Search results

Cover -- Half Title -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Dedication -- Table of Contents -- Preface -- Acknowledgements -- 1 Introduction: dealing in darkness? Varieties of modern anti-Pelagianism -- 2 Progress: Kant, Mendelssohn and the very idea -- 3 Bull: a double vision? -- 4 Remember the Aeneid? (And beware Greek gifts) -- 5 Human rights: emancipation or incarceration -- 6 Dystopic liberalism and the international order: realism tamed or liberalism betrayed? -- 7 Progress with Price? -- 8 Connolly: Nietzsche or Augustine? -- 9 Gray: the end(s) of progress? -- 10 Strauss: the impossibility of justice -- 11 Elshtain 1: anti-Pelagian or not? -- 12 Elshtain 2: violence and the two sovereigns -- 13 Post-secularism: metaphysical not political? -- 14 Epilogue: tragedy or scepticism? -- Index

This paper develops three basic arguments in the context of this forum: that IR theory is genuinely pluralistic though those who see only apparent pluralism have a point. That discussions of pluralism in IR often run together the claims that pluralism is intrinsically valuable and that it is instrumentally valuable, and that these two claims need to be kept separate and examined more critically than they often are. And that pluralism is not Relativism and should not be assumed to be. Finally the paper suggests that IR theory might need to take on a still further aspect of pluralism if it wishes to properly understand the implications of plurality. Adapted from the source document.

In previous periods, scholarship about international relations often drew on writing in theology, as well as more familiarly, history, law or philosophy. Some very influential scholars of international relations – think of Rheinhold Niebuhr, Martin Wight and Herbert Butterfield – were extremely widely read in theological topics, and their theological concerns influenced their understanding of international relations. This article looks at some contemporary writing with overtly theological concerns and asks how might contemporary international relations scholarship benefit from an engagement with contemporary philosophical and political theology.

In the lead essay of this symposium, Michael Ignatieff offers a characteristic blend of philosophical acuteness and political good sense on a topic that, we can all agree, is central to many of the most important questions on the contemporary political and international agenda. His analysis is prescient, challenging, and deserves pondering at some length; thus, in this short response I cannot deal with it in anything like the detail it deserves. But the enforced brevity is perhaps an advantage as well, in that it forces me to concentrate on where I differ from Ignatieff and on my own sense of what we might imply when we use such a term as "a global ethic."