Abstract
This article offers a realist constructivist account of armed conflict, based on the work of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Hegel has received relatively little attention in mainstream IR theory. When he has been read, four readings have predominated: realist, liberal, critical, and normative. Instead, we link his thought to both realism and constructivism. For Hegel, a persistent struggle for recognition and identity between individuals and groups drives much of human interaction. In his account of the causes of war in Philosophy of Right, Hegel relates international violence not only to realist international-structural pressures, but also to nationalism, and to the internal socioeconomic imperfections of the modern state. The result is broadly realist constructivist, linking a major international phenomenon — armed conflict — to interactions between power and ideas. Previous readings of Hegel in IR have deemphasised some or all of these features. Recovering them furnishes realist constructivism with theoretical tools for explaining the processes linking ideas and power politics — tools it has lacked thus far — in the context of a substantive phenomenon: armed conflict.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Hegel receives a fraction of the attention IR devotes to, for example, Kant or Marx. However, Hegel remains a major voice in political theory and elsewhere in social sciences and the humanities. A recent Google Scholar search produced more than half a million hits. IR research on Hegel includes Smith (1983), Knutsen (1992: 147–50), Linklater (1996), Boucher (1998: 330–53), Jaeger (2002), and Brooks (2004). For treatments of Hegelian international thought by political theorists, see Verene (1971), Smith (1983), Walt (1989), and Harris (1993), as well as reviews in Brown (1991) and Peperzak (1994). For general reviews see Houlgate (2005) and Brooks (2007).
Hegel’s thought varied over the course of his career, perhaps accounting for the range of readings of his work. We emphasise the Philosophy of Right, and thus his later period, because it offers his most extensive and programmatic comments on international matters. All such references are to Hegel’s Philosophy of Right (1967). Following the practice in political theory, we cite paragraph (section) rather than page numbers. ‘Addition’ indicates reference to notes appended to the work. We supplement this with an account of recognition and identity found in the Phenomenology of Mind (1967).
Our purpose is not to explicate Hegelian political thought in its totality. Hegel was not a social scientist — his work transcended contemporary disciplinary boundaries, offering political, sociological, psychological, moral, theological, aesthetic, and other insights. We emphasise only those portions useful to IR scholars. We discuss this below in addressing the problem of anachronism.
On Hegel’s and other German liberalisms in IR, see Shilliam (2009).
While Kojève’s idiosyncratic politics were not strictly liberal, he emphasises progress and freedom.
Alternately, Wendt’s (2003) argument that ‘a world state is inevitable’ uses a quasi-Hegelian teleological argument to draw the non-Hegelian conclusion that, in the long term, global politics will trend towards unity.
See also Inayatullah and Blaney (2003) on ‘the problem of difference’. For a review of critical, postmodern, postcolonial, and feminist IR Hegelianisms, see Hutchings (2003). For discussion of Hegel and Marx in IPE, see Inayatullah and Blaney (1997: 70–72).
Tilly’s (1985: 170) account of the ‘interdependence of war making and state making’ also suggests that armed conflict is necessary for state formation. However, Tilly emphasises the role of war in the institutional development of the state. Hegel emphasises also its role in driving national unity.
A broadly parallel account by Glenn (2009) suggests the possibility of cross-pollination between realism and postmodern studies of strategic culture.
While Barkin’s (2010) book-length account addresses some of these questions, a systematic realist-constructivist theory of international politics has yet to appear.
Alternatively, Steele (2007) has used constructivism to critique realism’s traditional interlocutor, liberalism.
The most influential exposition of this passage is that of Kojève (1969: 45–60), whose reading we follow largely. The two figures are called alternately master and slave. Hegel uses masculine pronouns throughout, and we follow him in doing so.
Hegel was not strictly a social contract theorist, in the sense of articulating a single contract once and for all time, as did Hobbes and Locke. However, he does speak of a social contract with some regularity. For discussion see Brudner (2012: 187–89).
On labour and identity, see also Philosophy of Right (§194–198).
