political thought, international relations theory and ...eprints.lse.ac.uk/84347/1/political thought...

21
Chris Brown Political thought, international relations theory and international political theory: an interpretation Article (Accepted version) (Refereed) Original citation: Brown, Chris (2017). Political thought, international relations theory and international political theory: an interpretation. International Relations. 31, (3) pp. 227-240. ISSN 0047-1178 DOI: 10.1177/0047117817723062 © 2017 The Author This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/84347/ Available in LSE Research Online: October 2017 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the author’s final accepted version of the journal article. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it.

Upload: others

Post on 14-May-2020

23 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Chris Brown Political thought, international relations theory and international political theory: an interpretation Article (Accepted version) (Refereed) Original citation: Brown, Chris (2017). Political thought, international relations theory and international political theory: an interpretation. International Relations. 31, (3) pp. 227-240. ISSN 0047-1178 DOI: 10.1177/0047117817723062 © 2017 The Author This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/84347/ Available in LSE Research Online: October 2017 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the author’s final accepted version of the journal article. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it.

InternationalRelations:2017Vol31(3)227–240DOI10.1177/0047117817723062

PoliticalThought,InternationalRelationsTheoryandInternationalPoliticalTheory:AnInterpretation

ChrisBrown,EmeritusProfessorofInternationalRelationsLondonSchoolofEconomicsc.j.brown@lse.ac.uk

Abstract:

Therelationshipbetweenpoliticaltheory,includingthehistoryofpoliticalthought,andInternationalRelationstheory,includingthehistoryofinternationalthoughthasbeen,andtosomeextentremains,complexandtroubled.OnbothsidesoftheAtlantic,themid-twentiethcenturyfoundersofInternationalRelationsasanacademicdisciplinedrewextensivelyonthecanonofpoliticalthought,butapproachedthesubjectinanuncriticalway,whilepoliticalphilosopherslargelydisdainedtheinternationalasafocus.Thischangedinthe1970sand80s,withtheemergenceofthe‘justiceindustry’basedoncritiquesofRawls’sATheoryofJusticeandaconsequentrecoveringofthepasthistoryofcosmopolitanandcommunitarianthought.Anewdiscourseemergedinthisperiod–internationalpoliticaltheory–bridgingthegapbetweenpoliticalthoughtandinternationalrelations,andstimulatingafarmorecreativeandscholarlyapproachtothehistoryofinternationalthought.However,inasocialscienceenvironmentdominatedbythemethodsofeconomics,thatisformaltheoryandquantification,thenewdiscourseofinternationalpoliticaltheoryoccupiesanicheratherthanexistingatthecentreofthediscipline.

KeyWords:InternationalRelationsTheory;InternationalPoliticalTheory;EnglishSchool;HistoryofPoliticalThought;CambridgeSchool;EnglishSchool,JohnRawls;politicalscience;socialchoicetheory.

Introduction:

IntheframingdocumentwhichinitiatedtheSymposiumatwhichtheessays

collectedinthisSpecialSectionwerefirstpresented,thefocusoftheSymposium

wasexpoundedandaparadoxidentified:

2

‘ClassicalpoliticalthoughthaslongbeenpartofInternationalRelations.It

isthereforesomethingofaparadoxthatquestionsofinternational

relationstodayreceivecomparativelylittleattentionfrompolitical

theorists.Historiansofpoliticalthought,forexample,seldomengagesuch

questionsor,whentheydoengage,oftencriticizethewayinwhich

theoristsofinternationalrelationshandleclassicaltexts…..[Such]

criticismpromptsaquestionofconsiderableimport:what,ifanything,

doesthehistoryofpoliticalthoughtcontributetoInternationalRelations

theory?’

Thepurposeofthisessayistoprovideanextendedcommentaryonthese

propositionsandthisparadox;inwhatfollowsitwillbearguedthattheframing

ofthisissueisbroadlycorrect,butthatonceonedigsdeepersomeproblems

arise,problemswhichrequireareframingofsomeofthecoreelementsofthe

wayinwhichtherelationshipbetweenInternationalRelationstheoryandthe

historyofpoliticalthoughtistobeunderstood.Theelementsofthisreframing

willbepresentedinsummaryforminthisIntroduction,andthendefendedat

greaterlength.

First,itisindeedtruethat‘classicalpoliticalthoughthaslongbeenpartof

InternationalRelations’,butitisequallytruethattheaccountof‘classical

politicalthought’thatwascustomaryuntilquiterecentlywas,forthemostpart,

crude,caricaturedandun-nuanced;thiswasthecaseforbothmid-century

AmericanRealistssuchasHansMorgenthauandforearly‘EnglishSchool’

writerssuchasMartinWight.

Second,althoughthereissometruthinthechargethat‘questionsof

internationalrelationstodayreceivecomparativelylittleattention’from

historiansofpoliticalthought,itisalsotruethatotherpoliticaltheorists,

especiallyofananalyticalbent,donotneglectinternationalissues.Historiansof

politicalthoughthavethemselvesbecomemarginalisedinthemodernAnglo-

Americanacademy,andtheirinattentiontointernationalissuesmaybeaby-

productoftheirstruggletosurviveinahostileenvironment.

3

Third,therelativedominanceofanalyticalpoliticaltheoryintheAnglo-American

academyismirroredbytheriseofneo-positivist,socialchoicethinkingin

PoliticalScienceandInternationalRelations;thisperspectiveisgenerally

uninterestedinhistoryofanykind,butasubfieldofInternationalRelations

theoryopposedtothedominanceofneo-utilitarianismhasarisen,namely

InternationalPoliticalTheoryandthisnewsubfieldisgenerallymoreengaged

withthehistoryofpoliticalthought.

Fourth,whiletheexistenceofInternationalPoliticalTheoryhasstimulatedthe

emergenceofcontemporaryhistoriansofinternationalpoliticalthoughtwho

haveafarsuperiorgraspoftheirsubjectthantheirpredecessorsinthe

discourse,theydrawanaudiencefortheirworkfromasubfieldofthediscipline

ratherthanfromInternationalRelationsTheoryassuch.Unliketheir‘historians

ofpoliticalthought’cousins,historiansofinternationalpoliticalthoughtfilla

nichethatitiswidelybelievedoughttobefilled,buttheyareindeedofferinga

nicheproductratherthancontributingdirectlytothemainstream.

