sign in sign up
<<
Home , Manesse Verlag, Philosophy of war

Notes

Introduction

1. The study of ontological patterns of universalism and particularism from Greek and Roman antiquity to twentieth-century IR shall find that this general typ- ology has to be subdivided according to historically varying modes of thinking. The main subtypology differentiates between ‘universal’ and ‘universalistic’, both opposed to ‘particularistic’ (and, as be seen towards the end of this study, as also opposed to ‘universalized’ thinking as a stream of particularism). The distinc- tion between ‘universal’ and ‘universalistic’ applies to a transformation which can be identified between (universal) political thought in the Greek and Roman antiquity and Christian political and (universalistic) political thought from the sixteenth to the end of eighteenth century. Although both share the idea of some metaphysical superstructure which applies to all and integrates political communities into a common framework of humanity, they differ, how- ever, in that universal thinking relates to the notion of some principles which exist for all men and in their own right in and for themselves while universal- istic thinking proposes that the and realization of those principles goes back to human . See more on this in Chapter V.1. 2. The same argument with regard to the historic development of international political thought is made by Nicholas G. Onuf (1998) who argues that it would be ‘anachronistic to speak of international thought – that is, ways that are spe- cific to the world of states – before there was such a world. In republican times, there could be no international thought. Because republicanism took a world of pol itics, not states, as its frame of reference ... We say ... that republicanism came to an end ... more or less at the end of the eighteenth century’ (1998, pp. 3, 10) when, as Onuf further argues, (and nationalism) became dominant in both domestic and international theory. I do not engage with Onuf’s conceptual- izations of ‘republicanism’ and ‘liberalism’ here. I fundamentally share, however, his view about a legacy (which he calls republican) in political thought and theory from antiquity to Kant whose referential framework is constituted by an which focuses on the ‘common ’ of politics undivided in a domestic and an international sphere but instead construed as one res republica of people and peoples in which all mankind participates. 3. It is because of the historical dimension of this debate that the term international as well as subordinated concepts such as sovereignty, foreign , and inter national law – in short, all imaginaries which suggest some form of ‘inside’/’outside’- divide – are indeed inappropriate and appear to create historically insensitive and false anachronisms because they refer to, and depend upon, the existence of ‘’, -states, and subcategorized conceptualizations. Obviously, not all political units in history, however, have been ‘nations’, or nation-states. The modern mind in and of IR, academically and politically, is, however, strongly inclined to these terms, categories, and related scripts, and possible alternatives (like ‘inter-poleis’ or ‘inter-imperii’) sound foreign. Therefore, the term inter- national and subordinated concepts will be used here also with historical reference

247 248 Notes

to pre-nineteenth-century authors and ideas even if historiographical cor- rectness would require new terminologies. When referring to authors and texts from the nineteenth century and onwards, however, I will use the term in a slightly different form, namely, as ‘inter-national’ with a hyphen. In case the term is used in an unspecific way as well as in relation to the discipline, it shall be spelled out as international (without hyphen). 4. I use the terms International Politics and synonymously here; differences will be addressed in Chapters III.2 and IV. 5. This grouping can be observed in most writings on international political thought and IR; see, for example Russell, 1936; Wolfers, 1956; Forsyth et al., 1970; Knutsen, 1992; Pangle and Ahrensdorf, 1999. 6. For this argument, see also Ruggie, 1993. The concept of genealogy is borrowed from Michel Foucault (especially 1972) and (1990). A com- prehensive genealogy would here also include a sociology-of- per- spective as well as a historical approach studying the influence of social and political history on the development of international political thought. A soci- ology of knowledge-perspective will be methodologically elaborated later trying to explain ‘misreadings’ in IR (see Chapter IV.2). 7. See in this regard especially Hegel’s sections on ‘International Law’ in his Philosophy of Right and the opening citation in the beginning; more on this in Chapter III.1.1. 8. The pattern of ‘universalism’ and ‘particularism’ is also emphasized as an important feature of international political thought by Chris Brown, Terry Nardin, and Nicholas Rengger (2002; also Brown, 1997). Whereas they suggest a categorization of certain authors across history which could be identified as representing either universal or particularistic concepts of international/inter- national politics and do not further inquire in this pattern, I will suggest a gene- alogical perspective. 9. See, for example, R. B. J. Walker, Andrew Linklater, Graham Evans, Edward Keenes, Miles Kahler, William Scheuerman, and Michael C. Williams. 10. The argument about a main historical shift of the ontology of international political thought from the eighteenth to the nineteenth century is not ignorant of another, huge divide between modern (Newtonian) and ancient/medieval science about their crucial metaphysical differences with which this argument would be fundamentally at odds. Although the epistemological categories of sci- ence indeed changed around the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (see most instructively Burtt, 1954), they nevertheless shared their ontological interest in looking at the world as one universal whole with ancient and medieval philoso- phies. This ontology – and this seems to be particularly relevant for international politics – only changed at the turn of the eighteenth to the nineteenth century. We should hence differentiate between an epistemological and an ontological modernity. 11. A similar understanding of the term ontology of international politics can be found in Heikki Patomaeki’s and Colin Wight’s article on ‘After Postpositivism?’ (2000), which, apart from that useful conception, largely reiterates (however, important) philosophical trivialities of social sciences (such as the ontological and methodo- logical of social and natural sciences and the self-perception of socie- ties as the analytical focus of political science) which have been discussed much more clearly by, for example, Eric Voegelin and Alfred Schütz. 12. A comparison between the nineteenth-century ‘standards of civilization’ and, for example, ’s approach to ‘inter-religious’ and intercultural Notes 249

dialogue (according to his Summa contra Gentiles) – the former based on univer- salizations of one’s own political and cultural standards, the latter based on a notion of universal human reason and – makes this difference very clear. Another example to illustrate this difference between universalism and particularism – which, at the same time, provides an argument against the view that also in Greek antiquity, for instance, particularistic concepts appear divid- ing mankind into different groups of peoples created in ‘inside’-‘outside’-dualism (such as the division between ‘Greeks’ and ‘barbarians’ by , Herodotus, and others) – relates to the epistemological grounding of such divisions. Whereas the division between Greeks and barbarians – as paradoxical as this might appear at first glance – rests on a common and universal anthropology which assigns a subordinate status of barbarians ‘only’ due to social and political criteria, nine- teenth-century views of peoples’ differences (such as foreshadowed by Johann Gottfried Herder in the middle of the eighteenth century and later on solidified in biological theories of nationalism and residentialism) are grounded in (con- structed) ontological and substantial differences and posit a ‘natural’ character and particularity of single peoples. For more on this, see Chapters III; see also Fink-Eitel, 1994; Marx, 1977, 1982; Behr, 1998, 2005; Kleinschmidt, 2004. 13. References here are, for example, Waltz, 1954, 1979; Keohane, 1983, 1986; Gilpin, 1984; Kaplan, 1966, 1979. 14. This construction can be seen in, and seems to start with, Kenneth Waltz’s Man, the State and (1954) and his interpretation of Jean Jacques Rousseau; and it continues with Waltz’s Theory of International Politics (1979) and his article ‘Realist Thought and Neo-realist Theory’ (1990). This construction is also present in the ‘English School’; see more on this in Chapters III.2 and IV. 15. For this term, see Richard Rorty, 1984, p. 56, in his reflections about different approaches to the historiography of philosophy. 16. Another critical view of this construction comes from Michael C. Williams who notes: ‘(Claims) about the Realist tradition function as forms of legitimization, conforming the continuing validity of “Realist” principles throughout history, and appropriating the authority of classical figures in political theory in their support. Indeed, the claim that there is a “Realist” tradition is a key component of claims about the continuing salience and wisdom of Realism itself’ (Williams, 2005, p. 3). In Chapter IV, I will come back to the question of who exactly repre- sents these claims and how upholding these claims can be explained. Although I widely agree with Williams in his criticism of these claims and with regard to individual anti-‘realist’ readings, of single authors (such as ), I am less definite in determining how to understand single authors and what they might have ‘really meant’ (although my approach emphasizes pointing to and elaborating on differences in their oeuvre from ‘realist’ readings); I am more radical in my conclusions, however, suggesting that we completely renounce the terminology of ‘realist’ and/or ‘Realism’ for pre-nineteenth-century thought.

I.1 Greek and Roman antiquity

17. For an overwhelming majority in IR, see Kaplan, 1966; Keohane, 1983; Gilpin, 1984; Haas, 1995; also Waltz, 1954, pp. 12, 159, 211. 18. A fourth assumption might be added stating that ’s narration of the war is amoral and declines moral codes and ethical considerations to favour power politics and individual advantage. 250 Notes

19. The plague, which is referred to here (The Peloponnesian War, II.47–54), is another example demonstrating that, according to Thucydides, anarchy is not something a priori which reasons war among states, but that anarchy is a consequence of war, which itself may be fought for different reasons; see more on this in Cochrane, 1961, p. 472. 20. The principle of ‘pacta sunt servanda’ will be important throughout this study; for now, the following definition will suffice, namely, that ‘pacta sunt servanda’ ‘is (rather than ) the real source of the treaty obligation [as] the funda- mental international law ... According to this norm, a state that becomes a party to a treaty is bound to carry out the duties established by this treaty ... even if the government changes ... Pacta sunt servanda is binding on all states in their treaty relations regardless of whether or not they currently consent to it’ (Charney, 1993, p. 534). 21. See in this regard also the interpretation by David Boucher (Boucher, 1998, pp. 72–4). As much as I agree with Boucher emphasizing the relevance of universal legal principles in Thucydides, it strikes me that, when he interprets Thucydides regarding the reason for war, he deems the motive of fear to be the only one for the outbreak of the war, whereas we could see that the breach of legal standards and agreements counts also in Thucydides. Boucher’s interpretation of Thucydides becomes incomprehensible, however, when he further argues that Thucydides would assume that ‘individuals are utility maximizers making rational choices in accordance with their interests’ (p. 74), that ‘questions of in inter- national politics are subordinate to the idea of raison d’état’ (p. 75), and that ‘jus- tice and injustice are ... inapplicable to the interstate sphere’ (p. 76). It is correct that Thucydides makes these observations empirically; they do not, however, reflect his own normative judgments. 22. This further aspect does not overtly suit neo-realists’ use of Thucydides because, as Waltz stresses, there would be no linkage between external and internal pol- itics of a state; see more on this topic in Chapters IV.1 and IV.2. 23. See in this regard P. A. Brunt, 1986, where he describes ’s support and admi- ration of republican Rome and describes his enmity with Gaius Julius Caesar. 24. Cicero will be quoted here with reference to the 1887 edition of De officiis by Little Brown, Boston, and 1841/1842 editions of De legibus and De republica by Edmund Spettigue. These editions may be perceived as Christianized in the legacies of Augustinian and Thomist while the Oxford World’s Classics editions, for example, appear to interpret Cicero more in an Aristotelian and Platonist terminology. When reading both English translations against the Latin original, none of these English versions is to be preferred; they all seem from time to time critical. I tend to go with the Little Brown and Edmund Spettigue editions for reasons of accessibility because the documents are available online. 25. See, in this regard, in Treatise on the Laws ( De Legibus) where Cicero notes: ‘(Whatever) definition we give to men, it must include the whole human race ... (No) portion of mankind can be heterogeneous or dissimilar from the rest; because, if this were the case, one definition could not include all men’ (Book I.30). It can easily be seen that this explanation is tautological and demonstrates that Cicero is sometimes more of a political writer at the burden of logical argumentation. 26. See also Nederman, 1993, p. 505: ‘The Ciceronian doctrine of natural law codifies and authorizes the obligation stemming from to social fellowship above all else ... The function of political institutions is to impose the dictates of justice on every member of the community without regard for their wealth, status or other extraneous considerations.’ Notes 251

27. When Cicero speaks of ‘nations’ (nationes), it is obvious that this cannot be iden- tified with our modern understanding of the nation state, which underlies the concept of inter-national relations. Nevertheless, what Cicero has in mind seems to at least partly coincide with the modern understanding, namely, ethnic cri- teria which apply to a collective of people. For Cicero, these criteria are most of all constituted by language. When he speaks of nations, he refers to the Romans, the Greeks, the Persians, and different ethnic tribes in ‘Gallia cisalpina’ and ‘Gallia transalpina’. 28. In more general terms, Cicero’s ethical considerations centre around the rela- tion between expedience and candour (or self-love and common good). Here, his argument is ambivalent, because even if ethically straightforward requir- ing unequivocal support for the universal common good and candour behav- iour, he knows about the human tendencies to pursue their individual interests. Consequently, we observe a tension between universalism and particularism in Cicero. Generally speaking, however, his ethical position can be exemplified by the following two paragraphs from On Moral Duties: ‘(It) is clear, since is the fountain of law, that it is in accordance with nature that no one should act so as to prey upon another’s ignorance’ (Book III.17); and: ‘But whatever is right, springs from one of four sources. It consists either in perception and skilful treat- ment of ; or in maintaining good-fellowship with men, giving to everyone his due, and keeping good in contracts and promises; or in the greatness and strength of a lofty and unconquered mind; or in order and measure that constitute moderation and temperance’ (Book I.5). 29. Thucydides, compared to Cicero, was not less decisive. However, he was less explicit on this aspect; see further Brunt, 1986. 30. The occurrences Cicero is referring to are explained in detail by Cowell, 1972; Lacey, 1978; Ruebel, 1994; Jiménez, 2000; Forsyth, 2003; Garland, 2005; Shotter, 2005. 31. And thus outlines paradigmatically the difference between patriotism and ‘nationalism’ as it developed in the nineteenth century; see more in Chapters II and III; with regard to Cicero, see Nederman, 1993. 32. Cicero writes in this regard in Treatise on the Laws, Book II.8: ‘(That) [the Roman] law was neither excogitated by the genius of men, nor is it anything in the progress of ; but a certain eternal principle, which governs the entire uni- verse; wisely commanding what is right, and prohibiting what is wrong’. 33. For further details, see Treatise on the Commonwealth, Book VI, and On Moral Duties, Book I.

I.2 Christian Political and Ethical Universalism – Aurelius Augustine and Thomas Aquinas

34. It might be interesting to note that, in Summa Theologica, Aquinas refers to Aristotle by name 183 times and in an indirect way – as The Philosopher – 1,902 times; to Augustine he refers 3,157 times. For the discussion of Aristotle’s influ- ence on Augustine and especially Aquinas, see O’Connor, 1967. 35. What I describe as ‘pragmatic’ – in reference to Niebuhr (see below) – corresponds with what Cochrane, 1961, terms ‘realistic’ political outlooks in Augustine, which explicitly means not ‘realist’. 36. The term narrative as it is used here refers to Augustine himself (De Doctrina Christiana, 1995, Book II). It reveals a nearly ‘post-modern’ side in Augustine 252 Notes

consisting of a subtle substructure in his writings which recommends under- standing the story of creation (and consequently , his power, and almighti- ness) as a huge symbolic cosmos (and not as historical ‘truth’ or ‘’) which symbolizes men’s temporality and natural and moral deficiencies, but that also tells men about their potential to develop their lives and to create social, polit- ical, and ethical order which can retrieve human life from permanent mutability; and that finally proposes and prescribes a normative framework for not aban- doning human existence to the perils of its bare material, fleshly, and passionate conduct. Finally, God even appears as a creation of men’s and self- reflexivity and, according to individual capacities, allows men to transcend the temporal ‘here’ and ‘now’ (more on that in Section 3). With regard to Augustine’s understanding of ‘narrative’, see also his Soliloquies and Immortality of the Soul (Augustine, 1990), De Doctrina Christiana (1995, Book II), and his lengthy discus- sions of linguistic concerns interpreting the Holy Scriptures throughout his City of God. 37. See in this regard especially in Augustine, 1998, City of God, Book XI and XII; in the latter we read: ‘Of the creation of the one first man, and of the human race in him ... God therefore created only one single man ... that the unity of human society and the bond of concord might be commended to him more forcefully, mankind bound together not only by similarity of nature, but by the affec- tion of kinship’ (p. 533). See also Book XVI, Chapter 18, on Abraham as the father of all nations. 38. Regarding the diversity of mankind, see also Augustine in Enchiridion (1955), Chapter XXVII; in The City of God (1995), see Book XVI, Chapter 23. 39. The of Babylon or of the civitas terrena may also be understood as an acknowledgement, though not positive recognition, of social and political diver- sity and plurality; for a further discussion of this, see Cochrane, 1961. 40. Further historic examples of earthly kingdoms and ungodly cities would be Egypt, Assyria, and Sicyoni; see Augustine, The City of God, Book XVI, Chapter 18. 41. See more on this distinction in Section 3. 42. On God’s order of creation, see The City of God, Book XI, Chapter 16: ‘In the case of rational ... a good will and a rightly ordered love have ... such great weight that, even though angels rank above men in the natural order, good men are nonetheless placed above the wicked angels according to the law of right- eousness’ (p. 471). 43. See also Augustine, 1995, in De Doctrina Christiana, about the love of God (Book I, pp. 59–60) who would even have created and loves his critics who, despite their criticism, retain their dignity as human (Book I, pp. 20–1). The almightiness and omnipresence of God – ‘God is incorporeal and the creator of all natures that are not himself’ (Augustine, The City of God, 1998, p. 455) – is best symbolized in the discussions about the existence and ‘nature’ of the . Augustine’s – and also Aquinas’s – understanding conceptualize the evil as not evil by nature, but as misguided by the bad use of their (p. 501; see also Augustine, Enchiridion, 1955, Chapter IV). The that God even created his (and consequently rightful peoples’) enemies and that, therefore, conflict and war are inevitable parts of the natural order of things, can be seen as the ultimate reference for Augustine’s and Aquinas’s pragmatism. 44. About the loss of immortality because of men’s misuse of free will, see Augustine, 1955, p. 402. 45. Augustine describes men’s longing for complete security as an illusion which can lead to paranoid behaviour, exemplified in the Roman Empire (1998, p. 146). Notes 253

46. For this narrative and Augustine’s interpretation, see City of God, 1998, Book XII, Chapter 28. 47. The tension between passion and reason, or ‘love of the flesh’ and ‘love of God’, is symbolized in Augustine by the metaphor of a pilgrimage through this world (City of God; for example, Book XV, Chapter 1). Interesting in this regard is also his discussion of the immortality of the soul (Augustine, 1986; 1990) where he derives the necessary hope and comfort for the conduct of life from (the ideas of) God and immortality. One cannot escape the impression in Augustine of a quite rational construction of God in order to make life in this world comforting and meaningful. Niebuhr speaks in this regard of a ‘deification of self-consciousness’ in Augustine (Niebuhr, 1941, p. 168). 48. Both an orthodox and a naïve Christian view would raise their voice against this political understanding and interpretation of Augustine as too secular and as missing the spiritual dimension in Augustine. I agree with Niebuhr who argues that both directions (in his terminology ‘orthodox’ and ‘liberal’) were either a-political or, what is more, proved historically as failures in organizing politics or at least in providing organizing principle for political order, and who con- sequently suggests a metaphorical and ‘secular’ analysis of Augustine and also Aquinas; see Niebuhr (1935 [1963]). 49. For an excellent explanation of the concept of telos in Aristotle, see Marx, 1961. 50. See foremost in De Doctrina Christiana, 1995, Book I, as well as throughout The City of God. 51. The small linguistic difference between ‘For what are robber bands except lit- tle kingdoms? and ‘what are kingdoms but great bands of robbers?’ is caused by different English translations; whereas I am using the edition by Cambridge University Press (Augustine 1992), Loriaux is basing his interpretation on The City of God (1969), ed. by William Chase Greene et al., Cambridge: Harvard University Press. This difference relates only to the English from the Latin, not, however, to the very beginning of this sentence, which, in both edi- tions, acknowledges the addition of ‘Justice removed’. 52. Augustine defines war as conflict between different peoples and nations from which he separates conflict as strife between individuals or in the domestic realm (see throughout the City of God). 53. For this discussion, see The City of God, Book II, Chapter 21. 54. See Augustine, Enchiridion, 1955, Chapter XXVII specifically p. 401. 55. Aquinas distinguishes between four realms of law; the other three concern the people’s sovereign to its subjects such as ‘the institution of the sovereign relat- ing to his office’ (2007, p. 1460; i.e., ‘public law’ in modern terms); the subjects among themselves such as ‘about buying and selling, judgments and penalties’ (ibid., i.e., ‘private law’); members of one household towards each other. 56. As such a war in modern times, one could consider the third Gulf War (2003) led by the against Iraq. 57. Here again, Augustine reveals his ambivalence about just war, and it could be asked how this can be observed when the reason for war is for religious reasons to unify foreign nations under – a kind of war, as outlined above, which Augustine deems to be just. 58. It is not part of my discussion here, however, it seems worth mentioning that we see a clear example that the request for the nationalization of violence and war is not a phenomenon of the seventeenth century and onwards (beginning with the modern theories of the state, i.e., Jean Bodin and Hobbes), but started much earlier. 254 Notes

