Pub Date : 2021-01-21DOI: 10.1177/1755088220985881
D. Clinton
The twentieth-century theologian and public intellectual Reinhold Niebuhr frequently employed a formulation confounding to his readers, simultaneously appealing to the loftiest altruism as summed up in his identification of the “law of love” and compelling attention to the grittiest realism as encapsulated in his recognition of a universal struggle for power. This sharp contrast was no careless error on Niebuhr’s part, but rather an insistence on describing in the most sharply contrasting tones the paradoxical character of human nature. In his Christian Realist view fear and a consequent desire for power over others to protect oneself are inescapable components of human existence within history. The human need for community and refusal to be satisfied with anything less than devotion to the wellbeing of others unsullied by self-love are nevertheless also implanted in the human heart, which recognizes that reality extends beyond human history. Niebuhr demanded attention to both.
{"title":"Reinhold Niebuhr: The law of love and the omnipresence of power","authors":"D. Clinton","doi":"10.1177/1755088220985881","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1755088220985881","url":null,"abstract":"The twentieth-century theologian and public intellectual Reinhold Niebuhr frequently employed a formulation confounding to his readers, simultaneously appealing to the loftiest altruism as summed up in his identification of the “law of love” and compelling attention to the grittiest realism as encapsulated in his recognition of a universal struggle for power. This sharp contrast was no careless error on Niebuhr’s part, but rather an insistence on describing in the most sharply contrasting tones the paradoxical character of human nature. In his Christian Realist view fear and a consequent desire for power over others to protect oneself are inescapable components of human existence within history. The human need for community and refusal to be satisfied with anything less than devotion to the wellbeing of others unsullied by self-love are nevertheless also implanted in the human heart, which recognizes that reality extends beyond human history. Niebuhr demanded attention to both.","PeriodicalId":44237,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Political Theory","volume":"17 1","pages":"139 - 150"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1755088220985881","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41511986","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-19DOI: 10.1177/1755088220969717
Richard Beardsworth
I met Patrick in the summer of 2008 in St Andrews at the opening conference of the Journal of International Political Theory, which he and Tony Lang organized: “Thinking (With)Out Borders: International Political Theory in the 21st Century.” The conference, as with succeeding ones, brought together many theorists engaged in making International Relations theory more sophisticated by bringing to it the traditions of Political Theory and Political Philosophy. I will always recall Patrick’s disposition at the conference: welcoming, sincere, critical, cosmopolitan-minded. It was after that conference that I read Hayden’s (2005) book Cosmopolitan Global Politics. I was, at the time, framing my own book on cosmopolitanism and international politics, and his book was important for me. Its argument concerning the relevance of the philosophy and morality of cosmopolitanism to international relations was exemplary, with its trained focus on the emergence of global governance mechanisms, the pressures of global civil society on national governments, and his rehearsal of the meaning of world citizenship within these processes. Patrick’s book moved very purposefully between moral cosmopolitanism and political ways of implementing this moral engagement. The book confirmed, for me, the disposition that I had met in St Andrews in 2008. I did not agree with Patrick’s interpretation of realism in the book, nor his understanding of state sovereignty as an obstacle to cosmopolitan governance, but his refusal to compromise with duties of global justice made the book’s cosmopolitan political project both morally clear and politically consistent. That clarity and consistency has, I believe, underpinned the way he edited the Journal of International Political Theory over the last 10 years. I am particularly grateful to him for not only his editorial steering of two special issues with which I was concerned, but also for sustaining and promoting the space of academic engagement with Political Theory and International Relations. I was surprised to learn of his early retirement, although I was aware that he was finding the rhythms of UK academic life increasingly incompatible with intellectual life. I should not have been surprised, I suppose: his clarity and consistency had won through again! Given recent events and the present historical conjuncture, the cosmopolitan political project is to be rethought. Greater focus on the state is necessary, not only as a site of motivation for collective endeavor, but also as the place from which collective political projects are made possible, including global challenges. Patrick’s book ended with an