Hegel’s account of state formation is complex, nuanced, and perhaps inevitably subject to multiple readings. For points of entry see Avineri (1972), Brooks (2007), Wood (2011). For Hegel on Hobbes and Locke, see Smith (1989: 65–70). Hegel’s gradualisation of state emergence, and emphasis on contestation and contention, implies a critique of traditional social contract theory (Haddock 1994).
At his most systematic, Hegel traces this process across the arc of world history, from ancient ‘oriental’ civilisation, to Hellenic, Roman, and finally ‘Germanic’ or European civilisations. He understands this path as the process of the realisation of human freedom. Being concerned with warfare between modern states only, this article sets these broader historical nuances aside. Hegel’s most complete treatment is in his Philosophy of History (1956).
Hegel offers additional examples of contingency, many of which are more sociologically ‘thick’. In law, for example, ‘no absolute lines can be drawn’ in trials by jury on how jury members should determine truth. Thus, ‘subjective opinion enters’, and a contingent element of arbitrariness cannot be avoided (§234 addition). Public education produces contingencies as well, since ‘the line which demarcates the rights of parents from those of civil society is very hard to draw’ (§239 addition) on the question of what should be taught. In both cases, the best available state institutions fall short, and produce outcomes that endanger the state’s legitimacy.
Hegel recognises that international law often governs state-to-state interaction effectively: ‘treaties, as they involve the mutual obligations of states, must be kept’ (§333), and often are. Moreover, treaties are sites of recognition between states (§331). International law does not, however, preclude violence, since recognition through law alone is not sufficient to produce and reproduce the state. See also Hegel’s Philosophy of History (1956: 440–41).
Smith echoes this reading. ‘In times of war’, he argues, ‘common values and commitments are not only preserved but enhanced’ (1983: 628). War ‘transcends attachment to things by uniting men for the purpose of a common ideal’ (ibid.). War ‘reasserts[s] the primacy of the state over and above the aggregate of private interests that constitutes civil society’ (ibid.: 625).
Even in Avineri’s (1972: 198) relatively liberal reading of Hegel, war draws people together, tearing down ‘walls created by ossified self-interest’.
Hegel makes a similar claim in his Phenomenology of Mind (1967: 474): ‘In order not to […] let the common spirit evaporate, government has from time to time to shake them to the very centre by War. By this means […] the individuals […] are made, by the task thus imposed upon them by government, to feel the power of their lord and master, death.’ By facing the fact of mortality together, individuals re-engage in the fellow feeling necessary for the state to persist. Thus, ‘[w]ar is the spirit and form in which the essential moment of ethical substance, the absolute freedom of ethical self-consciousness from all and every kind of existence, is manifestly confirmed and realized’ (ibid.: 497). The state is most complete and is most completely unified in the act of international armed violence.
Colonisation can be either sporadic, that is incidental, or systematic. The former is typified by German emigration outside of Central Europe — that is, by ad hoc, individual resettlement. The latter is typified by English or Spanish settlement in the new world. This more radical form of colonialism, of which Hegel very much approves, involves the wholesale settlement and occupation of a territory, which is converted to the ends of the settlers (§248 addition). On Hegel on empire, see Tyler (2004).
‘The same consideration justifies civilized nations in regarding and treating as barbarians those who lag behind them […]. Thus a pastoral people may treat hunters as barbarians, and both of these are barbarians from the point of view of agriculturalists, &c. The civilized nation is conscious that the rights of barbarians are unequal to its own and treats their autonomy as only a formality’ (§351).
The effect is not, of course, universal. War cannot benefit a state it destroys. It may however harden those it does not, even when they lose, and may often benefit peoples, if not states, since war catalyses nationalism. This in turn lays groundwork for a struggle for recognition, revolution, and restored or newfound sovereignty.
In some respects, Hegel thus inverts the tragedy of realism: here, the dangerous logic of the security dilemma gives rise to potentially beneficial international violence. Rather than tragic and destructive, wars prove constructive for the political communities that wage them.