II.1 Universalistic thinking in Christian legal philosophy – Bartholomé de las Casas and Francisco de Vitoria

59. This is the reason why Grotius is not discussed here in a separate chapter. However, Grotius will surface in the context of the discussions of the English School; see Chapter III.2. 60. See the narratives by las Casas himself (1965, 1971), which may be regarded as exaggerations and which have been criticized for oversimplifying cultural dif- ferences among Indian peoples. Nevertheless, they provide some impressions of the Spaniards’ cruelties as well as of the exploitative systems of ‘encomend- eros’ and ‘encomienda’; they also convey las Casas’s outrage over the Spaniards’ behaviour. See also de Vitoria: ‘But then, when we hear of so many massacres, so many plunderings of otherwise innocent men, so many princes evicted from their possessions and stripped of their rule, there is certainly ground for doubt- ing whether this is rightly or wrongly done’ (de Vitoria, 1917, p. 119). 61. It has to be recognized that it was not only las Casas who raised his voice against the Spanish genocide in the Americas, but with him many others, mainly Dominican theologians, such as Juan Hurtado, Bernadino de Minaya, and Julian Garces. 62. Interesting here is Tzvetan Todorov’s description of las Casas’s intellectual and political development in three stages from ‘conquistador’ to a ‘caring colonist’ to an ‘intercultural communicator’; see Todorov, 1982. 63. As Lewis Hanke delineates, many conquistadores indeed believed that the Indians were animals and ‘unworthy of the name of rational beings’ (Hanke, 1937, pp. 69, 70). 64. Sublimus Dei; www.papalencyclicals.net/Paulo3/p2subli.htm (8 October 2007). 65. With regard to this epistemological problem, see Chapter V.1. This criticism also applies to de Vitoria: ‘Therefore, if any one admonishes them to hear and delib- erate upon religious matters, they are bound at least to hear and to enter into consultation. Further, it is needful for their salvation that they believe in Christ and be baptized ... It is not sufficient clear to me that the Christian faith has yet been so put before the aborigines and announced to them that they are bound to believe it or commit fresh sin ... on the other hand, I hear of many scandals and cruel and acts of impiety ... Although the Christian faith may have been announced to the Indians with adequate demonstration and they have refused to receive it, yet this is not a reason which justifies making war on them and depriving them of their property’ (de Vitoria, 1917, p. 144). 66. Las Casas refers here to Aristotle’s Nichomachean , Book VII, 1145a, 15–33, in which Aristotle indeed argues that human beings with an animal character are very seldom. 67. Las Casas argues that these spheres of jurisdiction are demarcated and limited by either territorial borders in case of nations’ relations and by spiritual borders in case of the Catholic Church. What is important here is that las Casas con- tributes to the development of the territorial state, which happens to become the guiding principle for international relations for the following centuries. As far as I can see, he seems even to be the first author in the history of political thought who with great explicitness binds political agency back to jurisdiction, defining jurisdiction in strictly territorial terms; more on the political princi- ple of territoriality and its foundation in early modern state theory in Behr, 2004. 68. The most important of these is the bull Inter Caetera, promulgated by Pope Alexander VI on 4 May 1493, about the division of the ‘undiscovered’ world Notes 255

between and Portugal and most importantly about the, if necessary vio- lent, spread of Christianity to the ‘barbarous nations’ (www.catholic-forum.com/ saints/pope0214a.htm; 16 October 2007). 69. See in this regard my critique of Augustine and Aquinas and the problematic concept of just war, which opens the door for this kind of interpretation pro- moted by Sepulveda. 70. We read the very clear statement in Chapter IV of the Defence of the Indians that ‘it is wrong for one nation to attack another under the pretext of being superior in wisdom or to overthrow other kingdoms’ (1992, p. 47). 71. There is some discussion in the history of law on the influences of Aquinas on las Casas, and some hold that las Casas’s position is consequently Thomistic. Against this understanding speaks the interpretation presented here as well as the elaboration of Pennington (1970) on las Casas and the tradition of medieval law. Pennington states that las Casas argued as a Christian, and his ideas were based on medieval jurist theory. Pennington continues, however, that las Casas developed ‘original and interesting ways’ applying them to a novel historical situation (the overseas expansion; Pennington, 1970, p. 151). 72. Las Casas, though developing principles of equal recognition, of right of defence, and of equality of peoples and nations on the basis of his notion of universal (Christian) anthropology and reason, seems to further believe in a hierarchy of civilization(s) and a dichotomy of ‘civilized’ and ‘uncivilized’ which, however – and this is politically important – does not affect these principles. 73. As an alternative formulation of this, we read ‘Hence a refusal to be converted is no reason for making war on the Indians’ (de Vitoria quoted in Hamilton, 1963, p. 124). 74. In addition to this he asks ‘whether it be enough for a just war that himself to have a just cause’ and clearly states that ‘this belief is not always enough’ (de Vitoria, 1917, p. 173). 75. Chapter XXX, In Defense of the Indians; on this similar topic see also de Vitoria, On the , ‘Second Relectio’, De Indis. 76. Las Casas emphasizes in these chapters, however, that it is a different case with heretics because they are subject to Christian rulers by dwelling, birth, contract, and, most importantly, baptism. Whereas ‘unbelievers who have never accepted the faith of Christ are not actually subject to Christ and therefore not to the Church and its authority’ (1992, p. 55), heretics are subject to the church.

II.2 Universalistic frameworks in early modern political theory

77. In this tradition, see also Meinecke, 1984, whose work on modern raison d’etat sub- stantially contributed to the modern orthodox understanding of Machiavelli. 78. Very instructive on this point Colish, 1978; also Ball, 1984; both are crit ical towards the remarkable study of Pocock, 1975, The Machiavellian Moment. Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition; explicitly on this critique see Sullivan, 1992. 79. There are also interpretations which read The Prince as a piece of intentional deception directed toward Lorenzo di Medici in order to weaken his reign and to facilitate the road to republican government in Florence (see Dietz, 1986). 80. For a rich overview over the diverging spectrum of interpretations, see Berlin, 1980. 81. And much more could be added. With these quotations I intend to point to a specific ambivalence in Machiavelli. All quotations are from The Prince to show 256 Notes

that this ambivalence yet exists in a single work, and even in one that is usually interpreted as reflecting Machiavellism. 82. For an excellent overview over the respective chapters and paragraphs in which Machiavelli deals with such questions, Leslie Walker’s edition and the compre- hensive analytic table of content of The Discourses is of great value (Walker, 1950 (ed.); with regard to The Prince, see, for example, chapters V, VIII, IX, X, XI, XVIII, and XXI. 83. It is probably not accidental that it is Bernard Crick, who wrote a comprehensive biography on George Orwell and who shares that view, arguing for a differenti- ated understanding of Machiavelli as a political analyst on the one side and, in normative terms, as a strong supporter of republican government on the other side. It is striking, however, that Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr., in his illuminating article on ‘Machiavelli’s Political Science’, does not see this fundamental inven- tion in Machiavelli, especially because he explicitly thematizes ‘modernity’ in Machiavelli’s approach (Mansfield, 1981). Crick notes: ‘(He) is absolutely clear that men should support republican government and should not, although it is possible, subvert it ... He never shows the slightest wish to reinterpret morality so as to be subordinate to a theory of the state (as did Hobbes and Hegel in their different ways); and nor is he simply taking politics out of morality or putting it above morality. The sense in which ... he advocates a political morality is not in terms of a divorce between ethics and politics, but in terms of the prime and heroic dignity given to politics and political action in classical pagan morality’ (Crick, 2003, p. 67). 84. Regarding Machiavelli’s (ostensible) ambivalence, see also Quentin T. Taylor who speaks, when terming Machiavelli the ‘father’ of modern political science, of his ‘duplicity’ (1998, p. viii). 85. See, for instance, paragraphs in which ‘ought’ and ‘is’ become clearly juxtaposed by Machiavelli, as in Chapter XV (quoted above) or in Chapter XVIII (both in The Prince). 86. See Crick’s short, but concise, explanation of necessita (Crick, 2003, pp. 55–7). 87. See here also Terence Ball’s interpretation of Machiavelli’s virtù (Ball, 1984) as a ‘role-related specific excellence’ (p. 526) in the legacies of the Greek areté. It could be added that virtu is not only role-related but also situation-related, depending on what necessita dictates in a specific context. 88. See paradigmatically for such mainstream perception, Steven Forde (1995), who wants us to believe that it is the assumption of structural anarchy of the inter- national arena which Machiavelli (and also Thucydides) and neo-realism have in common (p. 145). Forde notes: ‘The goal of [Machiavelli’s] science ... is to guarantee the survival of the state ... And this can be accomplished, according to Machiavelli, only by the accumulation of power and the practice of “preemp- tive imperialism” ... (This) is what the of a science that aspires to guarantee security requires’ (Forde, 1995, p. 152; see also Forde, 1992). We will see below that it is not universal imperialism what Machiavelli projects, but – at least when we base our interpretation on textual evidence, and not on some derivative logic which is said to follow from his ‘realist science’ – rather an international order of regional integration. 89. Machiavelli often cites as a positive example of such an organization. 90. We can apply this normative standpoint also to Machiavelli as a political advisor. Subsequent to his differentiation between an analytical and a normative out- look on politics, he would suggest different strategies. If he were advising a founder of a state, he would probably argue (normatively) in favour of setting up Notes 257

small republics cooperating together in order of common security (see also The Discourses, p. 122). If he, however, were advising a state-leader in place, he would suggest that he deals most pragmatically to achieve political stability for his com- munity (this might be more the Machiavelli communicating from The Prince). 91. As it is reflected in the constitutional rank of the US president and the idea of ‘mixed government’ which featured prominently in the US constitutional debate of the eighteenth century. 92. It should be added here that Machiavelli, in The Discourses, interweaves another argument in that chapter which is about analyzing methods of expansion. In this regard, a league of republics does not perform as the most effective mode, even if it is to be seen as best guaranteeing stability and peaceful cooperation. The best method for expansion (which is, however, not his normatively preferred form of international agency) would be ‘forming alliances in which you reserve to yourself headship, the seat in which the authority resides, and the right of ini- tiative’ (p. 284), as applied by the Roman republic. A third, but in Machiavelli’s view worst, method is ‘to make other states subjects instead of allies’ (p. 284). 93. I will not discuss the question of why Machiavelli thinks there is conflict. There is much speculation about this question: it is and states’ obses- sion with fame and might that cause conflict, or conflict might arise due to states’ efforts to survive in the cosmic circle of rise and decline of political units (Machiavelli’s idea borrowed from Polybius), or conflict is due to class interests in a state. Indeed we read multiple statements by Machiavelli about the nature and reason of political conflicts. I rather want to point to the relevance of conflict(s) from an international politics perspective. 94. See hereto also Crick discussing the relationship between necessita, virtù, and fortuna under the topics of Machiavelli’s ‘Theory and Method’ and ‘Politics and Morality’ (2003, pp. 47–69) as well as Mann’s interpretation of Machiavelli’s virtù as areté (1984). 95. See, for example, Haftendorn (1991, p. 6) who represents this widely unchal- lenged commonplace: ‘Hobbes prepared the ground for the realist tradition in political theory’; also Michael Walzer, 1977, and Charles R. Beitz, 1979, who both present Hobbes’s work as the paradigmatic case for the realist doctrines in inter- national political theory. See critically towards this common sense, Walker who notes: ‘Hobbes has been the subject of a rather large recent literature in inter- national political theory, and there is a commonly identified “Hobbesian tradi- tion” in this field, even though Hobbes himself wrote very little explicitly on international politics as such’ (Walker, 1987, p. 73 also Smith, 1983, especially p. 13). Instead of further systematically reviewing literature referring to Hobbes as a ‘realist’, I would like to point to nearly each Introductory text in International Relations as well as to other writers such as E. H. Carr, Waltz, Keohane, John Herz, and Bull, which all appear to share this picture; see also Boucher (1998, pp. 146–9). Interestingly in this context are the writings of Morgenthau, who is often said to positively refer to Hobbes in terms of a ‘negative anthropol- ogy’, but indeed only rarely refers to Hobbes, and that critically. Interesting in the light of my argument are the discussions of Stefano Guzzini (1998, p. 24). 96. It is an open question, however, how we are to understand the term outside when Hobbes writes: ‘The condition of men outside civil society (the condition one may call the state of nature) is no other than a war of all men against all men’. Does the term outside relate to the international sphere as external and territori- ally beyond the nationally constituted civil society? Or does it relate in a temporal sense to the time before men constituted the Leviathan and are still outside the 258 Notes

protection granted under civil society and by his sovereignty later on? I tend to understand the term outside in a temporal sense because there are many more indi- cations throughout Hobbes’s writings which point to this understanding, and no clear indication which would allow us unequivocally to understand the term out- side as applying to inter-national politics beyond the domestic sphere of the state. 97. We will see in the following discussions, however, that the Leviathan is less oppressive than is usually stated. Nevertheless, ‘we must be aware of not “Lockean-izing” Hobbes’ (see Carmichael, 1990, p. 3). 98. This ‘observation’ is perhaps most prominently promoted by Hedley Bull who reiterates the idea that we could ‘infer that all what Hobbes says about the life of individual men in the state of nature may be read as a description of the con- dition of states in relation to one another’ (Bull, 1981, pp. 720–1). Bull, how- ever, is ambivalent in his statements about Hobbes because, on the one hand, he fails to see the temporal structure in Hobbes’s argument which emphasizes change for and after the has been agreed. This change brings about a (new) mechanism for international order which is far from being simi- lar to a ‘state of nature’ (about the mechanism of sovereignty and legitimacy). The same critique relates also to Murphy, 1982. On the other hand, however, Bull also argues that Hobbes would slide out of the ‘realist camp’ and ‘becomes a prime example of a theorist of the international system as a kind of society, rather than anarchy’, as Walker observes (Walker, 1987, p. 73; more on that in II.2.2); on this aspect of Bull’s ambivalence also Williams, 1996, pp. 214, 226–8. 99. As stated, for instance, by Boucher, 1998, p. 151; see also Stanley Hoffmann who declares man’s nature as the cause of conflict (Hoffmann, 1963, p. 319; also 1981, pp. 11, 14). 100. Ashcroft writes, highlighting the same correlation: ‘Both our expectations of the future and our ordering of the present are thus dependent upon our remem- brance of what is past, and, in particular, upon our cognizance of what powers produce or cause which effects’ (1978, p. 38). 101. See on this point also Dana Chabot (1995, p. 402) who describes judgement in Hobbes ‘as the ability to exercise self-’. 102. I here disagree on three points with Hoffmann (1963). First, Hoffmann assumes that men their ‘right of nature’ under the conditions of the civil soci- ety (and under the rule of the Leviathan; 1963, p. 320). This assumption is, as we see, obviously wrong because the ‘right of nature’ is an unalienable right of men and, contrary to Hoffmann’s understanding, constantly guarantees man’s right to preserve his or her individual security, even under the rule of the Leviathan when the Leviathan fails to do so. Second, whereas Hoffmann concludes that Hobbes would assume that interstate war ‘does not affect the daily lives of all men’ (1963, p. 320), we learn that, on the contrary, Hobbes has a very clear view about the rights of individuals in wartime – a view that would be unnecessary to explain if Hobbes had thought individuals were not affected by interstate war. And, finally, Hoffmann sees indications of an international law in Hobbes, based on the reciprocity of interests, however, developed very weakly due to the lack of a world sovereign, why at the end anarchy would pre- vail. Hoffmann here misses the central point – as does Hedley Bull; see Chapter III.2 – that international law and the question of its enforcement (or a world Leviathan) is neither Hobbes’s main concern nor relevant to understand the Hobbesian mechanism of sovereignty and legitimacy as it operates in inter- national politics. Notes 259

103. Kaplan, 1956, pp. 390, 391; for a comprehensive discussion on the rights and of men, which, even under the social contract, can not be renounced and are unalienable, see Carmichael, 1990, especially pp. 4–15. 104. According to Jean Hampton, such decision and judgement can be termed, based on Hobbes’s definition of reason, an ‘expected-utility calculation’ (Hampton, 1986, p. 221). Gauthier (1979, p. 549) speaks in this regard of ‘the instrumental role of ’. 105. Cornelius F. Murphy, Jr., describes this view, relating to Grotius, as follows: ‘ undertaken for purposes of expediency were unjust ... Anticipatory self- defense was forbidden’ (Murphy, 1982, p. 481). 106. The view of ‘amorality’ in Hobbes seems nevertheless deeply rooted in inter- national politics/international relations; see, for example, Hoffmann who writes: ‘In Hobbes’s case, the problem of ethical action in politics can hardly be called important: it is a pure matter of definition ... Moral action in the Leviathan consists simply of obeying the sovereign’s law’ (Hoffmann, 1963, p. 322). It is very striking and an important question (which will be further discussed in Chapter IV.2) how, and why, such simplified statements could become firmly established in our discipline, and that with the ‘support’ of an otherwise theoretically sophisticated author like Hoffmann. Contrary to the compacted orthodoxy in our discipline, the question in disciplines like and history of political thought seems to be what kind of morality Hobbes is representing (utilitarian, divine, functional, deontological, and so on), not whether, or not, Hobbes’s theory is informed by moral and ethical views. See, for example, Gauthier, 1979; Chabot, 1995; Nagel, 1959; Warrender, 1957; Taylor, 1938; Kavka, 1986. 107. In 1795, Kant’s Zum ewigen Frieden was published. However, his preoccupation with the conditions and possibilities of can be traced throughout many previous writings so that Zum ewigen Frieden can be perceived as a late summary of his thoughts on this topic; for more on this, see A. C. Armstrong (1931), ‘Kant’s Philosophy and Peace’. 108. Quoted here , Perpetual Peace. A Philosophical Essay (Facsimile 1795). 109. See on this also Kant (1963 [1784]) Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Point of View; as well as Arendt, 1982, pp. 73–6; Axinn, 1958, pp. 286–91. 110. There is another, less explicit, ‘hidden’ condition for the creation of peace, additionally to those three so far discussed. Although none of these (four) is reducible to the other, the fourth condition is epistemological and relates to the intellectual context of creating peace. Apart from the three universal con- ditions (republican, legal, ethical), Kant emphasizes that the road to peace is also a learning process (of good habits in the peaceful coexistence of socie- ties) as well as a product of imagination, both linked to his notion of history as a normative concept. Roger Hancock, in his discussion of the relationship of ethics and history in Kant, lifts one of the three question of Kant, namely, ‘What ought I to do?’ to a more general, historically oriented question, namely, ‘What ought to happen?’ and thus points to the role of imagination ‘which enables men artificially to multiply natural needs and hence causes concerns and preparation for the future. In particular, it is the cause of social and polit- ical relations’ (Hancock, 1957, p. 57). On peace as a learning process, see also Cederman, 2001. 111. ‘Practical pure reason’ in opposition to ‘pure reason’ is to be seen as the impera- tive of pure reason which would, in relation to peace, manifest in the foundation 260 Notes

of a real Universal Republic contrary to a Federation of States. Kant perceives such a universal republic, however, as practically impossible because states and men in general have a tendency to reject in fact (in thesi) what is right in theory (in hypothesi). Thus, in theory, due to ‘pure reason’, a Universal Republic would be the really best solution. Kant’s Federation of States consequently has to be understood as a concession to reality and to the factual constitution of states and nations, which were naturally different in regards to religion and language. Practical pure reason thus symbolizes this concession in terms of political prac- ticability (hereto On Perpetual Peace, Second Section, Second Definitive Article, and Appendix. 112. See, for instance, James Rosenau, who refers to Kant’s conception in ‘Citizenship in a Changing World Order’ (1992). 113. The idea of a cosmopolitan society is unfolded by Kant also, and at greater length, in his Anthropology (last section), which was published in 1798 (see Kant, 1974). 114. Unfortunately, this also applies to the translation used here, which is otherwise, however, very appropriately related to the German original.