2008年夏天，我在圣安德鲁斯的《国际政治理论杂志》（Journal of International Political Theory）开幕式上遇到了帕特里克，他和托尼·朗组织了这次会议：“思考（带）出边界：21世纪的国际政治理论”，汇集了许多理论家，他们通过引入政治理论和政治哲学的传统，使国际关系理论更加复杂。我将永远记得帕特里克在会议上的性格：热情、真诚、批判、国际化。在那次会议之后，我读了海登（2005）的《世界主义全球政治》一书。当时，我正在撰写我自己的关于世界主义和国际政治的书，他的书对我来说很重要。它关于世界论的哲学和道德与国际关系的相关性的论点堪称典范，它训练有素地关注全球治理机制的出现、全球公民社会对国家政府的压力，以及他在这些过程中对世界公民身份意义的预演。帕特里克的书非常有目的地在道德世界主义和实现这种道德参与的政治方式之间移动。对我来说，这本书证实了我2008年在圣安德鲁斯遇到的性格。我不同意帕特里克在书中对现实主义的解释，也不同意他对国家主权是世界性治理的障碍的理解，但他拒绝向全球正义的义务妥协，这使这本书的世界性政治项目在道德上和政治上都是明确的。我相信，这种清晰和一致性支撑了他在过去10年中编辑《国际政治理论杂志》的方式。我特别感谢他不仅对我关心的两个特刊进行了编辑指导，而且还维持和促进了政治理论和国际关系的学术参与空间。得知他提前退休的消息，我感到很惊讶，尽管我知道他发现英国学术生活的节奏与知识生活越来越不兼容。我想我不应该感到惊讶：他的清晰和连贯再次赢得了胜利！鉴于最近发生的事件和当前的历史形势，国际政治计划需要重新思考。有必要更加关注国家，这不仅是集体努力的动力所在，也是实现集体政治项目（包括全球挑战）的地方。帕特里克的书以
{"title":"Cosmopolitan Global Politics","authors":"Richard Beardsworth","doi":"10.1177/1755088220969717","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1755088220969717","url":null,"abstract":"I met Patrick in the summer of 2008 in St Andrews at the opening conference of the Journal of International Political Theory, which he and Tony Lang organized: “Thinking (With)Out Borders: International Political Theory in the 21st Century.” The conference, as with succeeding ones, brought together many theorists engaged in making International Relations theory more sophisticated by bringing to it the traditions of Political Theory and Political Philosophy. I will always recall Patrick’s disposition at the conference: welcoming, sincere, critical, cosmopolitan-minded. It was after that conference that I read Hayden’s (2005) book Cosmopolitan Global Politics. I was, at the time, framing my own book on cosmopolitanism and international politics, and his book was important for me. Its argument concerning the relevance of the philosophy and morality of cosmopolitanism to international relations was exemplary, with its trained focus on the emergence of global governance mechanisms, the pressures of global civil society on national governments, and his rehearsal of the meaning of world citizenship within these processes. Patrick’s book moved very purposefully between moral cosmopolitanism and political ways of implementing this moral engagement. The book confirmed, for me, the disposition that I had met in St Andrews in 2008. I did not agree with Patrick’s interpretation of realism in the book, nor his understanding of state sovereignty as an obstacle to cosmopolitan governance, but his refusal to compromise with duties of global justice made the book’s cosmopolitan political project both morally clear and politically consistent. That clarity and consistency has, I believe, underpinned the way he edited the Journal of International Political Theory over the last 10 years. I am particularly grateful to him for not only his editorial steering of two special issues with which I was concerned, but also for sustaining and promoting the space of academic engagement with Political Theory and International Relations. I was surprised to learn of his early retirement, although I was aware that he was finding the rhythms of UK academic life increasingly incompatible with intellectual life. I should not have been surprised, I suppose: his clarity and consistency had won through again! Given recent events and the present historical conjuncture, the cosmopolitan political project is to be rethought. Greater focus on the state is necessary, not only as a site of motivation for collective endeavor, but also as the place from which collective political projects are made possible, including global challenges. Patrick’s book ended with an","PeriodicalId":44237,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Political Theory","volume":"17 1","pages":"14 - 15"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1755088220969717","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42171174","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-12DOI: 10.1177/1755088220983832
J. King
Realism, constructivism, and liberal institutionalism share the assumption that states are rational and self-maximizing actors. While these theories disagree as to whether states prioritize military power or economic wealth, they converge around the notion that states pursue these goods rationally and predictably. Complaints against and threats of defection from prominent international security and trade regimes, including NATO and the EU, raise doubts about states’ rationality and predictability. Perhaps these theories’ shared assumption about rational action has become an impediment to understanding state behavior and institutional cooperation. To enrich and to expand the conversation within international political theory, my article turns to Rousseau’s international political thought. Rousseau anticipates central arguments in each of the major traditions of IR theory but locates political self-interest in the sub-rational passion amour propre rather than in reason itself. Rousseau exemplifies a more nuanced way to understand the irrational roots of political motivation and the limits of international order. My paper traces the international implications of amour propre through Rousseau’s key texts on international politics and turns to his “Letter to Philopolis” as a way to re-frame Rousseau’s account of political responsibility.
