PSA 66th Annual International Conference, 21-23 March 2016, Brighton
Emancipation and Kantian Critique ‘Towards Perpetual Peace’*
Mustafa A. Sezal Yildirim Beyazit University [email protected]
In 1784, Immanuel Kant wrote an essay response to the question “what is enlightenment?” that was posed previous year by Reverend Johann Friedrich Zellner in the monthly magazine Berlinische Monatsschrift. According to him, enlightenment was human being’s ‘emancipation from its self-incurred immaturity’1. Kant’s description of enlightenment provides us a starting point for a deeper analysis of his other political writings, moral principles, and their relationship to Critical Theory. Therefore, this paper seeks to locate Kantian ‘good will’ in his political philosophy that would lead to ‘perpetual peace’. Then, building upon Andrew Linklater’s works on ‘cosmopolitan harm conventions’2, ‘civilising processes’3, and ‘emancipation’4 will argue that emancipatory International Relations (IR) and Security Studies are essentially Kantian. Emancipatory project of Critical Security Studies (CSS) can thus be linked to Kant’s cosmopolitanism and articles of perpetual peace that, in a sense, depicts the elaborate intricacies of Kantian philosophy in IR that goes beyond the simplistic view of ‘democratic/liberal peace thesis/theory’. Kant’s political philosophy is essentially a continuation or a macro-projection of his moral philosophy. In this vein, understanding political notions such as ‘perpetual peace’ need a brief introduction through his moral philosophy and particularly the ‘categorical imperative’. In the Groundwork for Metaphysics of Morals, Kant describes the ‘categorical imperative’5 through a two-dimensional formulation: “Act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” and “[a]ct as though the maxim of your action were to become by your will a universal law of nature”6. This has certain implications for the practical world, but for the time-being it will be less distracting to continue in the theoretical realm. In order to understand this formulation one must go back to Kant’s understanding of ‘duty’ as well as ‘good will’. ‘Good will’ is essentially the only universal good because it is unconditional. It is unconditional, because, as Kant argues, everything else is a means. A brief example is in order here. Helping the poor may seem an act good in itself, however, helping the poor out of pity, or to feel good, or as a religious task makes it actually a means and these motivations do not
* This paper is part of a larger work in progress. Please do not cite without contacting the author.
1 Immanuel Kant, "An Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment?," in "Toward Perpetual Peace" and Other Writings on Politics, Peace, and History, ed. Pauline Kleingeld (Binghamton: Yale University Press, 2006), 17. (emphasis added) 2 Andrew Linklater, "The Problem of Harm in World Politics: Implications for the Sociology of States-Systems," International Affairs 78, no. 2 (2002); "The Harm Principle and Global Ethics," Global Society 20, no. 3 (2006); The Problem of Harm in World Politics: Theoretical Investigations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011); "Social Standards of Self-Restraint in World Politics," Spectrum Journal of Global Studies 7, no. 2 (2015). 3 "Cosmopolitan Citizenship," Citizenship Studies 2, no. 1 (1998); "Norbert Elias, the ‘Civilizing Process’ and the Sociology of International Relations," International Politics 41, no. 1 (2004); "Dialogic Politics and the Civilising Process," Review of International Studies 31, no. 01 (2005); "Global Civilizing Processes and the Ambiguities of Human Interconnectedness," European Journal of International Relations 16, no. 2 (2010). 4 "Towards a Sociology of Global Morals with an ‘Emancipatory Intent’," Review of International Studies 33, no. S1 (2007); Critical Theory and World Politics: Citizenship, Sovereignty and Humanity (Abingdon: Routledge, 2007); "Human Interconnectedness," International Relations 23, no. 3 (2009). 5 ‘Categorical imperative’ is also dubbed as Kant’s formulation of universal law. 6 Immanuel Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 222. 