International anarchy and political theology: rethinking the legacy of Thomas Hobbes
In: Journal of international relations and development, Band 22, Heft 2, S. 278-299
ISSN: 1581-1980
62 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Journal of international relations and development, Band 22, Heft 2, S. 278-299
ISSN: 1581-1980
In: Global discourse: an interdisciplinary journal of current affairs and applied contemporary thought, Band 5, Heft 2, S. 280-285
ISSN: 2043-7897
In: History of European ideas, Band 41, Heft 1, S. 13-28
ISSN: 0191-6599
Scholars of international relations generally invoke Hobbes as the quintessential theorist of international anarchy. David Armitage challenges this characterisation, arguing that Hobbes is regarded as a foundational figure in international relations theory in spite of as much as because of what he wrote on the subject. Thus, for Armitage, Hobbes is not the theorist of anarchy that he is made out to be. This article agrees with the general thrust of Armitage's critique while maintaining that it is still possible to imagine Hobbes as a theorist of anarchy. Hobbes is a theorist of anarchy, not in a political sense, but in a metaphysical sense. This conception of anarchy is a reflection of a comprehensive theological account of reality that is grounded in an omnipotent God. Any historical inquiry into the foundations of modern international thought must take account of theology, because theology defines the ultimate coordinates of reality in terms of which the concepts of international thought are intelligible. [Copyright Elsevier Ltd.]
In: History of European ideas, Band 41, Heft 1, S. 13-28
ISSN: 0191-6599
In: History of European ideas, Band 41, Heft 1, S. 13-28
ISSN: 0191-6599
In: Guide to the English School in International Studies, S. 159-169
In: History of political thought, Band 34, Heft 4, S. 588-613
ISSN: 0143-781X
In: Theoria: a journal of social and political theory, Band 59, Heft 133, S. 1-20
ISSN: 1558-5816
In: Review of international studies: RIS, Band 36, S. 25-47
ISSN: 0260-2105
In: Review of international studies: RIS, Band 36, Heft S1, S. 25-46
ISSN: 1469-9044
AbstractThis article takes up Louise Arbour's claim that the doctrine of the 'Responsibility to Protect' is grounded in existing obligations of international law, specifically those pertaining to the prevention and punishment of genocide. In doing so, it argues that the aspirations of the R2P project cannot be sustained by the idea of 'responsibility' alone. The article proceeds in arguing that the coherence of R2P depends on an unacknowledged and unarticulated theory of obligation that connects notions of culpability, blame, and accountability with the kind of preventive, punitive, and restorative action that Arbour and others advocate. Two theories of obligation are then offered, one natural the other conventional, which make this connection explicit. But the ensuing clarity comes at a cost: the naturalist account escapes the 'real' world to redeem the intrinsic dignity of all men and women, while the conventionalist account remains firmly tethered to the 'real' world in redeeming whatever dignity can be had by way of an agreement. The article concludes by arguing that the advocate of the responsibility to protect can have one or the other, but not both.
In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies
"The Pluralist–Solidarist Debate in the English School" published on by Oxford University Press.
In: Journal of intervention and statebuilding, Band 3, Heft 2, S. 143-161
ISSN: 1750-2977
World Affairs Online
In: Journal of intervention and statebuilding, Band 3, Heft 2, S. 143-161
ISSN: 1750-2985
In: International politics: a journal of transnational issues and global problems, Band 44, Heft 5, S. 513-530
ISSN: 1740-3898
In: International politics, Band 44, Heft 5, S. 513-530
ISSN: 1384-5748
World Affairs Online