Fifth,insummary,weseethatashifthastakenplace.Tooversimplifythestory,

fiftyyearsagoscholarsinthefieldwerepassionatelyconcernedwiththehistory

ofinternationalthought,andindeedwithinternationalhistoryingeneral,but

theiraccountoftheclassicsdidnotstanduptoclosescrutiny.Now,thereare

numerousscholarsofinternationalpoliticalthoughtwhohavedonethekindof

in-depthtextualanalysisthatearlieronwasmissing,buttheirplaceinthewider

disciplineismoreproblematicthanusedtobethecase.Justatthepointat

whichexpertiseonthehistoryofinternationalthoughtisatitszenith,a

knowledgeoftheclassicsisnolongerthoughttobeanecessitybythemost

influentialmodernscholarsofeitherPoliticalScienceorInternationalRelations.

Therestofthisessaywillfillouttheargumentspresentedinshorthandabove,

butbeforeproceedingtothistaskitisnecessarytoacknowledgetwolimitations;

first,thefocushereisonAnglo-AmericanwritersandtheAnglo-American

academy.Anglo-Americaninthiscontextisdefinedasincludinganyonewhose

professionallifeisconductedmainlythroughthemediumofEnglish,thus

4

includingmostNorthEuropeans,butnotincludingmostFrancophones.Very

clearlyawhollydifferentstorycouldbetoldabouttherelationshipbetweenthe

historyofpoliticalthoughtandthediscourseofInternationalRelationswerethe

focustobeonFranceratherthantheAnglo-Americanworld.Thetwoworlds

are,ofcourse,nothermeticallysealed,therearepost-structuralistsinLondon

andNewYork,CopenhagenandBerlin,andthereareutilitariansinParis,but

nonethelesstheseworldsremaindistinct,asacursorysurveyofthekeyjournals

ofAnglo-Americawillconfirm–overthetwenty-yearhistoryoftheEuropean

JournalofInternationalRelations,thelackofmaterialthereinfromFrance,Italy

orSpainhasbeenaconstantcomplaintofitshostorganisation,theEuropean

ConsortiumofPoliticalResearch.WhetherthenewEuropeanInternational

StudiesAssociationwillbridgethisgapremainstobeseen.

Asecond,perhapsmoreimportant,limitationconcernsInternationalLaw.It

couldwellbearguedthatmanyoftheissueswhichhavebecomecentraltothe

discourseofInternationalPoliticalTheorywerefirstrehearsedbyInternational

Lawyers;figuressuchasGrotius,PufendorfandVattelareobviouslyimportant

here,asareearlytwentiethcenturyfiguressuchasHansKelsenandHershel

Lauterpacht,and,inourera,MarttiKoskenniemiandJamesCrawford.And,of

course,somefigureswhoarerenownedasInternationalRelationstheorists

beganlifeasInternationalLawyersorlegalphilosophers–C.A.WManningand

HansJMorgenthauarethemostobviousexampleshere.Theproblemisthatto

doanythinglikejusticetotheimportanceofInternationalLawinthe

developmentofInternationalPoliticalTheorywouldrequiremorespacethanis

availabletomehere–better,allthingsconsidered,simplytoacknowledgethe

limitationandmoveon.

PoliticalThoughtandIRTheoryintheMid-TwentiethCentury

ThehistoryofthedisciplineofInternationalRelations–if‘discipline’istheright

wordinthiscontext–ishotlycontested;itiscommongroundthatspeculation

aboutthenatureofrelationsthatwouldnowbedescribedas‘international’hasa

longhistory,intheWesterntraditiongoingbacktoclassicalGreeceand

5

Thucydides,butwhenthatspeculationcrystallisedintosystematicstudyis

anothermatter.1Manystandardtextstake1918asaconvenientpointoforigin,

BrianSchmidtseescontinuitybetweennineteenthcenturypoliticalscienceand

themoderndiscipline,whileNicolasGuilhotdates‘theinventionofInternational

Relationstheory’toaRockefellerFoundation-fundedconferencethattookplace

in1954.2Forthepurposesofthisessay,Guilhot’sdate,ifmadealittleless

precise,makesthemostsense:importantthoughtheinter-waryears

undoubtedlywereitisintheperiodfrom,roughly,1945to1965–theperiod

dominatedintheUSbytheso-called‘classicalrealists’,inparticularHans

Morgenthau,ArnoldWolfers,JohnHerzandinthebackground,Reinhold

NiebuhrandintheUKbyscholarssuchasC.A.W.Manning,HerbertButterfield

andMartinWight,thelasttwoofwhomlatercametobeseenastheoriginators

oftheso-called‘EnglishSchool’–thatInternationalRelationstheorycametobe

seenasadistinctivefocusofstudyuponwhichthehistoryofpoliticalthought

did,ordidnot,impinge.3

Alloftheaforementionedscholars,withthepossibleexceptionofthetheologian

Niebuhr,groundedtheirthinkingoninternationalrelationsintheirknowledge

ofhistory,andallmadefrequentreferencestothecanonofEuropeanpolitical

thoughtstretchingbacktotheClassicalGreeks.Thesereferencespresenta

rathermixedpicturetothemodernreader.Ontheonehand,Niebuhr’sreading

ofAugustinestandsupverywell,andindeedthedepthofknowledgeoftheEarly

ChristianFathersexhibitedbyfiguressuchasWightandButterfieldisvery

impressive,incidentallyunderliningtheextenttowhichBritishintellectuallife

remaineddeeplyChristianinthe1940sand50s–oneofthemostimportant

influencesontheBritishCommitteeonInternationalTheory,theforerunnerto

theEnglishSchool,wasthetheologianDonaldMackinnon.4Ontheotherhand,

EarlyChristianFathersaside,therangeofsourcestowhichthesefigures

referredwasquitelimited,andmanyofthejudgementstheyofferedvergedon

caricature,indeedactuallycrossedthelineintocaricatureinsomecases.