1 of 10 PSA 66th Annual International Conference, 21-23 March 2016, Brighton qualify for universality. Moral worth of an act has nothing to do with its objective or consequence, but its relation to duty as “good will is manifested when we act of duty rather than inclination”7. This gives us the deontological nature of Kant’s moral philosophy meaning that the consequences of actions are more or less irrelevant whereas intent (or rather duty) is important. The moral worth emanating from ‘good will’ thus ‘categorical imperative’ is actually the core of a Kantian commonwealth. The civil condition is grounded on freedom, equality, and independence as a citizen8. The ideal form of government is a republic based on these principles9. However, it is important to note that this a rather different formulation of republic. In mainstream contemporary political theory republic is merely defined as a “system of government that does not entail monarchy, nor (…) aristocratic or oligarchic rule10. For Kant, form of sovereignty and form of government are two distinct classifications. Form of sovereignty can be autocracy, aristocracy, or democracy based on the position of the highest authority, while form of government can be republican or despotic based on the manner the state is ruled11. Kant believes that democracy is essentially a despotic form of government because it puts executive above all12. Therefore it can be inferred that a representative republican system establishes a sort of separation of powers and Kant’s reservations concerning democracy resemble the notion of ‘tyranny of the majority’. Nevertheless, it should be noted that Kant’s argument for republicanism and against democracy is one of the least developed parts of his philosophy. That being said, we must go back to his moral philosophy to understand his position and propositions regarding condition of an endless international peace, namely ‘a perpetual peace’. In Toward Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch, the categorical imperative comes up in the discussion of ‘political moralist’ vs. ‘moral politician’ in a somewhat implicit manner. The former refers to a person who uses morality to fit to her/his political interests while the latter refers to a person who interprets politics to be in line with morality13. Kant contrasts these two characters to show the morality that the practical political system should be based to achieve perpetual peace14. Kant argues that perpetual peace may only be achieved as a result of rational moral behaviour15, which in essence is behaviour that comes out of duty and therefore good will. In other words, through a universal morality manifesting itself in categorical imperative, moral politician seeks perpetual peace through reason and out of duty. Now let us get deeper into the premises of perpetual peace by scrutinising the three levels of rights. People are required to enter a civil condition to escape from the state of nature (war). This may take forms on different levels: right of citizens of a state, international right, and cosmopolitan right16. It can be read in a way that actions with moral worth that come out of duty in each of these levels would eventually lead to a perpetual peace. One must, however, always keep in mind that Kant does not give a deterministic prediction, but instead
7 Ibid., 199-203. 8 "Toward Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch," in Toward Perpetual Peace and Other Writings on Politics, Peace, and History, ed. Pauline Kleingeld (Binghamton: Yale University Press, 2006), 74. 9 “The First Definitive Article of Perpetual Peace: The Civil Constitution of Every State Shall Be Republican.” Ibid. 10 David Robertson, The Routledge Dictionary of Politics, Third ed. (London: Routledge, 2004), 425. 11 Kant, "Toward Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch," 76. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid., 96. 14 Howard Williams and Ken Booth, "Kant: Theorist Beyond Limits," in Classical Theories of International Relations, ed. Ian Clark and Iver B. Neumann (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1996), 92-93. 15 Ibid., 93. 16 Kant, "Toward Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch," 73. 2 of 10 PSA 66th Annual International Conference, 21-23 March 2016, Brighton purports a foundation for politics which would achieve peace in some unknown future. A never-ending peace should be our ultimate objective, because it is a rational moral objective out of duty. Whether this peace will be in a form of world government or a federation of world states is not clear and can be interpreted differently, nevertheless it actually does not really matter if a perpetual peace is achieved. In regard with the whole Kantian philosophy it would not be absurd to argue that perpetual peace is, essentially Enlightenment, the ultimate purpose for human being to become emancipated “from its self-incurred immaturity”17. Kant’s short essay Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Perspective is also very significant when his political philosophy is being re-read. Kant attempts at describing history philosophically where there is a progressive movement towards realisation of humanity’s capabilities. This manner of describing history also gives agency to the process itself. In other words, humanity’s self-realisation moves towards a cosmopolitan existence domestically and internationally. Philosophical history, as such, promotes this progress towards nature’s “highest aim, a universal cosmopolitan condition”18. In the IR discipline, manifestation of Kantian philosophy had been