III.1 of ‘national interest’

115. Further readings on such historical circumstances are represented by the com- prehensive literature on the nation-state; its social, political, and economic his- tory; and on nationalism. 116. I here quote the translation by S. W. Dyde (2001) because, for example, the probably more frequently used edition of Hegel’s Elements of the Philosophy of Rights by Allen W. Wood, translated by H. B. Nisbet, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, shows many more divergences and inconsistencies in this paragraph (and others) compared to the original German version. For example, this first sentence states in German ‘Das äussere Staatsrecht geht von dem Verhältnisse selbständiger Staaten aus’ (Hegel, Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts, Band 5, Hauptwerke in sechs Baenden, Felix Meiner Verlag Hamburg 1999, §330). The edition by Wood translates this as ‘International Law applies to the relations between ...’, which implies a very different meaning than the German “geht aus von”. Opposite to Wood’s edition, the translation by Dyde notes ‘International law arises out of the relation of independent states’ (as quoted in the text), which is an appropriate interpretation of the original mean- ing. For further quotations, I will use whichever English translation best com- municates the original German version. To emphasize translation differences (and sometimes errors) seems important here because Hegel reveals himself as a much more statist and ‘realist’ thinker when we refer to his original texts than when we refer to the English translation(s). 117. §332 is very topical in this regard, too. We read: ‘The immediate actuality in which states coexist is particularized into various relations which are deter- mined by the independent arbitrary wills of both parties’ (quoted after the Cambridge edition). 118. See as an example of this in Hegel’s time Johann Gottlieb Fichte’s jingoistic Addresses to the German Nation (Fichte, 1979) and with regard to future develop- ments in and their trajectories into twentieth-century International Relations Theory in Part IV. Notes 261

119. See in this regard Voegelin’s gnosis-thesis and his verbalization of the ‘imma- nentization of the echaton’, which can be found in several of his writings; see Voegelin’s Political Religions as well as Science, Politics and Gnosticism: Two Essays. 120. Interesting and informing in this regard is also Fichte’s conception of the ‘Self’, his idea of the nation, and his of nationalism; see Fichte, 1979, 2000, 2005. 121. In this regard it is informative to look at Hegel’s Lectures on the History of Philosophy in which he criticizes Kant’s concept of the ‘categorical imperative’ and the notion of the universality of reason underlying this concept, according to Hegel, ‘without content’. 122. See also in §336, Philosophy of Rights: ‘Each ... state has the standing of a par- ticular will; and it is on this alone that the validity of treaties depends’ (quoted after the Dyde translation). Thus, it remains within good reason and legitimate behaviour when a state breaches its formerly concluded treaty agreements and obligations as long as such a breach would correspond with a state’s will – or in more familiar current (IR) terms, with its ‘national interest’. See also §333 for further relevance in this regard. 123. The only condition is that this very nation fulfils the criteria of a state, that it has a constitution, has a system of rights, and performs as a unified moral body. Hegel can be said to have, in his Elements of the Philosophy of Right, preshaped, if not preformulated in its basics, the notions of ‘standards of civilization’ as they became more elaborated in the second half of the nineteenth century by international lawyers; for further discussion see Chapter III.2. 124. As in Kant when we remember his definition of peace as a ‘true peace’. 125. See, for example, authors such as Heinrich von Treitscke, Heinrich Luden, Heinrich von Sybel, and Gustav Droysen (in ), Adolphe Thiers, Jules Michelet, Taine Hippolyte, and Augustin Thierry (in France), Thomas Babington Macaulay, James Bryce, and Henry Thomas Buckle (in Great Britain), and William Archibald Dunning and George Bancroft (in the United States), as well as many more; for excellent overviews, see Storia della Storiografia, 2006; Berger/Donovan/ Passmore, 1999; Berger, 2004; Klose, 2003; Robbins, 1998). Those authors in italics will be discussed in greater detail. 126. Exceptions are rare, such as Jakob Burckhardt, 1948, 1972, and the political thoughts of Friedrich Nietzsche. 127. See Comte, 1865, 1875–7, 1975; Kramer, 2001; Mann, 1973; Rachwal/Slawek, 2000. 128. In this sense, Treitschke writes about and ‘describes’ a permanent interest of Prussia throughout history (1916, pp. 46–8). 129. For guilt and sacrifice as religious ideas in relation to national historiography and nationalism, see Abbt, 1915; Berger, 1988; Citron, 1987; Choron, 1967; Ebeling, 1984; Nassehi/Weber, 1989; O’Brian, 1988. 130. See, for example, Michelet, 1973, ‘The Superiority of France, as Both Dogma and Legend. France is a Religion’ (p. 190). 131. See Fichte, 1979; this aspect is brilliantly analyzed by Voegelin, 1986; see also Berghoff, 1997; Behr, 1998, Chapter V. 132. An incisive criticism of the nation-state with particular reference to this con- flict pattern will be formulated by Morgenthau in the 1950s (see also Niebuhr, 1932). This will be discussed later in greater detail; see Chapter IV.2. 133. The development of political geography as an academic discipline can be dated back for Europe and the United States to the end of the nineteenth century; for a historical account, see Unstead, 1949. 262 Notes

134. The most influential and prominent figures of late nineteenth- and twentieth- century geopolitics are probably Alfred Thayer Mahan, Sir Halford Mackinder, Friedrich Ratzel, Rudolf Kjellén, Karl Haushofer, and Nicholas J. Spykman. 135. The assumption of geographical reinforcements of politics, such as climate, topography, and territoriality, can be found prior to the establishment of polit ical geography as an academic discipline in, for example, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Bodin, Samuel von Pufendorf, and many more; for an instructive problem- atization of modernity and territoriality, see Ruggie, 1993; also Behr, 2004. 136. For the critical adaptation of Geopolitik in the United States, see Jones, 1959; Thorndike, 1942. Key authors involved in this discourse were Andrew Gyorgy, Johannes Mattern, Robert Strausz-Hupe, Edmund Walsh, Hans Werner Weigert, and Derwent Whittlesey. 137. See critically, for example, Dalby/O’Tuathail, 1998; Toft, 2003; affirmatively, Brzezinski, 1997; Kennan, 1947, 1991. 138. See, as an early example, Gottmann, 1951; for an overview, see Dalby/O’Tuathail, 2006; O’Tuathail, 1994, 1996, 2000; Agnew, 2001; Albert/Jacobsen/Lapid, 2001; Harvey, 1989; Henrikson, 1994. 139. With regard to Mackinder, see, for example, Semmel, 1958; also Minghi, 1963; with regard to geopolitics as ‘’, see, critically, Fettweiss, 2000; Blouet, 2005; Slater, 2004. 140. This perception appears to be crucial in nearly all modern theories of the nation-state; see, for example, Weber, 1971, 1972; critically, Simmel, 1992; also Behr, 2004, 2008; Walker, 1993; Agnew, 1987. 141. See, for example, Grayson, 2008; Kuus, 2007; Debrix, 2007; Razack, 2005; Graham, 2004; Falk, 2004; Brunn, 2004; Slater, 2004; Action Against Hunger, 2000; Jameson, 1995. 142. For the impact of Mackinder’s vision of a Eurasian ‘heartland’ on twenty-first- century power politics in the Caspian Sea region, see Mitchell, 1996. 143. A strong Mackinderian moment in Samuel Huntington’s construction of a ‘clash of civilization’ is unmistakable here; see Huntington, 1993, 1996. 144. For further details, see with regard to the European Union amongst others Behr, 2007; Mouritzen, 2005; Boeroecz/Kovacs, 2001; Diez, 1999; with general focus on the notion of civilization in European political thought, see Wolff, 1994; Gong, 1984. 145. Spykman positions his own approach in the middle ground between the ‘strict geographic ’ of Friedrich Ratzel and German Geopolitik and ‘pos- sibilism’ of French geopolitics by Vidal de la Blanche, Jacques Brunhes, Camille Vallaux, and Lucien Febvre; see Spykman, 1938a, p. 30 (therein footnote 3). 146. Amongst the huge critical body of literature on German Geopolitik, see Murphy, 1997; O’Loughlin/Heske, 1991; also Spykman, 1938a. 147. On this, see Kramer, 2001; Rachwal/Slawek, 2000; Bierstedt, 1997; Mann, 1973; Simon, 1963.

III.2 Manufacturing inter-national cooperation: The English School

148. For this position of a third way, see, amongst others, Buzan, 1993, under the heading ‘Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School’. 149. The description of the ontology of the English School as Hegelian stems pri- marily from the Hegelian notions of independent and particularistic states. Notes 263

It has to be noted that we find also influences of geopolitical thought in English School thinking, as, for example, in Wight, 1946, and Buzan, 1993. 150. The same contradiction is pointed out by Alan James, who concludes that there is no viable distinction between ‘international system’ and ‘international soci- ety’; see James, 1993. 151. It has to be asked why Wight and others carry on with this ontology, because they clearly see its deficits and problems and do not, as do neo-realists, nor- matively subscribe to it. The motive hypothesized with regard to neo-real- ism, namely, that this ontology and its ‘support’ serve ideological purposes and are ‘policy-driven’ (see Part IV), seems to be an invalid explanation for the English School, given Wight’s, Bull’s, and others’ deliberate absence from political consultancy and their primacy of academia. Interesting with regard to the ontological prioritization of a state-centric view by the English School is Martin Shaw, 1992, who concludes that the English School would reinforce ideology. I would not go so far because there are clear normative principles in the English School literature, which are supposed to overcome the ontology of the international system of sovereign states. However, I share Shaw’s observation on the ontological priorities of the English School. 152. Here, we read: ‘The rules of coexistence also include those which prescribe behavior that sustains the goal of the stabilization of each state’s control over its own persons and territory. At the heart of this complex of rules is the principle that each state accepts the duty to respect the sovereignty or supreme jurisdic- tion of every other state over its own citizens and domain, in return for the right to expect similar respect for its own sovereignty from other states’ (Bull, 1977, p. 67). 153. See in this regard also Hoffmann who notes that for Bull ‘the balancing of power was a necessity for the survival of international society’ (Hoffmann, 1986, p. 193), which reveals the paradox discussed here. 154. This observation, too, is shared by Linklater and Suganami who concede that ‘this is not an area that the English School has investigated in any detail ... Were the English School to set out to create a general theory of the transformation of past systems of states into societies of states, it would start with historical inquiry’ (2006, p. 124). Because it is conjecturable, however, that historical (or empirical) inquiry conceptually does not suffice for developing an ontology of international society – which, again, would be required in order to overcome its Hegelian legacies – additional conceptual questions have to be asked. 155. This critique receives further evidence in Wight’s discussions in chapter 24 ‘Beyond Power Politics’ (especially p. 289). 156. See also Linklater and Suganami who engage with the same argument (2006, pp. 135, 136). This seems not to have changed from the days of Bull and Wight into attempts to revitalize the English School. It is indicative for the problem when Buzan in ‘From International System to International Society’ (1993) always then, when it comes to specifying the very principles of transition from system to society, which would allow to conceptualize international society more precisely and thus would finally enable an ontology of international soci- ety, refers to rather vague formulations which indicate some kind of automa- tism, however, nothing precise, such as ‘at some point’ (p. 334) and ‘virtually’ (ibid.), refers to a ‘raison de système’ (p. 335), assumes the existence of ‘facts on 264 Notes

the ground’ which would ‘create incentives for the parties to recognize at least the existence of each other’s existence’ (p. 342), and finally escapes into mere functionalism when affirming that ‘units have no choice’ (p. 343). 157. Bull’s rehearsals of the ontological significance of the international system can also be found throughout Part 3 and in chapter 12 of Anarchical Society where he declines all concepts and visions of ‘Alternative Paths to World Order’ as containing ‘more ubiquitous and continuous violence and insecurity that does the modern states-system’ (p. 246), a decline which includes most explic- itly Richard Falk’s This Engendered Planet: Prospects and Proposals for Human Survival.

IV.1 Neo-realism and the ‘scientification’ of international political theory

158. The term scientification is to be understood in contrast to the more usual term scientization in that it shall both emphasize the neo-realist/neo-liberal attempt to establish international political theory as a (positivist, empiricist) ‘science’ and express my criticism that this attempt is not only inadequate for the study of politics (whether ‘domestic’ or ‘international’), which is always an her meneutic investigation of, and an interpretative engagement with, texts, representations, ideas, imaginations, worldviews, and so on, but that this attempt also led (and leads) to of ostensibly objective worldviews and respective for- eign policy claims, inclusions and exclusions, and ‘real’ world reifications (as discussed below). 159. The same problem exists in Marxist and Wilsonean forms of inter-nationalism; very interesting readings in this regard are Cox, 1987, 1996 and Ninkovich, 1994. 160. Because the focus of this discussion is on Waltz’s reading of Rousseau, I will not discuss the problematic with Rousseau’s concept itself, on which there is a huge body of literature in political theory and political thought. 161. See more on this in this chapter under the reification problem. 162. Here we find the main epistemological differences from Morgenthau; see more on that in Chapter IV.1.2. 163. This is misunderstood by many, for example, Hedley Bull, who attempts to criti- cize Waltz with an empirical, historical argument (see Chapter III.2.1). 164. This becomes most obvious in Realism and its Critics, edited by Keohane, 1986, where Waltz has a chance to review, and reply to, his critics in a final chapter of this edition. In this reply he again and again retreats to exactly this position of scientist theory and defends his theory and its consequences as a construct which proved to be ‘useful’. On behalf of fairness, however, it has to be admitted that, on the other side, most of his critics took anarchy actually as some form of empirical figure and focused their criticism on it. The only contributor in this volume who appears to attack Waltz on an epistemological level and thus aims at the right direction is Richard Ashley (1986). An instructive criticism of this immunization is also from Guzzini (1998), who terms Waltz’s strategy ‘moving the goalposts’ (p. 126); also Mouritzen, 1997. 165. Interesting for our understanding of twentieth-century IR and particularly for the position of Morgenthau in relation to ‘realism’ and neo-realism is that he critically analyzed the problematic of a dualistic construction in inter- national politics in his early writing La notion du politique (1933), discussing Notes 265

Carl Schmitt’s distinction between friend and foe (Schmitt, 1976) as well as Hegel’s sections on ‘international law’ in his Philosophy of Rights. Morgenthau notes a ‘ of dualism’ and the construction of ‘perpetual opposi- tions’ (1933, pp. 44–64) in Hegel and Schmitt, both of which would mean a depolitization of the political which, indeed, would be changing and in per- manent transformation (ibid., p. 50). Further to this, Morgenthau argues that this kind of dualistic construction would perceive ‘the other’ (both the indi- vidual and the other state) as a ‘genuine obstacle’ (ibid., p. 56; also p. 57), a position which would result in national foreign politics informed by a per- manent affirmation of a state vis-à-vis other states as the necessary require- ment of its existence (ibid., pp. 62, 63); on this aspect, see also Kleinschmidt, 2004b. 166. There is a huge body of literature from these streams as well as critical literature about this development (see, for example, Almond, 1974, 2001; Almond/Verba, 1965; Almond/Powell, 1978; Easton, 1953, 1965a, 1965b, 1990; Kaplan, 1975, 1969, 1970, 1979; very illuminating is Almond’s retrospective self-criticism regarding the developments of system theory and corresponding behavioural- ist approaches (see Almond, 1990; from a critical perspective see, for exam- ple, Groff, 2004; Siltala, 2000; Prasad, 2005; Taylor, 1964, 1983, 1985a, 1985b; Sjolander/Cox, 1994; Smith/Booth/Zalewski, 1996). I, therefore, do not intend to review those and to repeat the broad range of arguments for and against this way of theorizing, rather I want to elaborate on the specific problematic of reification inherent in this kind of theorizing and what it means for our discussion. 167. The problem of the ostensible value-freeness of neo-realism is (in a highly abstract and sometimes overcomplex way, as I think) also dis- cussed by Ashley (1986), who emphasizes the epistemological problem that Waltz’s structural explanation presupposes the existence of actors’ preferences. 168. For further instructive discussions of the reification problem as a problem, see Höffe, 1980; Gabel, 1975; Palmer, 1990; Linder, 1975; Honneth, 2008. 169. ‘The majority of writers during the nineteenth and at the beginning of the twentieth century, who following the positivistic school, rejected the distinc- tion between just and unjust wars and considered war as an act entirely within the uncontrolled sovereignty of the individual state. By applying armed forces as the ultima ratio in international politics, a state creates a factual situation where the rules governing the peaceful intercourse among nations are replaced by the law of war ... War is the exercise of the international right of action’ (Elbe, 1939, pp. 684, 685). 170. For purposes of illustrating this point, I want to reference an interview by the author with a now-retired IR scholar (whose name shall be kept anonymous here) who was acting at the forefront of the neo-realist/neo-liberal IR main- stream from the 1960s until the end of the Cold War. Overtly frank, critical, and very instructive for our discussion, it was admitted that ‘they’ had ‘given a ...’ about theoretical rectitude, interpretative righteousness, and scholarly integrity as long as ‘they’ could deliver concepts for power politics in line with the US administrations’ definitions of ‘national interest’ and received profes- sional recognition (and research funding) from the US State Department and the Pentagon. 266 Notes

IV.2 ‘Misreadings’ in IR: Reassessing Morgenthau, ideology critique, and the reification problem

171. I mostly agree with Guzzini’s interpretations of realism(s) and find it particularly satisfying that he refers to largely marginalized (though not marginal!) writ- ings of Morgenthau. I also understand his main argument about the increasing attempts of realist authors ‘to turn the rules of international society [particularly of the nineteenth-century international society] into scientific theory’ (1998, p. xi and throughout the book), and also I tend to fully endorse this thesis with regard to neo-realism and also Keohane’s authoritarian distinction between ‘rationalist’ and ‘reflectivist’ theories (Keohane, 1988). However, I cannot see an attempt, or even an inclination, by or in Morgenthau to develop (a) scientific theory. Rather I see his decisive opposition against such attempts. Also, I would put much less emphasis on the importance of anthropology in Morgenthau than Guzzini does. 172. See also Hoffmann, 1977; Holsti, 1985. Hoffmann characterized ‘International Relations’, especially of the 1950s and 1960s, as an ‘American Social Science’. IR would at the same time depend on, and utilize, the United States as an interna- tional super power in order to find its conditions for disciplinary development and existence. 173. As an example of ‘misreadings’ as intentional, see Gilbert, 1999; Behr, 2002. 174. An ideologically critical reading of realism is explicitly put forward by Morgenthau himself in the Prefaces of Politics Among Nations (1948, 1954, and 1960). 175. Most important here are his German Ph.D. thesis, his postdoctoral monograph, that is, his Geneva habilitation, written in French, and his monograph on the concept of the political, 1933, also written in French. No English translation yet exists for either of these; see, however, forthcoming Morgenthau, International Judicature and The Concept of the Political, ed. by Hartmut Behr and Felix Rösch, Leiden: Brill Publishers. One might also include in this body of marginalized writings the two volumes of his important Politics in the 20th Century, Vol. I and II (1962). 176. Very instructive in this regard is a letter from Morgenthau to the editor of the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science from 1947 (Morgenthau, 1947). 177. According to Paul Viotti and Mark Knauppi, the misjudgement of an indeed normative and value-oriented origin of realism applies not only to Waltz, but also to the entirety of neo-realism and neo-liberalism. Furthermore, this mis- judgement can also be found in critics of (neo-) realism, who, especially if they represent new qualitative approaches, mistakenly criticize realism and disas- sociate from it needlessly. Viotti and Knauppi speak of a ‘violation of the realist tradition, particularly by ignoring the value sensitivity of the realist legacy as represented by E. H. Carr and Hans J. Morgenthau’ (1993, p. 66; also Williams, 2006). Another powerful academic, who holds responsibility for this ‘violation’, in addition to Waltz, is Keohane. He describes Morgenthau as a representative of a rationalistic theory which would have become systematized through Waltz (Keohane, 1983, p. 192). These ‘violations’ may be traced back to attempts to canonize and construct a homogenous tradition of realism and neo-realism, which is due not only to the ideologization of the discipline, but also to the ‘sci- entification’ of the social sciences, including international relations since the Notes 267