Partlythiswasafunctionofthedeterminationofmostofthesewritersto

understandinternationalrelationsasinter-staterelations,andtofocusonthose

6

figuresinthecanonwhoexpresslyaddressedsuchrelations.Thus,forexample,

neitherPlatonorAristotle,northeStoicsfeaturedintheiruseofthecanon,

insteadThucydideswasturnedtoassomeonewhoexplicitlyaddressedinter-

staterelations.Ofcourse,thecitieswhosewarThucydidesobservedwerenot

‘states’inthemodernsenseoftheterm–norindeedweretheItaliancity-states

thatMachiavelli,anotherfavouredsource,wroteabout–buttheywere

unproblematicallytreatedassuchbymostoftheauthorsunderconsideration

here.Wight’sview,famouslyexpressedinhisframingarticlefortheBritish

Committee,‘Whyistherenointernationaltheory?’,wasthatpoliticaltheoryis

resolutelystate-centricandhasbeensincePlato,while‘internationaltheory’is

somethingdifferent,markednotonlybyitspaucity,butalsobyintellectualand

moralpoverty.5Tobean‘internationaltheorist’onhisaccountitwasnecessary

toaddressinter-staterelationsdirectly.Asaresult,manyoftheauthorswho

wouldlaterfeatureverysubstantiallyintheInternationalPoliticalTheoryofthe

1980sandonwards–inparticularKantandHegel–weregivenveryshortshrift

indeed.InsofarasKantisreadatallinthisperioditisasautopianthinker;in

F.H.Hinsley’sgenerallyvaluablestudyPowerandthePursuitofPeace,Kant’s

‘PerpetualPeace’isseenasthelastinthelineofeighteenthcenturypeace

projects,andreadoutsideofthecontextofKant’smoralphilosophy.6InPolitics

AmongNationsMorgenthaureferstoHegelsimplyasaGermannationalist;

Wightgoesonebetter,referringtotheNazisandCommunistsasthechildrenof

HegelandKant.7

PartlybecauseofthelimitationsthatIRtheoristsimposedupontheiruseofthe

canon,therewasrelativelylittleinteractionwithpoliticaltheoristsand

historiansofthought.IntheUK,forexample,theLondonSchoolofEconomicsin

the1950sand60swasthehomebothtoleadingBritishCommitteemembers

MartinWightandHedleyBullinitsInternationalRelationsDepartment,andto

oneofthelargestcoteriesofhistoriansofpoliticalthoughtinthecountry,

groupedaroundthecharismaticfigureofMichaelOakeshottinitsGovernment

Department,butthereisverylittleevidenceofthesegroupsinfluencingeach

other.Severaldecadeslater,scholarssuchasTerryNardinandRobertJackson

wrotemajorworksofInternationalPoliticalTheorywhichwerehighly

7

influencedbyOakeshottianideas–indeedNardinhasbecomeoneoftheworld’s

leadingscholarsofOakeshott’sphilosophy–butthereisnoevidencethat

contemporaryInternationalRelationsscholarsinthe1950sand60sinteracted

inanymeaningfulwaywithOakeshottorhiscolleagues.8

IfinteractionbetweenhistoriansofthoughtandstudentsofInternational

RelationstheorywasverylimitedatLSE,inotherBritishcentresoflearningit

wasevenmoreattenuated.Generally,intheUnitedKingdombothscholarsof

InternationalRelationstheoryandhistoriansofpoliticalthoughtwerethinon

theground.Fromtheperspectiveofthemid-sixtiesthemajorexpansionof

InternationalRelationsasanacademicdiscoursewouldtakeplacesometwo

decadeslater,the‘Cambridge’approachtothehistoryofthoughtbuiltaround

J.G.A.PocockandQuentinSkinnerhadyettobedevelopedandtheanalytical

philosophydominantamongstOxfordpoliticaltheoristswasnotconduciveto

thestudyofthehistoryofpoliticalthought.IntheUnitedStatesthedetailswere

different–forexample,inpoliticalthoughtthehighly-influentialfigureofLeo

StrausshadnoobviousequivalentinBritishacademiclife9–butthegeneral

pictureofapparentmutualindifferencebetweenhistoriansofpoliticalthought

andstudentsofInternationalRelationstheorywasmuchthesame.Butinthe

1970sthingsweretochange,bothforIRtheoryandforthehistoryofpolitical

thought,andadifferentconjunctionofideasemerged.

TheRiseofthe‘JusticeIndustry’andofInternationalPoliticalTheory

ThestartinggunforthischangewasfiredbythepublicationofJohnRawls’sA

TheoryofJustice,arguably,themostimportantworkofAnglo-Americanpolitical

theoryinthetwentiethcentury.10TheTheoryofJusticeis,onthefaceofit,a

workofliberalanalyticalpoliticalphilosophy,developingitsideasinachainof

reasoningfromfirstprinciplesbutitalsodrawsheavilyonareadingofKantand

oftheutilitarians.Thoughmoderninitsanalyticalmethod,itisaworkof

politicalphilosophythatconnectsreadilywiththeclassics,notleastbyits

ambition–thisisabookwhichintendstotelluswhatjusticeisand,not,for

example,simplyhowthewordisused,thelatterbeingtheobjectiveofmost

8

politicalphilosophyinthemid-twentiethcentury.Becauseofitsscopeand

ambition,andalso,ithastobesaidbecauseofitsoccasionalobscurity,The

TheoryofJusticeisaworkthathasattractedanenormousamountof

commentary–theterm‘justiceindustry’isbarelyanexaggeration–andagreat

dealofthatcommentaryhasfocusedontheinternationalimplicationsofhis

theory.Rawlsdidhavesomethingstosayaboutinternationalrelations,and

wouldlaterelaboratehispositioninhisshortbookof1999,TheLawofPeoples,

buthismaincontributiontoInternationalRelationstheoryhasbeentoprovoke

hiscriticstochallengehisthinkinginthisarea;11intheprocess,anewdiscourse

aboutinternationalrelationsandanewrelationshiptosomeelementsofthe

canonofgreatpoliticalthinkersemerged.