somewhat superficial. Mainstream textbooks start their ‘liberalism’ chapters with reference to Kant while deeper and more thorough works also refer to him with regard to ‘democratic/liberal peace theory/thesis’ and the ‘English School’19. Nevertheless, the literature on Kant and reflections of his philosophy in IR has been increasing. This interest has two theoretical sides and another conceptual one: On one hand, ‘democratic/liberal peace theory/thesis’ still attract attention particularly from proponents of quantitative methods, and on the other hand increasing relevance of Critical Theory makes it almost imperative to re-read Kant; and conceptually, ‘perpetual peace’ is still interesting for both perspectives. Let us briefly explain these Kantian connections in IR. Michael Doyle, in his seminal two-article paper, adapted Kant’s argument that the republican constitutions would be one of the three bases for a perpetual peace and came up with a thesis that liberal states would not go to war with other liberal states20. Following Doyle’s footsteps numerous positivist and post- positivist scholars discussed and tested this theory/thesis21. Based on David Singer’s Correlates of War (CoW)
17 "Toward Perpetual Peace" and Other Writings on Politics, Peace, and History, ed. Pauline Kleingeld (Binghamton: Yale University Press, 2006), 3-23. 18 "Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Perspective," 14. (emphasis in original); Richard Devetak, "Vico Contra Kant: The Competing Critical Theories of Cox and Linklater," in Critical Theory in International Relations and Security Studies: Interviews and Reflections, ed. Shannon Brincat, Laura Lima, and João Nunes (Abingdon: Routledge, 2012), 119. 19 For a variety of coverages please see: Robert Jackson and Georg Sorensen, eds., Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003); Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki, and and Steve Smith, eds., International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, 2 ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010). John Baylis, Steve Smith, and Patricia Owens, eds., The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, Third Edition ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005). Paul R. Viotti and Mark V. Kauppi, International Relations Theory, Fifth Edition ed. (Longman, 2012). Scott Burchill et al., Theories of International Relations, Third Edition ed. (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005); Jill Steans et al., An Introduction to International Relations Theory: Perspectives and Themes, Third Edition ed. (Harlow: Longman, 2010). 20 Michael W. Doyle, "Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs," Philosophy & Public Affairs 12, no. 3 (1983); "Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs, Part 2," Philosophy & Public Affairs 12, no. 4 (1983); Cornelia Navari, "Liberalism," in Security Studies: An Introduction, ed. Paul D. Williams (Abingdon: Routledge, 2008); Bruce Russett, "Liberalism," in International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, ed. Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010). 21 For more comprehensive explanations and discussion of “democratic peace” see: Zeev Maoz and Bruce Russett, "Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946-1986," The American Political Science Review 87, no. 3 (1993); Christopher Layne, "Kant or Cant: The Myth of the Democratic Peace," International Security 19, no. 2 (1994); John M. Owen, "How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace," ibid.; Scott Burchill, "Liberal Internationalism," in Theories of International Relations, ed. Scott Burchill, et al. (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1996); Zeev Maoz, "Realist and Cultural Critiques of the Democratic Peace: A Theoretical and Empirical Re- Assessment," International Interactions 24, no. 1 (1998); Bruce Russett and John R. Oneal, Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations (New York: W.W. Norton, 2001); Michael W. Doyle, "Three Pillars of Liberal Peace," The American Political Science Review 99, no. 3 (2005); Gil Friedman, "Commercial Pacifism and Protracted Conflict: Models from Palestinian-Israeli Case," Journal of Conflict Resolution 49, no. 3 (2005); Tim Dunne, "Liberailsm, International Terrorism and Democratic Wars," International Relations 23, no. 1 (2009). 3 of 10 PSA 66th Annual International Conference, 21-23 March 2016, Brighton
