Search results

In Scientific Man vs. Power Politics (1946), Hans Morgenthau celebrated the noble role of the statesman, whose tragic destiny entailed accepting the agonizing moral burden of committing lesser evils as the inescapable price for securing the greater good. In this elitist vision, the statesman is primarily accountable to personal conscience rather than to the poorly informed, undisciplined judgment of any democratic electorate. In focusing on the statesman's pivotal role, Morgenthau glossed over the ways the New Deal and the Second World War had transformed the institutional context within which American presidents made foreign policy. As he shifted his attention to American policy toward Vietnam in the late 1950s and the 1960s, however, his view of presidential leadership and the executive branch changed significantly. Morgenthau came to see the growth of the national security state and the unaccountable exercise of executive power as a twin threat to the foundations of republican government. His critique emphasized the pathologies of policymaking insulated within this state apparatus. He learned that one problem with the lesser-evil approach is that the moral distinctions on which it is predicated are relative and contingent in practice: that which was once proscribed from the policymaker's toolbox can readily become the prescribed instrument after the justifying precedent has been established.

There is nothing new or even faintly original in the neoconservative foreign policy vision. It simply recycles the old national security ideology for a post-Cold War era. Consistent with this ideological agenda, conservatives have also been advancing the case for the strong executive who operates above the law. In championing the principle of the strong executive, they are seeking to re-define the meaning of modern republicanism around this principle. During the 1960s Hannah Arendt and Hans Morgenthau developed a broad critique of the national security state and its ideology in their opposition to the Vietnam War. This essay examines their critique, and the alternative conception of republicanism they developed as part of this critique.

Recent scholarship has called attention to the republican dimension of Hans Morgenthau's approach to politics in the postwar era, but the role republicanism played in his thought remains ambiguous. This essay examines that role, and explores its tensions with other aspects of his understanding of politics. It argues that he expanded and deepened his approach to politics as he developed a republican critique of American domestic politics. However, his conception of international politics remained rooted in the reason-of-state tradition, and evinces little evidence of his increasing engagement with republicanism. In this selective use of republicanism, he left its tensions with other aspects of his thinking unresolved, but this usage also suggests his recognition of the inadequacy of the original formulation of his realist approach. In considering what IR theorists today may learn from republicanism, his example is highly instructive in any effort to reconstruct the foundations of realism.

Do government officials, who have taken an affirmative oath to uphold the constitution, have any legitimate claim to disobey the law? We argue that they do. Indeed, the nature of law itself requires officials to have some mechanism to enforce the secondary rules or if one prefers, the associative obligations, upon which their authority is based. When institutional structures and official behavior makes it impossible for officials to subordinate government activity to the rule of law, then other officials may be excused from legal constraints for the limited purpose of ensuring accountability. We use arguments from legal, constitutional and political theory to illustrate this narrow excuse.

German migration policy now stands at a major crossroad, caught between a fifty-year history of missed opportunities and serious new challenges. Focusing on these new challenges that German policy makers face, the authors, both internationally recognized in this field, use historical argument, theoretical analysis, and empirical evaluation to advance a more nuanced understanding of recent initiatives and the implications of these initiatives

Citizenship policies are changing rapidly in the face of global migration trends and the inevitable ethnic and racial diversity that follows. The debates are fierce. What should the requirements of citizenship be' How can multi-ethnic states forge a collective identity around a common set of values, beliefs and practices' What are appropriate criteria for admission and rights and duties of citizens' This book includes nine case studies that investigate immigration and citizenship in Australia, the Baltic States, Canada, the European Union, Israel, Mexico, Russia, South Africa and the United States. This complete collection of essays scrutinizes the concrete rules and policies by which states administer citizenship, and highlights similarities and differences in their policies. From Migrants to Citizens, the only comprehensive guide to citizenship policies in these liberal-democratic and emerging states, will be an invaluable reference for scholars in law, political science, and citizenship theory. Policymakers and government officials involved in managing citizenship policy in the United States and abroad will find this an excellent, accessible overview of the critical dilemmas that multi-ethnic societies face as a result of migration and global interdependencies at the end of the twentieth century

