Some Problems With a History of Thought in International Relations
| Author | Graham Evans |
| Published date | 01 December 1972 |
| Date | 01 December 1972 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/004711787200400606 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
715
SOME
PROBLEMS
WITH
A
HISTORY
OF
THOUGHT
IN
INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS
GRAHAM
EVANS
I
My
starting
point
is
simply
that
international
society
is
not
disordered,
international
behaviour
is
not
random
and
international
relations
do
not
consist
of
an
agglomeration
of
ad
hoc
affairs.
And
it
because
of
this
that
it
makes
sense
to
begin
a
discussion
of
the
ways
of
presenting
thought
about
relations
between
states.
If
this
were
not
so,
there
would
be
very
little
to
think
about
let
alone
to
think
of
thought
about.
However,
it
is
not
always
assumed
that
international
politics
properly
exists
or
that
international
political
activity
is
distinctive,
identifiable
and
capable
of
definition.
Indeed
some
argue
that
international
politics
is
not
really
politics
at
all.’
Politics,
being
the
means
of
obtaining
public
order,
is
confined
to
the
state
because
only
the
state
has
a
centralised,
recognisable
authority
and
identity.
And
without
such
coherence
there
is
no
body
politic
and
conse-
quently
no
politics.
In
international
relations
there
is
no
centralised
legitimate
authority
and
therefore
there
can
be
no
condition
of
normative
order.
Nor
is
this
a
recent
argument.
It
is
as
old,
at
least,
as
Aristotle.’
2
This
argument
itself
is
not
particularly
worrying,
since
as
Hedley
Bull
pointed
out3,
most
effective
theorizing
about
inter-
national
relations
has
begun
from
the
recognition
of
anarchy,
or
the
absence
of
a
formal
condition
of
political
order.4.
Most
think-
ing
about
international
relations
has
begun
with
an
acceptance
of
a
lack
of
a
central
legitimate
authority
and
has
then
proceeded
to
analyse
the
consequences
of
this
for
the
relations
between
states.
It
has
not
led
to
a
denial
of
the
existence
of
international
political
activity
as
such
but
to
a
recognition
of
its
distinctive
characteristics.
The
effect
of
this
argument
though
has
acutely
felt
in
the
history
of
Western
political
thought.
Not
only
have
the
problems
of
war
and
diplomacy
never
achieved
first-order
status,
they
have
rarely
been
given
much
consideration
except
at
isolated
and
re-
latively
rare
moments
of
crisis
(e.g.
The
Thirty
Years
War,
The
French
Revolutionary
Wars,
or
the
Great
War
of
1914-18).
Be-
cause
one
of
the
dominant
assumptions
of
Western
political
thought
1
e.g.
B.
Crick,
In
Defence
of
Politics,
Harmandsworth:
Penguin
Books,
1964,
p.
30.
2
Aristotle,
The
Politics,
Harmondsworth:
Penguin
Books,
1962,
bk
XI,
pp.
55-100.
3
"Society
and
Anarchy
in
International
Relations"
in
Diplomatic
Investiga-
tions,
Wight
&
Butterfield,
Allen
&
Unwin,
London,
1966,
p.
35.
4
In
any
case
this
narrow
view
of
politics,
particularly
Crick’s
formulation
of
it,
is
open
to
objection
applied
to
the
state
itself,
particularly
in
its
concentration
on
democratic
or
pluralist
states
at
the
expense
of
others.
See
Theory
and
Explanation
in
International
Politics,
C.
Reynolds,
Martin
Robinson,
London,
1973
p.
4.
To continue reading
Request your trial