International Relations, Political Theory, and the Territorial State

  • Jeremy Larkins
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Macmillan History of International Thought Series book series (PMHIT)

Abstract

Martin Wight established a famous dichotomy between, on the one hand, the tradition of political theory that since Plato and Aristotle has sought to establish the conditions by which mankind might progress to some ideal of the “good life” within the state and, on the other hand, international theory, which focusing on relations between states, that amounts to little more than a depressing account of the eternal recurrence of war and the balance of power.1 Whereas students of domestic politics assume the presence of some sort of governmental system in which law and institutions override the naked struggle for power, students of international politics presume that government in any meaningful sense is absent and those laws and institutions that do exist are always vulnerable to the machinations of power politics.2 Although Wight was personally attuned to the tragic nature of international politics, this dichotomy has served to legitimize International Relations as an academic discipline in so far as study of the anarchic relations between states has become its sole preserve. Yet, as Justin Rosenberg observes, this disciplinary identity is secure only as long as the idea of the sovereign state retains its legitimacy: “the same absolute character of the sovereignty of the modern state that is the foundation of order within national boundaries simultaneously dictates the persistence of an external condition of anarchy among states.”3

Keywords

International Relation Political Theory Modern State Political Community International Politics 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Martin Wight, “Why Is There No International Theory,” in Herbert Butterfield and Martin Wight (eds.), Diplomatic Investigations (London: Allen and Unwin, 1966), pp. 17–34.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Martin Wight, Power Politics, ed. Hedley Bull and Carsten Holbraad (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1978), pp. 101 and 102.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Justin Rosenberg, The Empire of Civil Society: A Critique of The Realist Theory of International Relations (London: Verso, 1994), p. 142.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason , tr. Norman Kemp Smith (Basingstoke: Macmillan Press, 1929), p. 80.Google Scholar
  5. 11.
    John H. Herz, “The Rise and Demise of the Territorial State,” in Herz, The Nation-State and the Crisis of World Politics (New York: David McKay, 1976), pp. 99–123; and Raymond Ar on, Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations, tr. R. Howard and A. Baker Fox (London: Weidenfield and Nicholson, 1966).Google Scholar
  6. 17.
    Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1979).Google Scholar
  7. 19.
    Robert Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), p. 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 22.
    Alexander Wendt, “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics,” reprinted in James Der Derian (ed.), International Theory: Critical Investigations (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1995), pp. 129–77, at p. 138.Google Scholar
  9. 23.
    Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 27.
    Stephen D. Krasner, Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), p. 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 29.
    Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (London: Macmillan, 1977), pp. 8–9. Italics added.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 30.
    Alan James, Sovereign Statehood: The Basis of International Society (London: Allen and Unwin, 1986), p. 13.Google Scholar
  13. 33.
    See Cornelia Navari, “Introduction: The State as Contested Concept in Inter national Relations,” in Navari (ed.), The Condition of States (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1991), pp. 1–18.Google Scholar
  14. 35.
    Hans Kelsen, General Theory of Law and State, tr. Anders Wedberg (New York: Russell and Russell, 1945), pp. 210–21.Google Scholar
  15. 36.
    John Agnew and Stuart Corbridge, Mastering Space: Hegemony, Territory and International Political Economy (London: Routledge, 1995), p. 89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 38.
    Cornelia Navari, “Knowledge, the State and the State of Nature,” in Michael Donelan (ed.), The Reason of States: A Study in International Political Theory (London: Allen and Unwin, 1978), pp. 102–21, at p. 108.Google Scholar
  17. 40.
    Zygmunt Bauman, Intimations of Postmodernity (London: Routledge, 1992).Google Scholar
  18. 42.
    On the inappropriate appropriations of Hobbes in International Relations, see R. John Vincent, “The Hobbesian Tradition in Twentieth Century International Thought,” Millennium, 10:2, 1981, pp. 91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 43.
    Rob Walker, “Realism, Change and ‘International Political Theory’,” International Studies Quarterly, 31:1, 1987, pp. 65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 44.
    Sheldon Wolin, “Hobbes: Political Society as a System of Rules,” in Wolin, Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political Thought (London: Allen and Unwin, 1961), pp. 239–85, at p. 243.Google Scholar
  21. 45.
    Hobbes limits his discussion of territory to chap. XXXIV of Leviathan. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. Richard Tuck (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 170–176, at p. 171.Google Scholar
  22. 46.