Rawls’ssubstantiveaccountofjusticeinsocietyinvolvedpoliticalfreedomand

whathecalledthe‘differenceprinciple’whichholdsthatinequalitiescanbe

justifiedonlyiftheyworktothebenefitoftheleast-advantagedinsociety.His

accountofinternationaljusticeofferstheequivalentofpoliticalfreedom,thatis

sovereignequality,non-interventionandtheinternationalruleoflaw,butno

equivalentofthedomesticdifferenceprinciple.Fromtheearliestcritical

reactiontoRawls’stheoryonwards,itwasgenerallyagreedthatthisdecisionnot

toproduceanaccountofeconomicandsocialjusticethatappliedtointernational

societywasatleastproblematicifnotactuallyperverse,giventheobvious

importanceofinternationalinequalityinthemodernworld,andwriterssuchas

BrianBarry,CharlesBeitz,andlaterThomasPoggemadeRawls’spositionon

thisissuethecentrepieceoftheircriticismofhisproject.12Noneofthesewriters

wasparticularlyinterestedinthehistoryofpoliticalthought;inreactionto

Rawlsposition,politicalphilosopherswereincreasinglynowfocusedonthe

international–indeedthecasecanbemadethatRawlswasthelastinalongline

ofliberalpoliticaltheoristswhobelieveditpossibletothinkofdomestic

societiesasboundedcommunitiesseparatefromeachother–butwhilethenew

studentsofglobalsocialjusticemayhavemadecontactwiththeinternational

theydidnotdosoviathemediumofthehistoryofthought,butratherthrough

abstracttheorisinganda‘presentist’orientation.

9

Nonetheless,itcanbearguedthatitwasasaby-productofthedebatesbetween

Rawlsandhiscriticswhichfocusedattentiononglobalsocialjusticeandglobal

inequalitythatsomeimportantre-evaluationstookplaceinthe1970sand

1980s,re-evaluationsofgreatimportfortherelationsbetweenthehistoryof

politicalthoughtandInternationalRelationstheory.Mostimportantly,the

criticsofRawlsrevitalisedthestudyofcosmopolitanismandthesearchforits

roots.Whereasadecadeorsoearliercosmopolitanismhadbeenlargely

associatedwithutopiantheoriesofinternationalrelations,theorieswhichhad

beendiscreditedbythetriumphofrealism,thecosmopolitanismoftheliberal

criticsofRawlslocatedtheoriginsoftheirpositioninthethoughtofthe

EuropeanEnlightenmentandespeciallythatofImmanuelKant,and,toalesser

extentofKarlMarxandtheMarxisttradition.ForfiguressuchasBeitzandPogge

itwasthemoraltheoryofKantthatwascentraltocosmopolitanthought,and

Kant’s‘PerpetualPeace’cametobeunderstoodasanexpressionofthatmoral

theory,ratherthanassimplyanotherimplausiblepeaceproject,whichishow

thepreviousgenerationofscholarshadlargelyseenthiswork.13Conversely,

criticsofcosmopolitanismlookedtotherootsofamorecommunity-oriented

accountofpoliticalmorality,andfounditintheworkofG.F.W.Hegeland/or

JohnStuartMill.14Forbothcosmopolitansandcommunitarians,thehistoryof

internationalthought,anditslinkstothehistoryofpoliticalthoughtmore

generally,becamesalientinspiteofthepresentistinclinationsofmostofthe

participantsintheglobaljusticedebates.

Theworkthatmostaccuratelyreflectsthisneworientationtothehistoryof

internationalthoughtisAndrewLinklater’sMenandCitizensintheTheoryof

InternationalRelationswhichbeganlifeasaPhDthesiswritteninthe

InternationalRelationsDepartmentatLSE(Linklater,1982).15HereKant’s

cosmopolitanismisliberatedfromthechargeofutopianism,Hegel’saccountof

therationalstateisnolongerseenasacoverforGermannationalism,andMarx’s

thoughtisstudiedinitsowntermsandnotthroughLeninistlenses.Manyofthe

judgementsLinklatermakesinthispath-breakingbookhavenotnecessarily

stoodthetestoftime,butthisisaworkinthehistoryofpoliticalthoughtbyan

InternationalRelationstheoristthatrepresentsagiantstepawayfromthekind

10

ofcaricaturesthatwereonofferacoupleofdecadesearlier.Inthesameperiod

TerryNardin’suseofOakeshott’spoliticalthoughtinLaw,Moralityandthe

RelationsofStatesrepresentsanotherstep-leveladvanceontheworkofthe

1960s,bringingtogetherpoliticaltheoryandIRtheoryinawaythatwouldhave

surprisedbothsidesofthedivideinthe1960s.MichaelDoyle’sappropriationof

Kantinordertoformulateanearlyversionof‘democraticpeacetheory’israther

closertoacaricature,butstillfindswithin‘PerpetualPeace’muchmorethandid

HinsleyorWight.16Again,MervynFrost’s‘constitutivetheory’presentsapicture

ofHegelthatmany,probablymostHegelianswouldhardlyrecognise,but,again,

hisworkrepresentsamajoradvanceonthecrudecharacterisationsofHegel

currentafewyearsearlier.17

Whatisnoticeablehereisthattheseauthorswereallscholarsofinternational

relationswhoturnedthemselvesintohistoriansofpoliticalthoughtbecausethey

wantedtosaysomethingthattheyfounddifficulttosayfromthestartingpoint

ofconventionalInternationalRelationstheory.Linklater,forexample,was

steepedintheBritishCommittee/’EnglishSchool’writingsofBulland,

especially,Wight–and,indeed,returnedtothesesourcesinhislaterwork–but

MenandCitizensisnotinanyconventionalsenseanEnglishSchoolwork.The

resultwasthattheseauthors,alongwiththecriticsanddefendersofRawls

referredtoabove,ineffectcreatedanewdiscourse,InternationalPolitical

Theory,distinctfrom,thoughclearlyrelatedto,InternationalRelationstheory.