Project at Michigan University, Doyle argued that almost no liberal state waged war against other liberal states and when they did liberalism of these states were somewhat arguable22. The usual dyadic and monadic explanations depend on limited data or unsubstantiated claims. Even though neighbourhoods in which democratic regimes are predominant are generally peaceful, dyadic relations are never only between two established liberal democracies. Another explicit reference to Kant can be found in the English School. Kant is presented as a leading figure in ‘revolutionism’ which is one of the three traditions in IR, the others being ‘realism’ and ‘rationalism’23. This is unfortunately a reductionist and a very superficial evaluation for Kant’s philosophy regarding international relations. A more contemporary approach, however, regards Kant as a ‘radical rationalist’ rather than ‘revolutionist’24. Contemporary debates in critical theory, it has been argued, have been inspired by the Kant’s understanding of the relationship between morality and politics as well as potential of political progress25. This can be considered as the starting point for Linklaterian interpretation of Kant’s philosophy and critical theory. In the rest of the paper Linklater’s understanding of cosmopolitanism, harm, and emancipation will be at the core of discussion that will be locating Kantian morality in emancipatory IR. One of Linklater’s initial points is the importance of human agency vis-a-vis history. He understands that the sentiment behind the Kantian philosophy of history is cooperation of human beings in a world-wide (possibly cosmopolitan) association to take control of their history and eliminate constraints26. So he argues that “for Kant, expanding moral horizons was not just about being ethically correct” but was also about controlling history and becoming enlightened27. As explained in the previous paragraphs, in Kant’s vision an ideal domestic constitution needs to be based on freedom, equality and independence28. These three core a priori principles enable the establishment of a state that is in accordance with universal human right29. In such a condition, then, society accepts that all of its members have “equal entitlements to moral consideration” and as a result challenging this equality would cause moral resistance30. This is because the domestic civil condition is, in essence, grew out of the ‘categorical imperative’. The implications of such a domestic constitution for international arena seems self-explanatory, however, there are certain problems. Principles of freedom, equality, and independence need to have corresponding conceptions in the global politics. Kant deals with this issue through the “articles of perpetual peace” where he puts forward “federalism of free states” as the basis international right; and “cosmopolitan right” as limited to
22 Navari, "Liberalism," 36. 23 Martin Wight, International Theory: The Three Traditions (New York: Holmes & Meier, 1992). 24 Andrew Linklater and Hidemi Suganami, The English School of International Relations: A Contemporary Reassessment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). 25 Kimberly Hutchings, "Immanuel Kant," in Critical Theorists and International Relations, ed. Jenny Edkins and Nick Vaughan-Williams (Abingdon: Routledge, 2009), 219. 26 "Citizenship, Community and Harm in World Politics: An Interview with Andrew Linklater," in Critical Theory in International Relations and Security Studies: Interviews and Reflections, ed. Shannon Brincat, Laura Lima, and João Nunes (Abingdon: Routledge, 2012), 40. 27 Ibid. 28 Here a caveat is in order. Kant’s understanding of equality is different from the contemporary conception. For example, he describes in length the reasons only (probably white) males with property should vote. In postcolonial IR, Kant’s neglect of slavery in his moral philosophy has been seen as immensely problematic (i.e. Siba N. Grovogui, "Postcolonialism," in International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, ed. Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 242-44.). 29 Kant, "On the Common Saying: This May Be True in Theory, but It Does Not Hold in Practice, Parts 2 and 3," 45. 30 "Citizenship, Community and Harm in World Politics: An Interview with Andrew Linklater," 40. 4 of 10 PSA 66th Annual International Conference, 21-23 March 2016, Brighton
“universal hospitality”31. As mentioned earlier there are ambiguities in Kant’s formulations and scholars have long been debating whether he meant a “world state/federation” or an organisation similar to the United Nations. The distinction may not be very significant for contemporary IR. While trying to avoid pitfalls of anachronism we ought not overemphasise different connotations of these notions which have changed in time. Transition from the domestic civil condition to perpetual peace entails a cosmopolitanism broader than just hospitality. Linklater brings cosmopolitan citizenship idea as a tool for engendering a universal understanding of harm prevention. This is, in essence, an extension of the initial civil condition where duty (or categorical imperative) dictates entry into “a civil constitution with those they are in a position to injure (…)”32. Therefore prevention of harm can also be a central tenet in establishing a cosmopolitan civil