Admittedly, conflictual accounts of relations between self and other are not without their critics in IR — see Neumann (1996). For a general critique in political theory, see Abizadeh (2005).
On the limited effects of diversionary war, see Lian and Oneal (1993) and Meernik and Waterman (1996). Thus, any such effect would have to be broader and more diffuse.
Similarly, where for Hobbes the monarch (‘sovereign’) is head of state in a power-political sense, for Hegel the monarch is both a political leader and a symbol, a representative, of the nation in contentions over recognition internationally.
Our focus is on Hegel’s positive theory, rather than ethical implications of his work, which is subject to a literature of its own. Some of Hegel’s critics (Popper 1945) take the view that Hegel was a normative theorist, advocating war. Others (Brooks 2004, 2007) take the view that he merely describes a dynamic in the international political system, rather than advocating it. Since we are concerned with social scientific explanation, rather than normative theory, we take no position on the issue.
For points of entry to the democratic peace, see Doyle (1983), Owen (1994), Oneal and Russett (1999), Williams (2001), and Hayes (2009) for an extensive review.
This is reflected in his famous dictum that ‘[t]he owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk’ (Hegel 1967: 23 [Preface]) — that is, that philosophy, here represented by Minerva (Athena of classical mythology), can begin its work only once events have ended. It can only explain the past, not predict the future.
Hegel might expect that, if the EU is a polity unto itself, it would consolidate its collective identity by fighting foreign wars. Its failure to do so may explain its failure to cause its people to ‘feel’ especially European.
See, for example, Herbst (1990) on the absence of war and state weakness in Africa, and Jackson (1990) on ‘quasi-states’.
This suggests parallels with Schmitt (1996). However, contra Hegel, Schmitt viewed the increasing polarisation of modern war as dangerous. For analysis in IR, see Odysseos and Petito (2007).
Some have argued (Mertens 1995; Gordon 2000) that Hegel, like Kant, advocated limits on war, to mitigate its destructive power and lay groundwork for the peace to follow. He was thus a proponent of limited warfare: enough to consolidate the state internally, not enough to destroy it.
We have not directly addressed moral criticisms of Hegel’s political thought (e.g. Popper 1945). Complaints that Hegel was morally presentist, simply endorsing the values of his time, date at least to Feuerbach (1966) and Marx (1988). Where Hegelian thought was once deeply associated with the early 19th century Prussian bureaucracy and militarism, more recent research suggests that such concerns are overdrawn (Houlgate 2011; Engelhardt and Pinkard 1994) Others have argued that the critical method, rather than the substance, of Hegel’s thought provides a way to avoid a presentist bias (Buchwalter 1991).
However, one must bear in mind the stark racism of Hegel’s treatment of non-European peoples — see especially The Philosophy of History (1956: 79–102).
Especially relevant here might be Hegel’s discussion of the French Revolution in The Philosophy of History (1956: 438–57).
See note 30 above.
References
Abizadeh, Arash (2005) ‘Does Collective Identity Presuppose an Other? On the Alleged Incoherence of Global Solidarity’, American Political Science Review 99(1): 45–60.
Ashley, Richard (1987) ‘The Geopolitics of Geopolitical Space: Toward a Critical Social Theory of International Politics’, Alternatives 12(4): 403–34.
Avineri, Shlomo (1972) Hegel’s Theory of the Modern State, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baker, William D. and John Oneal (2001) ‘Patriotism or Opinion Leadership? The Nature and Origins of the ‘Rally ’Round the Flag’ Effect’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 45(5): 661–87.
Barkawi, Tarak and Mark Laffey (2006) ‘The Postcolonial Moment in Security Studies’, Review of International Studies 32(2): 329–52.
Barkin, J. Samuel (2003) ‘Realist Constructivism’, International Studies Review 5(3): 325–42.
Barkin, J. Samuel (2010) Realist Constructivism: Rethinking International Relations Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baum, Matthew A. (2002) ‘The Constituent Foundations of the Rally-Round-the-Flag Phenomenon’, International Studies Quarterly 46(2): 263–98.
