International law, International Relations theory and post-atrocity justice: towards a genuine dialogue

For much of the twentieth century, a chasm divided the disciplines of international relations and international law, with relatively little communication and even less mutual comprehension. In particular, this period saw the increasing exclusion of international law from the study of international relations, with key texts removed from reading lists. Perhaps the most obvious and significant reason for this exclusion was the dominance of the realist, and later, neorealist schools of thought in international relations. This phenomenon was certainly most notable in the United States, where the dominance of realism was most extensive. However, in recent decades, a rapprochement between the two disciplines has been attempted, led in the first instance largely by international lawyers. Despite significant efforts at bridging the gap, however, this article argues that a genuine dialogue has yet to emerge. Using insights from debates in and across each discipline about appropriate responses to mass atrocities, this article offers suggestions for creating such a dialogue.     

Fear, interest and honour: outlines of a theory of International Relations

This article justifies the need for a new paradigm of politics based on the spirit. Fifth-century Greeks considered it one of three psychic drives, the other two being appetite and reason. The spirit reflects the universal human need for self-esteem, which is achieved by emulating the skills, character and accomplishments of people considered praiseworthy by our society. According to Socrates, the spirit loves honour and victory. It responds with anger to any impediment to self-assertion in private or civic life. It desires to avenge all slights of honour or standing to ourselves and our friends. It demands immediate action, which can result in ill-considered behaviour, but can be advantageous in circumstances where rapid responses are necessary. Even a cursory examination of international relations in this modern period indicates the continuing importance of the spirit, and the need to conceptualize it in a manner that helps us to understand this important but hitherto ignored dimension of politics at every level of social aggregation.     

Beware of false prophets: biology, human nature and the future of International Relations theory

The disciplinary history of International Relations (IR) has been marked by confrontation between those who believe that the study of politics can and should be modelled on the natural sciences, a position defended most forcibly in the United States, and those who have dissented, viewing this ambition as methodologically unjustified and ethically undesirable. But the scientific template against which to judge such claims is constantly shifting. In this article it is suggested that mainstream IR theorists are likely to turn increasingly to the biological sciences for inspiration and intellectual legitimacy. Some of the possibilities and problems involved in this move are explored, focusing in particular on the prominent role played by evolutionary psychology in the social sciences. A variety of reasons are offered, political and theoretical, as to why IR scholars should be extremely wary of looking to the biological sciences to provide universalistic accounts of human behavioural patterns.     

现代大众政治的兴起与其欧洲国际政治效应

以选民范围急剧扩大为主要的直接由来,中、西欧国家政治在19世纪末至20世纪初年普遍转变为现代大众政治。与此相伴,公众舆论对国家对外政策的影响变得显和频繁;各类(特别是殖民、经济和军事三类)利益集团积极干预甚至操纵对外政策的形成;很大程度上植根于大众非理性情感、并且多半由大众传媒表述和助长的极端民族主义和帝国主义则构成欧洲及世界政治中的一大恶性力量。总之,现代大众政治的兴起是欧洲传统外交和国际政治变更的一项重要原因。     

Halliday's revenge: revolutions and International Relations

Fred Halliday saw revolution and war as the dual motors of modern international order. However, while war occupies a prominent place in International Relations (IR), revolutions inhabit a more residual location. For Halliday, this is out of keeping with their impact—in particular, revolutions offer a systemic challenge to existing patterns of international order in their capacity to generate alternative orders founded on novel forms of political rule, economic organization and symbolic authority. In this way, dynamics of revolution and counter‐revolution are closely associated with processes of international conflict, intervention and war. It may be that one of the reasons for Halliday's failure to make apparent the importance of revolutions to IR audiences was that, for all his empirical illustrations of how revolutions affected the international realm, he did not formulate a coherent theoretical schema which spoke systematically to the discipline. This article assesses Halliday's contribution to the study of revolutions, and sets out an approach which both recognizes and extends his work. By formulating ideal‐typical ‘anatomies of revolution’, it is possible to generate insights that clarify the ways in which revolutions shape international order.     

US—European Relations: Past and Future

In this revised text of a lecture delivered at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in June 2003, Stanley Hoffmann traces the history of America's close postwar alliance with western Europe. Out of the treaty in which America undertook to protect western Europe came the organization of NATO. Despite the difficulties and differences of opinion among its members in the early years—decolonization, German rearmament, Vietnam, US—French relations—the alliance survived and continued to survive after 1991 despite losing its main enemy, the Soviet Union. It then became a tool for managing relations between members and the newly liberated countries of central and eastern Europe and Russia. After the first Gulf War, however, NATO became a field for US—European relations, encompassing rivalry over approaches to eastern Europe, and cooperation in the Balkans. September 11 and the 'war on terrorism' marked the real turning point in the alliance and the subsequent war in Iraq in 2003 exposed deep divisions in the approach to international relations. Stanley Hoffmann concludes that it is still unclear how far Iraq has affected the substance of US foreign policy and its relations with Europe. It may be possible to predict, however, that the central importance of Europe for the US will remain under a cloud—'the days of relative harmony have not returned'.