Second . From such a perspective, any normative and hermeneutic base of realism has been decried as nonscientific, nonacademic, and amateurish (for this notion of ‘amateurism’, see critically Kahler, 1997, pp. 27–9). 178. This antipositivistic position of Morgenthau, which develops more and more clearly from his early writings into his later oeuvre, already appears in his 1933 monograph La notion du politique when he argues that there are no eter- nal structures and fixed laws as well as there was no in politics (pp. 34–6). 179. This already comes across from Morgenthau’s habilitation (1934, pp. 211–43) as well as from his Ph.D. thesis (1929). Following the legal-philosophical tradition of pacta sunt servanda, he advocates the normative regulation of international politics through norms and institutions of international law. 180. Morgenthau, 1954, pp. 220–1; he further explains this statement: ‘Moral rules operate within the of individual men. Government by clearly iden- tifiable men, who can be held personally accountable for their acts, is ... the pre- condition for ... an effective system of international ethics. Where responsibility government is widely distributed among a great number of individuals with different conceptions as to what is morally required in international affairs, or with no such conceptions at all, international morality as an effective system of restraints upon international policy becomes impossible’ (ibid., p. 226). 181. Morgenthau was influenced in this point by the work of Niebuhr, who speaks of, and condemns, the sanctimony of the modern nation-state. The moral condem- nation of national politics is traced back by Niebuhr – as it is with Morgenthau – to the conflict between the claim of uniqueness of the nation-state and its idea of the embodiment of universal values (Niebuhr, 1960; also Voegelin, 1986). 182. One of the few IR scholars who acknowledges Morgenthau’s criticism of the nation-state as well as the normative framework which Morgenthau advocates against the bellicose and conflictive consequences of national power politics is Guzzini (1998, p. 27), even though it seems that he cannot completely resist the mainstream narrative of Morgenthau’s theory as a grand theory and as an attempt to develop scientific theory (1998, for example, pp. 29, 30). 183. Morgenthau, 1962a, pp. 72, 65–6. His perception of the historic continuity of certain assumptions and political principles, which were based on the nature of man and political agency (Politics Among Nations, 1948, as well the editions of 1960, p. 34, and 1963, p. 76), is in this case no counterargument. Morgenthau holds only one assumption as historically universal: politics as a conflict of power. His concept of power, however, is to be understood in sharp contrast to the neo-realist notion. Morgenthau very explicitly criticized neo-realist notions of power; see on power as an ‘interpersonal’, nonquantifiable relation among ‘spiritual and moral beings’, his article ‘Common Sense and Theories’, published in 1967 and reprinted in Truth and Power 1970a, pp. 241–8. 184. Morgenthau adopts here the German term ‘standortgebunden’ according to Karl Mannheim’s work on ideology critique (1929). Mannheim uses the term in order to explain the historical and cultural standpoint of social and political modes of thought and theories (see very instructive Nelson, 1992). 185. ‘All great political theory ... has been practical theory (Morgenthau, 1962b, p. 73). 186. The same understanding communicates from Williams when he describes Morgenthau’s notion of ‘national interest’ as a ‘self-reflective concept’ (2005, p. 11). 268 Notes

187. This contingent character of power politics is also seen in his assessments of the relation between ‘intervention’ and ‘morality’ in ‘The Impotence of American Power’, in Morgenthau, 1970a, pp. 325–31; interesting here is also his complete revision of any promotion of power politics in the face of nuclear armament (see 1970b). 188. Morgenthau’s antiscientific position, or his criticism of the historically insensi- tive rationalization of politics according to economic modelling, is also clearly articulated in Scientific Man vs. Power Politics (1946). 189. The conception of ideology used here is drawn from the classical tradition of ideology study, which seeks to elaborate the concept of ideology as a false con- sciousness or misled Weltanschauung (worldview), and which posits objective conditions and ‘’ by status quo powers in order to manipulate certain social and political situations. This understanding separates ideology from impli- cations of material condition and/or class structure intrinsic to Marxist theories. Furthermore, it does not claim to represent another ‘correct’ Weltanschauung against the one declared as ‘false’ or misleading, rather it seeks to pluralistically open up a field of possible interpretations arguing against confinements of such pluralism by reifications of certain worldviews or by internal contradictions and/or manipulations of their construction. Such Weltanschauungen or ideolo- gies are then and for those reasons identified as ‘false’ and misleading. 190. For Mannheim, this also includes the collective unconsciousness; Mannheim, 1936, pp. 57–62. 191. According to conceptualizations from the by Horkheimer, 1982; Adorno, 1976; Marcuse, 1991; Habermas, 1978; instructive on this typ- ology is Geuss, 1981. 192. In addition to the literature referenced above, see important books by Lichtheim, 1967; McLellan, 1986; Eagleton, 1991; Cassels, 1996; Althusser, 1976; Bracher, 1984. 193. For example, Evans/Newnham, 1998; Williams/Goldstein/Shafritz, 1999; Chaigenau, 1998; also quite uncritical towards these narratives is Baylis and Smith, 2001; further examples are Jackson/Sorensen, 1999; Knutsen, 1992; Nye, 2000. 194. Examples for this are rich and reach from, just to name a few, McCarthy’s anti- communist ‘witch hunt’, oppression and surveillance of the civil rights and anti- movements to the more general patterns of the ‘production of fear’ (see, for example, Buzan, 1983; Massumi, 1993; Weldes et al., 1999) and strategies of ‘securitization’ (Oren, 2000; Buzan/Waever/de Wilde, 1998; Campbell, 1998), which are not at all new phenomena. 195. Kahler’s events and demands-driven factors can indeed be paralleled to what Morgenthau described as politics driven by a ‘preoccupation with practical con- cerns’, which manifests itself in empirical methodology of positivist social sci- ences – a methodology that further contributes to what Morgenthau con siders the complete obfuscation of purpose, or lack thereof, in twentieth-century political ‘science’ (Morgenthau, 1962a, pp. 20–7). 196. Such a sociology of knowledge study cannot be undertaken here, but studies which point in this direction – though all with regard to Morgenthau and IR – are Rösch, 2008; Tjalve, 2008; Mollov, 2002; Frei, 2001; Korhonen, 1983. 197. Ibid., 205; translation mine. The meaning of the term genealogical in Mannheim is quite similar to its understanding in Nietzsche and can be perceived as the methodology to investigate contingent perspectives in political thought which is crucial in Nietzsche’s writings from which immediate influences can be traced to Mannheim’s concept of Standortgebundenheit; see also Dollinger, 2006; Notes 269

Goldmann, 1995; regarding the concept of genealogy in (critical) IR see, for example, Der Derian, 1987; Der Derian and Shapiro, 1989. 198. It seems that the same intellectual, academic, and social mechanisms of ideol- ogy formation as discussed here with regard to neo-realism and neo-liberalism (meanwhile) also apply to poststructuralism in IR; at least the same misread- ings about ‘realism’, a realist tradition in international political thought and IR, and a ‘realist’-neorealist unity exist here and seem to be carried on while poststructuralism seems to increasingly develop into a school of thought, show- ing the same mechanisms of knowledge production and knowledge protection; of in-group rhetoric, jargon, and set pieces of knowledge; of standardization and canonization of knowledge; of social inclusion and exclusion; and all this para- doxically irrespective of the poststructuralist self-obligation of criticality. One might conclude that Lyotard’s early warning (1979) of the production of new narratives while deconstructing old ones has not been taken seriously enough and returns to poststructuralist theorizing itself, not without some sense of irony. A most striking example of these mechanisms of ideology-building of poststructuralist theorizing is probably Jim George’s Discourses of Global Politics (1994). A highly interesting and, in this regard of furthering poststructuralist self-criticality, elucidating new book is Walker, After the Globe, before the World (2009). 199. See also Luke, who speaks with regard to diversities of the ‘unboun-d(ed)aries’ of ‘astatist spaces’ and ‘astatist texts’, which realists and neo-realists ‘cannot read’ (1993, p. 255). 200. Interestingly, this is an outlook also shared by Morgenthau, but one which seems lost under the auspices of the IR mainstream.

V.1 Universal, universalistic – universalized

201. See on this point very instructive discussions in van der Veer, 1998. 202. This is affirmed several times throughout the charter; see Art. 2.1, 2.4, and 2.7. 203. It is interesting to note that the Latin roots of the word ‘recognition’, recognitio and recognosco, bear the meanings ‘inspection’, ‘investigation’, and ‘getting to know something’ with a clear sense of discovering something familiar, typical, tangible, yet recognizable in the synonymous meaning of realizing and making out something in common and of agnizing a shared participation in something which is revealing to both/all parties; see also the Latin agnosco and English ‘acknowledgement’. 204. This construction, which communicates from Hegel’s last paragraphs of his Philosophy of Rights (as discussed in Chapter III.1.1), seems to be similar to his metaphysics of the subject and the affirmation of the individual self; see Pippin, 1989; Taylor, 1989. In this context, see also Bull’s definition of recognition dis- cussed in Chapter III.2.1 and its Hegelian legacies when he asserts that ‘what is recognized determines the act of recognition’. 205. See Die Westphälischen Friedensverträge vom 24. Oktober 1648. Texte und Übersetzungen (Acta Pacis Westphalicae. Supplementa eletronica, 1, publiziert im Internet 2004, Lateinischer Text des IPO (1648 Oktober 24)); http://www. pax-westphalica.de/ipmipo/pdf/o_1648lt-orig.pdf (1 January, 2009). 206. See http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/hag99–03.asp (1 January, 2009). 207. See http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leagcov.asp (1 January, 2009). 208. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/westphal.asp (1 January, 2009). 270 Notes

209. See Die Westphälischen Friedensverträge vom 24. Oktober 1648. Texte und Übersetzungen (Acta Pacis Westphalicae. Supplementa eletronica, publiziert im Internet 2004, Englische anonyme Übersetzung des IPO (1713)); http://www. pax-westphalica.de/ipmipo/pdf/o_1732en-treatys.pdf (January 1, 2009). 210. Such as the English edition published by the Avalon Project, Documents in Law, History, and , Yale Law School, Lillian Goldman Law Library; http:// avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/westphal.asp (1 January, 2009). 211. http://www.pax-westphalica.de/ipmipo/pdf/o_1648lt-orig.pdf (1 January, 2009). 212. These comments may be seen as an approach to develop and to contextualize a genealogy of the problem of recognition in international politics within the history of universalism and particularism and a respective topology. To some extent, the examples referenced here support and complement my argument about universal/universalistic and particularistic , their history and their shifts; on the other hand, this contextualization needs more elaboration and represents topics for further research.

V.2 A loss of ethics, or the reinvention of universal thinking in global politics?

213. Two future projects of the author point in this direction, one on ‘Changing pat- terns of violence and power in international society’ and one on ‘Compromise, Conflict Management and International Negotiation’. 214. Jean Paul Sartre’s discussion of the problematic of ontological which, as he argues, cannot ‘justify’ the existence of the other and can only deal with ‘otherness’, which it itself produced in suppressive ways, is very elucidating in this regard (Sartre, 1956). 215. Efforts of this kind of rethinking do not yet represent a coherent body of lit- erature and can be found in works which are interdisciplinary in character and come from different directions within the social sciences and humanities. Amongst others, Hoffmann, 1981; Bonanate, 1995; Mapel and Nardin, 1998; Campbell/Shapiro, 1999; Benhabib, 2002; Lebow, 2003; Linklater, 2007; and Walker, 2009, seem to represent such attempts, which show many overlapping points of interest as well as connections to the main concern and issues of this study, even if diverging in single arguments and interpretations. 216. Lévinas seems particularly interesting in his attempts to think beyond post- structrualism. In this attempt, he shares a common notion with Francois Lyotard (1979) about the inner contradictions of poststructuralist theorizing, which seems silent on the problem of evaluating its own narratives which emerge while deconstructing others as well as about the problem of relativ- ism, that is, the normative assessment of different forms of speech and agency as more or less tolerable. He thus tries to rescue humanity from the aporias of poststructuralist while taking seriously poststructuralist criti- cism and actually having been at the forefront of French poststructuralism in the 1970s and 1980s. 217. As briefly sketched out above; for further discussions, see Boer, 1997; Eaglestone, 1997; Beavers, 1995; Llewelyn, 1995; Hanus, 2007. 218. An ethics of self-constraint, which also emphasizes humility and responsibility, as well as an approach to rethink its legacies for rebuilding IR in the twenty- first century, can also be found in Niebuhr’s and Morgenthau’s criticisms of Notes 271

US foreign policy during the Cold War and as argued convincingly by Schou Tjalve (2008). According to Schou Tjalve, both Niebuhr and Morgenthau have criticized US foreign policy, which they has represented many of its decisions during the Cold War as inevitable according to a neo-realist logic of ‘survival’ and its subsequent dogmas of manifestation of US national inter- est in its ideological fight against and the Soviet Union. Indeed, however, US foreign policy would also have been based on the belief of its own greatness and exceptionality as well as on its ambitions for glory. The aspect of self-constraint, as Schou Tjalve further argues, can be found in Niebuhr’s and Morgenthau’s emphasis on the importance of critical self-reflection contrary to US administrations’ ideological presentations of their as political inev- itabilities and ‘laws’; see also Rösch, 2009. Bibliography

Abbt, Th. (1915 [1772]), Vom Tode fuer das Vaterland, mit einer Einleitung von Paul Friedrich, Vermischte Werke 1, Leipzig: Xenien Verlag. Action Against Hunger (2000), The Geopolitics of Hunger, 2000–2001, Boulder, CO: Lienne Rienner. Adorno, Th. W. (1976), The Positivist Dispute in German Sociology, translated by Glyn Adey and David Frisby, London: . Agnew, J. (1987), Place and Politics : The Geographical Mediation of State and Society, Boston, MA: Allen and Unwin. Agnew, J. (2001), ‘The New Global Economy: Time-Space Compression, Geopolitics, and Global Uneven Development’, Journal of World Systems Research 7(2), 133–54. Albert, M., Jacobsen, D., and Lapid, Y. (2001), Identities, Borders, Orders: Rethinking International Relations Theory, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Alker, H. R. Jr. (1992), ‘The Humanistic Moment in International Studies: Reflections on Machiavelli and Las Casas: 1992 Presidential Address’, International Studies Quarterly 36(4), 347–71. Almond, G. A. (1974), Comparative Politics Today: A World View, Boston, MA: Little Brown. Almond, G. A. (1990), ‘Clouds, Clocks, and the Study of Politics’, in: A Discipline Divided: Schools and Sects in Political Science, edited by Gabriel A. Almond, 32–65, Boston, MA: . Almond, G. A. (2001), Comparative Politics: A Theoretical Framework, New York: Longman. Almond, G. A. and Powell, G. B. Jr. (1978), Comparative Politics: System, Process, and Policy, Boston, MA: Little Brown. Almond, G. A. and Verba, S. (eds) (1965), The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations, Boston, MA: Little Brown. Althusser, L. (1976), Essays on Ideology. London: Verso. Anderson, B. (2006), Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, London, New York: Verso. Aquinas, T. (2007), Summa Theologica, Christian Classical Ethereal Library, Calvin College, Online Texts, www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.html, Public Domain BX1749.T5 (accessed 21 July 2007). Arendt, H. (1958), The Human Condition, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Arendt, H. (1982), Lectures on Kant’s Political Philosophy, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Aristotle (2009), Nicomachean Ethics, translated by David Ross, revised with an intro- duction and notes by Lesley Brown, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Armstrong, A. C. (1931), ‘Kant’s Philosophy on ’, The Journal of Philosophy 28(8), 197–204. Aron, R. (1966), Peace and War. A Theory of International Relations, New York: Praeger. Ashcraft, R. (1978), ‘Ideology and Class in Hobbes’ Political Theory’, Political Theory 6(1), 27–62. Ashley, R. K. (1986), ‘The Poverty of Neorealism, in: Neorealism and Its Critics, edited by R. O. Keohane, 255–300, New York: Columbia University Press.

272 Bibliography 273

Ashley, R. K. (1987), ‘The Geopolitics of Geopolitical Space: Toward a Critical Social Theory of International Politics’, Alternatives 12(4), 403–34. Augustine, A. (1955), Enchiridion, The Library of Christian Classics, Vol. VII: Augustine, Confessions and Enchiridion, newly translated and edited by Albert C. Outler, London: SCM Press LTD. Augustine, A. (1986), Soliloquia, Latin-German Edition, ‘Selbstgespraeche’ und ‘Von der Unsterblichkeit der Seele’, : Artemis Verlag. Augustine, A. (1988), Confessions, edited and translated by William Watts, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Augustine, A. (1990), Soliloquies; and Immortality of the Soul; with an introduction, translation, and commentary by Gerard Watson, Warminster, UK: Aris & Philips. Augustine, A. (1995), De Doctrina Christiana, edited and translated by R. P. H. Green, London: Clarendon Press. Augustine, A. (1998), The City of God against the Pagans, edited and translated by R. W. Dyson, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought). Axinn, S. (1958), ‘Kant, Logic, and the Concept of Mankind’, Ethics 68(4), 286–91. Bagby, L. M. J. (1994), ‘The Use and Misuse of Thucydides in International Relations’, International Organization 48(1), 131–53. Ball, T. (1984), ‘The Picaresque Prince: Reflections on Machiavelli and Moral Change’, Political Theory 12(4), 521–36. Bartelson, J. (1995), ‘The Trial of Judgment: A Note on Kant and the Paradoxes of Internationalism’, International Studies Quarterly 39, 255–79. Bauer, W. (1980), China und die Fremden. 3000 Jahre Auseinandersetzung in Krieg und Frieden, München: Beck Verlag. Baylis, J. and Smith, S. (eds) (2001), The Globalization of World Politics. An Introduction to International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Beavers, A. F. (1995), Lévinas Beyond the Horizons of : An Inquiry into the Metaphysics of Morals, New York: Peter Lang. Becker, C. (2003), The Heavenly City of the Eighteenth Century Philosophers, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Behr, H. (1998), Zuwanderungspolitik im Nationalstaat. Formen der Eigen- und Fremdbestimmung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Frankreich und den USA, Opladen, Germany: Leske and Budrich. Behr, H. (2002), ‘The Conjunction between IR Theory and Political Philosophy: Insights and Difficulties – A Review of Alan Gilbert, Must Global Politics Constrain Democracy?’, Constellations. An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory 9(3), 450–2. Behr, H. (2004), Entterritoriale Politik. Von den Internationalen Beziehungen zur Netzwerkanalyse, Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag. Behr, H. (2005), ‘The Myth of the Nation and Legacies of Nationalism. Immigration Politics and the Construction of Identity in the European Union’, International Political Economy 2, 1–18. Behr, H. (2007), ‘The European Union in the Legacies of Imperial Rule? EU Accession Politics Viewed from a Historical Comparative Perspective’, European Journal of International Relations 13(2), 239–62. Behr, H. (2008), ‘Deterritorialisation and the Transformation of Statehood: The Paradox of Globalisation’, Geopolitics 3(2), 359–82. Behr, H. and Heath, A. (2009), ‘Misreading in IR Theory and Ideology Critique: Morgenthau, Waltz, and Neo-realism’, Review of International Studies 35(2), 327–49. 274 Bibliography

Behr, H. and Roesch, F. (eds) (forthcoming), Hans J. Morgenthau, International Judicature and the Concept of the Political, Leiden, The : Brill. Beitz, C. R. (1979), Political Theory and International Relations, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Bell, A. (1997), ‘Cicero and the Spectacle of Power’, The Journal of Roman Studies 87, 1–22. Benhabib, S. (2002), The Claims of Culture. Equality and Diversity in the Global Era, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Berger, P. L. (1988), Zur Dialektik von Religion und Gesellschaft, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Berger, S. (2004), ‘Representations of the Past: The Writing of National Histories in Europe’, Debate: A Review of Contemporary German Studies 12(1), 73–96. Berger, S., Donovan, M., and Passmore, K. (eds) (1999), Writing National Histories. Western Europe since 1800, London: Routledge. Berger, S., Eriksonas, L., and Mycock, A. (eds) (2008), Narrating the Nations: The Representation of National Narratives in Different Genres, Oxford: Berghahn. Berghoff, P. (1997), Der Tod des politischen Kollektivs. Politische Religionen und das Sterben und Toeten fuer Volk, Nation und Rasse, Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Berlin, I. (1980), ‘The Originality of Machiavelli’, in: Against the Current: Essays in the History of Ideas, edited by I. Berlin, 25–79, New York: . Berridge, G. R. (1997), Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, New York: Prentice Hall. Berridge, G. R. (ed.) (2001), Diplomatic Theory from Machiavelli to Kissinger, New York: Palgrave. Bierstedt, A. (1997), Darwins Erben und die Vielfalt der Kulturen: Zur Kausalitaet kulturel- len Wandels aus darwinistischer Sicht, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag. Bitterli, Urs (1991), Die ‘Wilden’ und die ‘Zivilisierten’. Grundzüge einer Geistes- und Kulturgeschichte der europäisch-überseeischen Begegnung, München: Beck Verlag. Blouet, B. W. (ed.) (2005), Global Geostrategy: Mackinder and the Defence of the West, London: Frank Cass. Boer, Th. (1997), The Rationality of Transcendence. Studies in the Philosophy of Emmanuel Lévinas, Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben. Boeroecz, J. and Kovacs, M. (eds) (2001), Empire’s New Clothes: Unveiling EU Enlargement, www.ce-review.org. Bonanate, L. (1995), Ethics and International Politics, Cambridge: Polity Press. Boucher, D. (1998), Political Theories of International Relations. From Thucydides to the Present, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bourdieu, Pierre (1977), Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, Pierre (1990), The Logic of Practice, Cambridge: Polity Press. Bracher, K. D. (1984), The Age of : A History of Political Thought in the 20th Century, New York: St. Martin’s Press. Brooks, Th. (2004) ‘Hegel’s Theory of International Politics: A Reply to Jaeger’, Review of International Studies 30, 149–52. Brown, C. (1997), Understanding International Relations, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Brown, C., Nardin, T., and Rengger, N. (eds) (2002), International Relations in Political Thought. Texts from the Ancient Greeks to the First World War, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brunt, P. A. (1986), ‘Cicero’s Officium in the ’, The Journal of Roman Studies 76, 12–32. Bibliography 275

