position is that collectivities have responsibilities only towards their own members and that relations with other collectivities rest simply on the contingencies of __power__ and __interest__. These relations may be regular and patterned, that is, they may form a __system__, but they are __not normatively grounded__. This is sometimes described as the __realist__ position” (p. 10) (emphasis added). However, note that not all those described as realists adhere to the realist position in this blunt form. An example of the realist position (in its blunt form) seems to be the position adopted by the Athenians at Melos as presented by Thucydides in the //Melian dialogue//, although whether Thucydides subscribed to the realist position is another matter. Another example is Machiavelli’s description (also to be read in POLS/PHIL/INTP 261) but, as for Thucydides, whether Machiavelli advocated the position is debatable.


 * However, __neorealists__ may subscribe to the blunt form of the realist position as indicated by “their emphasis on the international system as the creation of an interplay of objective forces” (p. 10).


 * Based on the evidence of history, it is reasonable to claim that “any international order whose members do not acknowledge some kind of obligation towards one another will be unstable and short-lived … [and long-standing international orders] have been based on a normative framework which involves collectivities acknowledging each other’s rights and duties” (p. 10). In medieval times this normative framework “was provided by the universal church and the memory of the unity of the Roman empire; in the modern world, the international relations of the absolutist state were to an extent based on reciprocity, with rulers recognizing each other’s rights as a way of promoting their own which is the basis of, for example, modern diplomacy; but, more fundamentally, the rights and duties of modern states have been conceived in legal terms” (p. 10).

Questions

 * 1) An interesting debate could be had on the degree to which the United States is presently driven by a neorealist position on international relations versus a normatively grounded framework.
 * 2) Can it be argued that the reality of modern society is that the international order is a hybrid of the neorealist position and a normatively grounded framework based on international law, i.e., an international order that is based on a hybrid of //system// and //society//?

Relations between the themes

 * The three themes (or clusters of themes)—//inside/outside//, //universalist/particularist//, and //system/society//—are not mutually exclusive; there is an interplay between them, but not necessarily a one-for-one correspondence between them (see Brown //et al.//, p. 11). For example, Christian pacifists are universalists but are opposed to the notion of an international society on the grounds that it legitimises a divided human race (although even a “universal community” would to some extent be “international”).

Questions

 * 1) Expand on the interconnections between the themes and the examples presented by Brown //et al.// (p. 11).