±u o «h uhh« Zo £±hZ «huhu Ru± ±u Chu£± O§ou§ I±u§Z±Z P±h«:CZ§ Sh±± Zo J¹§u HZfu§Z« Rfu§± O§« A ±u«« «¶f±±uo ± ±u Du£Z§±u± I±u§Z±Z RuZ±« ±u Lo Sh Ehh« § ±u ou§uu Dh±§ P«£í,Lo,Oh±fu§ óþÕó. DECLARATION I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the MPhil/PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identied in it). e copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, pro- vided that full acknowledgement is made. is thesis may not be reproduced without my prior written consent. I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. I declare that my thesis consists of ÉÉ,óÉì words. ì ABSTRACT e concept of order in international politics, despite its very frequent use in all strands of § literature, is seldom explicitly addressed as an object of analytical reection and denition, and remains oen opaque. is research aims to clarify the nature of order as a concept within § theory, by highlighting its constitutive elements and by posi- tioning it within the horizon of current political-philosophical and sociological discus- sions. is thesis starts with a literature review showing the limitedness of the ways in which order is employed as a concept in many § theoretical works, while underscor- ing its critical problematisation as the main path towards its clarication. Following and integrating Nicholas Rengger’s seminal work on the topic, this research argues that the concept of order, which entails the double nature of a descriptive/explanatory but also normative account of reality, has to be understood within a philosophical discus- sion of the political, lying between the two poles of political theology (Carl Schmitt) and the sociological theory of secularisation (Jürgen Habermas). While introducing and discussing the two authors, this thesis illustrates the roles which they have assumed in inspiring § theoretical work (in critical theory), pointing at the limits of their established readings within the discipline and oering new per- spectives, which should essentially rely on a more direct critical politicisation of the sacred. is thesis proceeds with an exploration of the problem of order in the mod- ern condition, through a reconstruction and a discussion of the common Weberian ge- nealogy in both Schmitt and Habermas, focusing on the importance of the sociology of religion for the conceptualisation of the political in modernity (Schmitt) and of the concepts of rationality and rationalisation (Habermas) respectively. Against this back- ground, a critique of the Habermasian view on secularisation is developed, as Haber- mas’s argument appears to be an incomplete answer to the problem of the symbolic relations between the religious and the political, and hence of his conceptualisation of political order, a problem which is also reected at the level of international politics. Note: translations of original texts in this thesis are done by the author unless otherwise specied. ¢ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS is work would have not been possible without the constant assistance and guidance provided by Professor Kimberly Hutchings, whose kindness and patience are simply unlimited. I am therefore much in her debt for her excellent work as my supervisor. I am also indebted to Dr. Lauren Phillips for her role as academic advisor, and to Professor Chris Brown, who, as a member of my upgrading panel, provided extremely valuable feedback on the early stages of this work. I would like to thank Dr. Peter Wilson for giving me the chance to teach the §óþþ (International Political eory) course during the óþþÉ–óþÕþ and the óþÕþ–óþÕÕ academic years, as this activity has been for me a very important learning experience. I am also grateful to all my students for providing me countless occasions to develop a better understanding of § theory through their questions and discussions. My utmost gratitude goes to my friend and colleague Vassilios Paipais. His en- cyclopaedic knowledge and his constant encouragement have been of greatest help, showing to me wholly new dimensions of intellectual life and work. I am greatly in- debted to the organisers and participants of the §¢þó eory Seminar, particularly George Lawson, Kirsten Ainley, Alex Pritchard, Joe Hoover, Meera Sabaratnam and Paul Kirby. From all of them I have learnt enormously. My gratitude goes as well to all those colleagues and friends who have been close to me in these last four years of work and study at the LSE, namely Carolina Boni- atti Pavese, José Olivas Osuna, Maria Kyriakidou, Maria Brock, Max Hänska, Zeynep Kaya, Jessica Templeton, Outi Keränen, Yaniv Voller, Jon Rahbek-Clemmensen, Richard