Suchergebnisse

On both theoretical and analytic accounts, cosmopolitanism and realism seem destined to bypass each other, one entering, at best, the normative dimension of social science, the other, stressing its positive dimension. In this article, I want to suggest that this opposition needs to be unsettled for future theorization and (perhaps) practice of world politics. Taking these two schools of thought is exemplary since their respective theoretical modalities and tenets seem so far opposed. Arguing for convergence between them constitutes part of an emerging attempt, on the part of political philosophers, theorists and international relations scholars today, to recast the conceptual landscape of international relations in response to present complexities of political agency. This convergence is here situated in terms of: (1) the legitimacy of power; (2) the increasing immanence of justice to power in an interdependent world; and (3) the importance of moral leadership in the world political domain. The article is theoretical in modality and diction; outstanding empirical questions are posed once these points are made.

An examination of excess in the thinking of French philosophers Jacques Derrida, Emmanuel Levinas, & Jean-Francois Lyotard highlights the notion that difference & individuality are less likely to be affirmed through institutional apprehension & determination than through "negotiation with the excess of such apprehension & determination." This argument is considered in light of the recent upsurge of religion. Special attention is given to the "axis of modernity" (key differences between Kant's & Hegel's understandings of the limit between faith & knowledge) & the relation of French thought to this axis. Situating a major gesture of French thought against both the context of the contemporary return of religion & the axis of modernity suggests that the move to excess of determination & affirmation of difference beyond, rather than through, knowledge & institution are understandable within Marxism, the Shoah, & the amalgamation of science/technology. Emphasis is placed on the urgent need for critical thought to respond to the recent resurgence of religion. J. Lindroth

This paper considers the legacy of Derrida's thought in the context of the future challenge of contemporary politics: the construction of world polity. It rehearses, first, the steps of the recent `reconciliation' between Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida, and suggests, from out of the terms of this reconciliation, that the deconstruction of reason has been caught out by the contemporary movements of irrationalism. It then deepens this historical viewpoint by giving a neo-Marxist account of modern history in economic and political terms and by setting up from out of this history the continuing problematic of modernity above and beyond recent distinctions between the modern and the postmodern. The third section of the paper returns to Derrida's late work on world democracy, underlines its critical rigour with regard to modernity, the dilemma of law and world sovereignty, and shows how this rigor can be considered to address critically our future political challenge. The fourth section then contends that the way in which Derridean thought disposes itself to the real but nevertheless occludes concerted development of our historical actuality and, in this sense, falls short of the critical. I conclude, accordingly, by arguing for a renewed engagement between critical philosophy and social science, with a focus on the promotion of international institutions and strong interdisciplinary work between international relations, international economics, and political philosophy.

Abstract
This special issue argues in favor of a new approach to the study of norms of warfare, which combines a normative analysis of ethical problems arising in war with an explanatory analysis of the use of force. Norms of warfare go as far back as Antiquity, and their study has followed a long historical path. In recent years, the ethics of war, mostly grounded in philosophy, has considerably expanded as a field. Notwithstanding such efforts to refine our normative knowledge of what should be just norms for the use of force, we argue that a more interdisciplinary approach is required to orient the study of the laws of war. In this Special Issue, proposals are made that, along with normative analysis, bring to the discussion not only disciplines such as political science and international relations, but also social theory, psychology and the neurosciences. We argue from a non-ideal perspective, that in order for norms to be just, they need to be 'plausible' for those who should abide by them. They also need to make sense in the context of democratic societies that favor a pluralistic debate on justice and ethics. Epistemically, we argue that, in order to understand if norms are plausible and just, reducing the gap between the normative and the empirical is required.

This special issue argues in favor of a new approach to the study of norms of warfare,which combines a normative analysis of ethical problems arising in war with anexplanatory analysis of the use of force. Norms of warfare go as far back as Antiquity,and their study has followed a long historical path. In recent years, the ethics of war,mostly grounded in philosophy, has considerably expanded as a field. Notwithstandingsuch efforts to refine our normative knowledge of what should be just norms for theuse of force, we argue that a more interdisciplinary approach is required to orient thestudy of the laws of war. In this Special Issue, proposals are made that, along withnormative analysis, bring to the discussion not only disciplines such as political scienceand international relations, but also social theory, psychology and the neurosciences.We argue from a non-ideal perspective, that in order for norms to be just, they needto be 'plausible' for those who should abide by them. They also need to make sense inthe context of democratic societies that favor a pluralistic debate on justice and ethics.Epistemically, we argue that, in order to understand if norms are plausible and just,reducing the gap between the normative and the empirical is required.

This special issue argues in favor of a new approach to the study of norms of warfare,which combines a normative analysis of ethical problems arising in war with anexplanatory analysis of the use of force. Norms of warfare go as far back as Antiquity,and their study has followed a long historical path. In recent years, the ethics of war,mostly grounded in philosophy, has considerably expanded as a field. Notwithstandingsuch efforts to refine our normative knowledge of what should be just norms for theuse of force, we argue that a more interdisciplinary approach is required to orient thestudy of the laws of war. In this Special Issue, proposals are made that, along withnormative analysis, bring to the discussion not only disciplines such as political scienceand international relations, but also social theory, psychology and the neurosciences.We argue from a non-ideal perspective, that in order for norms to be just, they needto be 'plausible' for those who should abide by them. They also need to make sense inthe context of democratic societies that favor a pluralistic debate on justice and ethics.Epistemically, we argue that, in order to understand if norms are plausible and just,reducing the gap between the normative and the empirical is required.

Investigating the potential role that states can play in cosmopolitan thinking, this text identifies how states could be agents for the advancement of cosmopolitan responsibilities.

This Introduction presents the seven closely interlinked papers that explore the theme of this Special Issue, and one of the enduring existential questions for International Relations: the nuclear condition in the twenty-first century. The Special Issue is the second to come from two workshops sponsored by a UK Leverhulme grant, and it builds upon the first, more theoretical Special Issue, which brought Classical Realist and Critical Theory texts into dialogue. The major concern in the first Special Issue—the focus on modernity, crises, and humanity—is taken up here in more grounded practical terms, framed around the existential fears of nuclear annihilation. Each of the contributions re-assess the contemporary nuclear condition from within the theoretical frameworks provided by Classical Realism and Critical Theory. The engagement with both traditions allows the contributors to diagnose what is new, and what remains constant, in the contemporary nuclear condition.