Brunn, S. D. (ed.) (2004), 11 September and its Aftermath: The Geopolitics of Terror, London: Frank Cass. Brzezinski, Z. (1997), The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geopolitical Imperatives, New York: Basic. Bull, H. (1995 [1977]), The Anarchical Society, New York: Columbia University Press. Bull, H. (1981), ‘Hobbes and the International Anarchy’, Social Research 48(4), 717–38. Bull, H. (1984a), ‘The Emergence of a Universal International Society’, in: The Expansion of International Society, edited by Bull and Adam Watson, 117–26, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bull, H. (1984b), ‘The revolt against the West’, in: Bull and Watson (eds), The Expansion of International Society, 217–28, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bull, H. and Watson, A. (eds) (1984), The Expansion of International Society, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Burckhardt, J. (1948), Weltgeschichtliche Betrachtungen, Wuppertal, Germany: Marées Verlag. Burckhardt, J. (1972), Staat und Kultur, Zurich: Manesse Verlag. Burtt, E. A. (1954 [1924]), The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science. The Scientific Thinking of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and Their Contemporaries, Garden City, NY: Anchor. Butterfield, H. (1949), Christianity and History, London: G. Bell. Butterfield, H. (1951), History and Human Relations, London: Collins. Buzan, B. (1983), People, States, Fear. An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era, London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Buzan, B. (1993), ‘From International System to International Society. Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School’, International Organization 47(3), 327–52. Buzan, B. (1996), ‘The Timeless Wisdom of Realism?’, in: International Theory: and Beyond, edited by Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski, 47–65, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Buzan, B., Jones, Ch., and Little, R. (1993), The Logic of Anarchy: Neo-Realism to Structural Realism, New York: Columbia University Press. Buzan, B., Waever, O., and de Wilde, J. (1998), Security: A New Framework for Analysis, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Buzan, B. and Waever, O. (2003), Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Cahnman, W. (1949), ‘Frontiers between East and West Europe’, Geographical Review 39(4), 605–24. Campbell, D. (1992 [1998]), Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity, Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. Campbell, D. (1996), ‘Political Prosaics, Transversal Politics, and the Anarchical World’, in: Challenging Boundaries: Global Flows, Territorial Identities, edited by Michael E. Shapiro and Hayward R. Alker, 7–31, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Campbell, D. and Shapiro, M. (1999) (eds), Moral Spaces: Rethinking Ethics and World Politics, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Carla, M. (1994), ‘The Archaeology of Empires’, Annual Review of Anthropology 23, 159–80. Carmichael, D. J. C. (1983), ‘C. B. Macpherson’s “Hobbes”: A Critique’, Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique 16(1), 61–80. 276 Bibliography

Carmichael, D. J. C. (1990), ‘Hobbes on Natural Right in Society: The “Leviathan” Account’, Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique 23(1), 3–21. Casas, B. de las (1965), The Devastation of the Indian. A Brief Account, translated by Herma Briffault, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Casas, B. de las (1971), A Selection of his Writings, edited and translated by George Sanderlin, New York: Knopf. Casas, B. de las (1992a), In Defense of the Indians, translated by Stafford Poole, fore- word by Martin E. Marty, DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press. Casas, B. de las (1992b), The Only Way, edited by Helen Rand Parish, translated by Francis Patrick Sullivan, New York: Paulist Press. Cassels, A. (1996), Ideology and International Relations in the Modern World, London: Routledge. Chabot, D. (1995), ‘Thomas Hobbes: Skeptical Moralist’, The American Political Science Review 89(2), 401–10. Chaigenau, P. (ed) (1998), Dictionnaire des relations international, Paris: Collection Diplomatie. Charney, J. I. (1993), ‘Universal International Law’, The American Journal of International Law 87(4), 529–51. Cederman, L. (2001), ‘Back to Kant: Reinterpreting the Democratic Peace as a Marcohistorical Learning Process’, The American Political Science Review 95(1), 15–31. Choron, J. (1967), Der Tod im abendlaendischen Denken, Stuttgart: Klett Verlag. Cicero, M. T., On Moral Duties (De officiis), the Online Library of , Liberty Fund, Inc. 2005, www.oll.libertyfund.org/EBooks/Cicero_0265.pdf (accessed January 2007), originally Cicero, Ethical Writings, ‘De Officiis’, ‘De Senecute’, ‘De Amicitia’, and ‘Scipio’s Dream’, translated with an introduction and notes by Andrew P. Paebody, Boston, MA: Little Brown, 1887. Cicero, M. T., Treatise on the Commonwealth (De re publica), the Online Library of Liberty, Liberty Fund, Inc. 2005, http://oll.libertyfund.org/EBooks/ Cicero_0044.01.pdf (accessed January 2007), from Cicero (1841–2), The Political Works of Marcus Tullius Cicero: Comprising his Treatise on the Commonwealth; and his Treatise on the Laws, translated from the original, with Dissertations and Notes in two volumes, by Francis Barham, London: Edmund Spettigue. Cicero, M. T., Treatise on the Law (De legibus), the Online Library of Liberty, Liberty Fund, Inc. 2005, http://oll.libertyfund.org/EBooks/Cicero_0044.02.pdf (accessed January 2007), from Cicero (1841–2), The Political Works of Marcus Tullius Cicero: Comprising his ‘Treatise on the Commonwealth’ and ‘Treatise on the Laws’, trans- lated from the original, with Dissertations and Notes in two volumes, by Francis Barham, London: Edmund Spettigue. Citron, S. (1987), Le mythe national. L’histoire de France en question, Paris: L’edition ouvrieres. Clover, Ch. (1999), ‘Dreams of the Eurasian Heartland’, Foreign Affairs 78(2), 9–13. Cochrane, Ch. N. (1961), Christianity Classical Culture. A Study of Thought and Action from Augustus to Augustine, New York: Oxford University Press. Colish, M. L. (1978), ‘Cicero’s De Officiis and Machiavelli’s Prince’, Sixteenth Century Journal 9(4), 80–93. Comte, A. (1865), A General View of Positivism, translated from the French by John H. Bridges, London: Truebner and Co. Comte, A. (1875–7), System of Positive Polity, edited by John H. Bridges, London: Longmans, Green and Co. Bibliography 277

Comte, A. (1975), Physique sociale, présentation et notes par Jean-Paul Enthoven, Paris: Hermann. Connolly, W. E. (1996), ‘Toqueville, Territory, and Violence’, in: Challenging Boundaries: Global Flows, Territorial Identities, edited by Michael E. Shapiro and Hayward R. Alker, 141–64, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Cowell, F. R. (1972), Cicero and the Roman Republic, Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin. Cox, R. W. (1987), Production, Power, and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of History, New York: Columbia University Press. Cox, R. W. (1996), Approaches to World Order, with Timothy J. Sinclair, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Creed, J. L. (1973), ‘Moral Values in the Age of Thucydides’, The Classical Quarterly 23, 213–31. Crick, B. (1980), George Orwell. A Life, Boston, MA: Little Brown. Crick, B. (2003), Introduction to The Discourses by Niccolo Machiavelli, edited by Bernard Crick, London: Penguin. Dalby, S. and O’Tuathail, G. (eds) (1998), Rethinking Geopolitics, New York: Routledge. Dallmayer, F. (2002), ‘Globalization and Inequality: A Plea for ’, in: International Relations and the New Inequality, edited by Mustapha K. Pasha and Craig N. Murphy, 137–56, Malden, MA: Blackwell. Debrix, F. (2007), Tabloid Terror: War, Culture, and Geopolitics, New York: Routledge. Der Derian, J. (1987), On Diplomacy. A Genealogy of Western Estrangement. Oxford: Blackwell. Der Derian, J. and Shapiro, M. J. (eds) (1989), International/Intertextual Relations: Postmodern Readings of World Politics, Lexington, MA: Lexington. Diez, Th. (1999), ‘Speaking Europe: The Politics of Integration Discourse’, Journal of European Public Policy 6(4), 598–613. Dietz, M. G. (1986), ‘Trapping the Prince: Machiavelli and the Politics of Deception’, The American Political Science Review 80(3), 777–99. Dihle, A. (1994), Die Griechen und die Fremden, München: Beck Verlag. Dollinger, B. (2006), ‘Karl Mannheim, Michel Foucault und die Perspektivitaet von “Wahrheit” ’, in: Die Paedagogik der sozialen Frage. (Sozial)Paedagogische Theorie vom Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts bis zum Ende der Weimarer Republik, 45–50. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag. Donovan, B. M. (1965), Introduction to B. de las Casas, The Devastation of the Indians, 1–26. Dunne, Tim (1998), Inventing International Society. A History of the English School, London: Macmillan Press and St. Martin’s Press. Düring, I. (1966), Aristoteles: Darstellung und Interpretation seines Denkens, Heidelberg: Karl Winter Universitätsverlag. Eaglestone, R. (1997), Ethical Criticism: Reading after Lévinas, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Eagleton, T. (1991), Ideology: An Introduction. London: Verso. Easton, D. (1953), The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science, New York: Knopf. Easton, D. (1965a), A Framework for Political Analysis, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Easton, D. (1965b), A Systems Analysis of Political Life, New York: Wiley. Easton, D. (1990), The Analysis of Political Structure, New York: Routledge. Ebeling, H. (ed.) (1984), Der Tod in der Moderne, Frankfurt am Main: Syndikat/EVA. Edmunds, L. (1975), ‘Thucydides’ Ethics as Reflected in the Description of Stasis (3.82–3)’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 79, 73–92. 278 Bibliography

Elbe von, J. (1939), ‘The Evolution of the Concept of Just War in International Law’, The American Journal of International Law 33(4), 665–88. Eisenstadt, S. N. (1963), The Political System of Empires. Glencoe, IL: . Elrod, R. B. (1976), ‘The Concert of Europe: A Fresh Look at an International System’, World Politics 28(2), 159–74. Evans, G. and Newnham, J. (eds) (1998), The Penguin Dictionary of International Relations, London: Penguin Press. Falk, R. (1971), This Engendered Planet: Prospects and Proposals for Human Survival, New York: . Falk, R. (2004), The Declining World Order: America’s Imperial Geopolitics, New York: Routledge. Ferguson, Y. and Mansbach, R. (1988), The Elusive Quest. Theory and International Politics, Columbia, S. C.: University of South Carolina Press. Ferguson, Y. H. and Mansbach R. W. (1996), ‘Political Space and Westphalian States in a World of “Polities”. Beyond Inside/Outside’, Global Governance 2, 261–87. Ferguson, Y. and Mansbach, R. (2003), The Elusive Quest Continues: Theory and Global Politics, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Fettweiss, Ch. (2000, Summer), ‘Sir Halford Mackinder, Geopolitics, and Policy- making in the 21st Century’, Parameters, 58–71. Fichte, J. G. (1979), Addresses to the German Nation, translated by R. F. Jones and G. H. Turnbull, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Fichte, J. G. (2000), Foundations of Natural Right: According to the Principles of the ‘Wissenschaftslehre’, edited by Frederick Neuhouser, translated by Michael Baur, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fichte, J. G. (2005), The Science of Knowing: J. G. Fichte’s Lectures on the ‘Wissenschaftslehre’, translated by Walter E. Wright, Albany: State University of New York Press. Fink-Eitel, H. (1994), Die Philosophie und die Wilden. Ueber die Bedeutung des Fremden fuer die europaeische Geistesgeschichte, Hamburg: Junius Verlag GmbH. Fisch, J. (2005), ‘The Globalization of International Law in the Nineteenth Century’, International Political Economy 15, 1–11. Fliess, P. J. (1959), ‘Political Disorder and Constitutional Form: Thucydides’ Critique of Contemporary Politics’, Journal of Politics 21(4), 592–623. Flint, C. and Taylor, P. J. (2007), Political Geography: World Economy, Nation-State, and Locality, Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Ltd. Flory, S. (1988), ‘Thucydides’s Hypotheses about the Peloponnesian War’, Transactions of the American Philological Association 118, 43–56. Forde, S. (1992), ‘Varieties of Realism: Thucydides and Machiavelli’, Journal of Politics 54, 372–93. Forde, S. (1995), ‘International Realism and the Science of Politics: Thucydides, Machiavelli and Neorealism’, International Studies Quarterly 39(2), 141–60. Forsyth, F. (2003), Cicero: Defender of the Republic, New York: Rosen. Forsyth, M.G., Keens-Soper, H. M. A., and Savigear, P. (eds) (1970), The Theory of International Relations: Selected Texts from Gentili to Treitschke, London: Allen and Unwin. Foucault, M. (1965), Madness and Civilization. A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason, New York: Vintage. Foucault, M. (1970), The Order of Things. An Archaeology of the Human Sciences, London: Tavistock. Foucault, M. (1972), The Archaeology of Knowledge, translated from the French by A. M. Sheridan Smith, New York: Pantheon. Bibliography 279

Foucault, M. (1973), The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perception, New York: Pantheon. Foucault, M. (1977), Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, New York: Pantheon. Foucault, M. (1983), Beyond and , in: Hubert L. Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow; with an afterword by and an interview with Michel Foucault, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Franke, F. N. (2001), Global Limits: I. Kant, International Relations and Critique of World Politics, Albany: State University of New York Press. Frederick II (1958), L’ anti Machiavel, ou, Essai de critique sur le Prince de Machiavel, edited by François Marie Arouet Voltaire, Geneva: Institut et musèe Voltaire. Freeden, M. (1996), Ideologies and Political Theory: A Conceptual Approach, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Freeden, M., Michael Freeden, Gayil Talshir, and Mathew Humphrey (eds) (2006), Taking Ideology Seriously: 21st Century Reconfigurations, London: Routledge. Frei, Ch. (2001), Hans J. Morgenthau. An Intellectual Biography, Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. Gabel, J. (1975), False Consciousness: An Essay on Reification, Oxford: Blackwell. Garland, L. (2005), Ancient Rome: From the Early Republic to the Assassination of Julius Caesar, Oxford: Routledge. Gaubatz, K. T. (1996), ‘Democratic States and Commitment in International Politics’, International Organization 50(1), 109–39. Gauthier, D. (1979), ‘Thomas Hobbes: Moral Theorist’, The Journal of Philosophy 76(19), 547–59. George. J. (1994), Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical (Re)Introduction to International Relations, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Geuss, R. (1981), The Idea of a : Habermas and the Frankfurt School, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Giddens, A. (1987), The Nation-State and Violence. Volume Two of a Contemporary Critique of Historical , Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Gilbert, A. (1999), Must Global Democracy Constrain Democracy? Great-Power Realism, Democratic Peace, and Democratic Internationalism, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Gilpin, R. (1981), War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gilpin, R. (1984), ‘The Richness of the Tradition of Political Realism’, International Organization 38, 287–304. Goehler, H. (1931), Freies Kriegsfuehrungsrecht und Kriegsschuld, Leipzig: Noske Verlag. Goldman, H. (1995), ‘From Social Theory to Sociology of Knowledge and Back: Karl Mannheim and the Sociology of Intellectual Knowledge Production’, Sociological Theory 12(3), 266–78. Gong, G. (1984), The Standard of Civilization in International Society, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gottmann, J. (1951), ‘Geography and International Relations’, World Politics 3(2), 153–73. Graham, St. (ed.) (2004), Cities, War, and : Towards an Urban Geopolitics, Malden, MA: Blackwell. Grayson, K. (2008), Chasing Dragons: Security, Identity, and Illicit Drugs in Canada, Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Greenblatt, St. (1991), Marvelous Possessions, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 280 Bibliography

Groff, R. (2004), Critical Realism, Post-Positivism, and the Possibility of Knowledge, London: Routledge. Guzzini, St. (1998), Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy. The Continuing Story of a Death Foretold, London: Routledge. Gyorgy, A. (1944), Geopolitics. The New German Science, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Haas, E. (1995), ‘On Systems and International Relations’, World Politics 27, 147–74. Habermas, J. (1978), Knowledge and Human Interests, translated by Jeremy J. Shapiro, London: Heinemann Educational. Haftendorn, H. (1991), ‘The Security Puzzle: Theory-Building and Discipline-Building in International Security’, International Studies Quarterly 35(1), 3–17. Hamilton, B. (1963), Political Thought in Sixteenth-Century Spain. A Study of the Political Ideas of Vitoria, De Soto, Suarez, and Molina, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hampton, J. (1986), Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hampton, J. (1992), ‘Hobbes and Ethical ’, Philosophical Perspectives 6, 333–53. Hancock, R. (1957), ‘Ethics and History in Kant and Mill’, Ethics 68(1), 56–60. Hanke, L. (1937), ‘Pope Paul III and the American Indians’, The Harvard Theological Review 30(2), 65–102. Hanke, L. (1959 [1970]), Aristotle and the American Indians: A Study in Race Prejudice in the Modern World, London: Hollis and Carter. Hanson, D. W. (1984), ‘Thomas Hobbes’s “Highway to Peace” ’, International Organization 38(2), 329–54. Hanus, G. (2007), L’un et l’universel: lire Lévinas avec Benny Lévy, Lagrasse, France: Verdier. Hartigan, R. S. (1973), ‘Francesco de Vitoria and Civilian Immunity’, Political Theory 1(1), 79–91. Hartmann, N. (1953), New Ways of Ontology, Chicago, IL: H. Regnery Co. Harvey, D. (1989), The Condition of Postmodernity: An Inquiry into the Conditions of Cultural Change, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Hassner, P. (1994), ‘Beyond Three Traditions: The Philosophy of War and Peace in Historical Perspective’, International Affairs 70(4), 737–56. Haushofer, K. (1927), Grenzen in ihrer geographischen und politischen Bedeutung, Berlin: K. Vowinckel. Haushofer, K. (1937), Weltmeere und Weltmaechte, Berlin: Zeithgeschichte Verlag. Haushofer, K. (1943), Das Reich. Grossdeutsches Werden im Abendland, Berlin: K. Habel. Hegel, G. W. F. (1969), Science of Logic, translated by A. V. Miller, foreword by J. N. Findlay, London: Allen & Unwin. Hegel, G. W. F. (1971), The Phenomenology of Mind, translated by J. B. Baille, London: George Allen & Unwin. Hegel, G. W. F. (1975), Hegel’s Logic, Being Part of the Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences, translated by William Wallace, foreword by J. N. Findlay, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hegel, G. W. F. (1991 [1821]) Elements of the Philosophy of Right, edited by Allen W. Wood, translated by H. B. Nisbet, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; also (2001), Elements of the Philosophy of Rights, translated by S. W. Dyde, Kitchener, ON: Batoche. Hegel, G. W. F. (1995), Lectures on the History of Philosophy, with an introduction by Tom Rockmore, translated by E. S. Haldane and Frances H. Simson, Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press. Bibliography 281

Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D., and Perraton, J. (1999), Global Transformations: Politics, Economics, and Culture, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Henrikson, A. K. (1994), ‘The Power and Politics of Maps’, in: Reordering the World: Geopolitical Perspectives on the 21st Century, edited by George J. Demko and William B. Wood, 49–70, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Herder, J. G. (1902), Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menscheit, Herders Werke, Third Volume, edited by Heinrich Kurz, Leipzig: Bibliographisches Institut. Hindess, B. (unknown), The Very Idea of a Universal History, Paper written as part of a joint project ‘Government, Social Science, and the Concept of Society’, http:// polsc.anu.edu.au/staff/hindess/working.htm (accessed 3 January 2009). Hinsley, F. H. (1973), Nationalism and the International System, Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana. Hobbes, T. (1968), Leviathan, edited with an introduction by C. B. Macpherson, Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin. Hobbes, T. (1969), Behemoth or the Long Parliament, edited by Ferdinand Tönnies, with an introduction by M. M Goldsmith, London: Frank Cass & Co. Ltd. Hobbes, T. (1971), A Dialogue between a Philosopher and a Student of the Common Laws of England, edited by Joseph Cropsey, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Hobbes, T. (1972), De homine, translated by Charles T. Wood, T. S. K. Scott-Craig, and Bernard Gert, edited with an introduction by Bernard Gert, Garden City, NY: Anchor. Hobbes, T. (1998), Preface to On the Citizen (De cive), edited and translated by Richard Tuck and Michael Silverthorne, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Höffe, O. (1980), Naturrecht, ohne naturalistischen Fehlschluss, Vienna: Verlag des Verbandes der wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaften Österreichs. Höffe, O. (2006), Kant’s Cosmopolitan Theory of Law and Peace, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hoffmann, S. (1963), ‘Rousseau on War and Peace’, The American Political Science Review 57(2), 317–33; also Hoffmann (1965), The State of War. Essays on the Theory and Practice of International Politics, 54–87, London: Pall Mall Press. Hoffmann, S. (1977), ‘An American Political Science: International Relations’, Daedalus. Journal of the American Academy of Art and Sciences 1(3), 41–60. Hoffmann, S. (1981), Duties beyond Borders, Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Hoffmann, S. (1986), ‘Hedley Bull and his Contribution to International Relations’, International Affairs 62(2), 179–95. Hoffman, S. and Fidler, D. P. (eds) (1991), Rousseau and International Relations, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hollis, M. and Smith, S. (eds) (1990), Explaining and Understanding International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Holsti, K. J. (1985), The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory, Boston, MA: Allen & Unwin. Honneth, A. (2008), Reification: A New Look at an Old Idea, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Horkheimer, M. (1982), Critical Theory. Selected Essays, translated by Matthew J. O’Connell and others, New York: Continuum. Huntington, S. P. (1993), ‘The Clash of Civilizations?’, Foreign Affairs 72(3), 22–49. Huntington, S. P. (1996), The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, New York: Schuster and Schuster. Jackson, R. and Sorensen, G. (eds) (1999), Introduction to International Relations Theory and Approaches, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 282 Bibliography

