| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
085422
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Drawing on Kant and Hegel, debates in political theory and international relations generally assume that an identity cannot be created without the simultaneous creation and negative stereotypy of an `other'. Figures such as Schmitt and Huntington accept and even welcome this binary, while others, among them Nietzsche, Habermas and Rawls, look for ways of overcoming it. Drawing on Homer's Iliad and psychological research, I challenge the assumptions on which Kant and Hegel, and their successors, build their argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
085419
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article argues that the political theory of John H. Herz - best known in International Relations (IR) for the invention of the concept of the security dilemma - reveals a sophisticated body of thought deeply relevant to the ongoing attempt to resurrect classical realism. Like other forms of classical realism, the Herzian variant was strategic and rhetorical in character. Beneath its realist posture we find a liberal ideology focused on achieving order, progress and justice in international politics. Although this positive project began from a pessimistic rendering of the political, Herz's political theory was never fatalistic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
085426
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article situates John Herz's work within the perennial debate about realism and idealism, and the issue of whether and how the two sets of ideas can be reconciled. The variety of `realist' and `idealist' concepts and conceptualisations within Herz's work, and his attempt to combine them in an approach he called `Realist Liberalism', reveals the inadequacy of the addiction of many teachers and researchers in academic international relations to stick unhelpful labels on theorists (such as `Realist') who advance complex and sometimes apparently contradictory intellectual positions. Placing Herz's work alongside other theorists who have grappled with the relationships between realism and idealism - notably Carr and Rawls - the article argues for categorising ideas and not individuals. More importantly, a case is made for the continuing validity of seeking to comprehend IR in terms of the interplay of idealism and realism, and for greater recognition of Herz's contribution to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
085420
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
John Herz pioneered global thinking in international relations in the mid-twentieth century with his advocacy of `survival research'. The `planetary interest' reflects similar thinking. The `vital planetary interest' identifies fundamental issues of human survival, emphasising legitimate global policy-making and enforcement power. Global policies require a pursuit of the `legitimate national interest'. This approach to IR carries revolutionary implications for the traditional political process (national policy-making) and diplomatic method (international negotiating). The conceptual framework of the `planetary interest' should be placed in a broader jurisprudential framework of `global constitutionalism'. Further work is required to develop `survival research' and the `planetary interest'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
085424
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
It is well known in the literature on security dilemma theorising that John Herz coined the concept in the early 1950s, with Herbert Butterfield developing a very similar concept at the same time. What is less well appreciated is that Butterfield powerfully argued in his 1951 book History and Human Relations that there was no prospect of state leaders and diplomats overcoming the dynamics of mutual suspicion and distrust that created what he had chosen to call a condition of `Hobbesian fear'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|