Journal of International Political Theory

Publisher:: Sage Publications, Inc.
Publication date:: 2021-09-06

ISBN:: 1755-0882

Issue Number

Latest documents

Philosophical issues in the English School of international relations
This article responds to Charlotta Friedner Parrat’s critique of our argument that the English School of international relations should embrace a more thoroughgoing interpretivism. We address four of Friedner Parrat’s objections to our argument: that our distinction between structuralism and interpretivism is too stark; that our understanding of the relationship between agency and structure is problematic; that our approach would confine the English School to the study of intellectual history; and that the English School should eschew explanation. We argue that if the School is to use structuralism, it must be clearer about how it understands structures and their relationships to agents. We argue too that interpretivism not only offers a better account of situated agency, but also that it provides the English School with one way to move beyond the description and classification of institutions in international society towards better explanations of international relations.
Interpretivists in the English School: Aren’t we all?
This article is a reply to Bevir and Hall, who recently argued in this journal that the English School needs to reflect more on its philosophy. They are right. Yet, their preferred distinction between a structural and an interpretivist strand of the School is not a constructive way forward. This is because their distinction between a structural and an interpretivist strand of the school is too stark, their chosen dimensions for sorting through the School are arguably not the most fruitful, and the inclusion of the English School’s normative agenda must remain independent of whether one is inclined to start from structure or from agency. After elaborating these points, the article moves on to suggesting a number of other philosophical issues which would be more relevant for the English School to work through. It ends with an empirical illustration of what an integrated English School approach, inspired by structuration, could look like.
Varieties of international pluralism
This paper shows that while there seems to be more or less a general acceptance for plurality as a condition of world politics and at least a vague commitment to a pluralist ideal, the challenge remains to formulate a fruitful account of international pluralism. While dominating approaches to international theory present international pluralism as essentially a by-product and instrumental, this paper suggest an alternative way to conceive of international pluralism when defending the ancient concept variety as a better guide to approach both the understanding of plurality as the human condition and the notion of international pluralism. The paper concludes that it is preferable to accept a variety of pluralist conceptions rather than go on searching for a theoretical conception standing above the controversy; accepting pluralism in a sense involves rejecting just one version of pluralism.
Ruminations on William Bain’s Political Theology of International Order
This article reviews Wiliam Bains book and places it in the wider discussion of seciularization vs. secularism taking place in the social science. in general.
Political theologies of Christian missionaries, European colonialism, and postcolonial resistance
This review supplements William Bain’s Political Theology of International Order by sketching out two historical threads that are inseparable from the histories of European thought and order that occupy the book. There are gestures toward both strands along the margins of Bain’s account, in a few observations and footnotes. They also have important implications for the place of political theological difference in this story and for the status of colonialism, hierarchy, and resistance. First, I expand on some of the book’s references to non-Christians and discuss the place of Islamic theology. Second, reflecting on Luther in relation to Muslim empires and adapting Bain’s acknowledgment of Grotius’s justifications for colonialism, I highlight the significance of hierarchy, enmity, and violence for a number of the thinkers mentioned, especially what their political theologies authorize in relation to non-Christians. These two sets of observations can help us imagine a complementary story less about international order than about the politics of proselytization and colonization. It also raises questions about the work that political theology as an analytic can do, especially when we globalize political theory and international political thought. I conclude by pondering the place of resistance in relation to imposed order and immanent order.
Reflections on Bain, Political Theology of International Order
William Bain sustains his audacious claim to write a landmark in international relations thought. His view that the medieval theological debate between imposed order and immanent order structures contemporary thought about international order is largely compelling, especially in light of his demonstration that certain thinkers such as Hobbes and Grotius served as transmission belts, carrying this debate into modernity. He also persuasively shows that imposed order, or nominalism, dominates today’s schools of international relations thought, while immanent order only whispers its dissent. I raise two questions in critical conversation. First, while Bain argues persuasively that political theology persists after Westphalia, which he seeks to debunk as a milestone in secularization, nevertheless Westphalia stands as a milestone in the marginalization of religion (though not political theology) as an influential force in politics. Second, while Bain demurs from choosing between imposed and immanent order on normative grounds, his claim that the choice is a matter of faith appears to be a choice for imposed order. Clarifying this normative question is an apposite task for this important author’s next book.
Theology, order, and disenchantment
William Bain’s book does a brilliant job excavating some key conceptual underpinnings of our contemporary discussions about order, but he has perhaps underplayed the importance of nominalism in structuring our present.
Worlding war as a primary institution of international society
Through interaction with decolonial IR this paper develops a research agenda extending recent English School (ES) work engaging a Global IR agenda. It argues recent developments in ES work that look to world history and which substantially improve ES accounts of “primary institutions” of international society can be further enhanced by decolonial concepts and methods. By focusing on war as a major primary institution of international society, and specifically Counterinsurgency and Counter-Terrorism, the paper shows how “worlding” as a decolonial approach can extend ES theory’s critical reach. Key benefits include enriching its account of political space and identifying ways to open research to perspectives and insights from marginalized populations with deep knowledge and understanding of war through lived experience. Decolonial research methods and associated distinctive ontological and epistemological claims can open ES research to additional world histories its present methods close, further invigorating the principal sociological approach to theorizing international relations.
Theology and international order: Questions, challenges and explorations
Theology is a neglected resource in international relations scholarship; it is, more often than not, characterised as a threat to political order because it is seen as a cradle of fanaticism and irrationality. Postsecular scholarship challenges this view by exploring the persistence of theological ideas and religious belief in political discourse and practice. Political Theology of International Order is my own contribution to this type of scholarship. This article engages responses from five distinguished scholars. It considers the implications of taking theology seriously when theorising international order; the veracity of narratives that frame the study of international relations; and new directions and possibilities that arise out of the book.
The theoretical case against offshore balancing: Realism, liberalism, and the limits of rationality in U.S. foreign policy