{"title":"The international politics of amour propre: Revisiting Rousseau’s place in international relations theory","authors":"J. King","doi":"10.1177/1755088220983832","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1755088220983832","url":null,"abstract":"Realism, constructivism, and liberal institutionalism share the assumption that states are rational and self-maximizing actors. While these theories disagree as to whether states prioritize military power or economic wealth, they converge around the notion that states pursue these goods rationally and predictably. Complaints against and threats of defection from prominent international security and trade regimes, including NATO and the EU, raise doubts about states’ rationality and predictability. Perhaps these theories’ shared assumption about rational action has become an impediment to understanding state behavior and institutional cooperation. To enrich and to expand the conversation within international political theory, my article turns to Rousseau’s international political thought. Rousseau anticipates central arguments in each of the major traditions of IR theory but locates political self-interest in the sub-rational passion amour propre rather than in reason itself. Rousseau exemplifies a more nuanced way to understand the irrational roots of political motivation and the limits of international order. My paper traces the international implications of amour propre through Rousseau’s key texts on international politics and turns to his “Letter to Philopolis” as a way to re-frame Rousseau’s account of political responsibility.","PeriodicalId":44237,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Political Theory","volume":"18 1","pages":"167 - 185"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1755088220983832","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48185842","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-07DOI: 10.1177/1755088220985882
Elisabeth Forster, Isaac Taylor
Dominant normative theories of armed conflict orientate themselves around the ultimate goal of peace. Yet the deployment of these theories in the international sphere appears to have failed in advancing toward this goal. In this paper, we argue that one major reason for this failure is these theories’ use of essentially contested concepts—that is, concepts whose internally complex character results in no principled way of adjudicating between rival interpretations of them. This renders the theories susceptible to manipulation by international actors who are able to pursue bellicose policies under the cover of nominally pacific frameworks, and we show how this happened historically in a case study of the Korean War of 1950–1953. In order to better serve the goals of peace, we suggest, the rules of war should be reframed to simpler, but more restrictive, normative principles.
{"title":"Asking the fox to guard the chicken coop: In defense of minimalism in the ethics of war and peace","authors":"Elisabeth Forster, Isaac Taylor","doi":"10.1177/1755088220985882","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1755088220985882","url":null,"abstract":"Dominant normative theories of armed conflict orientate themselves around the ultimate goal of peace. Yet the deployment of these theories in the international sphere appears to have failed in advancing toward this goal. In this paper, we argue that one major reason for this failure is these theories’ use of essentially contested concepts—that is, concepts whose internally complex character results in no principled way of adjudicating between rival interpretations of them. This renders the theories susceptible to manipulation by international actors who are able to pursue bellicose policies under the cover of nominally pacific frameworks, and we show how this happened historically in a case study of the Korean War of 1950–1953. In order to better serve the goals of peace, we suggest, the rules of war should be reframed to simpler, but more restrictive, normative principles.","PeriodicalId":44237,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Political Theory","volume":"18 1","pages":"91 - 109"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1755088220985882","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44626598","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-16DOI: 10.1177/1755088220981093
Liane Hartnett, Lucian M. Ashworth
Reinhold Niebuhr (1892–1971) is perhaps the best known North American theologian of the twentieth century. Over the course of his life he was a Christian socialist, pacifist, a staunch anti-communist, and an architect of vital-centre liberalism. Niebuhr wrote on themes as diverse as war, democracy, world order, political economy and race. So significant was Niebuhr’s intellectual influence that George Kennan once described him as ‘the father of us all’. Indeed, from the thought of Barack Obama to Jimmy Carter, Martin Luther King Jr. to Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Hans Morgenthau to Kenneth Waltz, E.H. Carr to Jean Bethke Elshtain, Niebuhr has helped shape International Relations. Bringing together intellectual historians and international political theorists, this special issue asks whether Niebuhr’s thought remains relevant to our times? Can he help us think about democracy, power, race, the use of force, and cruelty in a moment when ethnonationalism appears ascendant and democracy in decline?