MoreontheimportanceofInternationalPoliticalTheorylaterinthisessay,but

firstitisworthnotingaparticularfeatureofthebirthofthissub-field;ifthe

creatorsofInternationalPoliticalTheoryareanalyticalpoliticaltheoristsand

politicaltheory-orientedinternationaltheorists,thenthequestionarises,where

arethehistoriansofpoliticalthoughtproper?Itisstrikingthattherearevery

fewworksonthehistoryofinternationalthoughtbyhistoriansofpolitical

thoughtpublishedinthisperiod.OnesuchwouldbeW.B.Gallie’sPhilosophersof

WarandPeace:Kant,Clausewitz,Marx,EngelsandTolstoy,ashortbutvaluable

bookbasedontheauthor’sBelfastWileslectures,butitisdifficulttofinda

secondexample.18Lateronthenewly-formedCambridgeSchoolofhistoriansof

thoughtwouldproduceimportantworkon,forexample,colonialismand

11

imperialism,butinthe1970sonlyJ.G.A.Pocock’sTheMachiavellianMomentisof

directsignificanceforInternationalPoliticalTheory.19Thelackofengagement

withtheinternationalbypoliticaltheoristsinthemid-TwentiethCentury

continuedtwentyyearslater,evenasInternationalRelationsscholarssuchas

LinklaterandNardinweresuccessfullyengagingwiththehistoryofpolitical

thought.Howisthistobeexplained?

PoliticalScience,InternationalRelationsandPoliticalTheory

Theratherunexpectedpatternoutlinedaboveisatleastpartlyexplicablein

termsofchangesthatweretakingplaceinthewiderdiscourseofAmerican

PoliticalScience,inparticulartheincreasingsignificanceinthisperiodofsocial

choicetheory,formalmodellingandquantification,importedintoPolitical

SciencefromthedisciplinesofEconomicsandEconometrics.Inthisperiodfrom

themid-60sthroughtothemid-80s,‘politicaltheory’becameincreasingly

understoodasformaltheorising,ontheexplicitanalogyofeconomicmodel-

building.And,justasmosteconomistshaveverylittleinterestinthehistoryof

theirdiscipline,somostpoliticalscientistscametodownplaythesignificanceof

thehistoryofpoliticalthoughtandthestudyofthecanoncametobe

marginalised.Ofcourse,thiswasnotaprocessthathappenedovernightoratan

evenrateeverywhere;someofthemostprestigious(andwealthy)universities

continuedtosupportthestudyofthehistoryofpoliticalthoughtinmuchthe

samewaythattheysupportedthestudyof,forexample,medievalphilosophy

andlanguages,thatisassubjectsofnopracticalsignificance,embodyinganethic

oflearningforitsownsake.And,ofcourse,therewerepocketsofresistanceto

thenewlearningfromtheleftintheformofcriticaltheoristssuchasCharles

TaylorandWilliamConnolly,andfromStraussiansontheright.20

Still,withintheAmericanacademytheriseofsocialchoicethinkingwas

inexorable,andcametoincludeworkinInternationalRelationstheory;rather

surprisinglyandsomewhatagainsttheirowninclinations,thestructuralrealism

ofKennethWaltzandhisfollowers,andtheliberalinstitutionalismofRobert

Keohaneandhis,formedthebasisforasocialchoicereorientationofthisendof

12

thePoliticalSciencediscipline.21Returningtothefocusofthisessay,withinthis

newdispensationthecosmopolitancriticsofRawls,alongwithatleastsomeof

theircommunitariancritics,foundarelativelyhappyhome;thekindofpolitical

theorytheyengagedin–liberalandanalytic–wascompatiblewiththekindof

formaltheorisingthatwasnowveryhighlyvaluedinthediscourse–butthe

historyofinternational,aswellaspolitical,thoughtfelloutoffashion.

ThingswereverydifferentintheUnitedKingdominthisperiod.Inthe1960s

throughtothe1980smostdepartmentsofpoliticsandgovernmentinBritain,

withthemajorexceptionoftheDepartmentofGovernmentatEssex,werestill

largelyorientedtowardshistoricalandinstitutionalanalysisandwereresistant

totheriseofformaltheorisingandquantification.22Thestudyofpoliticswas

largelyunderstoodasanactivitythatfellwithintheHumanities,andinelite

circles,inandoutofacademia,thedivisionbetweentheartsandthesciences

andtheovervaluingoftheformerattheexpenseofthelatteroutlinedbyC.P.

Snowinhisaccountof‘thetwocultures’stillheld.23Inshort,PoliticalStudiesin

BritainwasresistanttoAmericantrends,andtoanextentstillis,althoughthere

arenowamuchgreaternumberofAmerican-stylePoliticalScientists,and

PoliticalScienceDepartments,intheUKthanthereoncewere.

Ofequalimportanceintermsofthesubjectmatterofthisessayisthefactthatin

theUnitedKingdomInternationalRelationshasnotnecessarilybeenseenasa

sub-fieldofPoliticalScienceinthewaythatisusuallythecaseintheUnited

States.ThelargestInternationalRelationsdepartmentsintheUKwereformed

asfree-standingentities,establishedaroundnamedChairsthatwerenotlocated

withindepartmentsofPoliticsandGovernment–indeed,mostofthelargest

DepartmentsofInternationalRelationsarestillseparatefromPolitics

(Aberystwyth,StAndrews,KingsCollegeLondon,LSE,Sussex,).Thishas

implicationsthatarenotsimplybureaucraticoradministrative;theself-

understandingofthedisciplineofInternationalRelationsintheUKisnotasa

sub-fieldofPoliticalScience,butasaneclecticfieldofstudy,drawingonthe

studyofHistory,LawandPhilosophyandwellasthatofPolitics.24Thisprovided

forInternationalRelationsanadditionallayerofdefenceagainstthe

13

encroachmentofAmericanformaltheorisingandquantification–andtogive

informalsupportforthisgeneralisationitcanbenotedthatthoseUniversities

whereInternationalRelationsdoesnothaveaseparateinstitutionalidentity

havebeenmostopentoAmericanmethods(inwhichcontextseeOxford,

UniversityCollegeLondonandWarwickaswellasEssex).