Campanaro, Natali Bulamacioğlu, Stefano Pagliari, Benedetta Voltolini, Hadi Makarem, Rebekka Friedman, Chienyu Shih (James), Gregorio Bettiza, Philipp Lam- precht, Vy Phan, Graziano Lingua, Yijin He (Eddy). Of course, I also want to thank my family for all the support shown for the accom- plishment of this project, namely to my father Armando, my mother Anna Maria, my siblings Marco and Federica. I know it is dicult for them to accept that I have been living abroad for so many years. Finally, I would like to remember the late professor Peter Gowan, an extraordi- nary man, who encouraged me to pursue this path, and in conversation with whom the very idea of this project was rst envisaged. is thesis is dedicated to his memory. ß CONTENTS ±§o¶h± ÕÕ Õ §ou§ Zo h§±hZ § ±u§í óÕ Introduction...................................... óÕ Õ.Õ A Denition of the Concept of Order.................... óó Õ.Õ.Õ On the Meaning of the Word Order: a Brief Philological Intro- duction ................................. óó Õ.Õ.ó Order and its Philosophical Formulations in the Western Tradition ó¦ Õ.ó Order in the domain of IPT/IR theory ................... ¦ó Õ.ó.Õ Order as recurrent concept in IR studies.............. ¦ó Õ.ó.ó IR eory and the concept of order: an examination....... ¦¦ Õ.ó.ì Mapping IR eory Literature/Nicholas Rengger......... ¢É Õ.ì e Problematisation of Order / Critical eories............. äÉ Õ.¦ e Contemporary Debate.......................... ߢ Õ.¢ Critical eory and the Problem of Order: Modernity and Secularisation ó ó hZ§ «h±± Zo § ß Introduction...................................... ß ó.Õ Contextualisation of Schmitt......................... ó.ó Schmitt and Politics .............................. Éä ó.ó.Õ e Political .............................. Éä ó.ó.ó e State................................ÉÉ ó.ì Schmitt and International Politics...................... Õþì ó.ì.Õ Nomos and International Order................... Õþ¦ ó.¦ Schmitt and IR Literature........................... ÕÕä ó.¢ Schmitt’s Political eology/ Concluding Remarks............ Õìó ì ¹§u Zfu§Z« Zo § Õ¦Õ Introduction...................................... Õ¦Õ ì.Õ Habermas’s Sociology ............................. Õ¦ó ì.Õ.Õ A sketch of Habermas’s thought on sociology, ethics and politics Õ¦ó ì.Õ.ó Historical Evolution of the Society ................. Õ¦¢ ì.Õ.ì Habermas and Ethics......................... Õ¦ß ì.Õ.¦ Habermas and Law .......................... Õ¦ ì.ó Habermas and Politics............................. Õ¢ì ì.ó.Õ e nation-state............................ Õ¢ì ì.ó.ó e modern rational state ...................... Õ¢¦ ì.ì Habermas and International Politics .................... Õ¢ä É ì.ì.Õ Beyond the nation state: globalisation ............... Õ¢ä ì.ì.ó e critique of neo-liberal ideologies . Õäþ ì.ì.ì Habermas’s neo-Kantian project of world order.......... Õäì ì.¦ Habermas and International Relations ................... ÕäÉ ì.¦.Õ Habermas and IR literature ..................... ÕäÉ ì.¦.ó Habermas and the fourth debate .................. ÕßÕ ì.¦.ì Habermas and critique........................ Õßì ì.¦.¦ Critical IR eory........................... Õߦ ì.¦.¢ Habermasian Constructivism.................... Õß ì.¦.ä Contra Habermas: Alternative Critical Paths . ÕÕ ì.¢ Concluding Remarks.............................. Õ¢ ¦ Zfu§Z«’« §uZo «h±± ÕÉ Introduction...................................... ÕÉ Habermas’s engagement with Schmitt: a brief overview ............ ÕÉþ ¦.Õ e rst Habermas, Schmitt and the Frankfurt School.......... ÕÉþ ¦.ó Habermas’s Mature Reading of Schmitt’s eoretical Work . óþÕ ¦.ì e Unexpected Partial Re-Conciliation .................. óÕÕ ¦.¦ Concluding remarks.............................. óÕ ¢ ëufu§, §ou§Zo£±hZ±uí«h±±ZoZfu§- Z« óÕÉ Introduction...................................... óÕÉ ¢.Õ Weber and Schmitt............................... óóþ ¢.ó Weber and Habermas ............................. óì¦ ¢.ì Habermas and eology............................ ó¦ó ¢.¦ e Resurgence of Religion.......................... ó¦ß ¢.¢ Concluding remarks.............................. ó¢þ hh¶«« ó¢ì Summary of the argument.............................. ó¢ì Rethinking order: trajectories in IR eory.................... ó¢ ff§Z£í óä¢ INTRODUCTION is thesis addresses the question of how to better dene and frame the concept of order in international political theory. Order is indeed a very recurrent term, which is routinely employed in practically all strands of § studies, although interestingly, this widespread use in the literature does not correspond to an equally important attention dedicated to its conceptual denition and clarication.