{"title":"Introduction: Why read Reinhold Niebuhr now?","authors":"Liane Hartnett, Lucian M. Ashworth","doi":"10.1177/1755088220981093","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1755088220981093","url":null,"abstract":"Reinhold Niebuhr (1892–1971) is perhaps the best known North American theologian of the twentieth century. Over the course of his life he was a Christian socialist, pacifist, a staunch anti-communist, and an architect of vital-centre liberalism. Niebuhr wrote on themes as diverse as war, democracy, world order, political economy and race. So significant was Niebuhr’s intellectual influence that George Kennan once described him as ‘the father of us all’. Indeed, from the thought of Barack Obama to Jimmy Carter, Martin Luther King Jr. to Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Hans Morgenthau to Kenneth Waltz, E.H. Carr to Jean Bethke Elshtain, Niebuhr has helped shape International Relations. Bringing together intellectual historians and international political theorists, this special issue asks whether Niebuhr’s thought remains relevant to our times? Can he help us think about democracy, power, race, the use of force, and cruelty in a moment when ethnonationalism appears ascendant and democracy in decline?","PeriodicalId":44237,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Political Theory","volume":"17 1","pages":"118 - 122"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1755088220981093","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42920192","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-13DOI: 10.1177/1755088220979728
Lucian M. Ashworth
Reinhold Niebuhr’s The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness is one of the key English-language texts in the post-war settlement literature of the early 1940s. This article analyses the book on three interconnected levels: the nature of the argument made by Niebuhr in the book, its place in the broader post-war settlement literature of the early 1940s, and its relevance to the current problems of right-wing populism and the climate crisis. While the main theme of the book is the necessity and impossibility of democracy, it shares with the work of Isaiah Bowman and David Mitrany a concern for the tension between the state and interdependence. The deepening of this tension since has helped keep Niebuhr relevant, although his initial distinction between the children of light and the children of darkness has been complicated by both populism and the climate crisis.
{"title":"Re-reading Niebuhr’s The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness: The crisis of democracy in an interdependent world then and now","authors":"Lucian M. Ashworth","doi":"10.1177/1755088220979728","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1755088220979728","url":null,"abstract":"Reinhold Niebuhr’s The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness is one of the key English-language texts in the post-war settlement literature of the early 1940s. This article analyses the book on three interconnected levels: the nature of the argument made by Niebuhr in the book, its place in the broader post-war settlement literature of the early 1940s, and its relevance to the current problems of right-wing populism and the climate crisis. While the main theme of the book is the necessity and impossibility of democracy, it shares with the work of Isaiah Bowman and David Mitrany a concern for the tension between the state and interdependence. The deepening of this tension since has helped keep Niebuhr relevant, although his initial distinction between the children of light and the children of darkness has been complicated by both populism and the climate crisis.","PeriodicalId":44237,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Political Theory","volume":"17 1","pages":"123 - 138"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1755088220979728","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45034080","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-13DOI: 10.1177/1755088220979003
Liane Hartnett
Love has been long lauded for its salvific potential in U.S. anti-racist rhetoric. Yet, what does it mean to speak or act in love’s name to redress racism? Turning to the work of the North American public intellectual and theologian, Reinhold Niebuhr (1892–1971), this essay explores his contribution to normative theory on love’s role in the work of racial justice. Niebuhr was a staunch supporter of civil rights, and many prominent figures of the movement such as James Cone, Jesse Jackson, Martin Luther King Jr., J. Deotis Roberts and Cornel West drew on his theology. Indeed, Niebuhr underscores love’s promise and perils in politics, and its potential to respond to racism via the work of critique, compassion, and coercion. Engaging with Niebuhr’s theology on love and justice, then, not only helps us recover a rich realist resource on racism, but also an ethic of realism as antiracism.