Putthesefactstogetherandtheapparentlyparadoxicaldevelopmentsoutlined

intheprevioussectionofthisessaybegintomakemoresense.Theintellectual

environmentofthe70sand80swasfavourabletotheriseofthe‘justice

industry’withallitsimplicationsforinternationaltheorybecausethesenew

cosmopolitansweremethodologicallycongruentwiththenewPoliticalScience.

Thehistoryofpoliticalthought,ontheother,wasaless-valuedactivity,surviving

onthemarginsratherthanoccupyingcentre-stageinanintellectualworld

wheresciencewasthewatchword.Theworkthatwasdonetocreatethe

discoursethatbecameInternationalPoliticalTheorydrewontheworkof

membersofthejusticeindustry,butitsmoreconventionalstudiesofthehistory

ofinternationalthoughtwerebasedinInternationalRelationsratherthan

PoliticalScience,andweredisproportionallyBritishinoriginbecause

InternationalRelations,especiallyInternationalRelationsinBritain,wasless

focusedonformaltheorisingthanthewiderdiscourseofPoliticalScience.

Interestingly,whiletheterm“InternationalPoliticalTheory’iswidelyusedto

describethisneworientationintheUK,intheUSuniversitycoursescovering

similarmaterialwilloftenbetaughtundertherubric‘EthicsandInternational

affairs’,amorelimitingdescriptionofthenewdiscourse–thesameterminology

canbeobservedintheInternationalEthicsSectionofthe(American)

InternationalStudiesAssociation,andintheleadingAmericanjournalinthe

field,Ethics&InternationalAffairsthejournaloftheCarnegieCouncilforEthics

andInternationalAffairs.Inanyevent,thusitwasthatanewdiscourseemerged

inthe1980s,thecharacterofwhichisworthexamininginmoredetail.

InternationalPoliticalTheoryandtheHistoryofPoliticalThought

14

InternationalPoliticalTheoryemergedasadistinctdiscourseinthe1980s,

distinct,thatis,frombothInternationalRelationstheory,whichwasbecoming

increasingdefinedintermsofcausaltheoryandfromPoliticalTheorywhichwas

increasinglyformalandabstract,divorcedfromthekindofhistoricalresearch

thathadcharacterisedearliergenerations.Inshort,fromthe1980sonwards

threediscoursesexistedinafieldthatoncecontainedonlytwo,butitis

importanttonotethattheboundariesbetweenthesethreediscourseswere

permeableandneverclearlydefined.Thus,forexample,some‘classical’realists

whorejectedtheneo-positivismofstructuralrealismcouldeasilybeseenas

InternationalPoliticalTheoristsand,attheotherend,asitwere,ofthenew

discourse,analyticalpoliticaltheoristswhoaddressedinternationalissuesmight

wellalsoturntheirmindstowardsdomestictopics–CharlesBeitzcomesto

mindinthiscontext,thewriterofaseminalbookonPoliticalTheoryand

InternationalRelationsbutalsoofworksondemocratictheory.25Also,some

topicsweresuchthatallthreediscourseswereengagedatonetimeoranother–

‘humanrights’wouldbethemostobviousexamplehere,andalsoperhapsthe

notionof‘justwar’.Still,althoughtheboundariesmaybehazyInternational

PoliticalTheorydoeshaveadistinctivecore,andhasdevelopedasetofoutlets

foritswork–mostobviouslytheReviewofInternationalStudies,Ethics&

InternationalAffairs,and,morerecently,TheJournalofInternationalPolitical

Theory(although,ofcourse,goodworkturnsupelsewhereaswell).

