Sovereignty, Non-intervention, and the 1999 East Timor Crisis (original) (raw)
Related papers
Pluralist Internationalism in our Time
Les ateliers de l'éthique, 2000
In his 2012 book On Global Justice, Mathias Risse makes an invaluable contribution to the literature on theories of global justice. In this paper, I offer a critique of the fourth and final part of the book, entitled “Global Justice and Institutions,” which deals with the standing of the state within the pluralist internationalism defended by the author. My focus here is on the justification of the state system and the discussion on utopian ideals. I agree with Risse that the state remains the inescapable political structure that any serious theory of global justice must internalize within its conceptual framework. However, I differ from Risse’s approach in that I place greater emphasis on the historical contingency of the state system, including how prescriptions of global justice reflect historical contingencies stemming from globalization. From this point of view, pluralist internationalism should then be understood as a conceptual paradigm that mirrors its own historical conting...
Pluralist Democracy in International Relations: Chapter One
In the introduction, I sketch the importance of democracy for understanding modern international relations and problematizes the marginalization of this fact in International Relations. I distinguish between liberal and pluralist conceptions of democracy since pluralism’s typical interest in civil society, trade unionism, and transnationalism evolved as part of a critic according to which representative democracies cannot represent all entitled social and political interests in international relations. I defend the exploration of the pluralist tradition of thought on the basis of the theories of three thinkers. I introduce L.T. Hobhouse, G.D.H. Cole, David Mitrany and their biographies. I end with explaining the book’s approach – a synthesis of the Cambridge school and the tradition of thought approach – and the chapter outlines.
Global Studies Quarterly, 2022
In an age of relative Western decline, international relations (IR) scholars and practitioners can learn from Japan's attempt to re-envision world order in an earlier era of relative European decline. In both periods, an apparently pluralistic, relational ontology of IR has been articulated by East Asian thinkers. However, a closer examination of the philosophical underpinnings of these Confucian frames reveals a hierarchical, culturalist reasoning. Under conditions of heightened militarism, this tension can lead to another tension between pluralism in theory and universalism in practice. In the case of 1940s Japan, it informed and legitimized an exceptionalist mission civilisatrice and imperialistic expansion. The takeaway for our current age of "Western" decline and "non-Western" rise is that we must resist any utopian temptation emanating from any ethical system, not least Confucian hierarchical relationality, to say "we will save the world." Dans une ère de déclin relatif de l'Occident, les chercheurs et professionnels des Relations internationales (RI) ont des leçons à tirer de la tentative japonaise de révision de l'ordre mondial lors d'une ère antérieure de déclin relatif de l'Europe. Au cours de ces deux périodes, une ontologie relationnelle, a priori pluraliste, des RI a été articulée par les penseurs de l'Asie de l'Est. Cependant, une analyse attentive des fondations philosophiques de ces cadres confucéens révèle un raisonnement culturaliste hiérarchique. Dans un contexte de militarisme accentué, cette tension peut en engendrer une autre, entre pluralisme en théorie et universalisme en pratique. Dans le cas du Japon des années 1940, elle a renseigné et légitimé une mission exceptionnaliste d'expansion civilisatrice et impérialiste. La conclusion à tirer de l'ère actuelle de déclin « occidental » et d'essor « non occidental » est que nous devons résister à toute tentation utopique émanant de systèmes éthiques, notamment de la relationalité hiérarchique confucéenne, de dire « nous sauverons le monde ». En una época de relativo declive de Occidente, los investigadores y profesionales del campo de las RRII pueden aprender del intento de Japón de replantear el orden mundial en una época anterior de relativo declive europeo. En ambos periodos, los pensadores de Asia Oriental han articulado una ontología aparentemente pluralista y relacional de las relaciones internacionales. Sin embargo, un examen más detallado de los fundamentos filosóficos de estos marcos confucianos revela un razonamiento jerárquico y culturalista. En condiciones de intensificación del militarismo, esta tensión puede dar lugar a otra tensión, entre el pluralismo teórico y el universalismo que tiene lugar en la práctica. En el caso del Japón de la década de 1940, este inspiró y legitimó una misión civilizadora excepcionalista y una expansión imperialista. La conclusión que se extrae con respecto a nuestra época actual de declive «occidental» y ascenso «no occidental» es que debemos resistir cualquier tentación utópica que emane de cualquier sistema ético, sobre todo de la relacionalidad jerárquica confuciana, en el sentido de decir «vamos a salvar el mundo».
