Suchergebnisse

In his elegant essay on the tension between a singular global ethic and global ethics in the plural, Michael Ignatieff invites us to "think harder about the conflicts of principle between them." He is certainly right that harder thinking is needed: advocates of both versions of a global ethic sometimes seem locked into mutual self-righteousness. What we might call singular, or universal, ethicists often accuse pluralists of parochial atavism, while the partisans of plural, usually national, ethics think that the universalists are naive at best, arrogant at worst. Both are utterly convinced that they are right.

After twenty years, Michael Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars continues to engage scholars in discussions of the moral realities of war. Smith provides a summary of Walzer's work, with particular emphasis on his method of moral argument. Walzer's argument focuses on moral norms or "practical" morality, but ultimately emphasizes the importance of moral judgment based on the principle of human rights rather than on utilitarian calculation. Addressing realists' critiques of Walzer, in particular David C. Hendrickson's (see below), Smith reaffirms Walzer's call for the need to constrain the realist doctrine of necessity, which argues that moral considerations should be subordinate to the security of the state. Walzer's treatment of nuclear deterrence and intervention is discussed in relation to the end of the Cold War. Smith concludes by paying tribute to Just and Unjust Wars as a continuing reminder of the human capacity for hope and the will to change our world for the better.

The three books reviewed in this essay, Morality Among Nations: An Evolutionary View (Mary Maxwell), Righteous Realists: Political Realism, Responsible Power, and American Culture in the Nuclear Age (Joel H. Rosenthal), and Securing Europe (Richard H. Ullman), in some sense represent a reaction to Reagan's ideological policies. Maxwell's book appeals to the sociobiological nature of international morality. Rosenthal's book invites the reader to consider the valid view of the realist model as a venue toward integration of morals with decision making in international relations. Ullman's main premise is that the disintegration of the Soviet empire and reunification of Germany gave a strong impetus for the European states to seek a common ground in all areas through cooperation, particularly on security issues.

The moral complexity surrounding intervention is influenced by a broad spectrum of both ethical and practical assumptions and considerations. "All these issues," Smith writes, "affect one's ultimate position on intervention, and different assumptions lead, obviously, to different conclusions." The bulk of this article is a useful survey of some of the key ethical issues of disagreement among contemporary authors who represent a variety of approaches to the subject: traditional and prudential realists, statists, cosmopolitans, ideologists. Smith's own view, clearly articulated in his concluding section, is what he labels "tempered nonintervention": "a reaffirmation of the principle of nonintervention, tempered by the possibility of humanitarian intervention when undertaken with specific safeguards."

This rich collection of original essays pays tribute to Stanley Hoffmann, a preeminent scholar of international relations and French politics who has inspired former students to explore the links between domestic society and foreign policy and between theory and practice. In two autobiographical chapters, Hoffmann traces his personal odyssey from F

Ignatieff, M.: Reimagining a global ethic. - S. 7-19