constitution, which one may also name as “perpetual peace”. Linklater looks at contemporary international society to find evidences of a move towards this cosmopolitan ideal. Combining Kant’s cosmopolitanism with Norbert Elias’s sociology of ‘civilising processes’, he depicts increasing visibility of cosmopolitan standards of self-restraint and sensibility towards vulnerable peoples in the international society33. ‘Civilising processes’, as Linklater interprets, are the practices which societies develop in order to coexist without injuring or harming each other and he puts this at the core of his theoretical investigations34. Accordingly, through Eliasian process sociology, Linklater finds the missing link between the nascent international society and the building blocks of an ultimate peace. It should be kept in mind that Elias’ inquiry and findings are very complex, yet for our purposes (as well as Linklater’s) a very short insight is sufficient here. Eliasian ‘civilised’ human constantly and stably behaves in self-constraint whereby mutual harm (i.e. physical violence) is prevented35. It is argued that as the interconnectedness increase the degree of coexistence among peoples tend to increase as well. However, humanity is still at the early stages of this ‘global civilising process’36. This process, then, continues and perhaps intensifies through the mutual understandings of societies not to harm each other in an anarchical environment similar to the development of self-restraint among individuals. This basic communicative action, in a sense, could be the very source and basis of a peaceful coexistence condition on a global scale. Agreeing not to harm each other may seem commonsensical and the concept of ‘harm’ may sound as a self-evident term but it should be kept in mind that harm can be violent as well as non-violent. Violent (concrete) harm has not been eradicated from the world as can be seen in various conflicts throughout the world even though there are certain agreements, conventions if you will, against violent harm. Non-violent (abstract) harm such as economic exploitation, global forces, and environmental harm, however, may be at the core of the most of grievances around the globe in the contemporary (post-)industrial age37. Put differently, humanity’s progress also brings new forms of harm which need to be overcome. NGOs lobby for new conventions while agreements within the framework of the UN or other international organisation enable spread of certain
31 "Toward Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch," 78-85. (emphases in original) 32 Linklater, The Problem of Harm in World Politics: Theoretical Investigations, 16. 33 "Social Standards of Self-Restraint in World Politics," 9. 34 "Global Civilizing Processes and the Ambiguities of Human Interconnectedness," 3; The Problem of Harm in World Politics: Theoretical Investigations. 35 Norbert Elias, The Civilizing Process: The History of Manners and State Formation and Civilization (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994), 443-56. 36 Linklater, "Global Civilizing Processes and the Ambiguities of Human Interconnectedness," 6. 37 Richard Devetak, Sebastian Kaempf, and Martin Weber, "Conversations in International Relations: Interview with Andrew Linklater," International Relations 27, no. 4 (2013): 502. 5 of 10 PSA 66th Annual International Conference, 21-23 March 2016, Brighton cosmopolitan harm conventions (CHCs). There are, without doubt, many obstacles emanating from self- interestedness and/or nationalistic sentiments and even sometimes from unpredicted consequences of actions (as in the case of environmental harm). In a broad understanding, CHCs are the bases of diplomacy and international law in the sense that they regulate the relations between societies that come into contact but cannot predict whether their actions would cause harm38. It is ideal and perhaps imperative that the CHCs maintain “the equal right of every person to be free from cruelty, unnecessary violence, and degrading and humiliating treatment irrespective of citizenship, nationality or ethnicity, or race and gender” to reflect a universal global morality based on equality39. This definition of CHCs resembles description of emancipation and security in Critical Security Studies (CSS40, or the Aberystwyth School of critical security studies41): “Emancipation is the freeing of people (as individuals and groups) from those physical and human constraints which stop them carrying out what they would freely choose to do”42. These constraints include but not limited to cruelty, unnecessary violence, poverty, political oppression and so forth. When taken as a positive state with the negative definition of “absence of threats” (as the CSS/ Aberystwyth School does), ‘security’ is produced by ‘emancipation’43. If ‘security’ is the product of ‘emancipation’, and based on the definitions provided