Bially Mattern, Janice (2004) ‘Power in Realist-Constructivist Research’, International Studies Review 6(2): 343–46.
Boucher, David (1998) Political Theories of International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brooks, Thom (2004) ‘Hegel’s Theory of International Politics: A Reply to Jaeger’, Review of International Studies 30(1): 149–52.
Brooks, Thom (2007) Hegel’s Political Philosophy, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Brown, Chris (1991) ‘Hegel and International Ethics’, Ethics & International Affairs 5(1): 73–86.
Brown, Chris (1993) New Normative Approaches, New York: Columbia University Press.
Brudner, Alan (2012) ‘Hegel on the Relation between Law and Justice’, in Thom Brooks ed., Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, 180–208, Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Buchwalter, Andrew (1991) ‘Hegel, Marx, and the Concept of Immanent Critique’, Journal of the History of Philosophy 29(2): 253–79.
Bull, Hedley (1976) ‘Martin Wight and the Theory of International Relations’, British Journal of International Studies 2(1): 101–16.
Bull, Hedley (1977) The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, New York: Columbia University Press.
Carr, Edward Hallett (1946) The Twenty Years’ Crisis, New York: Harper and Row.
Cox, Robert W. (1986) ‘Social Forces, States, and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory’, in Robert O. Keohane ed., Neorealism and Its Critics, 204–54, New York: Columbia University Press.
Der Derian, James (1992) Anti-Diplomacy: Spies, Terror, Speed, and War, London: Blackwell.
Doyle, Michael W. (1983) ‘Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 12(3): 205–35.
Engelhardt Jr. H. Tristram and Terry Pinkard, eds, (1994) Hegel Reconsidered: Beyond Metaphysics and the Authoritarian State, Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Fanon, Frantz (1967) Black Skin, White Masks trans. Charles Lam Markmann New York: Grove Press.
Feuerbach, Ludwig (1966) Principle of the Philosophy of the Future trans. Manfred Vogel Indianapolis: Hackett.
Frost, Mervyn (1986) Towards a Normative Theory of International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Frost, Mervyn (1996) Ethics in International Relations: A Constitutive Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fukuyama, Francis (1993) The End of History and the Last Man, New York: Avon.
Glenn, John (2009) ‘Realism versus Strategic Culture: Competition and Collaboration?’ International Studies Review 11(3): 523–51.
Gordon, Rupert H. (2000) ‘Modernity, Freedom, and the State: Hegel’s Concept of Patriotism’, Review of Politics 62(2): 295–325.
Haddock, Bruce (1994) ‘Hegel’s Critique of the Theory of the Social Contract’, in David Boucher and Paul Kelly eds., The Social Contract form Hobbes to Rawls, 149–64, London: Routledge.
Harris, Errol E. (1993) ‘Hegel’s Theory of Sovereignty, International Relations, and War’, in Lawrence S. Stepelevich ed., Selected Essays on G.W.F. Hegel, 104–15, New Jersey: Humanities Press International.
Hayes, Jarrod (2009) ‘Identity and Securitization in the Democratic Peace: The United States and the Divergence of Response to India and Iran’s Nuclear Programs’, International Studies Quarterly 53(4): 977–99.
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich (1956) The Philosophy of History trans. J. Sibree New York: Dover.
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich (1967) Phenomenology of Mind trans. J. B. Baillie New York: Harper Torchbooks.
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich (1967) Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, trans T. M. Knox London: Oxford University Press.
Herbst, Jeffrey (1990) ‘War and the State in Africa’, International Security 14(4): 117–39.
Hobbes, Thomas (1994) in Edwin Curley ed., Leviathan, Indianapolis: Hackett.
Hobson, John A. (2010) Imperialism: A Study, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Honneth, Axel (1996) The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts trans. Joel Anderson Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Houlgate, Stephen (2005) An Introduction to Hegel, Oxford: Blackwell.