The forms, policies, and practices of citizenship are changing rapidly around the globe, and the meaning of these changes is the subject of deep dispute. Citizenship Today brings together leading experts in their field to define the core issues at stake in the citizenship debates. The first section investigates central trends in national citizenship policy that govern access to citizenship, the rights of aliens, and plural nationality. The following section explores how forms of citizenship and their practice are, can, and should be located within broader institutional structures. The third section examines different conceptions of citizenship as developed in the official policies of governments, the scholarly literature, and the practice of immigrants and the final part looks at the future for citizenship policy. Contributors include Rainer BaubOck (Austrian Academy of Sciences), Linda Bosniak (Rutgers University School of Law, Camden), Francis Mading Deng (Brookings Institute), Adrian Favell (University of Sussex, UK), Richard Thompson Ford (Stanford University), Vicki C. Jackson (Georgetown University Law Center), Paul Johnston (Citizenship Project), Christian Joppke (European University Institute, Florence), Karen Knop (University of Toronto), Micheline Labelle (UniversitE du QuEbec A MontrEal), Daniel SalEe (Concordia University, Montreal), and Patrick Weil (University of Paris 1, Sorbonne)

Introduction / Cornelia Navari 21. - Crisis, Values, and the Purpose of Science: Hans Morgenthau in Europe / Felix Rösch 23. - Scientific Man vs. Power Politics: A Pamphlet and Its Author between Two Academic Cultures / Hartmut Behr 33. - Politics Among Nations: Revisiting a Classic / Christoph Frei 39. - Hans Morgenthau and the National Interest / Cornelia Navari 47. - Hans Morgenthau and The Purpose of American Politics / Richard Ned Lebow 55. - Death of the Statesman as Tragic Hero: Hans Morgenthau on the Vietnam War / Douglas B. Klusmeyer 63

The first reference work to explore the 2000-year history of political realism and reassess its place in today's worldDownload an ebook of the chapter abstracts and notes on contributors (pdf)Political realism is a highly diverse body of international relations theory. This substantial reference work examines political realism in terms of its history, its scientific methodology and its normative role in international affairs.Split into three sections, it covers the 2000-year canon of realism: the different schools of thought, the key thinkers and how it responds to foreign policy challenges faced by individual states and globally. It brings political realism up-to-date by showing where theory has failed to keep up with contemporary problems and suggests how it can be applied and adapted to fit our new, globalised world order.Key FeaturesThe first volume to offer a full, balanced guide to Political Realism: its history and its normative role in international affairsCovers the main thinkers, from Thucydides through Niccolò Machiavelli to Isaiah BerlinEngages with the major foreign policy issues of our times, such as strategic deterrence, nationalism, terrorism, cyber security, climate change, the open society and religionConsiders political realism in non-Western contexts, including Israel, Russia and ChinaIncludes political realism's ground-up growth and interpretation outwith Western contextsContributorsUriel Abulof, Tel-Aviv University, Israel.Christopher Adair-Toteff, Zeppelin University, Germany.Erica Benner, Yale University, USA.John Bew, King's College London, UK.Todd Breyfogle, Aspen Institute, Washington, D.C., USA.Joshua Cherniss, Georgetown University, USA.Alan Chong, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Singapore.Lindsay P. Cohn, U.S. Naval War College, USA.Kody W. Cooper, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, USA.Marzieh Kouhi Esfahani, Durham University, UK.Markus Fischer, California State University, Fullerton, USA.Richard Forno, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, USA.Stuart Gray, Politics at Washington and Lee University, USA.Robert Howse, New York University School of Law, USA.David Martin Jones, University of Queensland, Australia and King's College London, UK.Menno R. Kamminga, University of Groningen, Netherlands.Peter Iver Kaufman, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill and University of Richmond, USA.David Kerr, Durham University, UK.Paul Kirkland, Carthage College, Wisconsin, USA.Douglas B. Klusmeyer, American University, Washington, DC, USA.Konstantinos Kostagiannis, University of Maastricht, Netherlands.Ayelet Haimson Lushkov, University of Texas at Austin, USA.Cecelia Lynch, University of California, Irvine, USA.David Mayers, Boston University, USA.Kenneth B. McIntyre, Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, Texas, USA.Neville Morley, University of Exeter, UK.John Mueller, Mershon Center for International Security Studies and Ohio State University, USA.Masashi Okuyama, International Geopolitica