above CHCs are emancipatory moral conventions, it would not be nonsensical to claim that ‘global civilising processes’ are pathways for security. Furthermore, as an extension, global condition of security based on emancipatory CHCs is nothing other than ‘perpetual peace’ itself. This ‘perpetual peace’ as a result of global consolidation of emancipatory CHCs has certain differences from Kant’s articulation. Perhaps most importantly, it incorporates the Frankfurt School’s critique of Kant. There seems to be a sensitive balance between Kant’s unemotional rationalism of duty and Frankfurt School’s focus on sympathy and compassion. Frankfurt Schools ‘new categorical imperative’ of absolute prohibitions based on the shared experience of suffering44 needs to be strengthened by a common identification with cosmopolitan values through the ever-increasing interconnectedness (and communicative opportunities) of the contemporary world. If we go back to Kant’s answer to the question “what is enlightenment?” and evaluate it in the light of the discussions above it might appear more meaningful than it was in the beginning. Enlightenment is actually the process in which humanity progresses, civilises itself and gets rid of the immaturity of kneeling for something/
38 Andrew Linklater, "Citizenship, Humanity, and Cosmopolitan Harm Conventions," International Political Science Review 22, no. 3 (2001): 266. 39 "Social Standards of Self-Restraint in World Politics," 9. 40 For the comprehensive treatise of CSS please see: Ken Booth, Theory of World Security (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008). 41 Distinction between Critical Security Studies (with capital first letters) and critical security studies is not this paper’s subject. For a comprehensive discussion please see: Keith Krause and Michael C. Williams, eds., Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases (London: UCL Press, 1997); Paul D. Williams, ed. Security Studies: An Introduction, 1 ed. (London: Routledge, 2008); Lee Jarvis and Jack Holland, Security: A Critical Introduction (London: Palgrave, 2015). 42 Ken Booth, "Security and Emancipation," Review of International Studies 17, no. 4 (1991): 319. 43 Naturally there are perspectives that problematise the positive view of security claiming that it is used as a tool to curb freedoms and liberties. Copenhagen and Paris Schools of critical security studies are among the main proponents of this view. See: Ole Wæver, "Aberystwyth, Paris, Copenhagen: New 'Schools' in Security Theory and Their Origins between Core and Periphery," in 45th Annual Conference of the International Studies Association (Montreal2004); c.a.s.e. collective, "Critical Approaches to Security in Europe: A Networked Manifesto," Security Dialogue 37, no. 4 (2006); Karin M. Fierke, Critical Approaches to International Security (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2007); Laura J. Shepherd, ed. Critical Approaches to Security: An Introduction to Theories and Methods (Abingdon: Routledge, 2013). 44 Linklater, "Towards a Sociology of Global Morals with an ‘Emancipatory Intent’," 143. 6 of 10 PSA 66th Annual International Conference, 21-23 March 2016, Brighton someone. It is the emancipation of human mind as well as body from all constraints. In CSS terms, Enlightenment is security and security is the Kantian ideal of a universal cosmopolitan condition whereby everybody has a sense of “belonging to a universal community of humankind”45: Perpetual Peace Theoretically all of these may make sense. It might even stir optimistic feelings, however, in practice we are reminded that we may actually be at the very early stages of ‘civilising process’46. Violent conflicts in various regions (particularly Middle East) continue, the refugee crisis that the EU is somehow devising an action antithetical to CHCs intensify47, poverty and human rights violations still remain as priority issues in the global agenda. If there is a progress it seems to be very slow. It should be remembered, though, ‘perpetual peace’ and/ or ‘emancipation’ are actually ultimate targets. The “universal cosmopolitan existence” and “the universal kingdom of ends” can only come into being when states, individuals, and any other actors understand the necessity to overcome their “ethical particularity”48. Practical implications and aspects need to be studied more deeply so that ‘civilising processes’ can continue. As always, speaking truth to power remains a central responsibility for intellectuals. In addition, we as scholars, teachers, and students need to follow a normative philosophy with this cosmopolitan/emancipatory intent and embrace our agency. It is only by becoming agents for process the challenge of practice can be overcome. We all have a role to play for achieving ‘perpetual peace’, be it small or large, and one of these roles is continuing our research even more passionately.