ThepointaboutInternationalPoliticalTheory,whichappliesevenifthe

discourseweretobemorelooselydefinedthanitisabove,isthatitprovidesa

homeforworkinthehistoryofinternationalthoughtthatneitheroftheother

twodiscoursescanoffer.Initially,asnotedpreviously,muchofthisworkcame

fromInternationalRelationsscholars,butastimewentbyitbecamelessandless

thecasethatonecouldusefullyclassifytheparticipantsinthisdiscoursebytheir

origins.Forthosewhoarekeenonpigeon-holing,InternationalPoliticalTheory

isgenerallyunderstoodasasub-fieldofInternationalRelationsbutthepeople

whocreateditareincreasinglyhardtoclassifyandmightnotthinkof

themselvesaspartofthiswiderdiscourse.Someofthemostinterestingwriters

inthefieldexemplifythispoint–MichaelWalzer,forexample,isaleading

15

authorityontheJustWarandafameddefenderofaliberalnationalistapproach

topoliticalcommunities,onbothcountsamajorfigureinInternationalPolitical

Theory,butsomeonewho,ifhecouldbebroughttoself-identify,wouldmost

likelysimplydescribehimselfasapoliticalphilosopher.26

Itisalsoimportantnottodisregardsomeofthelessintellectualfactorsthatlead

tothegrowthofInternationalPoliticalTheory,especiallyintheUKinthe1980s

–PierreBourdieu’sstudyofHomoAcademicusmayhavefocusedonFrench

intellectuals,butthebasicpointthatdevelopmentsinacademiclifearerarely

simplydrivenbyintellectualfactorsholdmorewidely.27The80swereatimeof

greatfinancialstringencyforUniversitiesintheUK,andacademicpostsin

politicaltheorywereveryhardtofind;InternationalRelations,ontheother

hand,wasbooming,ledbystudentdemand–predictably,theresultwasthat

youngscholarswho,aspoliticaltheorists,foundthemselvesvirtually

unemployablebutwhohadanykindofinterestintheinternationalweregivena

verystrongpositiveincentivetorebrandthemselvesasinternationalpolitical

theorists.InternationalPoliticalTheorywasalsoreinforcedbypost-structuralist

andfeministwritersinthelate1980s,andbyearlyconstructivists.Thesewere

sub-fieldsofInternationalRelationsthatwereregardedveryunfavourablyby

theneo-positivistmainstream,and,ontheprinciplethattheenemyofmyenemy

ismyfriend,theynaturallygravitatedtowardsthenewdiscourse–inthecaseof

thefirsttwogroupsatleastthisalliancedidnotlastlong,butconstructivists

remaincloselyakintointernationalpoliticaltheorists.Moreclearly,the

rebrandedandrevived‘EnglishSchool’–thesuccessorstotheBritishCommittee

ofthe1950s–becamepartofthediscourseofInternationalPoliticalTheory

moreorlessbydefault.EnglishSchooltheorists,bysimplycontinuingtodo

whattheyhadalwaysdone,foundthemselvesincreasinglyslippingawayfrom

themainstreamofInternationalRelations.

Onecouldcontinuetotrytodelineatethenewfieldmoreorlessindefinitelybut

thekeypointisthatwhetheronewishestothinkintermsofanewdiscourseor

not,thereisnowabodyofworkinthehistoryofinternationalpoliticalthought

thatissuperiorinqualitytotheworkbeingdone40or50yearsago,andwhich

16

hasfoundanaudienceintheun-policedborderlandsbetweenPoliticalScience

andInternationalRelations.InthisessaythetermInternationalPoliticalTheory

isusedtocharacterisethisborderlandbutwhetherthischaracterisationis

acceptedornot,thisworkexistsandisread.Intheframingdocumentfrom

whichthisessayoriginated,NoelMalcolmisquotedasdescribingthestandard

(IR)interpretationofHobbesas‘fixedandossified’andperilouslycloseto

caricature.Malcolm’scredentialsasaHobbesscholarareunquestionable,but

notsothisjudgment;inrecentyearsscholarssuchasDavidArmitage,WillBain,

DavidBoucher,RaiaProkhovnik,GabriellaSlomp,andMichaelC.Williamshave

writtenextensivelyandcreativelyonHobbesdemonstratingthatIR’s

interpretationofHobbesisbynomeanseitherfixedandossifiedoranything

resemblingacaricature.28Similarlytherecentinterestintheoriginsof

internationallawandtheso-calledWestphaliasystemhasproduceddecidedly

un-caricaturedaccountsoffiguressuchasGrotius,forexampletheworkof

ReneeJeffery,aswellashighlynuancedaccountsofpoliticalthoughtinthe

seventeenthcentury,particularlynotableisEdwardKeene’sanalysisofthenon-

Europeanoriginsofthe‘European’states-system.29Justwarisanothertopic

whichhasbenefitedfromrecentscholarshipbothbuildingonthetradition,on

whichsee,forexample,theworkofCianO’Driscoll,TonyLangandJohn

Williams,andsubvertingitbyreadingitthroughthelensofmodernanalytical

politicalphilosophy;hereJeffMcMahanandDavidRodinareexemplary

figures.30And,bringingthehistoryofinternationalthoughtclosertothe

present,figuressuchasDuncanBellandIanHallhavedonemuchtoclarifyour

understandingofVictorianandtwentiethcenturyinternationalthought.31The

listoffineexamplesofscholarshipcouldbeextended,butthepointisclear,

thereisalotofverygoodworkbeingdoneinInternationalPoliticalTheory

today,morespecificallythehistoryofinternationalthought,andthecontrastin

qualitywiththekindofworkdoneagenerationortwoagoisquitestriking.The

kindofdividedescribedearlieraspresentinthe1960sdoesn’texistinthesame

waytoday.InternationalRelationsandPoliticalThoughtarenolongerdivided

intoseparatesilosinthewaytheyoncewere;InternationalPoliticalTheoryhas

providedabridgebetweenthesediscourses,and–theanalogyherewouldbe

17

withtheMedievalLondonBridgeuponwhichhousesandshopswerebuilt–not

justabridgebutalsoahomeforaparticularkindofwritingthatcrossesborders.

Andthere’stherub.TheverysuccessofInternationalPoliticalTheoryin

providingahomeforworkonthehistoryofinternationalthoughthasreinforced

thetendencyofmainstreamInternationalRelationstoregardthisdiscourseas

essentiallymarginaltoitsconceptionofthediscipline.Hereisarealcontrast

withthe1960s;atthattimetheleadingfiguresinInternationalrelationsonboth

sidesoftheAtlanticwerefirmlycommittedtotheimportanceofthehistoryof

internationalthought,buttheiraccountofthathistorycameperilouslycloseto

caricature.Now,wehavedevelopedamuchmoreimpressivebodyof

scholarshiponthehistoryofinternationalthought,butmostoftheleading

figuresinthewiderdisciplinehaveverylittleinterestinthiswork.Toputthings

inthelanguageofcontemporaryeconomics,thereisasoliddemandforhigh

qualityworkthatbringstogetherInternationalRelationstheoryandthehistory

ofpoliticalthoughtandaplentifulsupplyofhigh-qualityworksthatmeetthis

demand–butthisisanichemarket,nolongeratthecentreofthediscourseof

InternationalRelations.Toreturntothequestionthatopenedthisessay,the

historyofpoliticalthoughthasagreatdealtocontributetothestudyof

internationalrelations,andindeedisalreadymakingasubstantialcontribution–

buttheaudienceforthisworkisrelativelylimited,andwillremainsoallthe

whilethatthehighgroundofthedisciplineisoccupiedbyformaltheoristsand

quantifiers.

1Seee.g.DavidArmitage,FoundationsofModernInternationalThought(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2012)andLucianAshworth,TheHistoryofInternationalThought:FromtheOriginsoftheModernStatetoAcademicInternationalRelations(London:Routledge,2014).2BrianSchmidt,ThePoliticalDiscourseofAnarchy:ADisciplinaryHistoryofInternationalRelationsAlbany,(NY:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.1997); Nicholas Guilhot, The Invention of International Relations Theory: Realism, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the 1954 Conference on Theory. (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011).