Jaeger, H.-M. (2002), ‘Hegel’s Reluctant Realism and the Transnationalisation of Civil Society’, Review of International Studies 28(3), 497–517. James, A. (1993), ‘System or Society?’, Review of International Studies 19(3), 69–88. Jameson, F. (1995), The Geopolitical Aesthetic: Cinema and Space in the World System, London: BFI. Jervis, R. (1976), Perception and Misperception in International Politics, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Jiménez, R. L. (2000), Caesar against Rome: The Great Roman Civil War, Westport, CT: Praeger. Jones, St. B. (1959), ‘Boundary Concepts in the Setting of Place and Time’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 49(3), 241–55. Kahler, M. (1997), ‘Inventing International Relations. International Relations Theory after 1945’, in: New Thinking in International Relations Theory, edited by Michael Doyle and G. John Ikenberry, 20–53, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Kant, I. (1794) Perpetual Peace. A Philosophical Essay (Facsimile 1795), edited and trans- lated by W. Hastie, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1891, the Online Library of Liberty, Liberty Fund 2005, http://oll.libertyfund.org/Home3/Book.php?recordID=0426. Kant, I. (1963 [1784]), Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Point of View, translated by Lewis White Beck, from Immanuel Kant, ‘On History’, Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. Kant, I. (1974), Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View; translated and with an introduction by Mary J. Gregor, The Hague: Nijhoff. Kant, I. (1982), Critique of Pure Reason, concise text in a new, faithful, termino logically improved translation; with introduction and glossary by Wolfgang Schwartz, Aalen, Germany: Scientia. Kant, I. (2004), Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics That Will Be Able to Present Itself as Science, with two early reviews of Critique of Pure Reason; edited by Günter Zöller, translated by Peter G. Lucas and Günter Zöller, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kaplan, M. A. (1956), ‘How Sovereign Is Hobbes’ Sovereign?’, The Western Political Quarterly 9(2), 389–405. Kaplan, M. A. (1966), ‘The Great Debate: Traditionalism vs. Science in International Relations’, World Politics 19, 1–20. Kaplan, M. A. (1969), Macropolitics: Selected Essays on the Philosophy and Science of Politics, Chicago, IL: Aldine. Kaplan, M. A. (ed.) (1970), Great Issues of International Politics: The International System and National Policy, Chicago, IL: Aldine. Kaplan. M. A. (1975), System and Process in International Politics, Huntington, NY: R. E. Krieger. Kaplan, M. A. (1979), Towards Professionalism in International Theory. Macrosystem Analysis, New York: Free Press. Kavka, G. (1986), Hobbesian Moral and Political Theory, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Keene, E. (2005), International Political Thought: A Historical Introduction, Cambridge and Malden, MA: Polity Press. Kennan, G. F. (1947), ‘The Sources of Soviet Conduct’, Foreign Affairs 25, 566–82 (pub- lished under pseudonym X). Kennan, G. F. (1991), Measures Short of War. The George F. Kennan Lectures at the National War College 1946/47, Washington DC: National Defence University Press. Keohane, R. O. (1983), ‘Theory of World Politics. Structural Realism and Beyond’, in: Political Science: The State of the Discipline, edited by A. Finifter, 503–40, Washington, DC: American Political Science Association. Bibliography 283

Keohane. R. O. (ed.) (1986), Neorealism and Its Critics, New York: Columbia University Press. Keohane, R. O. (1986) ‘Realism, Neorealism and the Study of World Politics’, in: Neorealism and Its Critics, edited by R. O. Keohane, 1–26, New York: Columbia University Press. Keohane, R. O. (1988), ‘International Institutions: Two Approaches’, in: International Institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations Theory, by Robert Keohane, 158–79, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Kleinschmidt, H. (2000), The Nemesis of Power. A History of International Relations Theory, London: Reaktion. Kleinschmidt, H. (2004) People on the Move. Attitudes Toward and Perceptions of Migration in Medieval and Modern Europe, Westport, CT: Greenwood. Kleinschmidt, H. (2004a), Charles V. The World Emperor. Thrupp, UK: Sutton. Kleinschmidt, H. (2004b), als Theoretiker der internationalen Beziehungen, Studien zur Internationalen Politik, Heft 2, Hamburg. Klose, A. R. (2003), Dogmen demokratischen Gechichtsdenlkens: Monumenta-listische Nationalgeschichtsschreibung in den USA, Würzburg: Koenigshausen und Neumann. Knutsen, T. (1992), A History of International Relations Theory, Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. Korhonen, P. (1983), Hans Morgenthau: intellektuaalinen historia, Jyvä skylä: Myy Jyvä skylän yliopisto, Valti-opin laitos. Kramer, L. (1997), ‘Historical Narratives and the Meaning of Nationalism’, Journal of the History of Ideas 58(3), 525–45. Kramer, L. (2001), European Thought and Culture in the 19th Century, Chantilly, VA: Teaching. Krasner, St. (1999), Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Krasner, St. (2001), ‘Rethinking the Model’, in: Empire, Systems and States: Great Transformations in International Politics, edited by Michael Cox, Tim Dunner and Ken Booth, 17–42, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kratochvil, F. (1986), ‘Of Systems, Boundaries, and Territoriality: An Inquiry into the Formation of the State System’, World Politics 39(1), 27–52. Kunz, J. L. (1961), ‘Natural-Law Thinking in the Modern Science of International Law’, The American Journal of International Law 55(4), 951–8. Kuus, M. (2007), Geopolitics Reframed: Security and Identity in Europe’s Eastern Enlargement, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Lacey, W. K. (1978), Cicero and the End of the Roman Republic, New York: Barnes & Noble. Lebow, R. N. (20 03), The Tragic Vision of Politics. Ethics, Interests, and Orders, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lévinas, E. (1980), Totalité et Infini: Essai sur l’Extiorité, Paris: Martinus Nijhoff. Lévinas, E. (1983), Die Spur des Anderes. Untersuchungen zur Phaenomenologie und Sozialphilosophie, Freiburg, Germany: Karl Alber Verlag. Lévinas, E. (1985), Ethics and infinity, Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University. Lévinas, E. (1994a), Outside the Subject, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Lévinas, E. (1994b), In the Time the Nations, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Lévinas, E. (1998), Otherwise Than Being, or Beyond Essence, Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press. Lévinas, E. (1998b), Collected Philosophical Papers, Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press. 284 Bibliography

Lévinas, E. (2003), of the Other, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Lichtheim, G. (1967), The Concept of Ideology, New York: Random House. Linder, M. (1975), Reification and the Consciousness of the Critics of Political Economy: Studies in the Development of Marx’ Theory of Value, Copenhagen: Rhodos. Linklater, A, (1990), Beyond Realism and . Critical Theory and International Relations, New York: St. Martin’s Press. Linklater, A. (ed.) (2000), International Relations: Critical Concepts in Political Science, London: Routledge. Linklater, A. (2007), Critical International Relations Theory: Citizenship, State and Humanity, New York: Routledge. Linklater, A. and Suganami, H. (eds) (2006), The English School of International Relations: A Contemporary Reassessment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Little, R. (1995), ‘Neorealism and the English School: A Methodological, Ontological and Theoretical Reassessment’, European Journal of International Relations 1(1), 9–34. Little, R. (2002), ‘International System, International Society and World Society. A Re-evaluation of the English School’, in: International Society and the Development of International Relations Theory, edited by B. A. Roberson, 68–85, London: Continuum. Llewelyn, J. (1995), Emmanuel Lévinas: The Genealogy of Ethics, London: Routledge. Lloyd-Jones, H. (1971), The Justice of Zeus, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Loriaux, M. (1992), ‘The Realists and Saint Augustine: Skepticism, and Moral Action in International Relations Thought’, International Studies Quarterly 36(4), 401–20. Luke, T. (1993), ‘Discourses of Disintegration, Texts of Transformation: Re-Reading Realism in the New World Order’, Alternatives 18, 229–58. Luke, T. (1994), ‘Placing Power/Siting Space: The Politics of Global and Local in the New World Order’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 2, 613–28. Luschnat, O. (1978), Thukydides, Der Historiker, München: Druckenmueller. Lyotard, F. (1979), La condition postmoderne. Rapport sur le savoir, Paris: Editions de Minuit. Macaulay, Th. B. (2008), ‘History’, The Miscellaneous Writings and Speeches of Thomas B. Macaulay, Gutenberg Library e-Books, EBook #25903 http://www.guten- berg.org/files/25903/25903-h/25903-h.htm (accessed 23 February 2009). Macaulay, Th. B. (2008), The History of England from the Accession of James II, Five Volumes, Project Gutenberg Library e-Books, EBook #25902, http://www.guten- berg.org/files/25902/25902-h/25902-h.htm (accessed 23 February 2009). Machiavelli, N. (1983), The Discourses, edited with an introduction by Bernhard Crick, using the translation of Leslie J. Walker, S. J., with revisions by Brian Richardson, London: Penguin. Machiavelli, N. (2003), , edited and translated by Christopher Lynch, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Machiavelli, N. (2005), The Prince, translated and edited by Peter Bondanella, with an introduction by Maurizio Viroli, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mackinder, H. (1887), ‘The Scope and Methods of Geography’, Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society 9, 141–74. Mackinder, H. (1904), ‘The Geographical Pivot of History’, Geographical Journal 13, 421–44. Mackinder, H. (1942), Democratic Ideals and Reality: A Study in the Politics of Reconstruction, Washington, DC: National Defense University Press. Mackinder, H. (1943), ‘The Round World and the Winning of Peace’, Foreign Affairs 21, 595–605. Bibliography 285

Macpherson, C. B. (1945), ‘Hobbes Today’, The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science 11(4), 524–34. Macpherson, C. B. (1983), ‘Leviathan Restored: A Reply to Carmichael’, Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique 16(4), 795–805. Mann, G. (ed.) (1973), Biologismus des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts, Stuttgart: Enke. Mannheim, K. (1929), Ideologie und , Bonn: F. Cohen. Mannheim, K. (1936), Ideology and Utopia, London: Routledge. Mannheim, K. (1984), ‘Die Methoden der Wissenssoziologie’, in: Ideologiekritik und Wissenssoziologie, edited by Kurt Lenk, 203–12, Frankfurt am Main: Campus. Mansbach, R. W. and Vasquez, J. A. (eds) (1981), In Search of Theory: A New Paradigm for Global Politics, New York: Columbia University Press. Mansfield, H. C. (1981), ‘Machiavelli’s Political Science’, The American Political Science Review 75(2), 293–305. Mapel, D. R. and Nardin, T. (eds) (1998), International Society: Diverse Ethical Perspectives, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Marcuse, H. (1991), One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society, Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Marx, W. (1961), Heidegger und die Tradition. Eine problemgeschichtliche Einfuehrung in die Grundbestimmungen des Seins, Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag. Marx, W. (1972), Einfuehrung in Aristoteles Theorie vom Seienden, Freiburg, Germany: Verlag Rombach. Marx, W. (1977), Introduction into Aristotle’s Theory of Being, Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic. Marx, W. (1982), Heidegger Memorial Lectures, Duquesne Studies, Language & Literature Series, Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press. Massumi, B. (1993), The Politics of Everyday Fear, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Meinecke, F. (1984), Machiavellism. The Doctrine of Raison d’tat and Its Place in Modern History, translated from the German by Douglas Scott, with a general introduction to Friedrich Meinecke’s work by W. Stark, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Michelet, J. (1871), France before Europe, London: Smith, Elder and Co. Michelet, J. (1973), The People, translated and with an introduction by John P. McKay, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Minghi, J. V. (1963), ‘Boundary Studies in Political Geography’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 53(3), 407–28. Mitchell, F. (1955), ‘Monadic Legal Theory and the Perspectives for World Law’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 16(2), 201–13. Mitchell, J. (1996), The New Geopolitics of Energy, London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, Energy, and Environmental Progamme. Mollov, B. M. (2002), Power and Transcendence: Hans J. Morgenthau and the Jewish , Lanham, MD: Lexington. Morgenthau, H. J. (1929), Die internationale Rechtspflege, ihr Wesen und ihre Grenzen. Leipzig: R Noske. Morgenthau, H. J. (1933), La notion du ‘politique’ et la théorie des différends internation- aux, Paris: Recueil Sirey. Morgenthau, H. J. (1934), La réalité des normes, en particulier des normes du droit inter- national, Paris: Felix Alcan. Morgenthau, H. J. (1946), Scientific Man vs. Power Politics, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press (1965): Phoenix. Morgenthau, H. J. (1947), ‘Letter from Hans J. Morgenthau’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 252, 173–4. 286 Bibliography

Morgenthau, H. J. (1948), Politics Among Nations. The Struggle for Power and Peace, (also 1954, 1960, 1963), New York: Knopf. Morgenthau, H. J. (1952), American Foreign Policy. A Critical Examination, London: Mehuen. Morgenthau, H. J. (1958), Dilemmas of Politics, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Morgenthau, H. J. (1962), Politics in the 20th Century, Vol. I, The Decline of Democratic Politics, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Morgenthau, H. J. (1962a), ‘The State of Political Science’, in: Politics in the 20th Century, Vol. I, The Decline of Democratic Politics, edited by Hans J. Morgenthau, 16–35, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Morgenthau, H. J. (1962b), ‘The Intellectual and Political Functions of a Theory of International Relations’, in Politics in the 20th Century, Vol. I, The Decline of Democratic Politics, edited by Hans J. Morgenthau, 62–78, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Morgenthau, H. J. (1962c), ‘The Commitments of a Theory of International Politics’, in Politics in the 20th Century, Vol. I, The Decline of Democratic Politics, edited by Hans J. Morgenthau, 55–61, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Morgenthau, H. J. (1970a), Power and Truth. Essays of a Decade, 1960–1970, London: Pall Mall Press. Morgenthau, H. J. (1970b), Der Friede im nuklearen Zeitalter, Eine Kontroverse zwischen Realisten und Utopisten. Munich: Salzburger Humanismusgespräch. Morgenthau, H. J. (forthcoming), ‘International Judicature’ and ‘The Concept of the Political’, edited and with an introduction by Hartmut Behr and Felix Rösch, Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. Mouritzen, H. (1997), ‘Kenneth Waltz: As Critical Rationalist between International Politics and Foreign Policy’, in: The Future of International Theory: Master’s in the Making?, edited by Iver B. Neumann and Ole Waever, 66–89, London: Routledge. Mouritzen, H., A. Wivel (ed.) (2005), The Geopolitics of Euro-Atlantic Integration, London: Routledge. Murphy, D. Th. (1997), The Heroic Earth: Geopolitical Thought in Weimar Germany, 1918–1933, Kent, OH: Kent State University Press. Murphy, C. F. (1982), ‘The Grotian Vision of World Order’, The American Journal of International Law 76(3), 477–98. Nagel, Th. (1959), ‘Hobbes’s Concept of Obligation’, The Philosophical Review 68 (1), 68–83. Nassehi, A. and Weber G. (1989), Tod, Modernitaet und Gesellschaft, Entwurf einer Theorie der Todesverdraengung, Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag. Nederman, C. J. (1993), ‘Humanism and Empire: Aeneas Piccolomini, Cicero and the Imperial ’, The Historical Journal 36(3), 499–515. Nelson, R. D. (1992), ‘The Sociology of Styles of Thought’, The British Journal of Sociology 42(1), 25–54. Niebuhr, R. (1935 [1963]), Interpretation of , San Francisco: Harper. Niebuhr, R. (1941), The Nature and Destiny of Men, Vol. 1, Human Nature, London: Nisbet & Co. Ltd. Niebuhr, R. (1960 [1932]), Moral Man and Immoral Society. A Study in Ethics and Politics, New York: Charles Scribner. Nietzsche, F. (1990), The Genealogy of Morals, and the Birth of Tragedy, translated by Francis Golffing, New York: Anchor. Ninkovich, F. (1994), Modernity and Power, A History of the Domino Theory in the Twentieth Century, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Bibliography 287

Nye, S. J. (2000), Understanding International Conflicts: An Introduction to Theory and History, New York: Longman. O’Brian, C. C. (1988), God Land. Reflections on Religion and Nationalism, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. O’Connor, D. J. S. (1967), Aquinas and Natural Law, London: Macmillan. O’Loughlin, J. and Heske, H. (1991), ‘From Geopolitik to Geopolitique: Converting a Discipline of War to a Discipline of Peace’, in: The Political Geography of Conflict and Peace, edited by N. Kliot and S. Waterman, 37–59, London: Belhaven Press. Ó Tuathail, G. (1994), ‘Problematizing Geopolitics: Survey, Statesmanship, and Strategy’, Transactions of the British Institute of Geographers 19, 259–72. Ó Tuathail, G. (1996), Critical Geopolitics: The Politics of Writing Global Space, London: Routledge. Ó Tuathail, G. (1999), ‘Understanding Critical Geopolitics: Geopolitics and Risk Society’, Journal of 22(2/3), 107–24. Ó Tuathail, G. (2000), ‘The Postmodern Geopolitical Condition: States, Statecraft, and Security at the Millenium’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 90(1), 166–78. Onuf, Nicholas G. (1998), The Republican Legacy in International Thought, Cambridge Studies in International Relations 59, Cambridge Studies in International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oren, I. (2000), ‘Is Culture Independent of National Security? How America’s National Security Concerns Shaped ‘Political Culture’ Research’, European Journal of International Relations 6(4), 543–73. Oren, I. (2003), Our Enemies and US: America’s Rivalries and the Making of Political Science, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Padgen, A. (2003), ‘, Natural Rights, and Europe’s Imperial Legacy’, Political Theory 31(2), 171–99. Palmer, B. D. (1990), Descent into Discourse: The Reification of Language and the Writing of Social History, Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Pangle, T. L. (1998), ‘Socratic Cosmopolitanism: Cicero’s Critique and Transformation of the Stoic Ideal’, Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne des science politique 31(2), 235–62. Pangle, T. L. and Ahrensdorf, P. J.(1999), Justice Among Nations: On the Moral Basis of Power And peace, Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. Parker, W. H. (1982), Mackinder: Geography as an Aid to Statecraft, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Patomaeki, H. and Wight, C. (2000), ‘After Postpositivism? The Promises of Critical Realism’, International Studies Quarterly 44(2), 213–37. Pennington Jr., K. J. (1970), ‘Bartolome de las Casas and the Tradition of Medieval Law’, Church History 39(2), 149–61. Pippin, Robert B. (1989), Hegel’s : The Satisfactions of Self-Consciousness, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pocock, J. G. A. (1975), The Machiavellian Moment. Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Prasad, P. (2005), Crafting Qualitative Research: Working in the Postpositivist Tradition, Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Rachwal, T. and Slawek, T. (eds) (2000), Organs, Organism, Organizations: Organic form in the 19th-Century-Discourse, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag. Razack, S. (2005), ‘Geopolitics, Culture Clash, and Gender after September 11’, Social Justice 32(4), 11–31. 288 Bibliography