45 Critical Theory and World Politics: Citizenship, Sovereignty and Humanity, 114. 46 The Problem of Harm in World Politics: Theoretical Investigations, 16; Devetak, Kaempf, and Weber, "Conversations in International Relations: Interview with Andrew Linklater." 47 For details of EU-Turkey deal regarding the refugee crisis, which is argued to be against European values: http:// www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/08/eu-turkey-refugee-deal-qa 48 Devetak, "Vico Contra Kant: The Competing Critical Theories of Cox and Linklater," 119. 7 of 10 PSA 66th Annual International Conference, 21-23 March 2016, Brighton
Bibliography
Baylis, John, Steve Smith, and Patricia Owens, eds. The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. Third Edition ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Booth, Ken. "Security and Emancipation." Review of International Studies 17, no. 4 (1991): 313-26. ———. Theory of World Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Burchill, Scott. "Liberal Internationalism." In Theories of International Relations, edited by Scott Burchill, Andrew Linklater, Richard Devetak, Matthew Paterson and Jacqui True, 28-66. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1996. Burchill, Scott, Andrew Linklater, Richard Devetak, Jack Donnelly, Matthew Paterson, Christian Reus-Smit, and Jacqui True. Theories of International Relations. Third Edition ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. "Citizenship, Community and Harm in World Politics: An Interview with Andrew Linklater." In Critical Theory in International Relations and Security Studies: Interviews and Reflections, edited by Shannon Brincat, Laura Lima and João Nunes. Abingdon: Routledge, 2012. collective, c.a.s.e. "Critical Approaches to Security in Europe: A Networked Manifesto." Security Dialogue 37, no. 4 (2006): 443-87. Devetak, Richard. "Vico Contra Kant: The Competing Critical Theories of Cox and Linklater." In Critical Theory in International Relations and Security Studies: Interviews and Reflections, edited by Shannon Brincat, Laura Lima and João Nunes. Abingdon: Routledge, 2012. Devetak, Richard, Sebastian Kaempf, and Martin Weber. "Conversations in International Relations: Interview with Andrew Linklater." International Relations 27, no. 4 (2013): 481-505. Doyle, Michael W. "Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs." Philosophy & Public Affairs 12, no. 3 (1983): 205-35. ———. "Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs, Part 2." Philosophy & Public Affairs 12, no. 4 (1983): 323-53. ———. "Three Pillars of Liberal Peace." The American Political Science Review 99, no. 3 (2005): 463-6. Dunne, Tim. "Liberailsm, International Terrorism and Democratic Wars." International Relations 23, no. 1 (2009): 107-14. Dunne, Tim, Milja Kurki, and and Steve Smith, eds. International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. 2 ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Elias, Norbert. The Civilizing Process: The History of Manners and State Formation and Civilization. Oxford: Blackwell, 1994. Fierke, Karin M. Critical Approaches to International Security. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2007. Friedman, Gil. "Commercial Pacifism and Protracted Conflict: Models from Palestinian-Israeli Case." Journal of Conflict Resolution 49, no. 3 (2005): 360-82. Grovogui, Siba N. "Postcolonialism." In International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, edited by Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Hutchings, Kimberly. "Immanuel Kant." In Critical Theorists and International Relations, edited by Jenny Edkins and Nick Vaughan-Williams. Abingdon: Routledge, 2009. Jackson, Robert, and Georg Sorensen, eds. Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Jarvis, Lee, and Jack Holland. Security: A Critical Introduction. London: Palgrave, 2015. Kant, Immanuel. "An Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment?". In "Toward Perpetual Peace" and Other Writings on Politics, Peace, and History, edited by Pauline Kleingeld. Binghamton: Yale University Press, 2006. ———. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
8 of 10 PSA 66th Annual International Conference, 21-23 March 2016, Brighton