HUMANITIES AND RIGHTS | GLOBAL NETWORK JOURNAL
This study is based on the dialogue between legal pluralism and international development, which shapes the daily lives of much of the world population, in particular those who live in emerging or developing States and are subject to programmes of international technical assistance. Due to a number of factors, this dialogue is required to, on a practical level, harmonise diametrically opposed onto-epistemological legal dimensions. From the epistemological point of view, the phenomenological dimension of this study will allow us to analyse the conceptual and scientific evolution of both legal pluralism and international development, accompanying the development of the underlying legal theory which, in cycles, has seen moments of convergence and divergence, and of tension and distension, over the last seven decades. Having as background the case study of Timor-Leste this work also looks at the practical consequences that certain options will give rise to in building a State and its sy...
Three Pluralisms: Theories, Methodologies, and Levels of Analysis in the Study of World Politics
For much of its history, the discourse of International Relations (IR) has been characterized by clashes between paradigms, exclusion of non-positivist research methodologies, and the marginalization of various subfields. Since the fourth debate "pluralism" is rapidly becoming a buzzword within the literature, but without serious conceptual analysis "pluralism" risks becoming another intellectual fad given lip-service but not engaged with in a way that could produce positive change within the discipline. This paper examines three varieties of pluralism: theoretical, methodological, and pluralism of level of analysis. A brief intellectual history of pluralism in international relations is outlined, culminating in the works of Sil and Katzenstein (2010) and Jackson (2011). These works exemplify theoretical and methodological pluralism, respectively. The major novel contribution of this paper is in exploring the prospects of pluralism at the level of analysis. In many respects, a wall of separation still exists between the mainstream, structural approaches to IR and the actor-specific approach of foreign policy analysis (FPA). The paper presents evidence that much of the mutual animosity between FPA and IR is due to diverging understandings of the agent-structure problem. In particular, confused notions of influential IR scholar's Kenneth Waltz's views on this issue lead both IR and FPA scholars to misunderstand their relation to one another. This paper offers a way past "the specter of Waltz" and towards a more constructive and engaged relationship between IR and FPA. An attempt is then made at illustrating how the discussions of pluralism within the IR literature can be applied to FPA; indeed, many of these ideas have been floating around the FPA literature for several years. By advocating pluralism and resolving abstract, unnecessary, and unproductive debates, this paper aims to contribute to the task of building a framework for IR that is at once more theoretically rigorous and practically relevant.
An international society - if you can keep it
2006
This paper is a defense of the ideal of an international society of sovereign states in an era of growing challenges to its practice. However, in order to defend the ideal of international society in an era of growing threats to the practice of this ideal, particularly in the forms of transnational harm, graphic interstate inequality, revisionist non-state actors and confrontational US foreign policy, I agree with those scholars that the theory of international society needs to be revised. While the English School (ES), also referred to as Rationalism, has examined and defended the ideal of an international society, the current problems facing the society of sovereign states require us to rethink the conceptual tools of the ES. While this paper defends the desirability of a society of sovereign states, I argue that that the pluralist-solidarist divide invites us to make ultimately unhelpful choices about ethics and politics within contemporary world politics. Consequently, I am goin...
Legal pluralism debunking international affairs
The term “debunking” is not straightforward in defining the relationship between international affairs and legal pluralism; legal pluralism should not be perceived as a negative phenomenon in international affairs; the dynamic and complex nature of international affairs requires are functional legal pluralist system to allow the flexibility of relations in the various fields of international affairs.
Why Does Pluralism Matter When We Study Politics? A View from Contemporary International Relations
Perspectives on Politics, 2018
Pluralism has become a buzzword in International Relations. It has emerged in a number of linked literatures and has drawn the support of an unusual coalition of scholars: advocates of greater methodological diversity; those who feel that IR has degenerated into a clash of paradigmatic "-isms " ; those who favor a closer relationship between academics and policy-makers; and those who wish to see greater reflexivity within the field. Perhaps unsurprisingly, no single vision of pluralism unites these scholars; they appear to be using the term in divergent ways. Accordingly, our aim is threefold. First, we wish to highlight this odd state of affairs, by placing it in disciplinary and intellectual context. Second, we distinguish between plurality—the de facto recognition that IR has become a more diverse field—and pluralism—a normative position which values that diversity, given the public vocation of social science. Finally, we lay out a more consistent understanding and defense of pluralism in those latter terms. We argue that, properly understood, pluralism entails a position of epistemological skepticism: the straightforward claim that no single knowledge system, discipline, theory, or method can claim singular access to truth.