长期以来，爱在美国反种族主义言论中因其拯救潜力而备受赞誉。然而，以爱的名义说话或行动来纠正种族主义意味着什么？本文转向北美公共知识分子和神学家Reinhold Niebuhr（1892-1971）的工作，探讨了他对关于爱在种族正义工作中的作用的规范理论的贡献。Niebuhr是民权运动的坚定支持者，该运动的许多知名人物，如James Cone、Jesse Jackson、Martin Luther King Jr.、J.Deotis Roberts和Cornel West都借鉴了他的神学。事实上，Niebuhr强调了爱在政治中的承诺和危险，以及它通过批判、同情和胁迫来应对种族主义的潜力。因此，参与尼布尔关于爱与正义的神学，不仅有助于我们恢复关于种族主义的丰富现实主义资源，而且有助于恢复反种族主义的现实主义伦理。
{"title":"‘The Impossible Possibility of Love’: Reinhold Niebuhr’s thought on racial justice","authors":"Liane Hartnett","doi":"10.1177/1755088220979003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1755088220979003","url":null,"abstract":"Love has been long lauded for its salvific potential in U.S. anti-racist rhetoric. Yet, what does it mean to speak or act in love’s name to redress racism? Turning to the work of the North American public intellectual and theologian, Reinhold Niebuhr (1892–1971), this essay explores his contribution to normative theory on love’s role in the work of racial justice. Niebuhr was a staunch supporter of civil rights, and many prominent figures of the movement such as James Cone, Jesse Jackson, Martin Luther King Jr., J. Deotis Roberts and Cornel West drew on his theology. Indeed, Niebuhr underscores love’s promise and perils in politics, and its potential to respond to racism via the work of critique, compassion, and coercion. Engaging with Niebuhr’s theology on love and justice, then, not only helps us recover a rich realist resource on racism, but also an ethic of realism as antiracism.","PeriodicalId":44237,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Political Theory","volume":"17 1","pages":"151 - 168"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1755088220979003","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41939890","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-13DOI: 10.1177/1755088220978432
E. Botting
Against the background of the international political crises generated by the early phase of the French Revolution at Nootka Sound in 1790 and in Saint-Domingue in 1791, Mary Wollstonecraft developed a capacious political theory of the “rights of humanity.” She pushed beyond narrow post-revolutionary European constructions of “the rights of man” which ignored or excluded “the poor,” “Indians,” “African slaves,” and “women.” While closely following the international politics of the French Revolution, Wollstonecraft developed the core arguments of A Vindication of the Rights of Men (1790) and A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792). Her key philosophical innovation was to publicly universalize the conceptual scope of rights, such that rights were no longer—implicitly or explicitly—solely the legal entitlement of propertied white European men, but rather the moral and political entitlement of the whole of humanity across nations. Yet she rhetorically contradicted and philosophically limited the cross-cultural universalism of her theory of equal rights by punctuating her arguments with Western Protestant and Orientalist stereotypes of Eastern despotism. Consequently, international politics and international prejudice shaped Wollstonecraft’s theory of equal rights and her application of it to peoples and cultures beyond those of Western Protestant Europe.
{"title":"From revolutionary Paris to Nootka Sound to Saint-Domingue: The international politics and prejudice behind Wollstonecraft’s theory of the rights of humanity, 1789–91","authors":"E. Botting","doi":"10.1177/1755088220978432","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1755088220978432","url":null,"abstract":"Against the background of the international political crises generated by the early phase of the French Revolution at Nootka Sound in 1790 and in Saint-Domingue in 1791, Mary Wollstonecraft developed a capacious political theory of the “rights of humanity.” She pushed beyond narrow post-revolutionary European constructions of “the rights of man” which ignored or excluded “the poor,” “Indians,” “African slaves,” and “women.” While closely following the international politics of the French Revolution, Wollstonecraft developed the core arguments of A Vindication of the Rights of Men (1790) and A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792). Her key philosophical innovation was to publicly universalize the conceptual scope of rights, such that rights were no longer—implicitly or explicitly—solely the legal entitlement of propertied white European men, but rather the moral and political entitlement of the whole of humanity across nations. Yet she rhetorically contradicted and philosophically limited the cross-cultural universalism of her theory of equal rights by punctuating her arguments with Western Protestant and Orientalist stereotypes of Eastern despotism. Consequently, international politics and international prejudice shaped Wollstonecraft’s theory of equal rights and her application of it to peoples and cultures beyond those of Western Protestant Europe.","PeriodicalId":44237,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Political Theory","volume":"18 1","pages":"46 - 65"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1755088220978432","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49251943","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-10DOI: 10.1177/1755088220979001
Vassilios Paipais
Reinhold Niebuhr is widely acknowledged as the father of Christian realism and a staunch critic of pacifism. In a famous exchange with his brother H. Richard in The Christian Century, Niebuhr defended the necessity of entering the fray of battle to combat evil as opposed to opting for non-violent detachment that ultimately usurps God’s authority to decide on final matters. Niebuhr, however, never endorsed an aggressive Just War doctrine. Striving to reconcile the Christian command of love with the harsh realities of power resulting from universal sinfulness, Niebuhr emphasised the necessity of negotiating the distance between the two extremes of a pendulum swinging from Christian pacifism to the endorsement of interventionist policies. Rather than this being an expression of the ambiguity of his moral convictions, this paper argues that it is a product of his sensitivity to applying contextual moral and political judgement as an exercise of theological responsibility.
赖因霍尔德·尼布尔被公认为基督教现实主义之父和和平主义的坚定批评者。在《基督教世纪》（The Christian Century）中，尼布尔与他的兄弟H.理查德（H.Richard）进行了一次著名的交流，他为加入战斗以对抗邪恶的必要性进行了辩护，而不是选择非暴力的超然态度，最终篡夺了上帝决定最终事务的权力。然而，尼布尔从未支持激进的正义战争学说。为了调和基督教对爱的掌控与普遍罪恶所带来的严酷权力现实，尼布尔强调了谈判从基督教和平主义到支持干预主义政策的钟摆两个极端之间距离的必要性。本文认为，这不是他道德信念的模糊性的表现，而是他敏感地运用语境中的道德和政治判断作为行使神学责任的产物。
{"title":"Reinhold Niebuhr and the Christian realist pendulum","authors":"Vassilios Paipais","doi":"10.1177/1755088220979001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1755088220979001","url":null,"abstract":"Reinhold Niebuhr is widely acknowledged as the father of Christian realism and a staunch critic of pacifism. In a famous exchange with his brother H. Richard in The Christian Century, Niebuhr defended the necessity of entering the fray of battle to combat evil as opposed to opting for non-violent detachment that ultimately usurps God’s authority to decide on final matters. Niebuhr, however, never endorsed an aggressive Just War doctrine. Striving to reconcile the Christian command of love with the harsh realities of power resulting from universal sinfulness, Niebuhr emphasised the necessity of negotiating the distance between the two extremes of a pendulum swinging from Christian pacifism to the endorsement of interventionist policies. Rather than this being an expression of the ambiguity of his moral convictions, this paper argues that it is a product of his sensitivity to applying contextual moral and political judgement as an exercise of theological responsibility.","PeriodicalId":44237,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Political Theory","volume":"17 1","pages":"185 - 202"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1755088220979001","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43366682","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-04DOI: 10.1177/1755088220978996
J. Moses
This article considers the role that might be played by the political thought of Reinhold Niebuhr in contemporary debates over pacifism. It begins with an overview of Niebuhr’s changing position on pacifism, showing how his early commitment to anti-war principles gradually faded over time and was replaced with a pragmatic approach to just war thinking in his later life. The article then considers whether this drift away from pacifism necessarily means that there is nothing in Niebuhrian Christian realism for contemporary pacifist thought. Drawing on Niebuhr’s critique of perfectionist liberalism, it argues that an imperfect and non-absolute pacifism that accepts the permanent possibility of political violence but refuses to offer moral endorsement to such violence can offer a viable political position in current debates on war and peace, particularly in opposition to just war approaches.
{"title":"A Niebuhrian pacifism for an imperfect world","authors":"J. Moses","doi":"10.1177/1755088220978996","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1755088220978996","url":null,"abstract":"This article considers the role that might be played by the political thought of Reinhold Niebuhr in contemporary debates over pacifism. It begins with an overview of Niebuhr’s changing position on pacifism, showing how his early commitment to anti-war principles gradually faded over time and was replaced with a pragmatic approach to just war thinking in his later life. The article then considers whether this drift away from pacifism necessarily means that there is nothing in Niebuhrian Christian realism for contemporary pacifist thought. Drawing on Niebuhr’s critique of perfectionist liberalism, it argues that an imperfect and non-absolute pacifism that accepts the permanent possibility of political violence but refuses to offer moral endorsement to such violence can offer a viable political position in current debates on war and peace, particularly in opposition to just war approaches.","PeriodicalId":44237,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Political Theory","volume":"17 1","pages":"169 - 184"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1755088220978996","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42363433","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：