Ringer, F. (1969), The Decline of the German Mandarins: The German Academic Community, 1890–1933, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ringer, F. (1997), Max Weber’s Methodology: The Reunification of Cultural and Social Sciences, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Robbins, K. (1998), Great Britain: Identities, Institutions and the Idea of Britishness, London: Longman. Rorty, R. (1984), ‘The Historiography of Philosophy: Four Genres’, in: Philosophy in History. Essays on the Historiography of Philosophy, edited by Richard Rorty, J. B. Schneewind, and Quentin Skinner, 49–76, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rösch, F. (2008), Hans J. Morgenthau and the Weimar Republic. On the Epistemological Origins of Hans J. Morgenthau’s Weltanschauung, Saarbruecken, Germany: Verlag Dr. Müller. Rösch, F. (2009), ‘Vibeke Schou Tjalve: Realist Strategies of Republicn Peace. Niebuhr, Morgenthau, and the Politics of Patriotic Dissent (2008)’, Millenium: Journal of International Studies (forthcoming). Rosenau, J. (1992), ‘Citizenship in a Changing World Order’, in: Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics, edited by Ernst Otto Czempiel and J. Rosenau, 272–94, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rosenau, J. (1997), Along the Domestic-Foreign Frontier: Exploring Governance in a Turbulent World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rosenberg, J. (1994), The Empire of Civil Society. A Critique of the Realist Theory of International Relations, London: Verso. Rousseau, J. J. (1994), Discourses on Political Economy; and the Social Contract, trans- lated with introduction and notes by Christopher Betts, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rousseau, J. J. (1997), The Social Contract and Other Later Political Writings, edited by Victor Gourevitch, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ruebel, J. S. (ed.) (1994), Caesar and the Crisis of the Roman Aristocracy: A Civil War Reader, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Ruggie, J. G. (1993), ‘Territoriality and Beyond. Problematizing Modernity in International Relations’, International Organization 47(1), 139–74. Russell, F. (1936), Theories of International Relations, New York: Appleton-Century. Russett, B. (1974), Power and Community in World Politics, San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. Russett, B. (1993), Grasping the Democratic Peace. Principles for Post-Cold War World, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Ryan, M. T. (1981), ‘Assimilating New Worlds in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 23(4), 519–38. Sacksteder, W. (1954), ‘Kant’s Analysis of International Relations’, The Journal of Philosophy 51(25), 848–55. Sartre, J. P. (1956), Being and Nothingness. An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology, translated and with an introduction by Hazel E. Barnes, New York: Philosophical Library. Scheuerman, W. (2009), Hans J. Morgenthau: Realism and Beyond, Cambridge, MA: Polity Press. Schmitt, C. (1976), The Concept of the Political, translated, introduced, and notes by George Schwab, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Schou Tjalve, V. (2008), Realist Strategies of Republican Peace. Niebuhr, Morgenthau, and the Politics of Dissent, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Bibliography 289

Schroeder, P. W. (1986), ‘The 19th-Century International System: Changes in the Structure’, World Politics 39(1), 1–16. Sealey, R. (1957a) ‘Thucydides, Herodotos, and the Causes of War’, The Classical Quarterly, New Series, 7(2), 1–12. Sealey, R. (1957b), ‘The Causes of the Peloponnesian War’, Classical Philology 70(2), 89–109. Seed, P. (1992), ‘Taking Possession and Reading Texts: Establishing the Authority of Overseas Empires’, The William and Mary Quarterly 49(2), 183–209. Semmel, B. (1958), ‘Sir Halford Mackinder: Theorist of Imperialism’, The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science 24(4), 554–61. Semple, E. Ch. (1908), ‘Geographical Location as a Factor in History’, Bulletin of the American Geographical Society 40(2), 65–81. Semple, E. Ch. (1911), Influences of Geographic Environment, New York: Holt. Shaw, M. (1992), ‘Global Society and Global Responsibilities: The Theoretical, Historical and Political Limits of “International Society” ’, Millennium 21(3), 421–34. Shotter, D. C. A. (2005), The Fall of the Roman Republic, London: Routledge. Siltala, R. (2000), A Theory of Precedent: From Analytical Positivism to a Post-Analytical , Oxford, UK: Hart. Simmel, G. (1992), Soziologie. Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung, Gesamtausgabe Band 11, edited by Ottheim Rammstedt, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Simon, W. M. (1963), European Positivism in the Nineteenth Century: An Essay in Intellectual History, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Sinopoli, Carla M. (1994) ‘The Archaeology of Empires’, Annual Review of Anthropology 23, 159–80. Sjolander, C. T. and Cox, S. W. (eds) (1994), Beyond Positivism: Critical Reflections on International Relations, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Pub. Slater, D. (2004), Geopolitics and the Post-Colonial: Rethinking North-South Relations, Malden, MA: Blackwell. Smethurst, S. E. (1953), ‘Cicero and Roman Imperial Policy’, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 84, 216–26. Smith, M. C. (1983), Realist Thought from Weber to Kissinger, Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. Smith, S. (1983), ‘Hegel’s View on War, the State and International Relations’, The American Political Science Review 77(3), 624–32. Smith, S., Booth, K., Zalewski, M. (eds) (1996), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Soja, E. (1971), The Political Organisation of Space, Washington, DC, Association of American Geographers, Commission of College Geography, Resource Paper No. 8. Southern, R. W. (1995), Scholastic Humanism and the Unification of Europe, Vol. 1, Foundations, Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Spykman, N. J. (1938a), ‘Geography and Foreign Policy I’, The American Political Science Review 32(1), 28–50. Spykman, N. J. (1938b), ‘Geography and Foreign Policy II’, The American Political Science Review 32(2), 213–36. St. Croix, de G. E. M. (1972), The Origins of the Peloponnesian War, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Steinberger, P. (2002), ‘Hobbesian Resistance’, American Journal of Political Science 46(4), 856–65. 290 Bibliography

Stern, R. (1989), “Unity and Difference in Hegel’s Political Philosophy”, Ratio, New Series, 2, 75–88. Stivachtis, I. A. (1998), The Enlargement of International Society. Culture versus Anarchy and Greek’s Entry into International Society, London: Macmillan. Storia della Storiografia (2006), ‘National Historiographies in Transnational Perspectives. Europe in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Century’, Storia della Storiografia 50, 3–26. Strauss, L. (1964), ‘Thucydides’ Peloponnesian War’, in: The City and the Man, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Striker, G. (1995), ‘Cicero and Greek Philosophy’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 97, 53–61. Sullivan, V. B. (1992), ‘Machiavelli’s Momentary “Machiavellian Moment”: A Reconsideration of Pocock’s Treatment of the Discourses’, Political Theory 20(2), 309–18. Taylor, A. E. (1938), ‘The Ethical Doctrine of Hobbes’, Philosophy, XIII; also in: Hobbes Studies, edited by Keith Brown, 35–56, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Taylor, A. J. P. (1954), The Struggle for Mastery in Europe, 1848–1918, Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. Taylor, Ch. (1964), The Explanation of Behaviour, London: Routledge; New York: Humanities Press. Taylor, Ch. (1983), Social Theory as Practice, New York: Oxford University Press. Taylor, Ch. (1985a), Philosophy and the Human Sciences, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Taylor, Ch. (1985b), Human Agency and Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Taylor, Ch. (1989), Sources of the Self: The Making of Modern Identity, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Taylor, Ch. (1992), Multiculturalism and the Politics of Recognition, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Taylor, Q. P. (ed.) (1998), The Other Machiavelli. Republican Writings by the Author of ‘The Prince’, Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Thorndike, J. (1942), ‘Geopolitics: The Lurid Career of a Scientific System which a Briton Invented, the Germans Used, and the Americans Need to Study’, Life Magazine 12 December. Thucydides (2001), The History of the Peloponnesian War, translated by Richard Crawley, Project Gutenberg Library e-Books, EBook #7142, http://www.gutenberg. org/dirs/etext04/plpwr10.txt (accessed 23 February 2009). Tjalve, V. S. (2008), Realist Strategies of Republican Peace. Niebuhr, Morgenthau, and the Politics of Dissent, NewYork: Palgrave Macmillan. Todorov, T. (1982), The of America: The Question of the Other, New York: Harper and Row. Toft, P. (2003), ‘John J. Mearsheimer: An Realist between Geopolitics and Power’, Arbejdspapir 2003/01, Copenhagen: Institut for Statskundskab. Tönnies, Ferdinand (1887 [1969]), Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft; English translation (1988), Community and Society, with a new introduction by John Samples, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Tooke, J. D. (1965), The Just War in Aquinas and Grotius, London: S. P. C. K. Treitschke, H. V. (1916), History of Germany in the Nineteenth Century, translated by Eden and Cedar Pual, with an introduction by William Harbutt Dawson, London: Jarrold & Sons. Bibliography 291

Unstead, J. F. (1949), ‘H. J. Mackinder and the New Geography’, The Geographical Journal 113, 47–57. Veer van der, P. (1998), ‘The Global History of Modernity’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 41(3), 285–94. Viotti, P. R. and Knauppi M. V. (eds) (1993), International Relations: Realism, Pluralism, Globalism, Boston, MA: Macmillan. Viroli, M. (2005), Introduction to The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli, translated and edited by Peter Bondanella, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vitoria, de F. (1917), De Indis et de Ivre Belli Relectiones, edited by Ernest Nye, Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington. Vlastos, G. (1953), ‘Isonomia’, American Journal of Philology 74(4), 337–66. Voegelin, E. (1957), The World of the Polis, Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press. Voegelin, E. (1974), The Ecumenic Age, Volume 4, Order and History. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press. Voegelin, E. (1986), Political Religions, translated by T. J. DiNapoli and E. S. Easterly III, Lewiston, NY: Edward Mellen Press. Voegelin, E. (1990), Anamnesis, Part 3, ‘What Is Political Reality’, translated and edited by Gerhart Niemeyer, Columbia: University of Michigan Press. Voegelin, E. (1997), Science, Politics and Gnosticism: Two Essays, Gateway edition, Washington, DC: Regnery Publications. Waever, O. (1996), ‘The Rise and Fall of the Inter-Paradigm Debate’, in: International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, edited by Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski, 149–85, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Walker, Thomas A. (1899), History of the Law of Nations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Walker, F. L. (ed.) (1950), The Discourses of Niccolo Machiavelli, 2 volumes, London: Routledge. Walker, R. B. J. (1987), ‘Realism, Change, and International Political Theory’, International Studies Quarterly 31(1), 65–86. Walker, R. B. J. (1993) Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Walker, R. B. J. (2002), ‘International/Inequality’, in: International Relations and the New Inequality, edited by Mustapha K. Pasha and Craig N. Murphy, 7–24, Malden, MA: Blackwell. Walker, R. B. J. (2009), After the Globe, Before the World, London: Routledge. Waltz, K. (1954), Man, the State and War, New York: Columbia University Press. Waltz, K. (1979), Theory of International Politics, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Waltz, K. (1990), ‘Realist Thought and Neo-realist Theory’, Journal of International Affairs 44, 21–37. Walzer, M. (1977), Just and Unjust Wars, New York: Basic. Warrender, H. (1957), The Political Philosophy of Hobbes, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Weber, C. (2001), International Relations Theory. A Critical Introduction, Oxford: Routledge. Weber, M. (1971), Gesammelte Politische Schriften, edited by Johannes Winckelmann, Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Verlag. Weber, M. (1972), Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie, Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Verlag. Wehberg, H. (1959), ‘Pacta Sunt Servanda’, The American Journal of International Law 53(4), 775–86. 292 Bibliography

Weil, P. (1983), ‘Towards Relative Normativity in International Law?’, The American Journal of International Law 77(3), 413–42. Weldes, J., Laffey, M., Gusterson, H., and Duvall, R. (eds) (1999), ‘Introduction: Constructing Insecurity’, in: Cultures of Insecurity. States. Communities and the Production of Danger, 1–33, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Wendt, Alexander (1987), ‘The Agent-Structure-Problem in International Relations Theory’, International Organization 41, 335–70. Wendt, A. (1992), ‘Anarchy Is What States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics’, International Organization 46, 391–425. Wheeler, M. (1952), ‘Cicero’s Political Ideal’, Greece and Rome 21(62), 49–56. Wiethoff, W. E. (1981), ‘A Machiavellian Paradigm for Diplomatic Communication’, The Journal of Politics 43(4), 1090–1104. Wight, M. (1977), Systems of States, Leicester, UK: Leicester University Press and London School of Economics. Wight, M. (1978 [1946]), Power Politics; revised, expanded, and edited by Hedley Bull and Carsten Holbrad, Royal Institute of International Affairs, Leicester, UK: Leicester University Press. Wight, M. and Butterfield, H. (eds) (1967) Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of International Relations, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wilkinson, S. (1915), ‘Types of Political Frontiers in Europe: Discussion by Spenser Wilkinson, Mackinder, and L. W. Lyde’, The Geographical Journal 45(2), 139–45. Williams, M. C. (1992), ‘Reason and Realpolitik: Kant’s “Critique of International Politics” ’, Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique 25(1), 99–119. Williams, M. C. (1996), ‘Hobbes and International Relations: A Reconsideration’, International Organization 50(2), 213–36. Williams, M. C. (2005), The Realist Tradition and the Limits of International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Williams, M. C. (ed.) (2006), Realism Reconsidered: The Legacy of Hans J. Morgenthau in International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Williams, P., Goldstein, D., and Shafritz, J. (eds) (1999), Classical Readings of International Relations, London: Harcourt Brace. Wolf, E. (1956), Griechisches Rechtsdenken, Frankfurt am Main: V. Klostermann. Wolfers, A. (1956), The Anglo-American Tradition in Foreign Affairs: Readings from Thomas Moore to Woodrow Wilson, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Wolff, L. (1994), Inventing Eastern Europe: The Map of Civilization of the Enlightenment, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Yost, D. S. (1994), ‘Political Philosophy and the Theory of International Relations’, International Affairs 70(2), 263–90. Name Index

Alexander VI. (Pope) 256 Clausewitz, Carl von 4, 197 Alker, Hayward R. 84, 85, 87, 106 Colish, Marcia 257 Almond, Gabriel A. 205, 267 Crick, Bernhard 101, 107, 109, Aquinas, Thomas 9, 11, 13, 18, 50–60, 258, 259 62, 64–71, 77, 79, 80, 85, 89, 91, 103, 112, 149, 224, 229, 230–2, 248 Dunne, Tim 178 Arendt, Hannah 104, 188, 261 Aristotle 31, 35, 36, 38, 51, 59, 80, 84, Edmunds, Lowell 31 85, 101, 113, 118, 119, 163, 231, 240, Elbe, Joachim von 78, 208, 267 251, 253, 255, 256 Arndt, Ernst Moritz 156 Ferdinand I. (King of Spain) 75 Aron, Raymond 136 Ferguson, Yale 245 Ashcraft, Richard 120, 121 Fichte, Johann Gottlieb 156, 262, 263 Ashley, Richard 266, 267 Fliess, Peter 35 Augustine, Aurelius 9, 11, 13, 18, Forde, Steven 258 50–71, 77, 80, 85, 86, 88, 89, 91, 95, Foucault, Michel 233, 250 98, 103, 112, 149, 224, 229, 230–2, Frederick II. (Prussian King) 100 253–7 Friedrich, Carl Joachim 104

Bagby, Laura M. 23, 24, 30, 33 Gauthier, David 117, 129, 261 Bancroft, George 156, 263 George, Jim 271 Bartelson, Jens 8, 15, 16 Gilpin, Robert 216, 251 Boucher, David 252, 259, 260 Gottmann, Jean 163, 175, 176, 264 Brown, Chris 250 Grotius, Hugo 13, 39, 40, 76, 78, 79, 127, Brunt, P. A. 252, 253 180, 224, 225, 231, 256, 261 Bull, Hedley 178–86, 188, 189–93, 259, Guzzini, Stefano 210, 259, 268, 269 260, 265, 266, 271 Butterfield, Herbert 178, 185 Haftendorn, Helga 269 Buzan, Barry 183, 189, 190, 264, 265 Hamilton, Alexander 111 Hamilton, Bernice 76, 87, 96, 97, 99 Cahnman, Werner 174, 175 Hampton, Jean 129, 261 Campbell, David 82, 243 Hancock, Roger 261 Carmichael, D. J. C. 120, 124, 261 Hanson, Donald W. 128 Carr, E. H. 178, 221, 259, 268 Hartigan, Richard 76, 92 Casas, Bartolomé de las 7, 9, 11, 13, 18, Hartman, Nicolai 187 75–99, 103, 149, 158, 224, 229, 231, Hassner, Pierre 144 232, 235, 256–7 Haushofer, Karl 173, 264 Chabot, Dana 260 Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich 1, 2, Charles II. (King of England) 119 7, 12, 130, 135, 141–51, 178, 179, 184, Charles V. (King of Spain and 185, 188, 229, 235, 236, 258, 262, Emperor) 75, 81, 82, 91 263, 267 Cicero, Marcus Tullius 9, 11, 13, 25, Held, David 246 35–49, 51, 52, 63, 77, 88, 89, 91, 95, Herder, Johann Gottfried von 142, 251 118, 119, 149, 224, 225, 229, 231, 235, Herodotus 25, 251 242, 252, 253 Herz, John 259

293 294 Name Index

Hindness, Barry 137 Napoleon Bonaparte 151, 156, 163, 185 Hobbes, Thomas 7, 8, 9, 11–15, 18, 61, Nardin, Terry 250, 272 77, 101, 115–29, 149, 181, 184, 205, Nederman, Cary J. 252, 253 210, 211–13, 224, 225, 229, 231, 240, Niebuhr, Reinhold 50, 51, 53, 60, 65, 251, 255, 258, 259–61 253, 255, 269, 273 Hoffmann, Stanley 11, 177, 201, 260, Nietzsche, Friedrich 250, 263, 271 261, 265, 268, 272 Nye, Stephen 208 Hume, David 101, 179 O’ Tuathail, Gerard 171, 264 James II. (King of England) 156 O’Connor, D. J. 59 James, Alan 265 Onuf, Nicholas G. 249 Orwell, George 105, 258 Kahler, Miles 11, 204, 210, 222, 250, 269 Padgen, Anthony 78, 80, 231, Kant, Immanuel 1, 2, 7, 9, 15, 18, 85, 232, 234 101, 103, 130 –8, 141, 142, 143, 148, Pangle, Thomas 39, 40 149, 158, 181, 184, 224, 225, 229, 231, Patomaeki, Heikki 250 235, 249, 261 Paul III. (Pope) 81 Kaplan, Morton 124, 251, 261–2, 263 Pennington, Kenneth 96, 257 Keene, Edward 6 Phillip II (King of Spain) 75 Keohane, Robert O. 208, 212, 268 31, 34, 35, 36, 70, 118, Krasner, Stephen 208, 238, 239 163, 252 Kuhn, Thomas 220 Pocock, John G.A. 85, 257 Polybius 107, 259 Lévinas, Emmanuel 243, 244, 272 Linklater, Andrew 10, 15, 16, 178, 186, Ratzel, Friedrich 13, 264 209, 250, 265, 272 Rorty, Richard 251 Lipsius, Justus 13 Rosenau, James 245, 262 Little, Richard 178, 192 Rousseau, Jean Jacques 101, 109, 150, Loriaux, Michael 60, 61, 62, 255 191, 198, 199–201, 213, 251, 266 Luschnat, Otto 33 Lyotard, Francois 272 Sartre, Jean Paul 272 Schroeder, Paul 160, 161 Macaulay, Thomas B. 13, 154, Schütz, Alfred 250, 271 156, 263 Sealey, Raphael 25 Machiavelli, Niccolo 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, Semple, Ellen Churchill 14, 18, 77, 85, 100–15, 118, 149, 163, 167, 169, 174 181, 184, 205, 210, 211, 224, 225, 229, Sepulveda, Juan Gines de 78, 82, 84, 85, 231, 257–9 88, 89, 90, 95, 97, 257 Mackinder, Halford 13, 163–9, 173, Shaw, Martin 265 174, 262 Simmel, Georg 264, 271 Macpherson, C. B. 120 Smethurst, S. E. 44, 47 Madison, James 110, 133 Southern, R. W. 51, 52 Mannheim, Karl 219–23, 269, Spykman, Nicholas 13, 169–76, 264 270, 271 Steinberger, Peter 124 Michelet, Jules 13, 154–7, 263 Stern, Robert 146 Morgenthau, Hans J. 3, 181, 204, 205, Suárez, Francesco 13, 75, 99 209, 210–19, 221, 222, 224, 225, 235, 238, 259, 263, 266–71, 273 Taylor, A. J. P. 161, 172 Murphy, Cornelius F. 260, 261 Thoreau, Henry David 5, 240 Name Index 295

Thucydides 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, Waever, Ole 220 23–35, 36, 52, 58, 61, 77, 88, 101, 103, Walker, R. B. J. 5, 122, 187, 208, 236, 118, 149, 202, 205, 210, 211, 224, 225, 250, 259, 260, 271, 272 229, 231, 235, 252–3, 258 Walker, Thomas A. 76 Todorov, Tzvetan 256 Waltz, Kenneth 150, 188, 197, 198–209, Tönnies, Ferdinand 190 210, 211, 212, 213, 222, 251, 252, 259, Treitschke, Heinrich von 13, 154, 266, 268 156, 263 Watson, Adam 178 Weber, Max 264 Unstead, J. F. 164, 263 Wendt, Alexander 208 Wight, Martin 6, 178, 182, 183, 184, Vitoria, Francisco de 7, 11, 13, 18, 185, 189, 190, 265 75–99, 103, 143, 149, 229, 231, Wilkinson, Spencer 174 256–7 Williams, Michael C. 125, 126, 132, Vlastos, Gregory 35 134, 179, 250, 251, 268, 269 Voegelin, Eric 34, 104, 148, 250, 263 Wilson, Woodrow 9, 165, 219 Subject Index

