Political Realism And International Morality

It is always appropriate to ask whether an expedient foreign policy is morally justifiable, just as it is always appropriate to ask whether a morally defensible policy is consistent with the national interest. The ongoing dialogue between morality and realpolitik gives much of foreign policy debate its characteristic bite. In this collection of essays, a distinguished group of philosophers, political theorists, and lawyers– including Russell Hardin and Marshall Cohen–explore these contrasting themes. In essays that are at once insightful and accessible, noted political thinkers examine the tension of the conflicting demands of morality and national self-interest in the context of the foundations of international order, the possession and use of nuclear weapons, recourse to war, and the prospects for peace. A final postscript addresses the question of the responsibility of intellectuals in the national foreign policy debate. This book will appeal to scholars and students in any discipline dealing with international affairs as well as to lay readers who wish to explore the implications of taking morality and reason seriously in foreign policy.

This is the first comprehensive study of how different ethical traditions deal with the central moral problems of international affairs. Using the organizing concept of a tradition, it shows that ethics offers many different languages for moral debate rather than a set of unified doctrines. Each chapter describes the central concepts, premises, vocabulary, and history of a particular tradition and explains how that tradition has dealt with a set of recurring ethical issues in international relations. Such issues include national self-determination, the use of force in armed intervention or nuclear deterrence, and global distributive justice.

This book explores the complex issue of international ethics in the two dominant schools of thought in international relations; Liberalism and Realism. Both theories suffer from an inability to integrate the ethical and pragmatic dimensions of foreign policy. Liberal policy makers often suffer from moral blindness and a tendency toward coercion in the international arena, whilst realists tend to be epistemic sceptics, incorporating Nietzsche’s thought, directly or indirectly, into their theories. Mark Gismondi seeks to resolve the issues in these two approaches by adopting a covenant based approach, as described by Daniel Elazar’s work on the covenant tradition in politics, to international relations theory. The covenant approach has three essential principles: policy makers must have a sense of realism about the existence of evil and its political consequences power must be shared and limited liberty requires a basis in shared values. Ethics, Realism and Liberalism in International Relations will be of interest to students and researchers of politics, philosophy, ethics and international relations.

Realism remains the most important and controversial vision of international politics. But what does it mean to be a realist? This collection addresses this key question by returning to the thinking of perhaps the most influential realist of modern times: Hans J. Morgenthau. In analyses of issues ranging from political philosophy, to international law, to the impact of nuclear weapons and the challenges of American foreign policy, the authors demonstrate that Morgenthau's thinkingexemplifies a rich realist tradition that is often lacking in contemporary analyses of international relations and foreign policy. At a time when realism is once again at the centre of both scholarly and political debates, this book shows that the legacy of classical realism can enrich ourunderstanding of world politics and contribute to its future direction.

In this 1996 book Roger Spegele argues that in the past international theorists have failed to recognise that there is not one conception of international relations, subdivided into different theories and approaches, but at least three wholly different conceptions of the subject. Though scholars are increasingly prepared to accept this, there is still no consensus about what to call these conceptions, how to describe them, and why they should be studied. This book attempts to fill this gap. The author first examines two conceptions of IR - positivism-empiricism and emancipatory international relations - which challenge political realism. He then defends a revised version of realism, called 'evaluative political realism', from challenges arising from its rivals, with the aim of defining a conception of political realism which is coherent, viable, and attractive.

This exciting new book offers a fundamental reappraisal of political realism - one of the dominant schools of international relations theory - and of the place of morality within it. Conventional opinion has always held that realism is an amoral or even immoral approach to international politics. Recent revisionist readings have sought to move beyond this simplistic view, taking account of the concern with morality evidenced in realist work. However, unable to reconcile this theme with the realist concern for power politics, they have tended to treat it as either incoherent or inconsequential. Alastair Murray argues that the entire debate about the theory has been misframed and that by using the insights to be gained from the study of historical texts, the different strands of realist thought can be related to one another, and understood to represent equally essential parts of the theory. In a challenging and detailed analysis, Murray reconstructs the theory of realism as a coherent and unified tradition of political ethics, highlighting its cosmopolitan moral discourse and demonstrating how, once reconstructed as a coherent tradition of thought, realism can contribute to contemporary debates in normative international theory.

1. The realist tradition