18

3ReinholdNiebuhr,MoralManandImmoralSociety(NewYork:CharlesScribner’s,1932);MartinWightPowerPolitics(London:R.I.I.APamphlet,1946);HansJ.Morgenthau,PoliticsAmongNations(NY:AlfredKnopf,1948;JohnHerz, Political Realism and Political Idealism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951); Herbert Butterfield,Christianity,DiplomacyandWar(London:AbingdonPress,1953);C.A.W.Manning, The Nature of International Society (London: Macmillan, 1962);ArnoldWolfers,DiscordandCollaboration(BaltimoreMD:TheJohnsHopkinsPress,1965).4SeeMackinnon,D.M.(1966)‘NaturalLaw’inHerbertButterfieldandMartinWightDiplomaticInvestigations(London:GeorgeAllen&Unwin,1966)andforcontext,TimDunneInventing International Society (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1998).

5MartinWight,‘Whyistherenointernationaltheory?’inButterfieldandWightDiplomaticInvestigationsop.cit.p.96F.H.Hinsley, Power and the Pursuit of Peace (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963). Hinsley’s work contained many valuable insights into the history of the European states-system, even if his account of Kant was inadequate.

7MartinWight,op.cit.1966,p.288TerryNardin,Law,MoralityandtheRelationsofStates(PrincetonNJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1983)isanexplicitlyOakeshottianaccountofinternationalsociety,compatiblewith,thoughonlymarginallyinfluencedby,thatoftheEnglishSchool;seealsoNardinThePhilosophyofMichaelOakeshott(UniversityPark,PA:PennsylvaniaUniversityPress,2004).RobertJacksonThe Global Covenant: Human Conduct in a World of States, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) is a paid-up member of the English School (though, as is traditional, without actually being English). 9ForStrauss’sinfluenceseetheessaysinStevenB.SmithTheCambridgeCompaniontoLeoStrauss(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2009).10JohnRawls,ATheoryofJustice,(CambridgeMA:HarvardUniversityPress,1970).11JohnRawls,TheLawofPeoples andTheideaofPublicReasonRevisited.(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1999).12BrianBarry,TheLiberalTheoryofJustice(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1972);CharlesBeitz,PoliticalTheoryandInternationalRelations(PrincetonNJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1979);ThomasPogge.RealizingRawls,(Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress,1989).Theseauthorsdisagreedonmuchelse,butwereunanimousintheviewthatRawlshadgottheinternationaldimensionofhistheorybadlywrong.

19

13ChrisBrown,InternationalRelationsTheory:NewNormativeApproaches.(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1993).14CharlesTaylor,Hegel(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1975);MichaelWalzer,JustandUnjustWars(NewYork:BasicBooks,1977,5thed.2015).15AndrewLinklater,MenandCitizensintheTheoryofInternationalRelations(London:Macmillan,1982).

16MichaelDoyle,‘Kant, Liberal Legacies and Foreign Policy’, Parts I and II, Philosophy and Public Affairs (12) 1983, pp 205-35 and 323-53. 17MervynFrost Towards a Normative Theory of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1986).18W.B.Gallie,Philosophers of War and Peace (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978). 19J.G.APocock,TheMachiavellianMoment:FlorentinePoliticalThoughtandtheAtlanticRepublicanTradition(PrincetonNJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1975).

20CharlesTaylor‘InterpretationandtheSciencesofMan’TheReviewofMetaphysics25,(1)1971,pp.3-51;WilliamE.Connolly,TheTermsofPoliticalDiscourse(London:BasilBlackwell,1974);Smith,op.cit.21KennethWaltz,Theory of International Politics. 1st ed. (Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1979); Robert O. Keohane, (ed.) NeorealismanditsCritics(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1986).22Asearlyas1959,BernardCricksetoutacritiqueofAmericanpoliticalscienceandadefenceoftheBritishinstitutionalistandhistoricalapproachtopoliticalstudies:BernardCrick,TheAmericanScienceofPolitics:ItsOriginsandConditions(London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul,1959).23C.P.SnowTheTwoCultures(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1959,ReissuedwithanIntroductionbyStefanCollini,2012).24OnwhichseeChrisBrown‘ThedevelopmentofInternationalRelationstheoryintheUK:traditions,contemporaryperspectives,andtrajectories’InternationalRelationsoftheAsia-Pacific,11(2),2011.Pp.309-330.25Beitz,1979op.cit.andPoliticalEquality:AnEssayinDemocraticTheory(PrincetonNJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1989).26Walzer,op.cit.(1977/2015).ForanoverviewofhisworkseeChrisBrown‘MichaelWalzer’inMichaelT.GibbonsetalWiley-BlackwellEncyclopediaofPoliticalThought(London:Blackwell,2014).

20

27PierreBourdieu,HomoAcademicus(PaloAlto,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,1990).28Armitageop.cit.(2012);WillBain,‘ThomasHobbesasaTheoristofAnarchy:ATheologicalInterpretation’HistoryofEuropeanIdeas4(1),2015,pp13-28;DavidBoucher,PoliticalTheoriesofInternationalRelations(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPres,1998RaiaProkhovnik&GabriellaSlomp,(eds.)InternationalPoliticalTheoryafterHobbes(Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan,2011);MichaelC.Williams,‘HobbesandInternationalRelations:AReconsideration’InternationalOrganization50(2),1996,pp.213–236.29ReneeJeffrey,HugoGrotiusinInternationalThought(Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan,2005);EdwardKeene,BeyondtheAnarchicalSociety(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2002).30AnthonyF.Lang,Anthony,CianO’Driscoll,andJohnWilliams,(eds.)JustWar:Authority,Tradition,andPractice.(WashingtonDC:GeorgetownUniversityPress,2013);JeffMcMahan,KillinginWar.(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2009);DavidRodin,WarandSelf-Defence(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2002).

31DuncanBell,TheIdeaofGreaterBritain(PrincetonNJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,2007);IanHall.Dilemmas of Decline: British Intellectuals and World Politics 1945 – 75 (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2012).