———. "Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Perspective." In "Toward Perpetual Peace" and Other Writings on Politics, Peace, and History, edited by Pauline Kleingeld. Binghamton: Yale University Press, 2006. ———. "On the Common Saying: This May Be True in Theory, but It Does Not Hold in Practice, Parts 2 and 3." In Toward Perpetual Peace and Other Writings on Politics, Peace, and History, edited by Pauline Kleingeld. Binghamton: Yale University Press, 2006. ———. "Toward Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch." In Toward Perpetual Peace and Other Writings on Politics, Peace, and History, edited by Pauline Kleingeld. Binghamton: Yale University Press, 2006. ———. "Toward Perpetual Peace" and Other Writings on Politics, Peace, and History. Edited by Pauline Kleingeld Binghamton: Yale University Press, 2006. Krause, Keith, and Michael C. Williams, eds. Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases. London: UCL Press, 1997. Layne, Christopher. "Kant or Cant: The Myth of the Democratic Peace." International Security 19, no. 2 (1994): 5-49. Linklater, Andrew. "Citizenship, Humanity, and Cosmopolitan Harm Conventions." International Political Science Review 22, no. 3 (2001): 261-77. ———. "Cosmopolitan Citizenship." Citizenship Studies 2, no. 1 (1998): 23-41. ———. Critical Theory and World Politics: Citizenship, Sovereignty and Humanity. Abingdon: Routledge, 2007. ———. "Dialogic Politics and the Civilising Process." Review of International Studies 31, no. 01 (2005). ———. "Global Civilizing Processes and the Ambiguities of Human Interconnectedness." European Journal of International Relations 16, no. 2 (2010): 155-78. ———. "The Harm Principle and Global Ethics." Global Society 20, no. 3 (2006): 329-43. ———. "Human Interconnectedness." International Relations 23, no. 3 (2009): 481-97. ———. "Norbert Elias, the ‘Civilizing Process’ and the Sociology of International Relations." International Politics 41, no. 1 (2004): 3-35. ———. "The Problem of Harm in World Politics: Implications for the Sociology of States-Systems." International Affairs 78, no. 2 (2002): 319-38. ———. The Problem of Harm in World Politics: Theoretical Investigations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. ———. "Social Standards of Self-Restraint in World Politics." Spectrum Journal of Global Studies 7, no. 2 (2015): 1-19. ———. "Towards a Sociology of Global Morals with an ‘Emancipatory Intent’." Review of International Studies 33, no. S1 (2007): 135. Linklater, Andrew, and Hidemi Suganami. The English School of International Relations: A Contemporary Reassessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Maoz, Zeev. "Realist and Cultural Critiques of the Democratic Peace: A Theoretical and Empirical Re- Assessment." International Interactions 24, no. 1 (1998/03/01 1998): 3-89. Maoz, Zeev, and Bruce Russett. "Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946-1986." The American Political Science Review 87, no. 3 (1993): 624-38. Navari, Cornelia. "Liberalism." In Security Studies: An Introduction, edited by Paul D. Williams. Abingdon: Routledge, 2008. Owen, John M. "How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace." International Security 19, no. 2 (1994): 87-125. Robertson, David. The Routledge Dictionary of Politics. Third ed. London: Routledge, 2004. Russett, Bruce. "Liberalism." In International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, edited by Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Russett, Bruce, and John R. Oneal. Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations. New York: W.W. Norton, 2001.
9 of 10 PSA 66th Annual International Conference, 21-23 March 2016, Brighton
Shepherd, Laura J., ed. Critical Approaches to Security: An Introduction to Theories and Methods. Abingdon: Routledge, 2013. Steans, Jill, Lloyd Pettiford, Thomas Diez, and Imad El-Amis. An Introduction to International Relations Theory: Perspectives and Themes. Third Edition ed. Harlow: Longman, 2010. Viotti, Paul R., and Mark V. Kauppi. International Relations Theory. Fifth Edition ed.: Longman, 2012. Wæver, Ole. "Aberystwyth, Paris, Copenhagen: New 'Schools' in Security Theory and Their Origins between Core and Periphery." In 45th Annual Conference of the International Studies Association. Montreal, 2004. Wight, Martin. International Theory: The Three Traditions. New York: Holmes & Meier, 1992. Williams, Howard, and Ken Booth. "Kant: Theorist Beyond Limits." In Classical Theories of International Relations, edited by Ian Clark and Iver B. Neumann. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1996. Williams, Paul D., ed. Security Studies: An Introduction. 1 ed. London: Routledge, 2008.
10 of 10