Houlgate, Stephen (2011) ‘G.W.F. Hegel: An Introduction to his Life and Thought’, in Stephen Houlgate and Michael Baur eds., A Companion to Hegel, 1–19, London: Blackwell.
Hutchings, Kimberly (2003) Hegel and Feminist Philosophy, Oxford: Polity Press.
Hutchings, Kimberly (2005) ‘Speaking and Hearing: Habermasian Discourse Ethics, Feminism, and IR’, Review of International Studies 31(1): 155–65.
Inayatullah, Naeem and David L. Blaney (1997) ‘Economic Anxiety: Reification, De-Reification, and the Politics of IPE’, in Kurt Burch and Robert A. Denemark eds., Constituting International Political Economy, 59–77, Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner.
Inayatullah, Naeem and David L. Blaney (2003) International Relations and the Problem of Difference, London: Routledge.
Jackson, Robert H. (1990) Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Third World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus (2004) ‘Hegel’s House, or ‘People Are States, Too’’, Review of International Studies 30(2): 281–87.
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus and Daniel H. Nexon (2004) ‘Constructivist Realism or Realist Constructivism?’ International Studies Review 6(2): 337–41.
Jaeger, Hans-Martin (2002) ‘Hegel’s Reluctant Realism and the Transnationalisation if Civil Society’, Review of International Studies 28(3): 497–517.
Kahl, Colin H. (1998) ‘Constructing a Separate Peace: Constructivism, Collective Liberal Identity, and Democratic Peace’, Security Studies 8(2–3): 94–144.
Kant, Immanuel (2008) Political Writings trans. H. B. Nisbet Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Knutsen, Torbjørn L. (1992) A History of International Relations Theory: An Introduction, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Kojève, Alexandre (1969) trans. James H. Nichols, Jr. in Allan Bloom ed., Introduction to the Reading of Hegel, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Lenin, Vladimir I (1948) Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Levine, Daniel (2012) Recovering International Relations: The Promise of Sustainable Critique, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lian, Bradley and John R. Oneal (1993) ‘Presidents, the Use of Force, and Public Opinion’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 37(2): 277–300.
Linklater, Andrew (1996) ‘Hegel, the State and International Relations’, in Ian Clark and Iver Neumann eds., Classical Theories of International Relations, 193–203, London: Macmillan.
Locke, John (1963) ‘Second Treatise’, in Peter Laslett, ed.,, Two Treatises of Government, 299–477, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Marx, Karl (1988) Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 trans. Martin Milligan Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Meernik, James and Peter Waterman (1996) ‘The Myth of the Diversionary Use of Force by American Presidents’, Political Research Quarterly 49(3): 573–90.
Mercer, Jonathan (1995) ‘Anarchy and Identity’, International Organization 49(2): 229–52.
Mertens, Thomas (1995) ‘Hegel’s Homage to Kant’s Perpetual Peace: An Analysis of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, §§ 321–340’, Review of Politics 57(4): 665–91.
Mitzen, Jennifer (2006) ‘Ontological Security in World Politics: State Identity and the Security Dilemma’, European Journal of International Relations 12(3): 341–70.
Moravcsik, Andrew (2002) ‘Reassessing Legitimacy in the European Union’, Journal of Common Market Studies 40(4): 603–24.
Neumann, Iver (1996) ‘Self and Other in International Relations’, European Journal of International Relations 2(2): 139–74.
Odysseos, Louisa and Fabio Petito, eds (2007) The International Political Thought of Carl Schmitt: Terror, Liberal War, and the Crisis of the Global Order, London: Routledge.
Oneal, John R. and Bruce M. Russett (1999) ‘The Kantian Peace: Rearguard Action or Cracks in the Wall?’ World Politics 52(1): 1–37.
Owen, John M. (1994) ‘How Liberalism Produces the Democratic Peace’, International Security 19(2): 87–125.
Peperzak, Adrian (1994) ‘Hegel contra Hegel in His Philosophy of Right: The Contradictions of International Politics’, Journal of the History of Philosophy 32(2): 241–63.