    Jean-Jacques Rousseau, On The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right, in Rousseau, Collected Writings Vol. 4, ed. Roger D. Masters and Christopher Kelly, tr. Judith Bush, Masters and Kelly (Hanover: University Press of New England, 1994), pp. 127–224, at p. 160.Google Scholar
  23. 51.
    Immanuel Kant, “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch,” in Kant, Political Writings, 2nd ed., ed. Hans Reiss, tr. H. B. Nisbet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 93–130.Google Scholar
  24. 56.
    William E. Connolly, Political Theory and Modernity (Oxford: Blackwell, 1988), p. 121.Google Scholar
  25. 57.
    G. W. F. Hegel, Philosophy of Right, tr. T. M. Knox (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1952), p. 157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 58.
    Henri Lefebvre, The Production of Space, tr. D. Nicholson-Smith (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991), p. 279.Google Scholar
  27. 61.
    Max Weber, “Politics as a Vocation,” in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, ed. H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (London: Routledge, 1970), pp. 77–128, at p. 78.Google Scholar
  28. 62.
    Max Weber, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretative Sociology, Vol. 1, ed. Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich (New York: Bedminster Press, 1968), p. 54.Google Scholar
  29. 63.
    Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, tr. Talcott Parsons (London: Routledge, 1992).Google Scholar
  30. 64.
    Max Weber, “The Meaning of Discipline,” in From Max Weber, pp. 53–64, at p. 253.Google Scholar
  31. 65.
    Weber, quoted in Fred Dallmayr, “Max Weber and the Modern State,” in Asher Horowitz and Terry Maley (eds.), The Barbarism of Reason: Max Weber and the Twilight of Enlightenment (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994), pp. 49–67, at p. 59.Google Scholar
  32. 66.
    Anthony Giddens, The Nation — State and Violence: Volume Two of a Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1985), p. 47.Google Scholar
  33. 69.
    Bryan S. Turner, Max Weber: From History to Modernity (London: Routledge, 1992), p. 197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 70.
    On Weber’s theory of the nation-state, see David Beetham, Max Weber and the Theory of Modern Politics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1985), pp. 119–47. Quote at p. 122.Google Scholar
  35. 73.
    David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity (Cambridge: Blackwell, 1989), pp. 258–83.Google Scholar
  36. 74.
    Stephen Kern, The Culture of Time and Space (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983), p. 236.Google Scholar
  37. 79.
    Michael Joseph Smith, Realist Thought from Weber to Kissinger (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1986), p. 53.Google Scholar
  38. 80.
    Fred Halliday, “State and Society in International Relations: A Second Agenda,” Millennium, 16:2, 1987, pp. 215–29, esp. pp. 218–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 81.
    Michael Mann, “The Autonomous Power of the State: Its Origins, Mechanisms and Results,” in John A. Hall (ed.) States in History (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986), pp. 109–36, at pp. 112 and 123.Google Scholar
  40. 82.
    Michael Mann, The Sources of Social Power, Volume Two: The Rise of Classes and Nation-States, 1760–1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 83.
    Theda Skocpol, “Bringing the State Back In: Strategies of Analysis in Current Research,” in Peter B. Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and Theda Skocpol (eds.), Bringing the State Back In (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), pp. 3–37, at p. 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 84.
    Theda Skocpol, States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), p. 32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 85.
    R. B. J. Walker, “Violence, Modernity, Silence: From Max Webe to Internationa l Relations,” in David Campbell and Mick Dillon (eds.), The Political Subject of Violence (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993), pp. 137–58.Google Scholar
  44. 86.
    Richard K. Ashley, “Untying the Sovereign State: A Double Reading of the Anarchy Problematique,” Millennium, 17:2, 1988, pp. 227–62, at p. 248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 88.
    Richard K. Ashley, “The Geopolitics of Geopolitical Space: Towards a Critical Social Theory of International Politics,” Alternatives, 17:4, 1987, pp. 403–34.Google Scholar
  46. 89.
    R. B. J. Walker, “Inter national Relations and the Concept of the Political,” in Ken Booth and Steve Smith (eds.), International Relations Theory Today (Cambridge: Polity, 1991), pp. 306–327, at p. 321.Google Scholar
  47. 90.
    Richard K. Ashley, “Living on Borderlines: Man, Poststructuralism, and War,” in James Der Derian and Michael J. Shapiro (eds.), International/Intertextual Relations: Postmodern Readings of World Politics (Lexington: Lexington Books, 1989), pp. 259–321, at p. 301.Google Scholar
  48. 93.
    R. B. J. Walker, “Sovereignty, Identity, Community: Reflections on the Horizons of Contemporary Political Practice,” in Walker and Saul H. Mendlovitz (eds.), Contending Sovereignties: Redefining Political Community (Boulder: Lynne Reinner, 1990), pp. 159–85.Google Scholar
  49. 94.
    R. B. J. Walker, Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 128.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Jeremy Larkins 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeremy Larkins

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations