Pub Date : 2022-12-23DOI: 10.1080/09557571.2023.2159702
Benjamin Mueser
In his 1749 treatise on international law, the Prussian philosopher and jurist Christian Wolff considered the condition of the exile, one who is ‘deprived of the soil of his native land,’ (Wolff 2017, 113). Like many of the emigr e jurists who populate Mira Siegelberg’s study of statelessness in the twentieth century, the topic was not unfamiliar to Wolff, who had been expelled from his home in Halle in 1723 for his controversial views, only to return at the invitation of Frederick II in 1740. In this treatise, Wolff defended the authority of rulers to exile whomever they wished as punishment but urged that the condition of exile was ‘indicative of disaster, not disgrace,’ and exiles were particularly deserving of compassion for their suffering (§150). Moreover, Wolff insisted that because the earth was originally owned in common, ‘by nature the right belongs to an exile to dwell anywhere in the world’ (§147). Lacking a compelling reason otherwise, states were bound by the law of nations to admit an exile to live permanently on their land, because ‘he who is driven into exile cannot be driven out of the entire earth, for this cannot be done... unless life is destroyed,’ (§147). Yet Wolff left it unclear how the exile’s entitlement to world citizenship might be enforced. His idea of international law referred to the authority of the civitas maxima, a hypothesised world state, but it remained a theoretical proposition rather than an entity imbued with coercive power. No state could be compelled to accept exiles. This brief section of Wolff’s encapsulates many of the dynamics of Siegelberg’s complex account of modern statelessness, in which questions of the state’s sovereign right to regulate its own membership immediately prompted fundamental questions about the nature of the international. While Siegelberg focuses on the twentieth century, her book stimulates essential questions for the much longer history of inclusion and exclusion in international political thought. In her impressive study, Siegelberg inverts the way that scholars have usually told the history of statelessness. According to the conventional story, in the late nineteenth century and even more so after the First World War, the triumphant rise of nation-states coincided with both expulsions and tightening of nationality laws across Europe, resulting in countless persons becoming de facto, if not always de jure, stateless, lacking the protection of any state. Thus, received wisdom suggests that nation-states produced statelessness. This story, however, lies on the faulty premise that in the early twentieth century the nation-state, and accordingly, a global order defined by the exclusive membership of such states, was already dominant. But that was not the case,
{"title":"The promise and peril of statelessness","authors":"Benjamin Mueser","doi":"10.1080/09557571.2023.2159702","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2023.2159702","url":null,"abstract":"In his 1749 treatise on international law, the Prussian philosopher and jurist Christian Wolff considered the condition of the exile, one who is ‘deprived of the soil of his native land,’ (Wolff 2017, 113). Like many of the emigr e jurists who populate Mira Siegelberg’s study of statelessness in the twentieth century, the topic was not unfamiliar to Wolff, who had been expelled from his home in Halle in 1723 for his controversial views, only to return at the invitation of Frederick II in 1740. In this treatise, Wolff defended the authority of rulers to exile whomever they wished as punishment but urged that the condition of exile was ‘indicative of disaster, not disgrace,’ and exiles were particularly deserving of compassion for their suffering (§150). Moreover, Wolff insisted that because the earth was originally owned in common, ‘by nature the right belongs to an exile to dwell anywhere in the world’ (§147). Lacking a compelling reason otherwise, states were bound by the law of nations to admit an exile to live permanently on their land, because ‘he who is driven into exile cannot be driven out of the entire earth, for this cannot be done... unless life is destroyed,’ (§147). Yet Wolff left it unclear how the exile’s entitlement to world citizenship might be enforced. His idea of international law referred to the authority of the civitas maxima, a hypothesised world state, but it remained a theoretical proposition rather than an entity imbued with coercive power. No state could be compelled to accept exiles. This brief section of Wolff’s encapsulates many of the dynamics of Siegelberg’s complex account of modern statelessness, in which questions of the state’s sovereign right to regulate its own membership immediately prompted fundamental questions about the nature of the international. While Siegelberg focuses on the twentieth century, her book stimulates essential questions for the much longer history of inclusion and exclusion in international political thought. In her impressive study, Siegelberg inverts the way that scholars have usually told the history of statelessness. According to the conventional story, in the late nineteenth century and even more so after the First World War, the triumphant rise of nation-states coincided with both expulsions and tightening of nationality laws across Europe, resulting in countless persons becoming de facto, if not always de jure, stateless, lacking the protection of any state. Thus, received wisdom suggests that nation-states produced statelessness. This story, however, lies on the faulty premise that in the early twentieth century the nation-state, and accordingly, a global order defined by the exclusive membership of such states, was already dominant. But that was not the case,","PeriodicalId":51580,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Review of International Affairs","volume":"36 1","pages":"124 - 130"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2022-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48781909","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-20DOI: 10.1080/09557571.2023.2159699
Charles S. Maier
Mira Siegelberg has written an important and challenging book. It began as a doctoral dissertation that I was privileged to discuss with her as it took shape. The dissertation, in turn, originated with a profound question that presented both theoretical and practical challenges and I believe has continued as the underlying thread: what does statelessness imply in a world covered by and divided into states? How is it conceptually and legally accommodated? How does the condition of statelessness help define the world of nation-states? What is the civic status of the stateless subject, often expelled from his or her homeland, who lacks the credentials to claim entry elsewhere? To this end, Siegelberg has immersed herself in a century and a half of difficult legal thought, some of it well-known, but a great deal unearthed as the usually ignored articulations of our everyday practices. Her account pivots on key decision points with ramifications for international law, starting with the 1921 Stoeck case in Britain, where the supplicant living in Britain successfully claimed that he had divested himself of German citizenship and could not therefore be subject to the seizure of enemy alien property that Britain imposed in World War I. She examines the international conferences of the 1930s that sought without much success to codify the criteria for nationality, and she addresses the implications of the 1955 Nottebohm case a generation later in which the International Court of Justice ruled that effective citizenship required a substantive connection to a country (a criterion now undercut by some countries’ granting of nationality in return for investments, thus commodifying citizenship). Throughout, Siegelberg follows the arguments of notable legal scholars and political theorists, such as Hersch Lauterpacht, Hans Kelsen, and Hannah Arendt. She explains why Kelsen’s highly abstract legal theories, which to later readers could seem empty and formalist, were an important intervention. By and large she has discerned two remedial approaches: one seeking to compel individual states to mitigate the problem (a sad effort in the face of Soviet and National Socialist behaviour), the other creating international institutions that would provide the rights of travel, domicile, and minimal welfare that citizens of a state normally enjoy. Over the decades, she argues, the terms of debate changed from the initial sparring over whether individuals might even be recognised as subjects of international law to a richer consideration of what it meant to belong to a state or, conversely, to be deprived of that civic anchorage. The intellectual
{"title":"On statelessness: a modern history, the Francesco Guicciardini prize forum","authors":"Charles S. Maier","doi":"10.1080/09557571.2023.2159699","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2023.2159699","url":null,"abstract":"Mira Siegelberg has written an important and challenging book. It began as a doctoral dissertation that I was privileged to discuss with her as it took shape. The dissertation, in turn, originated with a profound question that presented both theoretical and practical challenges and I believe has continued as the underlying thread: what does statelessness imply in a world covered by and divided into states? How is it conceptually and legally accommodated? How does the condition of statelessness help define the world of nation-states? What is the civic status of the stateless subject, often expelled from his or her homeland, who lacks the credentials to claim entry elsewhere? To this end, Siegelberg has immersed herself in a century and a half of difficult legal thought, some of it well-known, but a great deal unearthed as the usually ignored articulations of our everyday practices. Her account pivots on key decision points with ramifications for international law, starting with the 1921 Stoeck case in Britain, where the supplicant living in Britain successfully claimed that he had divested himself of German citizenship and could not therefore be subject to the seizure of enemy alien property that Britain imposed in World War I. She examines the international conferences of the 1930s that sought without much success to codify the criteria for nationality, and she addresses the implications of the 1955 Nottebohm case a generation later in which the International Court of Justice ruled that effective citizenship required a substantive connection to a country (a criterion now undercut by some countries’ granting of nationality in return for investments, thus commodifying citizenship). Throughout, Siegelberg follows the arguments of notable legal scholars and political theorists, such as Hersch Lauterpacht, Hans Kelsen, and Hannah Arendt. She explains why Kelsen’s highly abstract legal theories, which to later readers could seem empty and formalist, were an important intervention. By and large she has discerned two remedial approaches: one seeking to compel individual states to mitigate the problem (a sad effort in the face of Soviet and National Socialist behaviour), the other creating international institutions that would provide the rights of travel, domicile, and minimal welfare that citizens of a state normally enjoy. Over the decades, she argues, the terms of debate changed from the initial sparring over whether individuals might even be recognised as subjects of international law to a richer consideration of what it meant to belong to a state or, conversely, to be deprived of that civic anchorage. The intellectual","PeriodicalId":51580,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Review of International Affairs","volume":"36 1","pages":"109 - 112"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2022-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47980976","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-20DOI: 10.1080/09557571.2023.2159698
K. Rietzler, P. Owens
We thank the Cambridge Review of International Affairs for organising this review and Juliette Gout, Rebecca Turkington and Lauren Wilcox for their engagement with Women’s International Thought: A New History. We were fortunate to collaborate with an exceptional interdisciplinary cast of authors to whose intellectual contributions and analyses we remain deeply indebted as they were vital for carrying out this project, and we would like to express our gratitude on their behalf, too. We would also like to acknowledge our indebtedness to the other collaborators on the Leverhulme Trust Research Project on Women and the History of International Thought, of which this edited volume is the first book-length output, namely Kimberly Hutchings, Sarah C. Dunstan, and Joanna Wood. Given the long history of disparaging women’s intellectual production and the ways in which this has, at times, forced feminist scholars to restate earlier arguments, it was important to us to make space for feminist recovery work as indispensable to the project of international intellectual and disciplinary history. We are, therefore, grateful to Wilcox for pre-empting any notion that historical recovery ‘might seem a dated gesture in 2021.’ It seems important, especially in a project focused on intellectual erasure, to recognise the ground-breaking forms of recovery work that earlier generations of feminist scholars established, even if scholars today choose to revise some of the categories and terms of earlier iterations of this work. As Dale Spender pointed out some time ago, the loss of knowledge from one generation to the next has been a formidable obstacle to both understanding women’s intellectual production and feminism as a political movement (Spender 1983a, 1983b). Even scholars who were wary of an exaggerated emphasis on recovery, calling it the ‘hunting-gathering school’ of women’s history, and who regarded it as only the first step in a wider intellectual enterprise, were adamant that recovery was necessary to any project of rewriting and reformulating the history and current practices of scholarly fields and intellectual movements, at least until the processes and structures of erasure cease to exist (Lerner 1979, 149; Marcus 1983, 242). With this volume, then, we are
{"title":"The Joseph Fletcher prize forum: response to reviewers","authors":"K. Rietzler, P. Owens","doi":"10.1080/09557571.2023.2159698","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2023.2159698","url":null,"abstract":"We thank the Cambridge Review of International Affairs for organising this review and Juliette Gout, Rebecca Turkington and Lauren Wilcox for their engagement with Women’s International Thought: A New History. We were fortunate to collaborate with an exceptional interdisciplinary cast of authors to whose intellectual contributions and analyses we remain deeply indebted as they were vital for carrying out this project, and we would like to express our gratitude on their behalf, too. We would also like to acknowledge our indebtedness to the other collaborators on the Leverhulme Trust Research Project on Women and the History of International Thought, of which this edited volume is the first book-length output, namely Kimberly Hutchings, Sarah C. Dunstan, and Joanna Wood. Given the long history of disparaging women’s intellectual production and the ways in which this has, at times, forced feminist scholars to restate earlier arguments, it was important to us to make space for feminist recovery work as indispensable to the project of international intellectual and disciplinary history. We are, therefore, grateful to Wilcox for pre-empting any notion that historical recovery ‘might seem a dated gesture in 2021.’ It seems important, especially in a project focused on intellectual erasure, to recognise the ground-breaking forms of recovery work that earlier generations of feminist scholars established, even if scholars today choose to revise some of the categories and terms of earlier iterations of this work. As Dale Spender pointed out some time ago, the loss of knowledge from one generation to the next has been a formidable obstacle to both understanding women’s intellectual production and feminism as a political movement (Spender 1983a, 1983b). Even scholars who were wary of an exaggerated emphasis on recovery, calling it the ‘hunting-gathering school’ of women’s history, and who regarded it as only the first step in a wider intellectual enterprise, were adamant that recovery was necessary to any project of rewriting and reformulating the history and current practices of scholarly fields and intellectual movements, at least until the processes and structures of erasure cease to exist (Lerner 1979, 149; Marcus 1983, 242). With this volume, then, we are","PeriodicalId":51580,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Review of International Affairs","volume":"36 1","pages":"105 - 108"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2022-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42945473","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-19DOI: 10.1080/09557571.2022.2136566
H. Dijkstra, Laura von Allwörden, L. Schuette, G. Zaccaria
{"title":"Donald Trump and the survival strategies of international organisations: when can institutional actors counter existential challenges?","authors":"H. Dijkstra, Laura von Allwörden, L. Schuette, G. Zaccaria","doi":"10.1080/09557571.2022.2136566","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2022.2136566","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51580,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Review of International Affairs","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2022-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48626855","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-19DOI: 10.1080/09557571.2023.2159703
Zainab Olaitan
Mbiyozo (2019) argues that statelessness is a problem that is not new to the international community, as some states implement policies that denationalise their citizens as a form of sanction to exclude individuals they deem undesirable. Denationalisation raises the need to understand the discourse that surrounds statelessness in order to come up with preventive measures. This need, as well as questions such as ‘what is statelessness?’ and ‘within what boundaries can an individual be acknowledged as being stateless?’ informs the necessity for Mira Siegelberg’s book Statelessness: A Modern History. The continuous insistence of states to wield absolute authority over nationality legislation and citizenship makes this book an important and timely intervention. It examines the debates on jurisdiction over nationality legislation, while taking the reader through the necessary journey of understanding how the international legal order defined concepts such as citizenship, nationality etc. Methodologically, Siegelberg presents a chapter-by-chapter periodic historical analysis of the legal theories, writings and debates on statelessness starting from pre-World War I to the postcold war era. The book also focuses on dedicated efforts by the international system to understand statelessness and define what it means in order to formally recognise it, as well as the reactions of intergovernmental organisations. Siegelberg asserts that the central aim of the book is to ‘reconstruct and clarify the arguments that shaped the stabilisation of understanding of citizenships, nationality, and the boundaries of political membership’ (3). In pursuing this, she investigates how the problem of statelessness informed theories of rights, sovereignty, international legal order, and other pertinent legal theories against the formation of the modern interstate order (3). Furthermore, she argues that statelessness exposes the limitation in how statehood and political membership have been defined in international law. There are 6 chapters in the book, each of which contributing to the historical analysis of statelessness, followed by a conclusion providing a balanced insight into the thesis of the book as it beautifully summarises the previous chapters in a way that provides utmost clarity for the reader. The first chapter traces the history of how statelessness moved from a subject of fiction to reality. It starts by showing prior works that have been written on persons without a state who were not acknowledged as stateless. It focuses on the story of Max Stoeck, a former German national who was voluntarily denationalised and moved to Britain to work in a multinational corporation only to escape
{"title":"A modern history of statelessness and the socio-political question","authors":"Zainab Olaitan","doi":"10.1080/09557571.2023.2159703","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2023.2159703","url":null,"abstract":"Mbiyozo (2019) argues that statelessness is a problem that is not new to the international community, as some states implement policies that denationalise their citizens as a form of sanction to exclude individuals they deem undesirable. Denationalisation raises the need to understand the discourse that surrounds statelessness in order to come up with preventive measures. This need, as well as questions such as ‘what is statelessness?’ and ‘within what boundaries can an individual be acknowledged as being stateless?’ informs the necessity for Mira Siegelberg’s book Statelessness: A Modern History. The continuous insistence of states to wield absolute authority over nationality legislation and citizenship makes this book an important and timely intervention. It examines the debates on jurisdiction over nationality legislation, while taking the reader through the necessary journey of understanding how the international legal order defined concepts such as citizenship, nationality etc. Methodologically, Siegelberg presents a chapter-by-chapter periodic historical analysis of the legal theories, writings and debates on statelessness starting from pre-World War I to the postcold war era. The book also focuses on dedicated efforts by the international system to understand statelessness and define what it means in order to formally recognise it, as well as the reactions of intergovernmental organisations. Siegelberg asserts that the central aim of the book is to ‘reconstruct and clarify the arguments that shaped the stabilisation of understanding of citizenships, nationality, and the boundaries of political membership’ (3). In pursuing this, she investigates how the problem of statelessness informed theories of rights, sovereignty, international legal order, and other pertinent legal theories against the formation of the modern interstate order (3). Furthermore, she argues that statelessness exposes the limitation in how statehood and political membership have been defined in international law. There are 6 chapters in the book, each of which contributing to the historical analysis of statelessness, followed by a conclusion providing a balanced insight into the thesis of the book as it beautifully summarises the previous chapters in a way that provides utmost clarity for the reader. The first chapter traces the history of how statelessness moved from a subject of fiction to reality. It starts by showing prior works that have been written on persons without a state who were not acknowledged as stateless. It focuses on the story of Max Stoeck, a former German national who was voluntarily denationalised and moved to Britain to work in a multinational corporation only to escape","PeriodicalId":51580,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Review of International Affairs","volume":"36 1","pages":"131 - 135"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2022-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48414796","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-14DOI: 10.1080/09557571.2022.2145180
O. B. Dınçer
{"title":"The legacy of the Arab uprisings on Turkey’s foreign policy: Ankara’s regional power delusion","authors":"O. B. Dınçer","doi":"10.1080/09557571.2022.2145180","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2022.2145180","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51580,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Review of International Affairs","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2022-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47714978","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-02DOI: 10.1080/09557571.2022.2130663
Italo Brandimarte, Martin Kirsch
{"title":"Letter from the editors","authors":"Italo Brandimarte, Martin Kirsch","doi":"10.1080/09557571.2022.2130663","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2022.2130663","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51580,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Review of International Affairs","volume":"35 1","pages":"773 - 774"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2022-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46960027","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-09DOI: 10.1080/09557571.2022.2130665
Z. Çapan, J. Grzybowski
Abstract ‘The international’ is the background condition that holds together inquiries of international politics, orders, systems, societies, practices, and so forth. Albeit being usually taken for granted, its foundational function begs the questions of what the international actually is or, instead, what conceptualisations of the international imply, project, and do. Periodic discussions in International Relations (IR) about the international as the subject matter of the field routinely revolve around attempts to fix its definition, to consciously escape it, or to return to a pragmatic approach of using rather than questioning the concept of the international. In bringing the international from the background to the fore, this Special Section investigates explicit and implicit conceptualisations of the international, and their implications. It does so in a variety of ways and areas. The special section focuses on dynamics of reification and reflection, on how the ‘international’ is opposed to the ‘transnational’ or ‘the world’, how it is denied or seemingly superseded, and how it yet retains its conceptual significance.
{"title":"(Re-)conceptualising the international: introduction to the special section","authors":"Z. Çapan, J. Grzybowski","doi":"10.1080/09557571.2022.2130665","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2022.2130665","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract ‘The international’ is the background condition that holds together inquiries of international politics, orders, systems, societies, practices, and so forth. Albeit being usually taken for granted, its foundational function begs the questions of what the international actually is or, instead, what conceptualisations of the international imply, project, and do. Periodic discussions in International Relations (IR) about the international as the subject matter of the field routinely revolve around attempts to fix its definition, to consciously escape it, or to return to a pragmatic approach of using rather than questioning the concept of the international. In bringing the international from the background to the fore, this Special Section investigates explicit and implicit conceptualisations of the international, and their implications. It does so in a variety of ways and areas. The special section focuses on dynamics of reification and reflection, on how the ‘international’ is opposed to the ‘transnational’ or ‘the world’, how it is denied or seemingly superseded, and how it yet retains its conceptual significance.","PeriodicalId":51580,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Review of International Affairs","volume":"35 1","pages":"775 - 782"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2022-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47835516","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-04DOI: 10.1080/09557571.2022.2130667
Marius-Ionuț Ghincea
{"title":"Srdjan Vucetic, Greatness and decline: national identity and British foreign policy","authors":"Marius-Ionuț Ghincea","doi":"10.1080/09557571.2022.2130667","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2022.2130667","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51580,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Review of International Affairs","volume":"35 1","pages":"936 - 938"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2022-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43441369","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-04DOI: 10.1080/09557571.2022.2130030
David Grealy
Abstract Following his appointment as Foreign Secretary in February 1977, David Owen framed human rights promotion as a guiding principle of British foreign policy. Sensitive to Iran’s significance as a pro-Western power in the Middle East and appreciative of the opportunities that the Shah’s custom provided for British business, Owen would continue to champion human rights promotion as a central pillar of Britain’s international agenda while simultaneously providing support to the Shah’s dictatorship. This article scrutinises Owen’s attempts to rationalise this fundamental contradiction by constructing a ‘morality of compromise’ which drew inspiration, inter alia, from the value pluralism espoused by the philosopher Isaiah Berlin. In so doing, analysis not only complements and builds upon existing coverage of Anglo-Iranian relations and the marginalisation of human rights concerns therein; it also highlights the importance of moral psychology and its role in shaping ethical foreign policymaking at an individual level.
{"title":"The ‘morality of compromise’: David Owen, human rights diplomacy and the fall of the Pahlavi dynasty","authors":"David Grealy","doi":"10.1080/09557571.2022.2130030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2022.2130030","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Following his appointment as Foreign Secretary in February 1977, David Owen framed human rights promotion as a guiding principle of British foreign policy. Sensitive to Iran’s significance as a pro-Western power in the Middle East and appreciative of the opportunities that the Shah’s custom provided for British business, Owen would continue to champion human rights promotion as a central pillar of Britain’s international agenda while simultaneously providing support to the Shah’s dictatorship. This article scrutinises Owen’s attempts to rationalise this fundamental contradiction by constructing a ‘morality of compromise’ which drew inspiration, inter alia, from the value pluralism espoused by the philosopher Isaiah Berlin. In so doing, analysis not only complements and builds upon existing coverage of Anglo-Iranian relations and the marginalisation of human rights concerns therein; it also highlights the importance of moral psychology and its role in shaping ethical foreign policymaking at an individual level.","PeriodicalId":51580,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Review of International Affairs","volume":"36 1","pages":"474 - 491"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2022-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49410476","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","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：