Pinker, Steven (2011) The Better Angels of Our Nature, New York: Viking.
Popper, Karl (1945) The Open Society and its Enemies, London: Routledge.
Risse-Kappen, Thomas (1994) ‘Ideas Do Not Float Freely: Transnational Coalitions, Domestic Politics, and the End of the Cold War’, International Organization 48(2): 185–214.
Schmitt, Carl (1996) The Concept of the Political trans. George Schwab Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Shilliam, Robbie (2009) German Thought and International Relations, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Smith, Alistair (1996) ‘Diversionary Foreign Policy in Democratic Systems’, International Studies Quarterly 40(1): 133–53.
Smith, Steven B. (1983) ‘Hegel’s Views on War, the State, and International Relations’, American Political Science Review 77(3): 624–32.
Smith, Steven B. (1989) Hegel’s Critique of Liberalism, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Snyder, Jack (1991) Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Solomon, Ty (2012) ‘Human Nature and the Limits of the Self: Hans Morgenthau on Love and Power’, International Studies Review 14(2): 201–24.
Steele, Brent J. (2007) ‘Liberal-Idealism: A Constructivist Critique’, International Studies Review 9(1): 23–52.
Sterling-Folker, Jennifer (2004) ‘Realist Constructivism and Power’, International Studies Review 6(2): 341–43.
Sylvest, Casper (2010) ‘Realism and International Law: The Challenge of John H. Herz’, International Theory 2(3): 410–45.
Tajfel, Henri (1974) ‘Social Identity and Intergroup Behavior’, Social Science Information 13(2): 65–93.
Tarar, Ahmer (2006) ‘Diversionary Incentives and the Bargaining Approach to War’, International Studies Quarterly 50(1): 169–88.
Thucydides (1978) The Peloponnesian War trans. by Rex Warner Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Tilly, Charles (1985) ‘War Making and State Making as Organized Crime’, in Peter B. Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer and Theda Skocpol eds., Bringing the State Back In, 169–91, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tyler, Colin (2004) ‘Hegel, War, and the Tragedy of Imperialism’, History of European Ideas 30(4): 403–31.
Verene, Donald P. (1971) ‘Hegel’s Account of War’, in Z. A. Pelczynski ed., Hegel’s Political Philosophy, 168–80, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vincent, Andrew (1983) ‘The Hegelian State and International Politics’, Review of International Studies 9(3): 191–205.
Wallerstein, Immanuel (1979) The Capitalist World Economy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walt, Steven (1989) ‘Hegel on War: Another Look’, History of Political Thought 10(1): 112–23.
Waltz, Kenneth (1979) Theory of International Politics, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Wendt, Alexander (1992) ‘Anarchy is what States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics’, International Organization 46(2): 391–425.
Wendt, Alexander (1999) Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Wendt, Alexander (2003) ‘Why a World State in Inevitable’, European Journal of International Relations 9(4): 491–542.
Wight, Martin (1960) ‘Why is there no International Theory?’ International Relations 2(1): 35–48.
Williams, Michael C. (2001) ‘The Discipline of the Democratic Peace: Kant, Liberalism and the Social Construction of Security Communities’, European Journal of International Relations 7(4): 525–53.
Williams, Michael C. (2005) The Realist Tradition and the Limits of International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wood, Allen W. (2011) ‘Hegel’s Political Philosophy’, in Stephen Houlgate and Michael Baur eds., A Companion to Hegel, 297–311, London: Blackwell.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Ryan Balot, Kiran Banerjee, Nancy Bertoldi, Alan Brudner, Jarrod Hayes, Rebecca Kingston, Jeffrey Kopstein, Christopher LaRoche, Mark Neufeld, Jonas Schwab Pflug, Simon Pratt, Janice Stein, the journal’s editors, and three anonymous reviewers.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
MacKay, J., Levin, J. A Hegelian realist constructivist account of war, identity, and state formation. J Int Relat Dev 21, 75–100 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/jird.2015.24
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jird.2015.24