America, Central and South 76, 77, 98 Civil Law (see also International Law; Anarchy (anarchical) 2, 7, 8, 16, 36, 110, Law; äusseres Staatsrecht [external 116, 118, 127, 153, 177, 178, 179, 180, law of states]; Law of Nations; Divine 182, 183, 185, 187, 188, 191, 197, Law; Natural Law; jus gentium; lex 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 211, naturalis) 39, 55, 89 212, 213, 218, 224, 235, 236, 237, Civilization (see also Standards of 239, 242, 252, 258, 260, 266 Civilization) 16, 35, 114, 128, 162, Animal Farm 106 167, 168, 172, 189, 190, 198, 236, 242, Anthropology (anthropological) 257, 264 2, 18, 37, 38, 41, 45, 49, 53, 58, civitas Dei 52 59, 65, 76, 86, 88, 90, 96, 131, Cold War 11, 164, 169, 211, 217, 218, 231, 235, 251, 257, 259, 220, 221, 222, 224, 237, 245, 265, 262, 268 267, 273 Arms Race 216, 218, 221 Colonialism 93, 237 Äusseres Staatsrecht [external law Common Good 3, 31, 43, 91, 92, 109, of states] (see also International 113, 121, 159, 230, 241, 247, 253 Law; Law; Natural Law; Law of Common Sense (see also sensus Nations; Civil Law; jus gentium; lex communis) 38, 42, 149, 259 naturalis) 143, 262 Commonwealth (Christian; Roman; 160, 161, 165 British; International) 37, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 60, 63, 64, 65, 116, 119, 124, Babylon 54, 55, 254 126, 127, 128 Balance of power 158, 159, 160, 161, Concert of Europe 160, 161, 237 166, 176, 180, 185, 186, 191, 193, Conflict 4, 45, 47, 51, 54, 57, 68, 102, 206, 207, 216, 217, 218, 237 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 118, 119, 120, Bedingung der Möglichkeit 131, 132, 135 121, 122, 123, 141, 153, 157, 158, 159, Biologism 163, 173 161, 165, 166, 175, 176, 180, 197, 200, Border (see also Territory; 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 215, 216, 217, Frontier) 173 218, 220, 234, 237, 238, 239, 241, 254, British Committee on International 255, 259, 260, 263, 269, 272 Relations 178 Congress of Vienna 160, 161 Conquest 26, 41, 60, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, Categorical Imperative 63, 129, 135, 81, 82, 85, 86, 87, 88, 91, 96, 97 136, 261 38, 39, 82, 116, 117, 118, 269 Catholic Church 75, 81, 89, 90, Constructivist 126, 148, 175 98, 256 Cosmopolis 15, 16 Catholicism 75 Critical Geopolitics 162 Chaos 7, 69, 121, 122, 242 Cuba 78 Christendom (Christianity) 52, 65, 69, Culture 5, 15, 16, 34, 38, 47, 50, 75, 76, 83, 85, 86, 90, 92, 94, 95, 120, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 86, 87, 127, 168, 167, 255 175, 189, 190, 192, 205, 242, 243 civitas terrena 52, 254 City of God 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 62, 64, 65, Deconstructivism 244 66, 98 Defence (Self-defence) 30, 42, 43, 44, city state 6, 12, 25, 102, 230, 235 45, 68, 69, 78, 83, 89, 90, 91, 93, 96,

297 298 Subject Index

Defence (Self-defence) – continued 63, 66, 70, 71, 76, 77, 79, 80, 85, 88, 98, 110, 123, 125, 127, 128, 129, 171, 95, 96, 99, 102, 103, 104, 114, 115, 207, 222, 233, 234, 257, 261 118, 129, 131, 141, 143, 145, 147, 148, Deliberation 80, 240 149, 151, 185, 190, 214, 215, 218, 225, Determinism (deterministic) 2, 159, 231, 235, 242, 243, 251, 253, 254, 261 164, 165, 166, 167, 169, 170, 172, 173, Eurocentrism (Eurocentric) 80, 82 175, 264 Europe (European) 12, 75, 76, 78, 80, Dichotomy 6, 8, 174, 257 81, 82, 83, 84, 87, 99, 104, 152, 155, Diplomacy (diplomatic) 35, 42, 102, 159, 160, 161, 165, 166, 167, 168, 170, 114, 161, 180, 182, 183, 186, 188, 189, 174, 180, 183, 188, 189, 215, 230, 234, 191, 213, 214, 272 236, 237, 263, 264 (see also Law; International European Union 168, 236, 264 Law; äusseres Staatsrecht [external Expansion 25, 48, 75, 76, 80, 85, 91, law of states]; Natural Law; Law of 93, 107, 109, 112, 178, 186, 189, 216, Nations; Civil Law; jus gentium; lex 257, 259 naturalis) 10, 52, 58, 59, 60, 66, 76, 77, 88, 99, 114 Factualism 27, 33 Drang nach Osten 173 Fear 24, 26, 46, 57, 68, 71, 109, 116, 117, Dualism (dualistic) 2, 112, 120, 127, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125, 126, 138, 204, 230, 239, 241, 242, 243, 185, 191, 193, 224, 252, 270 244, 251, 267 Federalist Papers 110, 156 Federation of States (see also League of Empire 6, 12, 25, 36, 37, 43, 44, 45, 46, Republics) 132, 134, 136, 137, 48, 54, 60, 69, 71, 80, 81, 90, 91, 92, 148, 262 96, 97, 99, 102, 106, 107, 108, 109, Fortuna 115, 149, 259 113, 160, 165, 167, 174, 230, 254 Fragmentation 15, 18 Encomendia 82, 83, 254 France 99, 118, 154, 155, 156, 157, 160, England 100, 116, 118, 119, 154, 161, 163, 167, 185, 263 156, 163 Frontier (see also Territory; Border) 171 Enlightenment 76 (epistemological) 2, 3, Gemeinschaft 190 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 82, 99, 106, 107, Genealogy (genealogical) 6, 9, 11, 138, 141, 148, 161, 169, 171, 173, 176, 16, 17, 160, 161, 220, 223, 250, 177, 179, 181, 183, 187, 188, 197, 201, 271, 272 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, Geopolitical Thought (see also 211, 215, 216, 217, 219, 220, 223, 230, Geopolitics) 13, 18, 150, 153, 159, 234, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 161, 162, 167, 169, 170, 175, 229, 233, 244, 245, 246, 250, 251, 256, 261, 234, 238, 265 266, 267 Geopolitics (see also Geopolitical Erfahrungswissenschaften 203 Thought) 153, 161, 162, 163, 169, 171, Ethics (see also Loss of Ethics) 2, 4, 5, 173, 175, 264 10, 16, 18, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, Geopolitik 162, 173, 264 33, 34, 35, 38, 40, 41, 51, 58, 61, 65, Germany 163, 164, 165, 168, 263 66, 68, 70, 71, 77, 86, 95, 96, 100, 103, Gesellschaft 190 106, 113, 114, 115, 141, 142, 146, 148, 159, 162, 213, 215, 218, 225, 229, 230, Heartland 165, 166, 167, 168, 174, 264 236, 239, 240, 241, 243, 244, 245, Hegemony (hegemonic) 10, 14, 24, 25, 246, 258, 261, 269, 273 29, 47, 60, 69, 114, 126, 127, 129, 211, Ethical 2, 7, 14, 15, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 219, 239, 241 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, Hemisphere 170 41, 42, 43, 48, 50, 51, 55, 57, 58, 60, Hermeneutics 214 Subject Index 299

Historiography (historiographical) 250, 252, 260, 262, 263, 3, 13, 18, 33, 150, 152, 153, 156, 157, 267, 269 158, 159, 161, 169, 202, 222, 229, 233, International Peace Conference at the 234, 238, 250, 251, 263 Hague 237 Holy Scriptures 51, 52, 57, 63, 254 International Political Economy 17 Hospitality 132, 134, 135, 136 International Society 108, 128, 129, 131, Hubris 31, 33, 34, 54, 58, 65, 71, 114, 150, 168, 177, 178, 179, 180, 182, 183, 141, 216 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, Human Rights 9, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 197, 234, 236, 265, 268, 272 82, 87, 88, 95, 98, 99, 149, 234 International System 15, 138, 160, Humanism 52, 56, 58, 77, 81, 85, 179–93, 206, 207, 238, 246, 260, 106, 244 265, 266 Humanities 12, 169, 203, 225, 272 Isonomia 35 Humanity (see also Mankind) 2, 15, 16, ius ad bellum 229 17, 44, 45, 48, 86, 96, 130, 131, 137, 138, 168, 176, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, Jerusalem 69 238, 241, 243, 244, 249, 272 Jurisdiction 76, 77, 81, 88, 89, 90, 93, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 149, 185, 256, 265 Idealism (idealist) 6, 65, 138, 176, Justice 3, 9, 13, 18, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 177, 224 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, Identity 4, 77, 144, 145, 152, 153, 154, 46, 48, 51, 52, 55, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 157, 158, 159, 160, 163, 167, 172, 176, 65, 66, 67, 79, 80, 116, 117, 125, 129, 190, 199, 208, 219, 224, 233, 234, 135, 150, 162, 185, 192, 245, 242, 244 252, 255 Ideology (ideological) 11, 44, 100, 120, jus gentium (see also Natural Law; 141, 155, 158, 173, 175, 200, 201, 204, International Law; Law; äusseres 209, 211, 215, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, Staatsrecht [external law of states]; Law 223, 225, 238, 263, 265, 269, 270, of Nations; Civil Law; Divine Law; lex 271, 273 naturalis) 78, 96, 97, 99 Ideology Critique (ideology- critical) 208, 211, 219, 221, 222, 223, Kingdom of God 52 238, 269 Kingdom of Heaven (see also City of Idolatry 97 God) 56, 57, 67 Immunity 92 Knowledge (Ideologization of; Immunization 204, 206, 266 Canonization of; see also Sociology Imperialism (imperialistic) 43, 45, 47, of Knowledge) 13, 52, 53, 54, 56, 86, 48, 109, 217, 234, 237, 241, 242, 107, 113, 114, 169, 179, 187, 192, 193, 243, 258 208, 209, 211, 212, 219, 220, 222, 223, inclinatio naturalis 59 224, 233, 241, 271 Insecurity (see also Security) 120, 122, 123, 266 Law of Nations (see also Natural Law; Inside and Outside 7, 8, 76, 111, 112, 127, International Law; Law; äusseres 242, 249, 251 Staatsrecht [external law of states]; International Law (see also äusseres Civil Law; Divine Law; jus gentium; lex Staatsrecht [external law of states]; naturalis) 36, 39, 40, 78, 116 Law; Natural Law; Law of Nations; League of Nations 9, 165, 180, 237 Civil Law; Divine Law; jus gentium; lex League of Republics (see also Federation naturalis) 14, 16, 40, 42, 66, 76, 78, 79, of States) 114, 115, 259 96, 99, 110, 116, 131, 134, 142, 143, Legitimacy 8, 15, 24, 75, 93, 117, 123, 144, 147, 150, 168, 180, 182, 186, 188, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 144, 189, 190, 191, 213, 214, 218, 221, 232, 225, 260 300 Subject Index

Legitimization 11, 42, 69, 87, 90, 149, 40, 47, 49, 51, 52, 58, 59, 66, 75, 76, 240, 251 77, 78, 82, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 94, 96, lex naturalis (see also Natural Law; 137, 141, 148, 188, 230, 232, International Law; Law; äusseres 251, 252 Staatsrecht [external law of states]; Law Natural Right(s) 48, 80, 90, 118, 134, of Nations; Civil Law; Divine Law; jus 137, 232, 234, 240 gentium) 124 Necessita 106, 107, 149, 258, 259 Liberalism (Neo-liberalism) 159, 179, Neo-Realism (neo-realist) 2, 7, 11, 18, 197, 208, 224, 229, 249, 268, 271 24, 106, 107, 153, 159, 177, 179, 188, Logocentrism 82, 83 197, 198, 199, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, Loss of Ethics (see also Ethics) 2, 18, 61, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 213, 220, 141, 239, 240 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 234, 238, 258, 265, 266, 267, 268, 271 Machiavellism 100, 101, 103, 104, New Testament 60, 70, 94 115, 258 New World 9, 79, 83, 96 Mankind (see also Humanity) 41, 45, 54, 77 78, 80, 81, 84, 85, 86, 87, 92, 96, 97, 99, 131, 132, 136, 138, 141, 147, 159, Ontology (ontological) 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 241, 242, 249, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 63, 82, 112, 131, 251, 252, 254 132, 138, 141, 147, 152, 159, 160, 161, Materialism 61 162, 172–88, 191, 192, 193, 197, 198, Melian Dialogue 25, 32, 33, 34 201, 202, 204, 205, 208, 223, 229–35, Metaphysics (metaphysical) 3, 112, 118, 237, 238–43, 245–51, 261, 264, 265, 119, 132, 145, 152, 175, 231, 232, 240, 266, 272 246, 267, 271 Organism (organismic) 153, 162, 163, Morality 76, 95, 96, 102, 103, 105, 129, 172, 173, 174 136, 149, 155, 213, 214, 215, 218, 225, Otherness 80, 82, 163, 167, 172, 208, 230, 240, 252, 258, 259, 261, 269, 270 232, 244, 272 Mores 104, 141, 145, 159, 215, 240, 242 Ottoman Empire 160

Narration 5, 23, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, pacta sunt servanda 27, 28, 143, 149, 35, 53, 155, 251 252, 269 Narrative 16, 17, 29, 53, 54, 58, 65, 71, Particularity 1, 10, 18, 27, 141, 144–50, 83, 94, 152, 155, 156, 169, 170, 180, 207, 215, 233, 234, 235, 251 191, 230, 244, 253, 254, 255, 269 Particularism (particularistic) 1, 3, 4, 5, National Interest 2, 13, 18, 28, 111, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 23, 24, 45, 126, 135, 149, 151, 153, 158, 159, 46, 63, 130, 141, 144, 145, 147, 150, 176, 181, 183, 197, 198, 221, 222, 152, 162, 175, 180, 197, 198, 201, 202, 230, 232, 233, 234, 236, 240, 242, 203, 204, 206, 232, 233, 234, 237, 244, 263, 267, 273 238, 240, 241, 243, 246, 249, 250, 251, National Spirit (see also World Spirit; 253, 272 Universal Spirit) 175 Passion 25, 31, 42, 43, 54, 56, 58, 118, Nationalism 3, 5, 137, 138, 144, 147, 119, 120, 121, 122, 254, 255 157, 160, 188, 197, 198, 200, 217, 221, Paternalism (paternalistic) 44, 45, 47, 225, 233, 234, 242, 249, 251, 253, 149, 235, 242 262, 263, 266 Patriotism 37, 44, 46, 47, 197, 198, 199, Natural Law (see also International 200, 201, 222, 251 Law; Law; äusseres Staatsrecht Patronage 44, 46, 47 [external law of states]; Law of pax Romana 43, 44 Nations; Civil Law; Divine Law; jus Peace of Campo Formio 151 gentium; lex naturalis) 36, 37, 38, 39, Philanthropy 46, 47, 136, 149 Subject Index 301 polis (poleis) 5, 6, 12, 29, 31, 34, 35, 163, Self (and Other) 2, 4, 188, 230, 232, 234, 230, 235, 249 235, 242, 243, 244, 265, 271 Positivism (positivist) 2, 3, 153, 169, Self-Constraint (self-restraint) 171, 177, 205, 220, 225, 213, 232, 31, 70, 115, 118, 141, 149, 244, 266, 270 260, 273 Poststructuralism (poststructuralist) Self-help 23, 24, 185, 206, 207, 224 17, 162, 238, 244, 271, 272, 273 sensus communis (see also Common Protestant 50, 76 Sense) 38, 149 Prussia 160, 161, 165, 263 Sermon on the Mount 50, 57, 60, 86 Sociability 5, 6, 141, 181, 187, Racism 80, 163 230, 231 raison d’état 222, 252, 257 Sociology of Knowledge (see also rationalist (see also realist; Knowledge) 223, 250, 270 revolutionist) 6, 80, 85, 86, 179, 180, Sophrosyne 31 181, 205, 268 Sovereignty 2, 15, 17, 44, 46, 76, 89, 93, Realism (realist; Realist; see also 96, 97, 116, 117, 118, 122, 123, 125, rationalist; revolutionist) 6, 14, 23, 116, 126, 127, 128, 134, 150, 177, 178, 138, 141, 178, 179, 181, 185, 210, 211, 180, 181, 182, 184, 186, 193, 198, 212, 213, 215, 216, 217, 218, 221, 222, 200, 225, 230, 233, 236, 238, 223, 224, 225, 251, 266, 268, 269 240, 249, 260, 265, 267 Recognition 46, 76, 79, 80, 81, 82, Soviet Union 221, 273 84–9, 90, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 144, 149, Spain 75, 76, 80, 81, 82, 83, 88, 89, 97, 150, 151, 158, 168, 178, 180, 182, 184, 98, 99, 257 185, 186, 188, 193, 215, 216, 230, 231, Spirituality 48, 86, 99 232, 235, 236, 237, 239, 242, 243, Staat 144 254, 257, 267, 271, 272 Stability 100, 106, 107, 110–14, 160, Reconciliation 29, 43, 130, 150 169, 170, 230, 245, 259 Reformation 75 Standards of Civilization (see also 63, 85, 98, 272 Civilization) 9, 186, 234, 235, Renaissance 77, 85, 106 250, 265 Republic 46, 47, 49, 63, 102, 105, 106, Standortgebundenheit 107, 109, 110, 113, 132, 134, 151, (standortgebunden) 215, 216, 217, 222, 259, 262 269, 271 Republicanism (republican) 46, 47, 106, Structuralism (structuralist) 2, 3, 218, 112, 132, 133, 134, 135, 225, 249 221, 246 revolutionist (see also realist; Sublimus Dei (Bull by Pope Paul III) rationalist) 6, 179, 181 81, 82, 89, 256 Rome 36, 37, 40, 44, 45–50, 55, 60, 63, 69, 70, 108, 252 Techne 113 Russia 160, 162 (teleological) 37, 38, 41, 138, 154 Sacrifice 56, 155, 156, 157, 158, 201, Temporality (temporal) 53, 57, 59, 66, 260, 263 79, 94, 152, 157, 168, 207, 229, 254, 77, 229 259, 260 Securitization 270 Territory (territorial; see also Border; Security (see also Insecurity) 5, 15, 24, Frontier) 41, 79, 97, 98, 99, 109, 136, 25, 46, 55, 57, 58, 69, 82, 92, 108, 154, 159, 162, 163, 171, 172, 174, 175, 110, 111, 117, 123, 124, 125, 126, 182, 185, 186, 233, 236, 237, 127, 128, 159, 162, 163, 169, 174, 256, 265 207, 222, 224, 225, 240, 254, 258, Third Reich 173 259, 260 Togetherness 54, 141, 190, 245 302 Subject Index

Toleration 35, 84 211, 225, 229–41, 243, 244–6, 249, 250, Topography (topographical) 163, 172, 251, 253, 272 175, 264 Universalization 9, 10, 47, 229, 234, Transcendence (transcendental) 9, 35, 235, 239, 244, 251 52, 53, 54, 56, 58, 60, 76, 132, 135, 141, 142, 148, 184, 186, 187, 188, Valladolid 79, 81, 82, 84, 85, 88, 90 230, 246 Violence 26, 30, 38, 43, 44, 83, 84, 90, Treaties of Westphalia (Westphälische 96, 103, 122, 123, 184, 193, 202, Friedensverträge; see also Thirty Years 207, 208, 230, 233, 237, 238, War) 129, 185, 236, 274 239, 241, 244, 255, 266, 272 (virtù) 27, 30, 31, 38, 40, 43, 47, United Nations 9, 99, 180, 214, 48, 53, 59, 65, 68, 70, 71, 91 ,102, 103, 221, 234 113, 114, 115, 141, 149, 171, 225, 232, United States (US) 11, 17, 52, 156, 162, 256, 257 163, 164, 165, 169, 204, 211, 212, Volk 144, 145, 147 221, 222, 255, 257, 263, 264, 267, Volksgeist 145, 147 268, 273 volonté general 198, 199 Universalism (universal, universalistic) 1–5, 7, 9, 10–18, 23, 24, Weltanschauung 219, 220, 223, 270 36, 38, 41, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 51–3, 55, Weltgeist (World Spirit) 147 57, 59, 63, 75, 76, 77, 82, 86–8, 96, 97, Westphalian State System 99, 245 99, 102, 103, 126, 127, 130–5, 137, World War I 160, 165, 174, 237 138, 141, 142, 146 –8, 149, 161, World War II 183, 205, 237 162, 175, 179–81, 184, 186, 188, World-State 116, 117, 133, 142, 214